The most liberal pope since Jesus?

[dontsnitch]

Yeah it's not about adding onto scripture, it's about figuring out how the seeds of truth in scripture are to be sewn and grown in daily life. I was just saying that there's nothing in scripture saying don't believe anything that's not in scripture, nor is there anything saying don't look to teachings or authority when trying to figure out how to live your faith.



They come from the teaching authority, which in Catholicism does include stuff not in scripture, like a lot of the Mary stuff for example. It doesn't say in scripture that she was immaculately conceived or that her body was assumed without decaying; that came from the teaching authority of the Church. You might disagree with the Church's non-scriptural doctrine, but you can't say that it's prohibited by scripture itself.

I disagree, there are many verses that warn to not add to the scriptures. Proverbs 30:6 and the end of Revelation are the ones that I know, but there are others.

The beliefs about Mary is a perfect example. They go against scripture when they worship her, and make her without sin. The Bible clearly says to not worship any man, and that all men are sinful. This is not a question of hermeneutics, it's a clear false teaching.

 

[Forkfoot]

I disagree, there are many verses that warn to not add to the scriptures. Proverbs 30:6 and the end of Revelation are the ones that I know, but there are others.

The beliefs about Mary is a perfect example. They go against scripture when they worship her, and make her without sin. The Bible clearly says to not worship any man, and that all men are sinful. This is not a question of hermeneutics, it's a clear false teaching.

Okay but they're not adding to scripture, that's my point. They're very forthcoming that the teaching is from Church doctrine, not from scripture.

 

[Ruprecht]

Stalin infamously asked, "The Pope? How many Divisions can he field?"

Uncle Joe was many things, but I never heard of anyone accusing him of being naive.:icon_twis

Kinda funny, coming from someone with the handle "KnightTemplar".
Stalin was a bullyboy, and that comment was more about him sabre rattling than actually being dismissive of the influence of the Pope.

 

[dontsnitch]

Okay but they're not adding to scripture, that's my point. They're very forthcoming that the teaching is from Church doctrine, not from scripture.

I'll have to take your word for it, I don't know if they explicitly claim to be teaching these doctrines but they are not biblical. They have taken some dangerous liberties.

 

[Forkfoot]

I'll have to take your word for it, I don't know if they explicitly claim to be teaching these doctrines but they are not biblical. They have taken some dangerous liberties.

It's not like their teachings are secret. It's easy enough to flip through a Catechism or ask an apologist on Catholic.com, for example.

Dangerous liberties with what? They're not changing scripture, they're not adding to scripture, they've just got some traditional teachings which arose from two thousand years of collaborative prayer, contemplation, theology and evolution. There's nothing in scripture about heroin abuse or illegal immigration either, but the Church teaches about that stuff too.

 

[dontsnitch]

It's not like their teachings are secret. It's easy enough to flip through a Catechism or ask an apologist on Catholic.com, for example.

Dangerous liberties with what? They're not changing scripture, they're not adding to scripture, they've just got some traditional teachings which arose from two thousand years of collaborative prayer, contemplation, theology and evolution. There's nothing in scripture about heroin abuse or illegal immigration either, but the Church teaches about that stuff too.

See, this is what I wanted to clarify in the first place. The bible is silent on the speed of light, but that doesn't mean we don't teach the theory of relativity. There is nothing about drug abuse specifically, because drugs were not a problem when the text was written, but there is plenty about being sober. If there is something we don't know, we examine the principles, and we draw from that. The Sermon on the Mount is a great start.

When it comes to these other teachings, you can call it what you want, but when you begin to teach something that is contrary to scripture, it's a false doctrine. You can't say they're not changing scripture when they directly contradict it. The bible clearly says to not worship any man, and that all men are sinful. The Catholic church teach the exact opposite when it comes to Mary. What is stopping anyone from teaching anything? How do we know that Joseph Smith's teachings are also not correct, as it came from prayer, contemplation, and revelation?

 

[Forkfoot]

When it comes to these other teachings, you can call it what you want, but when you begin to teach something that is contrary to scripture, it's a false doctrine.

They don't actually teach stuff that's contrary to scripture though. They can offer plenty of scriptural reasons for their practices.

The bible clearly says to not worship any man,

Common misconception. Catholics don't "worship" Mary and the other saints, they worship the Holy Trinity. They pray to the saints asking them to pray to God for them. It's just like how you might ask a friend to pray for you, but in this case the friend is dead. They pray to them because that's how you communicate with the saints in Heaven, according to their beliefs. This is also scripturally based.

