# Prayer -- split from Catholic rant



## yorkshirelad (Feb 20, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Sorry I've missed out on the anger.
> 
> To restate in a simpler manner; in my opinion, anything which the Catholic Church does which affects people outside the Church are fair targets of criticism.  I think I said that in my initial post; somehow that got ignored.  As I said, I have no beef with anyone, Catholic or not, who has comments to make about the bad things which Catholic clergy have done and are accused of covering up.  My ire was directed at those who are not Catholic, yet feel compelled to criticize the dogma of the Catholic Church, and worse, who get it wrong, apparently intentionally, and then hold it up to public ridicule.
> 
> ...


 
Of course you pray to Mary! You also pray to saints. You pray for her to pray for you. In other words, you ask a dead woman (necromancy) to intervene and pray to God on your behalf. It makes sense though. Catholicism is basically messianic paganism, so I suppose you need a female godhead.Btw, my citizenship also gives me the right to speak out about Catholicism. God knows, I spend enough time criticizing Islam, Catholicism needs to take its lick also.Catholics in general need to be held accountable also. Even after all the nonsense they keep giving their tithes to the sick and twisted people at the head of the organisation.If they want to practise Roman rites, they can go to Eastern Orthodox churches, Episcopal churches or Anglican churches. There is a huge choice.I feel sorry for the poor sods of old, especially in Ireland who had to tow the churches line and lived miserable lives because of it. The church preached piety and morals that were almost impossible to follow, while at the same time splitting up families and torturing kids in their orphanages. Pregnant teenage girls were put in homes and treated like vermin. Then their children were pulled from their arms and never seen again. Then it was found that innocent children had been raped by the thousands by ordained priests. When the church found out they simply relocated these vile specimens to allow them to continue their escapades. Thousands more children were tortured and raped in schools by Christian brother scumbags, who were obviously frustrated by their unnatural lifestyles, so like any other bullies, decided to pick on the weak and vunerable kids they were charged to care for.I am sick of being told that I should show a distinction between the Organisation and the faithful. Why should I? People can choose to follow evildoers or not. The majority of the catholic faithful have chosen to allow the evil that is the Catholic church to continue.I will make a distinction between the Jesus of the gospels and the catholic hierarchy however. The two are almost diametrically opposed.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 20, 2011)

yorkshirelad said:


> Of course you pray to Mary! You also pray to saints. You pray for her to pray for you. In other words, you ask a dead woman (necromancy) to intervene and pray to God on your behalf. It makes sense though. Catholicism is basically messianic paganism, so I suppose you need a female godhead.Btw, my citizenship also gives me the right to speak out about Catholicism. God knows, I spend enough time criticizing Islam, Catholicism needs to take its lick also.Catholics in general need to be held accountable also. Even after all the nonsense they keep giving their tithes to the sick and twisted people at the head of the organisation.If they want to practise Roman rites, they can go to Eastern Orthodox churches, Episcopal churches or Anglican churches. There is a huge choice.I feel sorry for the poor sods of old, especially in Ireland who had to tow the churches line and lived miserable lives because of it. The church preached piety and morals that were almost impossible to follow, while at the same time splitting up families and torturing kids in their orphanages. Pregnant teenage girls were put in homes and treated like vermin. Then their children were pulled from their arms and never seen again. Then it was found that innocent children had been raped by the thousands by ordained priests. When the church found out they simply relocated these vile specimens to allow them to continue their escapades. Thousands more children were tortured and raped in schools by Christian brother scumbags, who were obviously frustrated by their unnatural lifestyles, so like any other bullies, decided to pick on the weak and vunerable kids they were charged to care for.I am sick of being told that I should show a distinction between the Organisation and the faithful. Why should I? People can choose to follow evildoers or not. The majority of the catholic faithful have chosen to allow the evil that is the Catholic church to continue.I will make a distinction between the Jesus of the gospels and the catholic hierarchy however. The two are almost diametrically opposed.



It's a shame you haven't read anything I've said.  Your hatred is ugly and repugnant to me.  We are done talking.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Feb 20, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It's a shame you haven't read anything I've said. Your hatred is ugly and repugnant to me. We are done talking.


 
You told me that Catholics pray to Mary. You do! You also told me that Catholics don't commit idolatry. You do! The statue of St. Peter in St. Peter's square was originally a statue of Jupiter. The statue's foot had been kissed so often by the faithful that it had to be replaced. Idolatry to the max.

i love it that you have opinions about so many things, but want non Catholics to shut up about Catholicism. Ye, the Ipod thing is a little silly and perhaps wrong, but it's no where nearly as wrong as catholicism, a religion that has allowed the suffering of legions.

By the way Catholicism is repugnant to me, we're done!


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 20, 2011)

yorkshirelad said:


> Of course you pray to Mary! You also pray to saints. You pray for her to pray for you. In other words, you ask a dead woman (necromancy) to intervene and pray to God on your behalf. It makes sense though. Catholicism is basically messianic paganism, so I suppose you need a female godhead.Btw, my citizenship also gives me the right to speak out about Catholicism. God knows, I spend enough time criticizing Islam, Catholicism needs to take its lick also.Catholics in general need to be held accountable also. Even after all the nonsense they keep giving their tithes to the sick and twisted people at the head of the organisation.If they want to practise Roman rites, they can go to Eastern Orthodox churches, Episcopal churches or Anglican churches. There is a huge choice.I feel sorry for the poor sods of old, especially in Ireland who had to tow the churches line and lived miserable lives because of it. The church preached piety and morals that were almost impossible to follow, while at the same time splitting up families and torturing kids in their orphanages. Pregnant teenage girls were put in homes and treated like vermin. Then their children were pulled from their arms and never seen again. Then it was found that innocent children had been raped by the thousands by ordained priests. When the church found out they simply relocated these vile specimens to allow them to continue their escapades. Thousands more children were tortured and raped in schools by Christian brother scumbags, who were obviously frustrated by their unnatural lifestyles, so like any other bullies, decided to pick on the weak and vunerable kids they were charged to care for.I am sick of being told that I should show a distinction between the Organisation and the faithful. Why should I? People can choose to follow evildoers or not. The majority of the catholic faithful have chosen to allow the evil that is the Catholic church to continue.I will make a distinction between the Jesus of the gospels and the catholic hierarchy however. The two are almost diametrically opposed.


You're absolutely welcome to disagree with the Church or even to dislike or hate the Church.  You're free to state your opinions about the Church, too.  

But maybe, just maybe, you can do so with a little bit of basic courtesy and respect?  I freely admit that I am biased on this; I am a practicing Catholic.  Sure, there is plenty of things the Church has done wrong over the years -- but it's done more than a little good, too.  Maybe sometimes in spite of itself...  

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is now properly addressed as Pope Benedict XVI; insisting on calling him "Ratzinger" is akin to refusing to address a woman who has chosen to take her husband's surname by her maiden name, or refusing to address Barrack Obama as Mr. President.

Regarding "praying" to Mary.  Yes, I will agree that we address prayers to Mary and to the Communion of Saints.  This is not the same as praying to God, in any of His three Persons.  We don't believe that any saint can, on their own or through their own efforts, do anything any more than we can ourselves.  Not even Mary.  But we do ask them to intercede on our behalf; to add their efforts to our own.  Miracles are not accomplished by the saint, but through their intercession.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Feb 20, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> Regarding "praying" to Mary. Yes, I will agree that we address prayers to Mary and to the Communion of Saints. This is not the same as praying to God, in any of His three Persons. We don't believe that any saint can, on their own or through their own efforts, do anything any more than we can ourselves. Not even Mary. But we do ask them to intercede on our behalf; to add their efforts to our own. Miracles are not accomplished by the saint, but through their intercession.


 
So you practise necromancy! Btw, I would not refer to Kim Jung Ill as dear leader or the king of saudi Arabia as Your Majesty either, Why? Because i don't respect them.I definately don't respect a man who turned a blind eye to sexual abuse. A man whose office he was in command of, stopped the prosecution of Father (what an abhorrant title) laurence Murphy who, in 1996 admitted to sexually abusing over 200 boys at a school for the deaf.A man who was voted into office partially by the repugnant Cardinal Law who was responsible for the immeasurable suffering of children in the US. You're lucky I'm refering to him as Ratzinger. There are more apt words for the guy.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 21, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> Regarding "praying" to Mary.  Yes, I will agree that we address prayers to Mary and to the Communion of Saints.  This is not the same as praying to God, in any of His three Persons.  We don't believe that any saint can, on their own or through their own efforts, do anything any more than we can ourselves.  Not even Mary.  But we do ask them to intercede on our behalf; to add their efforts to our own.  Miracles are not accomplished by the saint, but through their intercession.



If you keep repeating your prayers and ask saints to intercede on your behalf, isn't that the same as the little kid who keeps nagging, asking his big brother to team up? 

Is the success of a prayer influenced by the sheer volume of prayer you send up and whom you manage to get behind your cause? And what about people who pray for something that goes against your prayer? Most prayers win?

And to quote Carlin: what about the divine plan. Should God change it just because you ask? If you are truly faithful, why ask things of God instead of having faith that he will do the right thing?


----------



## elder999 (Feb 21, 2011)

yorkshirelad said:


> So you practise necromancy!.


 
Strictly speaking,  necromancy would be the summoning of the spirits of the dead for fortune-telling.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 21, 2011)

i agree with yorkshirelad, however I would have said it nicer than that, because Bill M and JKS are nice people and i like them.


----------



## punisher73 (Feb 21, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Strictly speaking, necromancy would be the summoning of the spirits of the dead for fortune-telling.


 
Beat me to it, gotta love a misuse of the term to berate something. LOL


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 21, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Strictly speaking,  necromancy would be the summoning of the spirits of the dead for fortune-telling.



We haven't gotten to the 'cannibalism' accusation yet; wait for it, I'm sure it will be along shortly.  Raw, naked, hatred like this finds no boundaries of decorum, decency, or intellectual honesty.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 21, 2011)

those homes btw where they put so called fallen women and teenage pregnant mothers and stuff and the abuse that went on I learned they arent even specifically Irish or specifically Catholic in origin. Protestants had them too. So it would be wrong to blame all of that on the catholics.


----------



## punisher73 (Feb 21, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> If you keep repeating your prayers and ask saints to intercede on your behalf, isn't that the same as the little kid who keeps nagging, asking his big brother to team up?
> 
> Is the success of a prayer influenced by the sheer volume of prayer you send up and whom you manage to get behind your cause? And what about people who pray for something that goes against your prayer? Most prayers win?
> 
> And to quote Carlin: what about the divine plan. Should God change it just because you ask? If you are truly faithful, why ask things of God instead of having faith that he will do the right thing?


 
Depending on how you pray and how you understand prayer, you are correct.  Many Christians pray as if God were a genie in a bottle.  They keep asking over and over to show their faith and sometimes try to negotiate a deal with God over the request.

Is this the purpose of it?  Nope, prayer should be a self-reflection before God to better understand ourselves (God already knows our hearts/minds, God doesn't _need _us to tell those things).  Read the Psalms, those are David's prayers and thoughts to God and you will see the range of emotion in them.  He was honest with God, which is what God wants.

The closer we become to God and God's will, the more our prayers are answered.  Why?  Not because we are "more holy" than others (which is a common misconception for why prayers are answered), but because when we are more in line with God's will, we only ask for those things that are in his will.  True prayer should be to have God give you the strength and wisdom to become the change you want to see (stealing a line from Ghandi) and the courage and hope to handle those things which you can't change.

If you only approach God as a "wish granter", than like George Carlin says, you might as well pray to the sun and still get about a 50/50 average.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Feb 21, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> We haven't gotten to the 'cannibalism' accusation yet; wait for it, I'm sure it will be along shortly. Raw, naked, hatred like this finds no boundaries of decorum, decency, or intellectual honesty.


You won't get accused of cannibalism, because you can't seriously believe that you are eating the flesh or drinking the blood of Christ. That would be silly!


----------



## yorkshirelad (Feb 21, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Strictly speaking, necromancy would be the summoning of the spirits of the dead for fortune-telling.


 
I stand corrected! But isn't communication with the dead prohibited by God in the old testament?


----------



## yorkshirelad (Feb 21, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> those homes btw where they put so called fallen women and teenage pregnant mothers and stuff and the abuse that went on I learned they arent even specifically Irish or specifically Catholic in origin. Protestants had them too. So it would be wrong to blame all of that on the catholics.


Only the homes in Ireland were specifically Catholic and what wnet on in those Catholic homes was tantamount to torture. It doesn't matter though, because other organizations did it, we'll let it slide shall we. Let's let 9/11 slide also because catholic terrorists attacked Canary Wharf.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 21, 2011)

Wow, where to begin with this post? I am afraid that, despite you having been raised a Catholic you seem to know very little about its doctrine or history. Despite your obvious hatred of the Church I'll do my best to answer some of the accusations you level against her.



yorkshirelad said:


> Of course you pray to Mary! You also pray to saints. You pray for her to pray for you. In other words, you ask a dead woman (necromancy) to intervene and pray to God on your behalf.


 
I pray to Mary. Daily. And other saints. But in no way do I pray to a dead woman, or to anyone who is dead. The saints are in some sense more alive than you or I because they have overcome death.

The saints in heaven are alive in Christ and are the great cloud of witnesses mentioned in Hebrews 12:1 and are the souls under the altar in heaven that cry out to God for judgement in Revelation 6:9-10. Likewise, I pray to the angels because they are constantly presenting the prayers of the faithful before the throne of God in Revelation 8:3-4. Those are all things that are liturgical functions being carried out in heaven since our earthly worship is a participation in the liturgical celebration of the saints and angels in heaven. 



> It makes sense though. Catholicism is basically messianic paganism, so I suppose you need a female godhead.


 
Actually there is no evidence whatsoever that Catholicism is "messianic paganism." That some of the Church's practices very superficially resemble pagan practices isn't exactly a conundrum given that human nature is what it is. There are certain things all religions do because of the inherent religiosity of man. You might as well say prayer is a form of paganism because pagans pray. 

But, as for the scurrilous claim that Mary is viewed as somesort of female godhead, that is, to put it in a far more charitable way than such a claim deserve, false. There was actually a first century _heresy_ which arose out of Arabia from the Collyridian sect that claimed Mary was divine. This movement was immediately condemned by the Church for the blasphemy that it is. You can't have a condemnation of this belief and then still accuse the Church of it if you want to be honest.



> Btw, my citizenship also gives me the right to speak out about Catholicism. God knows, I spend enough time criticizing Islam, Catholicism needs to take its lick also.


 
Sure. Just please be sure you're actually critisizing _Catholicism_ and not someone else's take on what the Church teaches. Also note, too, that there is a difference between critisizing Catholic doctrine and critisizing Catholics. In other words, your critique of Catholic teaching is quite separate from the critique of any moral failing of any particular Catholic (be it Pope, bishop, priest or layman).

If you actually want to familiarize yourself with the Church's doctrine I highly suggest getting a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is available in most bookstore for a very reasonable price (last time I bought a copy it was $8.99, I believe). You can also access it online at http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm



> Catholics in general need to be held accountable also. Even after all the nonsense they keep giving their tithes to the sick and twisted people at the head of the organisation.


 
Well, it depends on what you mean by "held accountable." For our faithfulness to the Church? No, not really. For our moral failings (and by this I mean failing to keep the Commandments), certainly. 



> If they want to practise Roman rites, they can go to Eastern Orthodox churches, Episcopal churches or Anglican churches. There is a huge choice.


 
Except in those instances doing so would put one's salvation in jeopardy _if doing so was done knowing that the Church was founded by Jesus as the normal means of salvation_. Why would I ever want to leave the confines of the Church that Christ founded with Peter as its visible head? They could sooner get me out with blasting caps than I would leave. No, they are, I am sad to say, stuck with me. 

The Church is like a net thrown into the sea which brings forth every kind of fish. When the net is brought to shore the bad fish will be thrown away while the good fish are kept. If you're looking for a Church composed of non-sinners you will be disappointed until we all (hopefully) meet on the other side of the eschaton. 



> I feel sorry for the poor sods of old, especially in Ireland who had to tow the churches line and lived miserable lives because of it. The church preached piety and morals that were almost impossible to follow, while at the same time splitting up families and torturing kids in their orphanages. Pregnant teenage girls were put in homes and treated like vermin. Then their children were pulled from their arms and never seen again. Then it was found that innocent children had been raped by the thousands by ordained priests. When the church found out they simply relocated these vile specimens to allow them to continue their escapades. Thousands more children were tortured and raped in schools by Christian brother scumbags, who were obviously frustrated by their unnatural lifestyles, so like any other bullies, decided to pick on the weak and vunerable kids they were charged to care for.


 
Right and the Church hasn't been responsible for any goof throughout her history. 

Look, I am all for pointing out the sins of the faithful when they need to be pointed out. In fact, I'm all for holding the Church's leaders to a higher standard than we hold other people. I mean, seriously, was _anyone_ really outraged when Bill Clinton got caught using a White House intern as a humidor? No, they weren't. Not really. Because by then we had no illusions about the kind of man he was. Nor did he claim to be morally upright, nor did he preach a message where morality was a central part of his message. But the bishops and priests who were responsible for the scandal did. It would be better for them to have had a millstone placed about their necks and have been cast into the sea than to have done what they did. It would have been _better_.



> I am sick of being told that I should show a distinction between the Organisation and the faithful. Why should I?


 
Because the little old lady who goes to daily Mass and prays her rosary didn't have anything to do with the priest who engaged in homosexual sex with teen boys. It's a prett basic distinction, really. It's the same kind of distinction used when people say they don't like the government of a particular country but bear the general citizenry no ill will. 



> People can choose to follow evildoers or not. The majority of the catholic faithful have chosen to allow the evil that is the Catholic church to continue.


 
In the sense that everyone besides Jesus and Mary sin, yes that's true. We're all guilty of moral failures. The fact is, however, that the Church has actually had several popes in the last century who had an amazingly high level of personal holiness. 



> I will make a distinction between the Jesus of the gospels and the catholic hierarchy however. The two are almost diametrically opposed.


 
Well, in their behavior certainly. I mean, I can't remember the last time I saw a pope whipping people, calling them broods or vipers, or that kind of thing. But their message regarding salvation is identical, even if it's preached using different idioms.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 21, 2011)

yorkshirelad said:


> You told me that Catholics pray to Mary. You do! You also told me that Catholics don't commit idolatry. You do! The statue of St. Peter in St. Peter's square was originally a statue of Jupiter. The statue's foot had been kissed so often by the faithful that it had to be replaced. Idolatry to the max.


 
I'd be interested in seeing any sort of actual evidence for the claim about the statue being originally of Jupiter. It would be an amazing hostorical find if that were the case! 

It would be irrelevant to current (or even past) Catholic practices, of course, since the veneration expressed by the kiss on the foot is directed to St. Peter, not Jupiter. 

I also thought the foot hadn't been replace. I hope it hasn't been. I think it's freaking awesome that it's been worn down so much by people showing their love for the head of the Apostles!

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 21, 2011)

yorkshirelad said:


> You won't get accused of cannibalism, because you can't seriously believe that you are eating the flesh or drinking the blood of Christ. That would be silly!


 
I _absolutely_ believe this. Without equivocation. I believe it more than I believe you're a real person sitting at another computer and not some computer program or a room full of monkeys typing randomly. 

But that still doesn't make it cannabilism  I am sure since you were raised Catholic you know why that is, too, so I won't bore you with the answer 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Big Don (Feb 21, 2011)

No one, just no one hates Catholics the way Ex-Catholics hate Catholics.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Feb 21, 2011)

_The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately 30 A.D. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the Church that Jesus Christ died for, the Church that was established and built by the Apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church? On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus, or His apostles. *In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship / adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in Heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture*. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?

_The rest of the article can be viewed here:

http://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html

Why am I going to read a chatechism, written by Catholics. I was actually given a copy at my first holy communion. It's in a box somewhere in an attic in England, probably gathering dust alongside Anton Le Vey's Satanic Bible.

Don't get me wrong, I don't only abhor Catholicism. I abhor any religion that has a history of extreme abuse, the adoration of dead people, and has made billions while it's people have suffered. I won't even get into the inquisition.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Feb 21, 2011)

Big Don said:


> No one, just no one hates Catholics the way Ex-Catholics hate Catholics.


I don't hate Catholics, I'm irritated by them. My great Aunt Agnes is 94. She is in the latter stages of alzheimers and she has resolved to give all her worldly goods to the church when she dies.In other words, she is contributing to an organization that has created untold suffering to many for generations. Of course she doesn't have much, but I'm sure there's a local cat's home she can sponsor.


----------



## Scott T (Feb 21, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It's a shame you haven't read anything I've said. Your hatred is ugly and repugnant to me. We are done talking.


 Whew! Then you'd really hate my response then.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 21, 2011)

Big Don said:


> No one, just no one hates Catholics the way Ex-Catholics hate Catholics.



Absolutely. Although I want to make a minor nuance. they usually don't hate Catholi*cs*, they hate Catholi*cism*. As you can imagine, this a significant difference.

And that said, hate is probably too strong a term in my case. For me it is more of a dislike, caused by the fact that the RCC was in power here for a long time, and seriously abused that power on an institutionalized scale. Combined with the fact that I don't believe some of the major dogma (on account that a lot of it got added hundreds of years later, coincidentally at a time when it was politically convenient to do so) makes me believe it is a far cry from what Christianity used to be about.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 21, 2011)

Your extensive quotating from an anti-Catholic web site doesn't actually mean that you're quoting facts. 



yorkshirelad said:


> Why am I going to read a chatechism, written by Catholics.


 
So you know what the Catholic Church actually teaches. You know, instead of using "reliable" sources like the one that you just posted. It was rather amusing as it reminds me of those good old Chick Tracts! And nearly as accurate! :lol:



> I was actually given a copy at my first holy communion. It's in a box somewhere in an attic in England, probably gathering dust alongside Anton Le Vey's Satanic Bible.


 
:lol: Well, at least you're willing to admit you don't care what the Church actually teaches even in the midst of your insult. 



> Don't get me wrong, I don't only abhor Catholicism. I abhor any religion that has a history of extreme abuse, the adoration of dead people, and has made billions while it's people have suffered. I won't even get into the inquisition.


 
Oh, well if that's the case it would be more accurate for you to say that you "abhor Catholicism *and* any religion that has a history of extreme abuse, the adoration of dead people, and has made billions while it's [sic] people have suffered."

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 21, 2011)

chrispillertkd said:


> Why would I ever want to leave the confines of the Church that Christ founded with Peter as its visible head? They could sooner get me out with blasting caps than I would leave. No, they are, I am sad to say, stuck with me.



That's a confident assertion of the Apostolic Succession given the Western Schism, the concurrent reign of 3 elected Popes, and that the Holy See stood empty for 2 years prior to the election of Martin V to end the controversy.

I'll leave the epistemology problems to others.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 21, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> That's a confident assertion of the Apostolic Succession given the Western Schism, the concurrent reign of 3 elected Popes, and that the Holy See stood empty for 2 years prior to the election of Martin V to end the controversy.


 
A legitimate election of the pope doesn't have anything to do with the length of time it takes a conclave to reach a decision. As for there being "three popes" obviously you mean three claimants to the papal throne since there is only ever one Pope just as there is only one Ordinary of a diocese. 



> I'll leave the epistemology problems to others.


 
Given the nature of Apostolic Succession there really isn't one. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 21, 2011)

chrispillertkd said:


> As for there being "three popes" obviously you mean three claimants to the papal throne since there is only ever one Pope just as there is only one Ordinary of a diocese.



No, Urban VI, an Italian, alienated the French Cardinals who elected one of their own, Clement VII.  Their eventual successors were Benedict XIII and Gregory XII, who commanded the allegiance of their Cardinals mostly along national lines (French vs. Italian).  Both were still in "office" when the Council of Pisa elected Alexander V to resolve the controversy.  Neither stepped down (even after Constance, Benedict XIII refused and was exiled to Spain), so Alexander V and his successor John XXIII made up the triumvirate of Cardinal-elected Popes making a mess out of Europe with Benedict XIII and Gregory XII.  One can't even claim that one Pope was legitimate, since all 3 (including Gregory XII in Rome) were forced to step down by the Council of Constance.  The election of Martin V got things back on track.

So who was the true Apostolic successor?

The problems run deeper than that though.  The Bishop of Rome was not referred to as "Pope" until as late as the 6th century, and was only specifically reserved for the Bishop of Rome in the 11th century by Gregory VII.  The first Church fathers to hold the title were the Patriarchs of Alexandria, _centuries _before the title was used for the Bishop of Rome.  It also took several centuries for the primacy of the Roman church to develop and be recognized when compared to other churchs, particularly the Alexandrian and Jerusalem churches.  There is no historical reason to believe that Peter led the Roman church, nor that the Roman church had a leading role from the beginning.  What if the Apostolic Succession actually goes through the Eastern Church, and has been with the Patriarchs since the split between the Eastern and Western churches?  There is no way to tell apart from assertion of the Church itself.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 21, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> No, Urban VI, an Italian, alienated the French Cardinals who elected one of their own, Clement VII. Their eventual successors were Benedict XIII and Gregory XII, who commanded the allegiance of their Cardinals mostly along national lines (French vs. Italian). Both were still in "office" when the Council of Pisa elected Alexander V to resolve the controversy. Neither stepped down (even after Constance, Benedict XIII refused and was exiled to Spain), so Alexander V and his successor John XXIII made up the triumvirate of Cardinal-elected Popes making a mess out of Europe with Benedict XIII and Gregory XII. One can't even claim that one Pope was legitimate, since all 3 (including Gregory XII in Rome) were forced to step down by the Council of Constance. The election of Martin V got things back on track.
> 
> So who was the true Apostolic successor?


 
Multiple claimants to the See of Peter don't mean they all are bishop of Rome.



> The problems run deeper than that though.


 
Actually, it runs quite a bit shallower. 



> The Bishop of Rome was not referred to as "Pope" until as late as the 6th century, and was only specifically reserved for the Bishop of Rome in the 11th century by Gregory VII.


 
An interesting but irrelevant statement  



> The first Church fathers to hold the title were the Patriarchs of Alexandria, _centuries _before the title was used for the Bishop of Rome.


 
Well, not exactly. The _first_ Church Fathers? I'd be interested in seeing who was first to refer to _Patriarchs_ if you're going to act like the word "pope" actually means more than it does. Heck, the Copts have a pope but they don't claim that he's the head of the Church. One shouldn't get caught up on the word pope (which means "papa") when what is at issue is the authority of the Bishop of Rome compared to other bishops. 

The fact is, the Church has from very early on held that certain local churches held places of honor. Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Rome were the first and oldest of these patriarchal sees. In fact, the _oldest_ canons admit only the bishops of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch as having patriarchal rights. Jerusalem was added later and COnstantinople later, still and it's claim had to be bolstered by a fabricated claim that St. Andrew founded the sees there since all patriarchal sees were either founded by an Apostle or an apostolic companion. In fact, the churches at Rome and Antioch were tied directly to St. Peter, the church at Alexndria was founded by St. Mark (Peter's companion). Jerusalem was headed by St. James, of course. That's three out of five sees with ties to St. Peter and, frankly, given the role St. Peter played in the first part of Acts it wouldn't be a stretch to posit him as a founder of the church at Jerusalem, too.