 

[dontsnitch]

They don't actually teach stuff that's contrary to scripture though. They can offer plenty of scriptural reasons for their practices.

Common misconception. Catholics don't "worship" Mary and the other saints, they worship the Holy Trinity. They pray to the saints asking them to pray to God for them. It's just like how you might ask a friend to pray for you, but in this case the friend is dead. They pray to them because that's how you communicate with the saints in Heaven, according to their beliefs. This is also scripturally based.

If you can convince me that "Hail Mary" is not actually worshipping Mary, I'd be impressed.

 

[KnightTemplar]

Kinda funny, coming from someone with the handle "KnightTemplar".
Stalin was a bullyboy, and that comment was more about him sabre rattling than actually being dismissive of the influence of the Pope.

Given that the vast majority of Templar Knights were imprisoned, tortured, executed and had the property of their Order stolen on the direct orders of the Pope - no, it's not that funny at all.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

He's so liberal that the republicans who will use religion every step of the way to push their views have issues wth this pope.

The irony is hysterical

 

[LionExMachina]

No, nor do I (or would any sane person) claim that it does. My post was directed at you and only went so far as to paint you as a "Church-basher". The sexual molestation of children is hardly a problem exclusive to the Church, and the Church is not the no1 purveyor of molestation, or one that has the monopoly of treating children with sanctity (last I checked, schools were the institution that the society desigated as the moral vertical in the field of forming children into functional adults). Yet at the mere mention of the pope (in a thread discussing his liberal tendencies), you burst with the righteous flames of justice, as a kind of a anti-kid-diddling Ghost Rider.

My guess is that you're one of the people that get educated on a subject only by skimming through news headings, which would account for your indoctrination by the scandal-driven media. While even one occurance of child molestation is too much, I think you're not really barking at the biggest perp.



http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/2011-annual-report.pdf

And if the besmirching of innoscence really strikes a nerve with you that much, I wonder in how many education threads you protested molestation, or in how many threads on family matters you went so far to point out that most molestation occured at the hands of relatives, or in how many US army threads you wrote on the subject of children as collateral damage in conflicts - all of which, I would wager yield much greater numbers than the ones above.

Also, gonna need source on "CENTURIES OF RAPE!".

Whats wrong with being against diddling from any institution?

More "what-aboutery": And how many threads about diddler-teachers, child-molesting army dudes, and have there been recently?

I was actually baptized when I was a child and was put through the confirmation thing, and was taught to fear hell via church indoctrination (not the dreaded bestial 666 MSM) before I was able to deprogram myself by exercising free-will and common-sense.

I highly suggest you read the book Sex, Priests and Secret Codes: The Catholic Church's 2,000 Year Paper Trail of Sexual Abuse by Father Thomas Doyle (I'm assuming his education on the subject wasn't formed by the mainstream MSM....at least I hope not.)

Sexual abuse of minors and vulnerable adults by Catholic clergy burst onto the American scene in 1984. Revelations about such abuse since then have confirmed that this tragedy is not limited to the U.S. Catholic Church, nor is it a new phenomenon that grew out of so-called secularizing trends of the late twentieth century. The Doyle-Sipe-Wall report clearly demonstrates a deep-seated problem that spans the Church's history. This collection of documents from official and unofficial sources begins its survey in 60 CE and concludes with the contemporary scandal. It reveals an institution that has tried to come to grips with this devastating internal problem from its earliest years. At times circumspect and at other times open and direct, Church leaders tried a variety of means to rein in the various violations of clerical celibacy. The sexual abuse crisis is not isolated from the questions of the celibate practice of all Catholic clergy and the moral questions that involve marriage and all human sexual behaviors. These are the main, yet unspoken, reasons why sexual abuse has been such an inflammatory and dangerous issue for the hierarchy. The Church abuse scandal of the contemporary era, rather than seen as a new challenge, is actually the catalyst for a complex process that is forcing the official Church to redefine its ideology of sexuality, its responsibility to its members and its role in society. The three distinguished authors have served as experts and consultants in over 1,000 cases of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy, and have collectively spent over 70 years of official service within the church.

Sorry, did I say centuries? I meant a millennia. My bad

 

[Forkfoot]

If you can convince me that "Hail Mary" is not actually worshipping Mary, I'd be impressed.

"Hail full of grace, the lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" is straight from scripture. "Hail full of grace" is how the angel greeted her and the "fruit of thy womb" stuff was said to her by her cousin Elizabeth upon greeting her.