Interestingly, the church in Rome is well known for being founded by St. Peter, but the earliest sources talk of its pride of place amongst the churches because of the presence of _both_ St. Peter and St. Paul. That's a claim that no other church even attempted to make. 



> It also took several centuries for the primacy of the Roman church to develop and be recognized when compared to other churchs, particularly the Alexandrian and Jerusalem churches.


 
Not really. 



> There is no historical reason to believe that Peter led the Roman church, nor that the Roman church had a leading role from the beginning.


 
Except for the testimony of the Curch Fathers. St. Irenaeus is a pretty early witness. He states matter of factly: 

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the *greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul*&#8212;that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For *with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition*." 



> What if the Apostolic Succession actually goes through the Eastern Church, and has been with the Patriarchs since the split between the Eastern and Western churches? There is no way to tell apart from assertion of the Church itself.


 
Oh, the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches enjoy Apostolic Succession, of course. But they aren't in full communion with the See of Peter.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## seasoned (Feb 22, 2011)

Politics and religion, the two major themes that wars and much hatred stem from. Interesting to gab about, but detrimental in the long run. In the big picture it is our heart that, will, be read, so guard that and the tongue, and let GOD handle the rest. I just thought I would interject a little common sense.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 22, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> We haven't gotten to the 'cannibalism' accusation yet; wait for it, I'm sure it will be along shortly.  Raw, naked, hatred like this finds no boundaries of decorum, decency, or intellectual honesty.



i see where the cannibalism thing came from though. people who didnt know body of christ and they hear that, they might take it literally. People who didnt know better.



yorkshirelad said:


> Only the homes in Ireland were specifically Catholic and what wnet on in those Catholic homes was tantamount to torture. It doesn't matter though, because other organizations did it, we'll let it slide shall we. Let's let 9/11 slide also because catholic terrorists attacked Canary Wharf.



i meant dont only blame catholic for that stuff. Blame others who done it too.



chrispillertkd said:


> I _absolutely_ believe this. Without equivocation. I believe it more than I believe you're a real person sitting at another computer and not some computer program or a room full of monkeys typing randomly.
> 
> But that still doesn't make it cannabilism  I am sure since you were raised Catholic you know why that is, too, so I won't bore you with the answer
> 
> ...



Really? You believe that? I always thought it was symbolism. The bread and wine was supposed to be symbolic. I didnt think people actually believed that.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 22, 2011)

seasoned said:


> Politics and religion, the two major themes that wars and much hatred stem from. Interesting to gab about, but detrimental in the long run. In the big picture it is our heart that, will, be read, so guard that and the tongue, and let GOD handle the rest. I just thought I would interject a little common sense.


 
Actually, religion and politics are the only things worth arguing about since they are so important. I hardly find debate about them detrimental, quite the opposite, really. 

If people think I'm an idolator who is putting my salvation in jeopardy because I love the Mother of God and pray to her I would hope they'd point that out to me and give me reasons why I am wrong. To do otherwise is to show that they don't care about my salvation. (Of course, when they're done I'm going to explain to them exactly wy they are wrong and why, if they want to more perfectly follow Jesus' example they, too, should honor his mother.) Likewise, if people don't care enough about politics to argue about them we're going to be stuck with more of the same idiocy we already suffer. The last election cycle was a welcome blow against political indifference. 

As for wars and hatred being the result of disagreements about religion and politics, only in the sense that wars and hatred are the result of _human nature_. Man is the greatest creation there is, capable of reaching great holiness. But he is fallen and is capable of anything. Likewise, religion and politics are two of the most important aspects of human life. They can, and have, been responsible for amazing accomplishments throughout history as well as horrible things such as the gulags and Stalin's purges. 

_Corruptio optimi pessima_. It is the _corruption_ of the best that is the worst. But it is no corruption of politics and religion to debate them, even heatedly.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 22, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> Really? You believe that? I always thought it was symbolism. The bread and wine was supposed to be symbolic. I didnt think people actually believed that.



Catholics believe in the literal change of the substance of the bread and wine, an actual, literal miracle performed by the priest through the power of Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation



> When at his Last Supper, Jesus said: "This is my body",[16] what he held in his hands still had all the _appearances_  of bread: these "accidents" remained unchanged. However, the Roman  Catholic Church believes that, when Jesus made that declaration,[17] the _underlying reality_ (the "substance") of the bread was converted to that of his body. In other words, it _actually was_  his body, while all the appearances open to the senses or to scientific  investigation were still those of bread, exactly as before. The  Catholic Church holds that the same change of the substance of the bread  and of the wine occurs at the consecration of the Eucharist[18]  when the words are spoken "This is my body ... this is my blood." In  Orthodox confessions, the change is said to take place during the prayer  of thanksgiving.
> Believing that Christ  is risen from the dead and is alive, the Catholic Church holds that  when the bread is changed into his body, not only his body is present,  but Christ as a whole is present (i.e. body and blood, soul and  divinity.) The same holds for the wine changed into his blood.[19]  This belief goes beyond the doctrine of transubstantiation, which  directly concerns only the transformation of the bread and wine into the  body and blood of Christ.
> In accordance with this belief that Christ is really, truly and  substantially present under the remaining appearances of bread and wine,  and continues to be present as long as those appearances remain, the  Catholic Church preserves the consecrated elements, generally in a church tabernacle, for administering Holy Communion to the sick and dying, and also for the secondary, but still highly prized, purpose of adoring Christ present in the Eucharist.



It is a subtle statement; the bread remains bread to every appearance.  But the substance of the bread is no longer bread.  We take as literal Christ's statement _"this is my body,"_ as well as His commandment to _"do this in memory of me,"_ meaning that His Church should do as he did.

There are many criticisms from outside the Church on the issue of Transubstantiation, but the most vehement come from those with antipathy towards Catholics, who often confuse, either through ignorance or willful misrepresentation, the act of taking the consecrated Host and drinking the consecrated wine as 'cannibalism' along the lines of _"since Catholics believe that the consecrated Host is literally the body of Christ, by eating it, they practice cannibalism."_

It is germane to the topic in that it is yet another issue which is entirely internal to the Church - yet others feel compelled to attack the Church for it.  If one is not a Catholic, one is not compelled to take Communion, obviously (in fact, they're not permitted to do so by our rules).  So what we believe about the literal 'body of Christ' present in the consecrated Host is of no concern to anyone who is not Catholic.  But it is one more weapon in the arsenal of those who hate.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 22, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> Really? You believe that? I always thought it was symbolism. The bread and wine was supposed to be symbolic. I didnt think people actually believed that.


 
Symbolism? How shall I put this? The idea that the bread and wine only symbllize Jesus is ... rank _heresy_!!!

A Catholic priest, acting _in persona Christi_, consecrates the bread and wine and Jesus becomes present body, blood, soul and divinity. That is the faith handed on to the saints which will be preached until the end of the world. That is what I believe and I would sooner die than deny it.

Churches without valid holy orders (those ecclesial communities with their origins in the Reformation that specifically repudiated the sacrificial aspect of the priesthood) believe the bread and wine are only symbolic of Jesus' body and blood and they do so quite correctly because without a validly ordained priesthood they are unable to confect the Eucharist so that Jesus is sacramentally present.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 22, 2011)

Thanks Bill and Chris. That answered my question. So you believe Jesus is already there. and so its much more than symbolism. That answered my question, thanks alot


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 22, 2011)

chrispillertkd said:


> Symbolism? How shall I put this? The idea that the bread and wine only symbllize Jesus is ... rank _heresy_!!!
> 
> A Catholic priest, acting _in persona Christi_, consecrates the bread and wine and Jesus becomes present body, blood, soul and divinity. That is the faith handed on to the saints which will be preached until the end of the world. That is what I believe and I would sooner die than deny it.
> 
> Chris



Speaking on a molecular basis, the bread remains bread. The communion does not change it even for 1 atom. So with that said, how exactly is that bread now the body of Jesus Christ?

'Just because I believe' is not the answer I am looking for. If transsubstantiation is true as you believe it to be in the literal sense, something has to change. But since those atoms are still the same atoms, what changed?


----------



## yorkshirelad (Feb 22, 2011)

seasoned said:


> In the big picture it is our heart that, will, be read, so guard that and the tongue, and let GOD handle the rest. I just thought I would interject a little common sense.


 
God didn't handle the abuses of the Catholic church very well. He allowed them to continue, unchecked for generations. 

How anyone can try to deny the correlation between Catholicism and Roman Paganism is beyond me!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 22, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> Speaking on a molecular basis, the bread remains bread. The communion does not change it even for 1 atom. So with that said, how exactly is that bread now the body of Jesus Christ?



Miraculously.



> 'Just because I believe' is not the answer I am looking for. If transsubstantiation is true as you believe it to be in the literal sense, something has to change. But since those atoms are still the same atoms, what changed?



It may not be the answer you're looking for.  But it is the answer you're going to get.

There is a lengthy explanation of Catholic dogma on the subject if you're interested:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm


----------



## yorkshirelad (Feb 22, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> Speaking on a molecular basis, the bread remains bread. The communion does not change it even for 1 atom. So with that said, how exactly is that bread now the body of Jesus Christ?
> 
> 'Just because I believe' is not the answer I am looking for. If transsubstantiation is true as you believe it to be in the literal sense, something has to change. But since those atoms are still the same atoms, what changed?


 
You know what the answer is going to be Bruno, "The bread is transformed spiritually!" If the bread is transformed physically into Mithra....I mean Jesus, then it would indeed be cannibalism.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Feb 22, 2011)

yorkshirelad said:


> Only the homes in Ireland were specifically Catholic and what wnet on in those Catholic homes was tantamount to torture. It doesn't matter though, because other organizations did it, we'll let it slide shall we. Let's let 9/11 slide also because catholic terrorists attacked Canary Wharf.


 
I'd consider what happened here in Ireland with the abuse to be more to do with the individuals and culture surrounding the church, than because of the religion itself.
The whole parish politics concept is a very strong part of a lot of Irish people's identities, and there was covering up done by families as often as the church. This is in no way justifying the bevaviour of the clergy involved, just that the issue was alot more complex than the Catholic Church being the big bad guy. There's still alot of closed ranks behaviour still going today, did you follow what happened with the recent Listowel rape case?


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 22, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> Speaking on a molecular basis, the bread remains bread. The communion does not change it even for 1 atom. So with that said, how exactly is that bread now the body of Jesus Christ?


 
I think this was already addressed in Bill's post on transubstantiation. The _substance_ of the bread and wine change while the _accidens_ remain the same. It's actually pretty simple to grasp. I once read an essay where the author talked about a scientist who offered to examine a consecrated host under some sort of powerful microscope to see if there really had been a change in the host. On the surface it sounded like an interesting offer but it completely missed the point of transubstantiation :lol:



> 'Just because I believe' is not the answer I am looking for.


 
And, technically speaking, "because I believe" does nothing to answer _how_ is Jesus present. "How is the bread Jesus?" "Because I believe!" What? Belief has nothing to do with the mode of his presence, nor does it have to do with whether or not he _is_ present since that is accomplished through the sacramental power of the priest.



> If transsubstantiation is true as you believe it to be in the literal sense, something has to change. But since those atoms are still the same atoms, what changed?


 
As I said before, the _substance_ of the bread and wine change. Hence, tran-substantiation. 

You have to familiarize yourself with what a substance is and what accidens are for this to make sense on a level more advanced than "it only looks like bread and wine" (which is totally true). A friend of mine who used to teach second graders explained it to me this way once (as she used the same example with her students): You know how a catepiller transforms into a butterfly? It's the exact _opposite_ of that." 

Now that is a good explanation of transubstantiation!

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 22, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> Speaking on a molecular basis, the bread remains bread. The communion does not change it even for 1 atom. So with that said, how exactly is that bread now the body of Jesus Christ?
> 
> 'Just because I believe' is not the answer I am looking for. If transsubstantiation is true as you believe it to be in the literal sense, something has to change. But since those atoms are still the same atoms, what changed?



I was thinking that too  But im not religious. I think scienfically like you do. However I know what they mean now


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 22, 2011)

It's not a matter of whether one think "scientifically" or if you're "religious." It's a question of whether you can understand the difference between a substance and an accidens.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## yorkshirelad (Feb 22, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It is germane to the topic in that it is yet another issue which* is entirely internal to the Church - yet others feel compelled to attack the Church for it*. If one is not a Catholic, one is not compelled to take Communion, obviously (in fact, they're not permitted to do so by our rules). So what we believe about the literal 'body of Christ' present in the consecrated Host is of no concern to anyone who is not Catholic. But it is one more weapon in the arsenal of those who hate.


 
This is the thing Bill, the Church has injected itself into society for years, and continues to this day. In the past it has injected itself into the lives of Jews, Muslims, atheists, alchemists, artists and politicians. For generations it has tortured people for not towing the line of Catholic dogma. it has gone into the homes of decent people and taken their children. It has dictated public policy in many lands and it has had carte blanche on the torture of children. After all this, catholics have the raw nerve to berate people about commenting on the church's internal policy!


----------



## yorkshirelad (Feb 22, 2011)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> There's still alot of closed ranks behaviour still going today, did you follow what happened with the recent Listowel rape case?


 
No, I'm not familiar with it. To tell you the truth, the more I know about such things, the more it weighs on me. I lived in ireland from the early 90s to 2001 and by then the grip of Catholicism was no where near as severe as it had been. i agree that the culture did have a hand in what happened, but the culture revolved around the church and the church had a huge strangle hold on the Irish polpulace. Politics was deeply entreched in Catholicism, and the powers that be turned a blind eye to the suffering of innocents because of this. My father was severley beaten by the Christian brothers, he was also mentally tortured and this effected him in so many ways, as it did with countless others. If there is accountablility at the the end of this life, I dearly hope that Ratzinger and his hateful crew are turned away at the door. If there is justice, they will be.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 22, 2011)

chrispillertkd said:


> It's not a matter of whether one think "scientifically" or if you're "religious." It's a question of whether you can understand the difference between a substance and an accidens.



The distinction is not a scientific one.  In a materialist view of the world, the "accidents" define the substance.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Feb 22, 2011)

chrispillertkd said:


> A Catholic priest, acting _in persona Christi_, consecrates the bread and wine and Jesus becomes present body, blood, soul and divinity.
> 
> 
> Chris


Was the bread still valid as consecrated when the priest performing the ritual was raping little children? Was he still acting _in persona christi_? Did all that bread go to waste? These are not sarcastic questions by the way. I really want to know. Were the sacraments performed by evil bastards, who practiced their deviant ways to the detriment of children, still valid in the eyes of the church? Actually they must have been. After all Ratzinger was responsible for relocating priests to other parishes, when he knew these priests had been raping children.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 22, 2011)

yorkshirelad said:


> This is the thing Bill, the Church has injected itself into society for years, and continues to this day. In the past it has injected itself into the lives of Jews, Muslims, atheists, alchemists, artists and politicians. _For generations it has tortured people for not towing the line of Catholic dogma_.


 
Oh, thank God you're not going to exaggerate.

Since you've conveniently forgotten to give an actual historical example of what you're referring to, let's take the Spanish Inquisition as an example (one of the "go-to" things for people with an axe to grind with the Church). 

That Inquisition (yes, there was more than one) was actually wholly controlled by the Spanish crown. The popes had no say in it except for naming the Inquisitor General (and actually viewed the institution as an infringement on their authority in matters of faith). Under the civil rulers of Spain the Inquisition soon expanded beyond its legitimate role of investigating whether or not converted Jews and Muslims held to their new faith in sincerity (not exactly a small matter since the Muslims had just been kicked out of Spain after several centuries and there is much testimony of Jewish assistance to the Muslim invaders) and began investigating people like Teresa of Avilla and Ignatius of Loyola for heresy, which was beyond the Inquisition's area of authority. Those two were, of course, later named saints demonstrating how ridiculous the Spanish were in their investigations. 

Apparently, those Jews who openly professed their religion were, largely, ignored by the Inquisition (according to Baron's "A Social and Religious History of the Jews"). According to Baron, there was only one example of a persecution of a Jewish community between 1478 when the Inquisition was set up and 1492 when the Jews were expelled from Spain. 

Abuses in the Spanish Inquisition were commited by the civil authorities, with some few exceptions. What is more, they were condemned by four separate popes! (Leo X, Paul III, Paul IV, and Sixtus IV) How much more can you get in the "not-condoned-by-the-Church" department?   

Were there abuses in the Spanish Inquisition? Yes. Were they horrible? Yes. Was the Church responsible for them? No than Judaism is responsible for the choice of forcible conversion or death than John Hyrcanus gave the Edomites. 



> it has gone into the homes of decent people and taken their children. It has dictated public policy in many lands and it has had carte blanche on the torture of children. After all this, catholics have the raw nerve to berate people about commenting on the church's internal policy!


 
So, you're not interested in an actual conversation then? If you are please simply produce the official Church documents whereby these events are commanded, or even sanctioned. Thanks in advance!

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 22, 2011)

yorkshirelad said:


> Was the bread still valid as consecrated when the priest performing the ritual was raping little children? Was he still acting _in persona christi_?


 
Please explain to me how a man engaged in homosexual rape can also simultaneously engage in any sacramental celebration since you said "_when_ the priest [was] performing the ritual." Thanks.



> Did all that bread go to waste?


 
You must have a specific instance in mind. Please, by all means, tell me when and where you saw a priest homosexually rape someone _while_ he was celebrating Mass.  



> These are not sarcastic questions by the way. I really want to know. Were the sacraments performed by evil bastards, who practiced their deviant ways to the detriment of children, still valid in the eyes of the church? Actually they must have been. After all Ratzinger was responsible for relocating priests to other parishes, when he knew these priests had been raping children.


 
The validity of a sacrament doesn't depend on the personal holiness of the priest performing it (or, in the instance of Baptism performed in extremis of the personal holines of anyone). The idea that a priest has to be holy for the sacraments he perorms to be valid was a heresy that condemned the first time it surfaced back in the 4th century. Since you were raised Catholic I'm sure you know all about the Donatist heresy, how it  and why it was condemned, right? I won't even bother to being up the repugnance of the _traditores_. Let's just remember that if one's sinfulness is an issue with the celebration of sacraments then no one would be worthy to perform a valid sacrament because we're all sinners. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 22, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> The distinction is not a scientific one. In a materialist view of the world, the "accidents" define the substance.


 
Nor is it, strictly speaking, a religious distinction.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## yorkshirelad (Feb 22, 2011)

chrispillertkd said:


> That Inquisition (yes, there was more than one) was actually wholly controlled by the Spanish crown. The popes had no say in it except for naming the Inquisitor General (and


 
Oh, I thought Pope Sixtus IV issued a papal bull allowing for the creation of the spanish inquisition. Practiced by the crown with the seal of approval of the pope himself.....nice!!


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 22, 2011)

Way to ignore everything else in my post!

Of course, if you hadn't done that you'd have to address the fact that the _abuses_ of the Inquisition were at the hands of someone other than the Church. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 22, 2011)

chrispillertkd said:


> It's not a matter of whether one think "scientifically" or if you're "religious." It's a question of whether you can understand the difference between a substance and an accidens.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



I just googled it. Imo, and with al respect: it seems a cop out.
Substance is that which makes up a thing. The accidens is what is the thing by virtue of something else.

In this case, the substance is the scientific definition of what it is, whereas the accidens is what also makes it the body of Christ. Only, by definition it is invisible, unobservable, and only believed because someone says it is true without having any verifiability at all.

A priest could 'rhubarb' his way through the communion and you'd be none the wiser.
You're allright talking about substance and accidens as it that would somehow be a real explanation, but all it does is highlight the fact that there is none. Or at least, none which makes any sense in a scientific and therefore humanly observable way.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 22, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> Speaking on a molecular basis, the bread remains bread. The communion does not change it even for 1 atom. So with that said, how exactly is that bread now the body of Jesus Christ?
> 
> 'Just because I believe' is not the answer I am looking for. If transsubstantiation is true as you believe it to be in the literal sense, something has to change. But since those atoms are still the same atoms, what changed?


The answer is faith and belief.

Sorry, there's not a "scientific proof", just like every proof of the existence of God eventually comes to a point where the logic becomes "because I believe."

We believe that, at the moment of consecration, the host becomes the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, who became truly man while still being truly God, who died for our sins, and rose from the dead after three days.  This is the cornerstone of Catholic Christianity.  It's a matter of faith; you either believe it or you don't.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:


> *1381*  "That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood  is something that 'cannot be apprehended by the senses,' says St.  Thomas, 'but _only by faith_, which relies on divine authority.' For this reason, in a commentary on _Luke _22:19  ('This is my body which is given for you.'), St. Cyril says: 'Do not  doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior  in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.'"212
> 
> Godhead here in hiding, whom I do adore
> Masked by these bare shadows, shape and nothing more,
> ...


However, if you want some interesting reading about some of the sociology behind religious belief, you may want to check out some of Fr. Andrew Greeley's writings, especially *The Catholic Myth*.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 22, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> I just googled it. Imo, and with al respect: it seems a cop out.
> Substance is that which makes up a thing. The accidens is what is the thing by virtue of something else.
> 
> In this case, the substance is the scientific definition of what it is, whereas the accidens is what also makes it the body of Christ. Only, by definition it is invisible, unobservable, and only believed because someone says it is true without having any verifiability at all.


 
If I am following your post (and it seems a bit convoluted to me), then no you don't get it. That's not meant to be an insult, I just don't have the time to discuss Aristotelian philosophy right now. It deserves more than googling or checking out wikipedia. You would need to put actual time in studying since it's a topic most people can't even get their heads around given the state of philosophical education these days. 



> A priest could 'rhubarb' his way through the communion and you'd be none the wiser.


 
Not really. It's actually pretty hard to mess up celebrating a sacrament given that the Church's understanding of "intentionality" is somewhat on the implicit side. Is it possible for a priest to _purposefully_ make a farce of his celebration of Mass? Sure. Is it easy to do? Not really. It would need to be something like him stating "This is [sotto voce: not] my body," during the consecration. Sure someone could do that, but why would they? And how common an occurance would it be? And how wide spread? I mean after a while it's irrelevant on a day-to-day basis. Simply having a doubt about the truth of the Real Presence of Christ isn't enough to effect the validity of the sacrament.

As for being "none the wiser," well that depends on what you mean by that. Are _you_ able to tell the difference between being a validly consecrated host and one that hasn't been consecrated? I can't unless I were to receive a special grace from God. 



> You're allright talking about substance and accidens as it that would somehow be a real explanation, but all it does is highlight the fact that there is none. Or at least, none which makes any sense in a scientific and therefore humanly observable way.


 
It's certainly a real explanation. That it isn't a scientific one is irrelevant. There are more thing in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your test tube.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 22, 2011)

chrispillertkd said:


> Multiple claimants to the See of Peter don't mean they all are bishop of Rome.



You keep saying "claimants", but all 3 were elected by a conclave of Cardinals.  The Pope in Rome was forced to step down like the other 2 prior to the election of Martin V.  Furthermore, if "Rome" is the important part, then there was no Pope, only "claimants", from 1305-1378 when the unbroken line of Papal succession led to 7 Popes who reigned from Avignon, France, and never ruled from Rome.

If someone was the "real" Pope by spirit if not by law, then who?  Does that also mean that Urban VI somehow turned from "Pope" to "claimant" in the middle of his reign with the election of Clement VII by the French Cardinals?  Was the Holy See actually empty for 73 years and not 2?



chrispillertkd said:


> Actually, it runs quite a bit shallower...



I don't have the knowledge to fully debate early Church history, so I will concede the point for now.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 22, 2011)

chrispillertkd said:


> It's certainly a real explanation. That it isn't a scientific one is irrelevant. There are more thing in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your test tube.



I have found it somewhat difficult to test for the presence of love in a laboratory.  I called a chemical supply house, they said they don't have it.  I think everyone would admit it exists, but apparently you can't pour out a cup of it.

Strange.  Things which exist and are self-evident to the person who has it, yet which cannot be measured by science.  Must not exist then.

Likewise, I am chemically and atomically identical to my constituent components; the atoms and molecules of which I am made can be piled up and tested as discrete items, and the machines which test them cannot discern which of them is 'me'.  Yet I exist, or at least I think I do.

If I understand the science correctly, eventually all of the components (cells, molecules, even atoms) of which I am made will be removed from me by one means or another and replaced by other things, which were not me until they became part of my body, and which are now apparently imbued with the attribute of 'me', which cannot be tested for either.

Although I admit I would be interested in seeing the element 'Bill Mattocks' which a scientist could write a paper about and sell photos of.  Probably made of donutium.

And someday, "I" will no longer be present in the physical word, and the things which made up my body will have no attribute in them that is 'me'.  That won't be detectable either.

Perhaps I do not exist.  Nor you.  Nor anyone.  Which explains a lot, actually.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 22, 2011)

chrispillertkd said:


> Since you've conveniently forgotten to give an actual historical example of what you're referring to, let's take the Spanish Inquisition as an example (one of the "go-to" things for people with an axe to grind with the Church).



It's undeniable that the Church was responsible for a multitude of crimes and irreligious behavior over much of its history.  For much of the Middle Ages and Renaissance period, the Church was just another route to power, wealth and influence for ambitious younger sons who wouldn't inherit.  From the Magdalene Laundries and the abuses there, to men who had taken the vows living with mistresses in castles, to Julius II waging war for his entire reign, to burning men like William Tyndale for translating the Bible.  

Now, I don't think the Catholic Church was any worse than any other human institution of its size, power and longevity.  It may very well have even been better.  However, the history of the institution shows clearly that it is a _human _institution prone to the same sins and problems as any other.

That's what bothers people though.  Because while the Church is visibly responsible for these sins, the Church _also _claims to be the representative of Christ on Earth, the path to salvation, able to absolve sins and so forth.  While as you say the message and the sacraments do not depend on the personal holiness of the men involved, it's _inevitable_ that people will look at the Church through this lens.  What bothers most people most of all is hypocrisy.  They see an institution that proclaims what is moral and in tune with God's will, and at the same time acts immorally.  Logically, the two are not connected, but like a politician who proclaims family values and simultaneously cheats on their spouse, the Church will always be looked at through this lens.

I think that explains a lot of the anger you see.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 22, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> You keep saying "claimants", but all 3 were elected by a conclave of Cardinals.


 
Who cares? It depends on which conclave was valid. You just don't get a bunch of dudes in red hats together and go around electing popes. The idea itself is ridiculous!  



> The Pope in Rome was forced to step down like the other 2 prior to the election of Martin V. Furthermore, if "Rome" is the important part, then there was no Pope, only "claimants", from 1305-1378 when the unbroken line of Papal succession led to 7 Popes who reigned from Avignon, France, and never ruled from Rome.