And the rest of it is just asking her to pray for us; "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death". It's just saying "Hey woman who gave birth to God, please pray for us!" It's reverent, it's respectful, it's a prayer request, but it's not worship.

 

[dontsnitch]

"Hail full of grace, the lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" is straight from scripture. "Hail full of grace" is how the angel greeted her and the "fruit of thy womb" stuff was said to her by her cousin Elizabeth upon greeting her.

And the rest of it is just asking her to pray for us; "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death". It's just saying "Hey woman who gave birth to God, please pray for us!" It's reverent, it's respectful, it's a prayer request, but it's not worship.

The problem is that the original Greek does not say "Hail" it says "greetings". "Hail" has become to mean "praise" or "worship".

This is also just one aspect of the Mary doctrine. They also teach she was without original sin, which also happens to be contrary to scripture.

I don't want to make this a big issue, I don't feel like going full out against catholicism, they have some value, I have no real big problems with them, just wanted to point out some inconsistencies.

 

[Forkfoot]

"Hail" has become to mean "praise" or "worship".

Umm... on what planet? It's a greeting. It means greetings.

This is also just one aspect of the Mary doctrine. They also teach she was without original sin, which also happens to be contrary to scripture.

It's not contrary to scripture, it's just not something scripture says. There's nothing in the Bible saying she couldn't have been born without original sin.

 

[dontsnitch]

Umm... on what planet?

If "Hail Mary" only means "Greetings Mary" then that's news to me.

It's not contrary to scripture, it's just not something scripture says. There's nothing in the Bible saying she couldn't have been born without original sin.

Romans specifically teaches that all men are sinners and no one is without sin. Christ died for Mary, no different than you or I.

 

[Forkfoot]

If "Hail Mary" only means "Greetings Mary" then that's news to me.

Okay, well that is what it means. It's a greeting.

Romans specifically teaches that all men are sinners and no one is without sin.

Yeah but it doesn't say that there couldn't have been an exception.

 

[The ScorpioN]

See, this is what I wanted to clarify in the first place. The bible is silent on the speed of light, but that doesn't mean we don't teach the theory of relativity. There is nothing about drug abuse specifically, because drugs were not a problem when the text was written, but there is plenty about being sober. If there is something we don't know, we examine the principles, and we draw from that. The Sermon on the Mount is a great start.

When it comes to these other teachings, you can call it what you want, but when you begin to teach something that is contrary to scripture, it's a false doctrine. You can't say they're not changing scripture when they directly contradict it. The bible clearly says to not worship any man, and that all men are sinful. The Catholic church teach the exact opposite when it comes to Mary. What is stopping anyone from teaching anything? How do we know that Joseph Smith's teachings are also not correct, as it came from prayer, contemplation, and revelation?

Doesn't that depend completely on the level of mental gymnastics of the teacher?

Olympic level mental gymnasts justify any teaching with scripture, as evidenced by the American Evengelical mega churches.

 

[dontsnitch]

Okay, well that is what it means. It's a greeting.

Yeah but it doesn't say that there couldn't have been an exception.

The language used is pretty absolute. It's says "all". If Mary was sinless she could have been the sacrifice instead of Christ. It's simpler to believe she was human and sinful, even if she was chosen, no different than John the Baptist being called the greatest man to be born of a woman. Does that make him greater than Christ? Obviously not, and consequently, we do see him sin.

It's these kind of exceptions that lead to all sorts of weird teachings. I can justify all of Joseph Smith's teachings this way. I can make an entirely new doctrine this way.

 

[dontsnitch]

Doesn't that depend completely on the level of mental gymnastics of the teacher?

Olympic level mental gymnasts justify any teaching with scripture, as evidenced by the American Evengelical mega churches.

Some passages are more ambiguous than others. I have no problem with an honest examination where different interpretations arise.

There is a big difference in someone being honest and unsure, and someone using these mental gymnastics to justify something for their own gain.

 

[Forkfoot]

The language used is pretty absolute. It's says "all".

We could debate that all day, but that would be pointless and pedantic. You're obviously not Catholic, so it doesn't affect you anyway.

It's these kind of exceptions that lead to all sorts of weird teachings. I can justify all of Joseph Smith's teachings this way. I can make an entirely new doctrine this way.

We're not talking about Joseph Smith, we're talking about the RCC. If you don't like their teachings, don't be Catholic. I personally think they're alright as far as religions go, but that's just me.