 
Actually, IIRC, the pope during the period of Avignon "exile" (and let's be honest, Avignon was much nicer than Rome at the time) was still the bishop of Rome. That he didn't reside there was part of the scandal the St. Catehrine of Siena was reacting to. But the _important_ thing is that the pope is the successor of St. Peter. The point St. Catherine was trying to make was that if Rome was good enough for St. Peter to get crucified upside down in then it's good enough for the pope to live in.



> If someone was the "real" Pope by spirit if not by law, then who? Does that also mean that Urban VI somehow turned from "Pope" to "claimant" in the middle of his reign with the election of Clement VII by the French Cardinals? Was the Holy See actually empty for 73 years and not 2?


 
I used "claimant" because it's more accurate to say than to say "three popes" like you did (which is not just false but self-contradictorarily so). It would have been better to say one pope and two claimant, I admit. 



> I don't have the knowledge to fully debate early Church history, so I will concede the point for now.


 
Don't argue it with me, take it up with the Church Fathers.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 22, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I have found it somewhat difficult to test for the presence of love in a laboratory.



I've made this point to you before, but science has a pretty good handle on what love is.  We know the neurochemical basis.  We know the circuits responsible.  We even have people suffering from a particular brain disorder who cannot love.  Love is not a mysterious otherwordly phenomena, we have a pretty good handle on what it is and how it's produced.  Do we understand the mechanism 100%?  No, but we know part of it, enough to know that it is a physical phenomena.  You can't say "we don't understand the mechanism of love 100%, therefore God/transubstantiation/whatever exists."



Bill Mattocks said:


> Things which exist and are self-evident to the person who has it, yet which cannot be measured by science.  Must not exist then.



False, again.  It goes beyond love too, many emotional states have been mapped.  The limbic system, and particularly the amygdala, are critical structures.

We understand how our constituent components make up neurons, and how those neurons communicate with each other to produce emotional states, thoughts, personality, and all the rest.  Again, not 100%, but enough to know that it comes from your physical brain and part of how it works.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 22, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> That's what bothers people though.  Because while the Church is visibly responsible for these sins, the Church _also _claims to be the representative of Christ on Earth, the path to salvation, able to absolve sins and so forth.  While as you say the message and the sacraments do not depend on the personal holiness of the men involved, it's _inevitable_ that people will look at the Church through this lens.  What bothers most people most of all is hypocrisy.  They see an institution that proclaims what is moral and in tune with God's will, and at the same time acts immorally.  Logically, the two are not connected, but like a politician who proclaims family values and simultaneously cheats on their spouse, the Church will always be looked at through this lens.
> 
> I think that explains a lot of the anger you see.



Imagine a father who gives his son a position of authority in his company.  The son is not very apt, and makes a lot of mistakes.  Abuses and errors in judgment.  The father can revoke that authority, but does not, for reasons he does not choose to give.

Can anyone say that the son does not have the authority that his father gave him?  They might certainly argue that the son should not have it, but they are not the father, they cannot take the authority away from the son, only the father can do that.

Catholics believe that the RCC was given authority by Christ for certain things.  Men, as you noted, are not perfect and screw up.  In large ways and small.  Intentionally, though evil and lust for power, and unintentionally, by failing to do God's Will or even to understand fully what God's Will is at times.  And yet, the Church has the authority God gave it (we believe).  Though it is reasonable for others to believe it was wrongly given (or not given at all, or that God could not have given it on account of not existing), it is not for man to take away what God gave.

I am, as I have stated before, as angry with the Catholic leadership as anyone.  I would like to see an independent investigation of the current crop of abuses, by temporal authorities, and I'd like to see those responsible prosecuted and brought to justice, including being removed from their positions in the Church and even sent to prison where applicable.  And I'd like to see the Church as a whole held accountable as any business would be that harbored criminal executives.

But the Church remains the Church, given it's authority over me by God, in my belief.  Others may think that's a terrible thing; but I cannot order God to take back what I believe was His authority.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 22, 2011)

chrispillertkd said:


> Who cares? It depends on which conclave was valid. You just don't get a bunch of dudes in red hats together and go around electing popes. The idea itself is ridiculous!



Yet, that's exactly what happened.  All 3 conclaves were valid IIRC.  Indeed, that would be why the Council of Constance was called to resolve the dispute, and did so by making all 3 Popes step down.  If only one Pope was clearly valid, then he would not have been asked to step down, yes?



chrispillertkd said:


> I used "claimant" because it's more accurate to say than to say "three popes" like you did (which is not just false but self-contradictorarily so). It would have been better to say one pope and two claimant, I admit.



Well, that's part of the problem, because no one at the time knew which was the Pope and which were the claimants.  Which is how we get into this logical conundrum if you insist that there is only one real Pope, which leads to all sorts of uncomfortable implications because there is no way to tell who it is. The "real" Pope was forced to step down like the rest.

Of course, this is only really a problem because Apostolic Succession is treated like a logic game or a computer program.  If there were no Pope or 50 of them, I'm sure the Creator of the Universe would have no trouble assigning that power in a just and reasonable way over the long term.  People tend to treat that Creator like a computer program though, which doesn't make much sense if you think of God as a thinking creature.  Another reason why Pascal's Wager makes no sense.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 22, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> You can't say "we don't understand the mechanism of love 100%, therefore God/transubstantiation/whatever exists."



Of course not.  But I can note that there are things which exist and cannot be understood.



> False, again.  It goes beyond love too, many emotional states have been mapped.  The limbic system, and particularly the amygdala, are critical structures.
> 
> We understand how our constituent components make up neurons, and how those neurons communicate with each other to produce emotional states, thoughts, personality, and all the rest.  Again, not 100%, but enough to know that it comes from your physical brain and part of how it works.



You still can't point to the atom that is my consciousness, my 'self'.  The fact that you cannot does not prove I don't exist, nor does it prove that a consecrated Host is the body of Christ, but it demonstrates that not all that exists can be identified nor proven to exist or not to exist.

While there remains mysteries, there remain mysteries.  I see you are convinced that someday there will be no mysteries.  You could be right.  But as of this moment, there are things we cannot measure, but which still exist.  I can't put God in a test tube, and you can't put me in one either.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 22, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> It's undeniable that the Church was responsible for a multitude of crimes and irreligious behavior over much of its history. For much of the Middle Ages and Renaissance period, the Church was just another route to power, wealth and influence for ambitious younger sons who wouldn't inherit. From the Magdalene Laundries and the abuses there, to men who had taken the vows living with mistresses in castles, to Julius II waging war for his entire reign, to burning men like William Tyndale for translating the Bible.


 
Yes, because the Church as an institution is responsible for a man breaking his vow of celebacy. Totally. You've convinced me that despite the Church's teaching on the objective superiority of celebacy to the married state and her preaching that breaking any validly undertaken vow is a sin and that engaging in sex outside of marriage is a sin that _she_ is responsible for every sin that her members commit!  



> Now, I don't think the Catholic Church was any worse than any other human institution of its size, power and longevity. It may very well have even been better. However, the history of the institution shows clearly that it is a _human _institution prone to the same sins and problems as any other.


 
It's not just that she "may well" be better than other institutions her size. 

She is, like Christ her head, not only human but also divine (although in a different way than Jesus is, obviously). She is ever being crucified with him for the sins of her members but she is also always rising with him in the holiness of her saints. 



> That's what bothers people though. Because while the Church is visibly responsible for these sins, the Church _also _claims to be the representative of Christ on Earth, the path to salvation, able to absolve sins and so forth. While as you say the message and the sacraments do not depend on the personal holiness of the men involved, it's _inevitable_ that people will look at the Church through this lens. What bothers most people most of all is hypocrisy. They see an institution that proclaims what is moral and in tune with God's will, and at the same time acts immorally. Logically, the two are not connected, but like a politician who proclaims family values and simultaneously cheats on their spouse, the Church will always be looked at through this lens.


 
If you'll pardon my French _no_. The Church is _not_ "visibly responsible" for these sins. More to the point she is often condemning them, like in the example I gave of the Spanish Inquisition. You can't condemn something as an abuse and still be responsible for promulgating it. Not in the eyes of those who are intellectually honest. 

If you - or anyone - have a problem with the Church being composed of sinners then by all means show me one that is not. The Fall isn't something you get away from that easily. What would concern me more than a Church made up of sinners who still preaches the Gospel (that "Good News," part of which is the need for _everybody_ to repent of their sinfulness) and so appears somewhat hypocritical, but one that _doesn't_ look like it's filled with hypocrits at all. Once you find one of those run like crazy because given human nature what you have found is an institution filled with sociopaths. 

But seriously, is this really a problem for people? That the Church looks like she has hypocrits within her? To that I say: yes, and one more won't hurt a bit so I'll see you at Mass on Sunday! Jesus came to save sinners, not the righteous. If you're not a sinner we don't have anything for you (because all the Church has to give is her spouse, Jesus).



> I think that explains a lot of the anger you see.


 
Perhaps. But more often than not I have seen such outrage used more for a cover for anti-Catholic bias (especially from people from the UK and who belong to certain fundamentalist Christian sects). Anti-Catholicism is the one last acceptable prejudice (to quote non-Catholic sociologist Philip Jenkins.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 22, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> But the Church remains the Church, given it's authority over me by God, in my belief.  Others may think that's a terrible thing; but I cannot order God to take back what I believe was His authority.



I understand all that quite well, logically.  Logically, hypocrisy has absolutely no bearing on the truth of what you might say.  Human beings though just don't work that way, so I'm trying to explore why I think the Church is reacted to like it is.

My Grandfather left the Church after the scandals.  The Church preached the same before and after, but he couldn't tolerate them after.  It's just how people react.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 22, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I understand all that quite well, logically.  Logically, hypocrisy has absolutely no bearing on the truth of what you might say.  Human beings though just don't work that way, so I'm trying to explore why I think the Church is reacted to like it is.
> 
> My Grandfather left the Church after the scandals.  The Church preached the same before and after, but he couldn't tolerate them after.  It's just how people react.



I think that's perfectly understandable.  I've considered leaving as well.

I do not leave because of what I described as my understanding of the situation.  In my belief, God gave the Church authority.  The fact that I don't like what the Church is doing does not change what God has done, nor can it.  But everyone has to make up their own minds.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 22, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I have found it somewhat difficult to test for the presence of love in a laboratory.  I called a chemical supply house, they said they don't have it.  I think everyone would admit it exists, but apparently you can't pour out a cup of it.
> 
> Strange.  Things which exist and are self-evident to the person who has it, yet which cannot be measured by science.  Must not exist then.
> 
> ...



Love... does not exist. It is an emotion. A group of brainwaves between my neurons and synapses which enables me to 'sort' or define my attraction to someone. Love has a lot to do with hormones, body chemicals and compatibility. Can we identify love? Not really. But we can identify brain waves and the area in which they reside. Love is measurable despite not being a tangible item.

Same for personality. We may not fully understand the brain, but we do know how it physically interconnects with itself. It can be measured, and defined by the various electrochemical properties. 'you' are measurable, even though we have no real means yet to understand that knowledge. Kinda like looking at a tv image not with a tv but with an oscilloscope. We can't make out the meaning but we do see the signals.

Otoh, there is nothing we can do to discern a transmutated piece of bread from the regular kind.

The comparison with love, identity or life are not valid, because all 3 are measurable and identifiable, even though we cannot fully comprehend what we see. I know perfectly well what is me: my brain and the electrochemical processes within.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Feb 22, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> That's what bothers people though. Because while the Church is visibly responsible for these sins, the Church _also _claims to be the representative of Christ on Earth, the path to salvation, able to absolve sins and so forth. While as you say the message and the sacraments do not depend on the personal holiness of the men involved, it's _inevitable_ that people will look at the Church through this lens. What bothers most people most of all is hypocrisy. They see an institution that proclaims what is moral and in tune with God's will, and at the same time acts immorally. Logically, the two are not connected, but like a politician who proclaims family values and simultaneously cheats on their spouse, the Church will always be looked at through this lens.
> 
> I think that explains a lot of the anger you see.


 
I understand that some people commit despicable acts and sometimes these people are connected to various orgainzations. It is only when the organizational heads protect these villains and relocate them to posts that allow them to continue offending that I get pissed. 
Then again the churched has plundered, pillaged, torture and raped its way to the maintenance of power for over a millenia. Pity the "faithful" cannot see it.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 22, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> In my belief, God gave the Church authority.  The fact that I don't like what the Church is doing does not change what God has done, nor can it.



God made an eternal promise to Abraham.  However, God also withdrew his favor and authority from his people from time to time when their sins grew too great.  What makes you think God couldn't or wouldn't do the same to the Church?  Is he, again, a computer program required to follow directions?  Or is he a thinking being?


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 22, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think that's perfectly understandable.  I've considered leaving as well.
> 
> I do not leave because of what I described as my understanding of the situation.  In my belief, God gave the Church authority.  The fact that I don't like what the Church is doing does not change what God has done, nor can it.  But everyone has to make up their own minds.



Yeah... The church say that they got that authority. And they convinced you. They have no proof and you don't actually agree with them, so how did you come to follow the RCC instead of the protestant church or the mormons?

That said -and this discussion if getting wildly off topic so let's not let that stand in the way of a good argument- what about the people who claim God talked to them. You know, people ritualistically killing someone else because God told them to do so. If you believe the RCC, why don't believe them? And if it is God's will, why be mad about it?

Likewise, suppose God told you to ritualistically kill your oldest daughter or son and make her a burnt offering, would you do it? Or would you seek medical help on the assumption that -despite the clear biblical precedent- that sort of thing doesn't 'really' happen?

I'm not trying to provoke angry reaction btw. So far this discussion is going just fine and I am seizing the opportunity to try and understand real believers, since that is a foreign concept to me. I don't get how you can be convinced that you are right and the rest is wrong. The graveyard is full of real believers who were wrong despite the fact that they believed with all their heart, just like you.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 22, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> Love... does not exist. It is an emotion. A group of brainwaves between my neurons and synapses which enables me to 'sort' or define my attraction to someone. Love has a lot to do with hormones, body chemicals and compatibility. Can we identify love? Not really. But we can identify brain waves and the area in which they reside. Love is measurable despite not being a tangible item.



You told me it didn't exist, then that it did and can be understood (you can't understand something which does not exist) and then that you don't fully understand it.

I guess I have to take it on faith that love doesn't exist, but can be understood, even though we can't understand it now?

I'm little fuzzy on all that.



> Same for personality. We may not fully understand the brain, but we do know how it physically interconnects with itself. It can be measured, and defined by the various electrochemical properties. 'you' are measurable, even though we have no real means yet to understand that knowledge. Kinda like looking at a tv image not with a tv but with an oscilloscope. We can't make out the meaning but we do see the signals.



We don't understand it fully, but we have a rough idea.  So that's that, then.  I still want to see you pour out a cup of me.  Not any old personality, but me, specifically.  Let me know when you can do that.



> Otoh, there is nothing we can do to discern a transmutated piece of bread from the regular kind.



As opposed to the nothing you can do to identify and synthesize the personality that is me.  I get it.  I have to accept that you *can* do the love and personality thing, but you can't do it now, and you can't do the 'god in the wafer' thing no matter how long you try.

And I'm supposed to believe that?



> The comparison with love, identity or life are not valid, because all 3 are measurable and identifiable, even though we cannot fully comprehend what we see. I know perfectly well what is me: my brain and the electrochemical processes within.



You just said you could not fully identify or understand them, but because you have parts of the puzzle, that's good enough.

I think the comparison is quite valid.  Things exist which have no measurable attributes.  You can't pour out a cup of love, nor a cup of me, but you claim you can - someday.  Except for the love thing, which doesn't exist while still somehow existing.

On a more serious note; you dismissed love as a 'thing' because it is an emotion.  Emotions are real, even if they do not possess the attribute of physicality.  They are an artifact of consciousness.  If God is present in a consecrated wafer and that reality is entirely contained within my consciousness, it is no less real than love.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Feb 22, 2011)

chrispillertkd said:


> Perhaps. But more often than not I have seen such outrage used more for a cover for anti-Catholic bias (especially from people from the UK and who belong to certain fundamentalist Christian sects). Anti-Catholicism is the one last acceptable prejudice (to quote non-Catholic sociologist Philip Jenkins.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


 
Funnily enough, I am from the UK and am by no means a christian. I'm a theist. I believe in a God a some kind, but not the bloke on a cloud with a white beard. Who knows, maybe my belief is a result of conditioning, but I believe non the less.

There may have been an historical Jesus. Then again there were many messianic figures at that time. I don't see Jesus as any more worthy of veneration than I do David Blaine or Chris Angel. At least with the latter two, I can see the miracles before my eyes.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 22, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> God made an eternal promise to Abraham.  However, God also withdrew his favor and authority from his people from time to time when their sins grew too great.  What makes you think God couldn't or wouldn't do the same to the Church?  Is he, again, a computer program required to follow directions?  Or is he a thinking being?



Given the history of the RCC (which is *no *blame to current believers obviously) I would be greatly surprised if God hadn't withdrawn his favor and authority from the RCC somewhere around the dark ages with the inquisition, the crusades and the witch burning. 

Interesting question.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 22, 2011)

chrispillertkd said:


> The Church is _not_ "visibly responsible" for these sins. More to the point she is often condemning them, like in the example I gave of the Spanish Inquisition. You can't condemn something as an abuse and still be responsible for promulgating it. Not in the eyes of those who are intellectually honest.



The Church condemned fornication, yet tolerated widespread fornication at the highest levels of its leadership.  The Church preached mercy and justice, and also burned men like Tyndale at the stake for translating the Bible.  The Church preached peace, yet Popes like Julius II waged war.  _Of course _the Church can be visibly responsible for that which it condemns, hence hypocrisy.  To have you deny that this occurred at points in Church history is mind boggling, especially considering your obvious religious historical education.  

If the Church is not visibly responsible for the widespread actions of its leadership because the dogma says otherwise, then the US government can never be responsible for injustice because the Constitution promises fairness and freedom.  Spurious logic.



chrispillertkd said:


> But seriously, is this really a problem for people? That the Church looks like she has hypocrits within her?



Yes, and I've explained why.  It should be pretty obvious to you too.  After all, you yourself said that the criminal actions of the priests were worse than tying a millstone around their necks and throwing themselves into the sea.  Because they are corrupting the message with their actions.  So, you know, you already get it, but for some reason are being incredulous now.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 22, 2011)

yorkshirelad said:


> I don't see Jesus as any more worthy of veneration than I do David Blaine or Chris Angel. At least with the latter two, I can see the miracles before my eyes.



However, Jesus has the advantage of not being a colossal douchebag.  Point: Jesus.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 22, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> If the Church is not visibly responsible for the widespread actions of its leadership because the dogma says otherwise, then the US government can never be responsible for injustice because the Constitution promises fairness and freedom.  Spurious logic.



I was not aware that we prosecute _'The US government'_ for crimes.  I thought we went after individual elected officials and employees of the government for wrong-doing.

The US government is *not* responsible for injustice.  But the people who are responsible for it can certainly be prosecuted for the crimes they commit.

Seems like the same philosophy could be applied to the RCC.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 22, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You told me it didn't exist, then that it did and can be understood (you can't understand something which does not exist) and then that you don't fully understand it.
> 
> I guess I have to take it on faith that love doesn't exist, but can be understood, even though we can't understand it now?
> 
> I'm little fuzzy on all that.



O come on Bill. You are a technical person. Are you telling me you did not understand me?
Love exists in the same way a computer program exists in a CPU. Not in a physical sense, but as a collection of signals that process information.

Not made up of atoms, but electromagnetism and chemical processes.



Bill Mattocks said:


> We don't understand it fully, but we have a rough idea.  So that's that, then.  I still want to see you pour out a cup of me.  Not any old personality, but me, specifically.  Let me know when you can do that.



Please Bill. That does not change anything. We are talking about observable processes. We don't yet understand them, but we can observe them



Bill Mattocks said:


> On a more serious note; you dismissed love as a 'thing' because it is an emotion.  Emotions are real, even if they do not possess the attribute of physicality.  They are an artifact of consciousness.  If God is present in a consecrated wafer and that reality is entirely contained within my consciousness, it is no less real than love.



We can observe all those things I mentioned via the 4 laws of nature. Gravity, EM, and the nuclear forces. The fact that we don't comrehend the knowledge does not invalidate the fact that we can measure it: personality, love, and identity. Fairly well even. On an MRI you can see brain functions activate, triggered by specific emtions. We cannot interpret, but we can see it is there.

The consecrated wafer has NO such properties. Therefore it is different from love, personalit and identity because we can observe them.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 22, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I was not aware that we prosecute _'The US government'_ for crimes.  I thought we went after individual elected officials and employees of the government for wrong-doing.
> 
> The US government is *not* responsible for injustice.  But the people who are responsible for it can certainly be prosecuted for the crimes they commit.



No, the US government does not stand in court to answer for itself.  However, the institution as a whole is still responsible for it's actions, which is demonstrated by both how others describe and react to the institution, and how the institution itself reacts.  For instance, the US Senate apologized for slavery in 2009 despite the fact that no one alive today was alive then.  The government has a credit rating, agreements, and disputes with other nations and peoples, and all with the "US Government", not "John Boehner" or "Barack Obama".  If others don't like the actions of the US government, they dispute with or declare war on the US government and people, not "Barack Obama" or even "Bill Mattocks."

It's the same with other institutions.  Corporations can be fined or even have their charter revoked for illegal activity, while their officers may or may not be held liable (depends on the crimes and circumstances).  

The government, any institution, is the sum of the people in it, but their collective activity over time can be and usually is attributed to the institution as a whole.  If one director of a company commits murder on his own, the company is not responsible.  If the company as a whole commits widespread and consistent crimes (think Enron or United Fruit), then the entire company is described as such.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 22, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> O come on Bill. You are a technical person. Are you telling me you did not understand me?
> Love exists in the same way a computer program exists in a CPU. Not in a physical sense, but as a collection of signals that process information.



Hmmm.  So there *are* things that exist which are not physical?  I thought I said that.



> We can observe all those things I mentioned via the 4 laws of nature. Gravity, EM, and the nuclear forces. The fact that we don't comrehend the knowledge does not invalidate the fact that we can measure it: personality, love, and identity. Fairly well even. On an MRI you can see brain functions activate, triggered by specific emtions. We cannot interpret, but we can see it is there.



So you can tell me when a person feels love versus when they do not?  You can tell my personality from any other personality?



> The consecrated wafer has NO such properties. Therefore it is different from love, personalit and identity because we can observe them.



So if something has no properties that you can observe, it does not have those properties?  I wonder what atoms did for fun before we could observe them, since they didn't exist and all.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 22, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Hmmm.  So there *are* things that exist which are not physical?  I thought I said that.



Emotions, like all thoughts, are physical, and the product of a physical brain.  The action potential and synaptic transmission are the basis of all neural communication, with well defined chemical and electrical properties.  Thus, entirely physical (sodium ions, channels, neurotransmitters, the whole shebang).  Block the action potential (i.e. tetrodotoxin, the blowfish toxin) and you block thought.



Bill Mattocks said:


> So you can tell me when a person feels love versus when they do not?  You can tell my personality from any other personality?



I can tell your personality from other personalities very distinctly, and I don't even need any fancy equipment. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> So if something has no properties that you can observe, it does not have those properties?  I wonder what atoms did for fun before we could observe them, since they didn't exist and all.



Atoms always had observable properties, we simply did not have the required means to observe them.  Actually, some properties can be observed with the naked eye, we just did not know how to tie those observations to atoms until recently.  Even though the idea of atoms is millenia old.  

If I am understanding the theology here correctly, transubstantiated wafer and wine have no observable properties, under any definition or set of conditions.  Very different things.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 22, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Atoms always had observable properties, we simply did not have the required means to observe them.  Actually, some properties can be observed with the naked eye, we just did not know how to tie those observations to atoms until recently.  Even though the idea of atoms is millenia old.



Right.  So they still had those properties before we could observe them.  They existed regardless of our perceptions.

And if we once could not observe characteristics we now can observe, then it stands to reason that there are characteristics we cannot observe, but we might someday.

They, likewise, exist despite the fact that we can't observe them.

Q.E.D.



> If I am understanding the theology here correctly, transubstantiated wafer and wine have no observable properties, under any definition or set of conditions.  Very different things.



But we have stated that things which exist still exist even when we cannot observe them.

So if something exists, whether we cannot observe it today but perhaps someday we will, or whether we cannot ever observe it due to some other law we cannot grasp, if it exists, it exists.

Just making it clear, I am not playing mere word games here.



Things which exist, exist whether or not we can observe them.  If we can observe them, we can prove they exist, but they exist nonetheless.
Things which exist, existed in the past even if we could not observe them at that time (or did not know what we were looking at, to be precise).
Things which exist that we cannot (yet) observe exist even before we can observe them.
Things which exist which we will never be able to observe exist even though we will never observe them.

All of the above statements exist along a continuum of faith.  We can speak with the authority of fact when we speak of things which exist and we can observe.  We cannot speak with the authority of fact of things which we reasonably believe to exist, but which we cannot yet observe.  We cannot speak with any authority of things which some believe to exist, but which believers claim can never be observed.  One end is science, the other end is faith.  And yet, that which exists, exists.  Its existence is not predicated on being observed, as you've stated yourself.  Observing something which exists merely moves it down the continuum of faith towards the side of science, it does not change the existence of the thing in question.

It is also true that things which do not exist cannot be observed.  When dealing with faith, one must make a choice.  But regardless of the choice made, if the thing being described exists, it exists.  If it does not exist, it does not exist.  Faith in or lack of faith in it does not affect that.

So, getting back to the original question on the nature of the consecrated Host. I believe it is the Body of Christ.  Either it is or it is not.  But it remains either one or the other independent of scientific observation.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 22, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> So, getting back to the original question on the nature of the consecrated Host. I believe it is the Body of Christ.  Either it is or it is not.  But it remains either one or the other independent of scientific observation.



I agree with your entire argument here. 

Where I took issue with your earlier statements was the comparison of the Host with other "unobservable" phenomena as support for your belief in the Host, or equating them somehow.  I took it as "neither can be observed, one exists, therefore the other might exist."  My issue with that is that they are fundamentally dissimilar.  The properties of atoms that could not be observed 200 years ago (there were plenty of observable properties even then, we just didn't know what we were looking at) were still sitting there, doing their thing, waiting for the right technology to come along.  However, the properties of the Host as they've been explained here _can never be observed under any set of circumstances_.  This places them in fundamentally different categories, scientifically speaking.  Theoretically, we can make observations and provide proof for "unobservable" physical things like atoms or emotions, while we never will be able to do so for the Host.  Epistemologically speaking, one cannot be used to provide information about the other.

Nor can evidence ever be found, even in principle, to support your belief statement.  Hence the reason why I have no trouble believing in atoms, but do have trouble believing in the Host or God or Heaven or anything else in that same category.  If I were to receive the Paul or Abraham treatment tomorrow, I would of course become a believer in an instant.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 22, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I agree with your entire argument here.
> 
> Where I took issue with your earlier statements was the comparison of the Host with other "unobservable" phenomena as support for your belief in the Host, or equating them somehow.  I took it as "neither can be observed, one exists, therefore the other might exist."  My issue with that is that they are fundamentally dissimilar.  The properties of atoms that could not be observed 200 years ago (there were plenty of observable properties even then, we just didn't know what we were looking at) were still sitting there, doing their thing, waiting for the right technology to come along.  However, the properties of the Host as they've been explained here _can never be observed under any set of circumstances_.  This places them in fundamentally different categories, scientifically speaking.  Theoretically, we can make observations and provide proof for "unobservable" physical things like atoms or emotions, while we never will be able to do so for the Host.  Epistemologically speaking, one cannot be used to provide information about the other.
> 
> Nor can evidence ever be found, even in principle, to support your belief statement.  Hence the reason why I have no trouble believing in atoms, but do have trouble believing in the Host or God or Heaven or anything else in that same category.  If I were to receive the Paul or Abraham treatment tomorrow, I would of course become a believer in an instant.



You are right, they are fundamentally different. I misunderstood your statements; I thought you were claiming that anything that existed could be observed.  I understand now.  I think we're on the same page.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 22, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You are right, they are fundamentally different. I misunderstood your statements; I thought you were claiming that anything that existed could be observed.  I understand now.  I think we're on the same page.



I think so.  Supernatural phenomena are an interesting case though.  In principle, I do not rule it out, although I do not claim they exist either, since there is no evidence.  However, in order to interact with our universe, any such phenomena would have to interact with our matter somehow.  In principle, that should mean it can be measured.  If God gives you feelings of wonder and peace in your mind or if poltergeists throw your dishes, then they are interacting with us somehow.  In a sense, that kills the entire concept of supernatural - they would then become part of our world, interacting with it, although with different rules.  Anyways, just spitballing.

If something is truly unobservable, then it might as well not exist (even if it does) because there is no set of conditions where you can disprove the null hypothesis, that of non-existence.  There is literally no way to tell.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 22, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I think so.  Supernatural phenomena are an interesting case though.  In principle, I do not rule it out, although I do not claim they exist either, since there is no evidence.  However, in order to interact with our universe, any such phenomena would have to interact with our matter somehow.  In principle, that should mean it can be measured.  If God gives you feelings of wonder and peace in your mind or if poltergeists throw your dishes, then they are interacting with us somehow.  In a sense, that kills the entire concept of supernatural - they would then become part of our world, interacting with it, although with different rules.  Anyways, just spitballing.
> 
> If something is truly unobservable, then it might as well not exist (even if it does) because there is no set of conditions where you can disprove the null hypothesis, that of non-existence.  There is literally no way to tell.



Sometimes I think that quantum mechanics are heading us in the same direction. Bell's Theorem has been tested and is true; spooky action at a distance violates locality, but relativity is also true.  The only way we get past it at the moment is by stating that (for reasons we do not know) it is possible for two objects to communicate faster than the speed of light (instantly) but relativity is not violated because we don't know that they communicated with each other instantly until later.  Yeah, if I understand it correctly, that's literally it; both systems contradict each other AND both have been tested, and the reason we accept the anomaly is to agree to ignore the difference that is not a difference until we notice it is a difference; which is unsatisfying at best.  Action we cannot explain affecting the real universe, and we can only say it happens, not why.  In fact, if we try to explain why, it breaks our proven models, which it can't do.  Ooh.

Elder will probably jump in here and correct my understanding, but this is the best my layman's mind can follow about Bell's Theorem.  By the way, my understanding of the test results is that it violates cause and effect because it appears that cause cannot be separated from effect; we simply don't know - can't know - which caused the other in the experiment itself.  Whew!

For those unfamiliar with this issue, the point is that according to entanglement theory, once two things are correlated (entangled), they remain in communication with each other, no matter how distant they become from each other.  And due to the law of conservation of energy, if one of the couplet changes states, the other must change states as well - at the same time.  So the issue is this - if you separate the two particles by say a light year, and measure one of them, it will have a characteristic (spin) that is either up or down.  It's entangled partner must have the opposite spin.  OK so far?  Now, measure the spin of particle 1.  Quantum theory says it didn't have any actual spin until you measured it (yeah), but once you measured it, it collapsed into a given spin.  The other must collapse into the opposite spin at the exact same moment; but how can it 'know' to do that without being able to communicate faster than the speed of light?  The (unsatisfying) answer is that the observer of particle 2 doesn't know if he is the first to measure the particle's spin, thus being the cause of the collapse into a real state, or if he is measuring what the observer of particle 1 caused.  Thus, he does not know if he is the cause or the effect until he communicates with the other observer - which can't happen faster than the speed of light (maybe by a radio communication).  Thus, no violation of relativity exists not because communication didn't happen faster than the speed of light - it did - but because the humans observing it didn't know about it.  Oh please.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 22, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Sometimes I think that quantum mechanics are heading us in the same direction.



I know what you mean.  How about how the act of observation decreases interference between electron beams?  Or the interpretation of the two-slit experiment that quantum particles take all paths simultaneously?

Or that matter is simply an expression of energy?  

Bizarre stuff.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 22, 2011)

Aye that sort of thing scrambles your sense of the reasonable true enough.  

I have to say tho' that when I attempt to read the rationales for these theories (the maths is beyond me I am embarassed to admit) it does make me think that things get so 'complicated' because there is something we do not yet understand at work.

One day we will and the science will get less 'bizarre' as a result because the mechanisms for observed phenomena are better understood.

This is not to be taken to mean that I think that spiritualism is an acceptable alternative explanation - it is just that, to date, there are things we have not yet figured out and 'God' sprouts in the gaps.

Hopefully that will stop one day ... if we haven't been out-evolved by some other, cleverer, species.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 22, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> I have to say tho' that when I attempt to read the rationales for these theories (the maths is beyond me I am embarassed to admit) it does make me think that things get so 'complicated' because there is something we do not yet understand at work.



The problem is that our everyday experiences program us to think of the world working in a certain way.  When you go outside that, either really tiny (QM) or really huge (cosmology), our programmed experiences almost force us to think in an incorrect way, and thus the truth is confusing.  Why shouldn't observation interfere with the workings of subatomic particles?  Why shouldn't electrons be both particles and waves, and take all possible paths to a destination until the waveform collapses upon observation?  We only think so when we analogize electrons or other subatomic particles as tiny billiard balls, different from actual billiard balls only in size.  But the subatomic world is completely different from anything in our experience, and thus thinking by analogy forces us into confusing and incorrect thinking patterns about the subatomic world.

Not that I understand it any better of course, I don't really understand it at all.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 22, 2011)

:O

Me thinks my little question has created a thread 

I think i might understand what the caterpillar/butterfly and holy communion is now. Its like the caterpillar changes into a butterfly, the whole substance, the whole being changes, people can see it. But in the church, the bread and wine is the opposite of that, it still looks and tastes and feels like bread but jesus being there is um...indirectly? you dont see it? am i close or no?


----------



## yorkshirelad (Feb 22, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> :O
> 
> Me thinks my little question has created a thread
> 
> I think i might understand what the caterpillar/butterfly and holy communion is now. Its like the caterpillar changes into a butterfly, the whole substance, the whole being changes, people can see it. But in the church, the bread and wine is the opposite of that, it still looks and tastes and feels like bread but jesus being there is um...indirectly? you dont see it? am i close or no?


 
No, you're not close! The bread stays bread...well it's really that sugar paper you get as a kid, without the sugar, and the wine stays...well it's not really wine, it's just maroon colored grape juice they pass off as wine.


----------



## Carol (Feb 22, 2011)

yorkshirelad said:


> No, you're not close! The bread stays bread...well it's really that sugar paper you get as a kid, without the sugar, and the wine stays...well it's not really wine, it's just maroon colored grape juice they pass off as wine.



Nah, we leave the grape juice for the Protestants... :lol2:


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 22, 2011)

Carol said:


> Nah, we leave the grape juice for the Protestants... :lol2:



While we're on the subject of bizarre hypocrisy, let us consider the Protestants who on the one hand proclaim the inerrant text of the Bible and the perfect example of Jesus Christ, whose first miracle was to produce wine for a party, with the moral teaching that all alcohol consumption is immoral and un-Godly. They preach this to the extent that they won't even use wine for the Communion - the very rite based on Jesus drinking, yet again, wine.  Yet they will use grape juice in a watered down aping of the use of wine, implicitly accepting wine as the proper drink to use.

These same believers in the inerrancy of the Bible also fulminate against homosexuality based on the laws of Leviticus, yet will wear comfy polyester/cotton blends and eat delicious shrimp.  They will even defile one of the most important commandments, to honor the Sabbath, since the Sabbath is actually on a Saturday, not Sunday like they would have you believe.  It's shocking.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> These same believers in the inerrancy of the Bible also fulminate against homosexuality based on the laws of Leviticus, yet will wear comfy polyester/cotton blends and eat delicious shrimp. They will even defile one of the most important commandments, to honor the Sabbath, since the Sabbath is actually on a Saturday, not Sunday like they would have you believe. It's shocking.


 
The word for Saturday in spanish is "sabado". I'm embarrassed that I just now thought of that. :duh:


----------



## Carol (Feb 22, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> The word for Saturday in spanish is "sabado". I'm embarrassed that I just now thought of that. :duh:



Read my mind!!  I was just going to mention that.


----------



## Rayban (Feb 22, 2011)

The naming of the days of the week are varied depending on their source but this should clear up any confusion.

http://www.pantheon.org/miscellaneous/origin_days.html


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 22, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> The word for Saturday in spanish is "sabado". I'm embarrassed that I just now thought of that. :duh:



I knew that, but never thought to make the connection.  Cool!


----------



## girlbug2 (Feb 23, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> While we're on the subject of bizarre hypocrisy, let us consider the Protestants who on the one hand proclaim the inerrant text of the Bible and the perfect example of Jesus Christ, whose first miracle was to produce wine for a party, with the moral teaching that all alcohol consumption is immoral and un-Godly. They preach this to the extent that they won't even use wine for the Communion - the very rite based on Jesus drinking, yet again, wine. Yet they will use grape juice in a watered down aping of the use of wine, implicitly accepting wine as the proper drink to use.


 
I do believe this can be easily cleared up.

Not speaking for all protestant churches, but rather my own: we use grape juice because some people are recovering alcoholics who absolutely have to abstain or they will fall off the wagon. Shall they be denied communion? No, the right thing to do is for everybody to drink grape juice instead.

Once again, not trying to speak for protestant churches everywhere, but my church does not teach that all alcohol consumption is immoral and ungodly. We do believe that drunkenness is wrong, because it separates one from God, and makes one behave in ways that ruin their witness. Having a glass of wine with dinner for instance is not frowned upon nor encouraged, but left between the individual and God.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 23, 2011)

girlbug2 said:


> I do believe this can be easily cleared up.
> Not speaking for all protestant churches, but rather my own: we use grape juice because some people are recovering alcoholics who absolutely have to abstain or they will fall off the wagon. Shall they be denied communion? No, the right thing to do is for everybody to drink grape juice instead.
> .



But what about the people who are allergic to grapes?
Should all people switch to water because of the teensy minority who cannot -for one reason or another- drink the real stuff?

Recovering alcoholics are really a marginal percentage of people, just like the people who are allergic to grapes. Ok the latter are an even smaller percentage, but they're both really tiny.


----------



## seasoned (Feb 23, 2011)

seasoned said:


> *Politics and religion*, the two major themes that *wars and much hatred stem from*. *Interesting to gab about, but detrimental in the long run.* In the big picture it is *our heart* that, *will, be read*, so *guard that and the tongue*, and let *GOD handle the rest*. I just thought I would interject a little common sense.


 
Seasoned said 



chrispillertkd said:


> Actually, religion and politics are the only things worth *arguing about* since they are so important. I hardly find debate about them detrimental, quite the opposite, really.


 
"Arguing about", I think not......... "detrimental" yes when "*arguing about and debate about"* are used in the same context*.*



chrispillertkd said:


> If people think I'm an idolator who is putting my salvation in jeopardy because I love the Mother of God and pray to her I would hope they'd point that out to me and give me reasons why I am wrong. To do otherwise is to show that they don't care about my salvation.


 
Now your getting off the point of my post. "In the big picture it is *our heart* that, *will, be read*, so *guard that and the tongue*, and let *GOD handle the rest"*.
You can pray to whoever you want to. I used the word GAB for a reason, nothing ever comes from gabbing or arguing over *Politics and religion, *because nothing gets acomplished. 



chrispillertkd said:


> (Of course, when they're done I'm going to explain to them exactly wy they are wrong and why, if they want to more perfectly follow Jesus' example they, too, should honor his mother.) Likewise, if people don't care enough about politics to argue about them we're going to be stuck with more of the same idiocy we already suffer. The last election cycle was a welcome blow against political indifference.


You added me to the top of your rant, but clearly are gabbing about others issues, that were not in my short post.



chrispillertkd said:


> As for wars and hatred being the result of disagreements about religion and politics, only in the sense that wars and hatred are the result of *human nature.* Man is the greatest creation there is, capable of reaching great holiness. But he is fallen and is capable of anything. Likewise, religion and politics are two of the most important aspects of human life. They can, and have, been responsible for amazing accomplishments throughout history as well as horrible things such as the gulags and Stalin's purges. Chris


Yes, *human nature.* Which was one of my points in my little post, way above. Guard the heart and the tongue. Who can argue or debate about that.
Have a great day.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 23, 2011)

yorkshirelad said:


> No, you're not close! The bread stays bread...well it's really that sugar paper you get as a kid, without the sugar, and the wine stays...well it's not really wine, it's just maroon colored grape juice they pass off as wine.



well come on, I see it as staying bread too. and the wine stays....well as you said. I agree with you. My belief system is the same. But its nice to question and understand and learn how different people think.  and why they believe what they do. Its called openminded ness...you should try it sometime, its nice


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 23, 2011)

You can be open-minded and understand the who, what, why, when where, why and how of something and still fundamentally disagree with it. Being open minded does not mean you accept the opposing point of view as valid, it means you allowed yourself to look at their evidence and have considered it. How you choose to express your consideration of that evidence is now an opinion.

Religious and political discussions arent meant for those that are involved in the discussion, its meant for those who are sitting on the sidelines, nodding or shaking their heads at each point and counter point. Generally those involved in the discussions have their opinions so firmly entrenched that little will sway them. 

As to this discussion? Whatever. Believe what you want, worship however you want, just do not ask me to pay for it, do not ask my government to pay for it, do not in anyway interfere in my life or the life of any other citizen, if you are going to say or do anything in the public forum, expect opposition and do not ask for special treatment to be free of outside criticism because you believe in X, Y or Z.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Feb 23, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> well come on, I see it as staying bread too. and the wine stays....well as you said. I agree with you. My belief system is the same. But its nice to question and understand and learn how different people think.  and why they believe what they do. Its called openminded ness...you should try it sometime, its nice


The thing is, I actually do understand how Catholics think. I was named after the patron saint of the rosary. I remember my Grandmother endlessly reciting the rosary. I remember being forced to take communion and being forced to be confirmed, which kind of defeats the purpose. The forcing was done by my Mother through our parish priest. My Mother and Grandmother were supernaturally cohersed by that guy, who I refused to call Father by the way (I would refer to him as Mr. McSweeney). I incurred the wrath of my Mother, teachers and Mr. McSweeney himself for this action and regulary got "six of the best" across the palms of my hands. The bastard knew he had lost the battle when I would look at him with indifference, when I learned how to block the pain.

I understand how Catholics think. I come from generations of Catholics. I was told to stop being bold when I mentioned Constantine being the true founder of the Catholic Church. Ehen I asked one of my "History" teachers why we pray to Mary (knowing full well that it was a throw back to Roman Paganism) he said that it was because Mary could intervene on our behalf. I then asked him if God loved Mary more than us, and listened to Mary because she was somehow more important. He actually gave me the answer that mary has God's ear constantly and therefore her prayers would have more of an impact. I then asked him something along the lines of, "If mary is asked to intercede by all the faithful, then wouldn't my prayers to her for intercession just be drowned out?" At this point I was told to shut up. I later thought how annoying it would be for the catholic anthropomorphic God, to have a woman constantly nagging in his ear. This is a constant in the Catholic world, as an example, just look at how Bill began the Catholic rant thread, the words *Shut up* were in the title.

I am no longer open minded to Catholic doctrine. There was once a time when I took it all as a given. After a while in my childhood, I realized that it was all an elaborate, cruel sham. Then in the 90s, when the abuse and cover ups were exposed, I realized that it was a dangerous, elaborate, cruel sham.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Feb 23, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> You can be open-minded and understand the who, what, why, when where, why and how of something and still fundamentally disagree with it. Being open minded does not mean you accept the opposing point of view as valid, it means you allowed yourself to look at their evidence and have considered it. How you choose to express your consideration of that evidence is now an opinion.
> 
> Religious and political discussions aren&#8217;t meant for those that are involved in the discussion, it&#8217;s meant for those who are sitting on the sidelines, nodding or shaking their heads at each point and counter point. Generally those involved in the discussions have their opinions so firmly entrenched that little will sway them.
> 
> As to this discussion? Whatever. Believe what you want, worship however you want, just do not ask me to pay for it, do not ask my government to pay for it, do not in anyway interfere in my life or the life of any other citizen, if you are going to say or do anything in the public forum, expect opposition and do not ask for special treatment to be free of outside criticism because you believe in X, Y or Z.


 
Outstanding post!! The one thing I would like to add is, if your religious organization harms society, than you have to accept a backlash. God knows I've spoken out about Islam in the past. Catholics don't get a pass. You have to understand, that this thread was begun by an able bodied man telling all who weren't Catholic to shut up. It wasn't started by a sweet, pious Grandmother asking me to consider Catholicism as a valid means to attain salvation.
I have been told that I'm rude in refering to the current Pope as Ratzinger. This guy is responsible for the suffering of an untold numbers of innocents (personally). This guy truly believes that his precious church is far more important than the children it has infected with it's dirt bag clergy. The guy is evil, pure and simple. He does not deserve respect, he deserves condemnation. If God has entrusted his Earthly kingdom to this guy, he deserves condemnation also.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 23, 2011)

Whoa! Believe me, I know how you feel. I was forced to be confirmed too, at age 11 in the anglican church. No matter how much i said no i was forced to do it. 

When I and my good friend Adrian was 15, and in grade 9, he passed away from colon cancer. His parents were jehovah witnesses who refused the transfusion to try and save his life. Had a profound impact on me, that someone would pick a god and his teaching of a god that may or may not exist, over their own son. 

And everything I ever learned about religions since then.

Of course I feel the same as you do. I also dont think babies should be baptized. Let them decide for themselves what they want when they get older.

Believe me, I know what you mean. I also had the stuff in my life too. I hate religion too. If I need one like I said I'll go worship tetley tea  I'd have no problem, for example, telling someone, like Bobby Franklin (i made a thread about that politician btw)  to go eff a hornet, and i hope it would sting him up so far where the sun dont shine that stingers come shooting outta his mouth.

Of course I don't agree with Bill Mattocks that non catholics should shut up about Confession or Catholicism. (of course maybe thats because I have no objection to Confession, lol.  If it was abortion well...... lol)

But my moral code doesnt include being mean and rude to people who are nice and friendly (and much more reasonable) like Bill Mattocks and JKS and Chris.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Feb 23, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> But my moral code doesnt include being mean and rude to people who are nice and friendly (and much more reasonable) like Bill Mattocks and JKS and Chris.


Nice and friendly.:rofl:. I suppose the title of Bill's thread went over your head. The passive, aggressive nature of some people here amuses me, but only slightly. The Australian thread is another example of his handy work.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 23, 2011)

Idk. I didnt get offended by it.  But then again, since it was about confession its more like a meh for me. Like I said if it was about something else.....


----------



## yorkshirelad (Feb 23, 2011)

> When I and my good friend Adrian was 15, and in grade 9, he passed away from colon cancer. His parents were jehovah witnesses who refused the transfusion to try and save his life. Had a profound impact on me, that someone would pick a god and his teaching of a god that may or may not exist, over their own son.


 
Yes, they're off their rockers also!!





> Of course I feel the same as you do. I also dont think babies should be baptized. Let them decide for themselves what they want when they get older.


 
I'm glad we agree on this!



> I'll go worship tetley tea


 
 Now you're talking! I have a box of Brit blend Tetley at home. I might just buy a box of double chocolate brownies and a tub of whipped cream to compliment it this evening. Yummy!!


----------



## girlbug2 (Feb 23, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> But what about the people who are allergic to grapes?
> Should all people switch to water because of the teensy minority who cannot -for one reason or another- drink the real stuff?
> 
> Recovering alcoholics are really a marginal percentage of people, just like the people who are allergic to grapes. Ok the latter are an even smaller percentage, but they're both really tiny.


 
Interesting. I googled it: About one percent of the population is estimated to have an allergic reaction to grapes. The statistics on alcoholics in America OTOH range anywhere from 8 % to 40%, which I don't consider marginal or tiny.

Yes I suppose it would be possible to go to a ridiculous extreme and use water instead, but at some point you have to make a judgement call. My church has made a judgement call that grape juice is OK.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 23, 2011)

yorkshirelad said:


> Now you're talking! I have a box of Brit blend Tetley at home. I might just buy a box of double chocolate brownies and a tub of whipped cream to compliment it this evening. Yummy!!



I also got some nice muffins to add to that too


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 24, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Yet, that's exactly what happened. All 3 conclaves were valid IIRC.


 
Um, no by definition two of them were not valid. You just don't get to call a conclave if you feel like it because you don't like the guy you just elected, regardless of how many Cardinals get together and do it. That's like saying a bunch of people can start casting votes for a new President because they just realized that they think Obama is a bad President. Sorry, you made your choice now deal with it.



> Indeed, that would be why the Council of Constance was called to resolve the dispute, and did so by making all 3 Popes step down. If only one Pope was clearly valid, then he would not have been asked to step down, yes?


 
Constance was called to settle the dispute, but not because there were three valid conclaves. It was called because there were three men claiming to be pope. And technically, the pope didn't have to resign but he did it for the good of the Church (i.e., to get the other two anti-popes to also resign).



> Well, that's part of the problem, because no one at the time knew which was the Pope and which were the claimants.


 
That's debatable. 



> Which is how we get into this logical conundrum if you insist that there is only one real Pope, which leads to all sorts of uncomfortable implications because there is no way to tell who it is. The "real" Pope was forced to step down like the rest.


 
On the contrary, it's not at all a logical conundrum if you know what a conclave is in the first place and the requirements to hold one. The real pope was the first to resign (fairly willingly, all things considered). Constance didn't actually depose any of the claimants; it simply recommended that they all abdicate so there would be a cessation of the confusion that the two possers caused. 



> Of course, this is only really a problem because Apostolic Succession is treated like a logic game or a computer program. If there were no Pope or 50 of them, I'm sure the Creator of the Universe would have no trouble assigning that power in a just and reasonable way over the long term. People tend to treat that Creator like a computer program though, which doesn't make much sense if you think of God as a thinking creature. Another reason why Pascal's Wager makes no sense.


 
Actually, if you think of God as a thinking person (not, by any means, a _creature_) then you have no choice but to try to discern his will in times of difficulty. This is especially true when matters such as who is a validly ordained priest, or who was legitimately elected pope come up since these are things that are handed on to the hurch in Divine Revelation. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 24, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> Given the history of the RCC (which is *no *blame to current believers obviously) I would be greatly surprised if God hadn't withdrawn his favor and authority from the RCC somewhere around the dark ages with the inquisition, the crusades and the witch burning.
> 
> Interesting question.


 
If he had done so he would be a liar.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 24, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> The Church condemned fornication, yet tolerated widespread fornication at the highest levels of its leadership. The Church preached mercy and justice, and also burned men like Tyndale at the stake for translating the Bible. The Church preached peace, yet Popes like Julius II waged war. _Of course _the Church can be visibly responsible for that which it condemns, hence hypocrisy. To have you deny that this occurred at points in Church history is mind boggling, especially considering your obvious religious historical education.


 
Actually, you're missing my point. Perhaps purposefully, I don't know. There is absolutely no evidence that _the Church_ is responsible for the actions of priests that homosexually raped boys. Individual priests are responsible for their own actions. Bishops - if they are complicit in covering things up - are responsible for their actions. The popes have actually been trying to deal with this problem for years. Despite the fact that they're the head of the Church they can't actually force anyone to do anything. 

And it's my obvious religious historical education that has led me to come to this conclusion. You can no more say that _the Church_ is responsible for the sex abuse scandal than you can say public schools are responsible for pedaphilia since the rate of homosexual abuse of public school students is something like ten times higher than the rate of abuse when the scandal was at its height years ago. I mean, obviously you're not going to do that, right, even though there have been plenty of public school teachers who have abused students and school and union officials that have worked to cover up abuse and get guilty teachers transferred. 



> If the Church is not visibly responsible for the widespread actions of its leadership because the dogma says otherwise, then the US government can never be responsible for injustice because the Constitution promises fairness and freedom. Spurious logic.


 
It's not a dogmatic issue. It's an issue of logic. Some priest who homosexually abuses a boy despite the fact that the Church teaches such behavior is a sin is the one responsible for the act. If the Church had somehow taught that such behavior was morally licit, or even morally neutral, or didn't have a system set up to deal with such horrible priests when they come to the attention of the Vatican, or hadn't done any number of other things to try to combat this behavior inthe first place then you might have a case. But she did, and you don't.



> Yes, and I've explained why. It should be pretty obvious to you too. After all, you yourself said that the criminal actions of the priests were worse than tying a millstone around their necks and throwing themselves into the sea. Because they are corrupting the message with their actions. So, you know, you already get it, but for some reason are being incredulous now.


 
What I am incredulous of now is the fact that people can't get over the moral failings of others and so lose faith in a message they claim to have believed in the first place, especially when people being sinners - and that includes being hypocrits - is part and parcel of the message she has preached since the time of Christ. The message that people are sinners and need redemption is part of the actual _gospel_ (lit. "good news"). Is it possible for people to become great saints? Yes, obviously (and I know some personally). But the converse is also true; it's possible that anyone can engage in any sort of depravity. 

I've said it once and I'll say it again to anyone who has a problem with the fact that there are hypocrits in the Church: There's always room for one more, I'll see in Mass on Sunday.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 24, 2011)

chrispillertkd said:


> Actually, you're missing my point. Perhaps purposefully, I don't know.  There is absolutely no evidence that _the Church_ is responsible for the actions of priests that homosexually raped boys.



Well then you have no idea what my point is, because I've never made an argument here about the abuse scandal.  You put forth an argument that the Church was not responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, and I responded with a list of crimes that the Church as a whole was unambiguously responsible for over its history.  I never mentioned the abuse scandal, nor did your point that I responded to.

By the way, what's with the need to compulsively label every mention of the rape or abuse of children with the adjective "homosexual"?  It's not even accurate, since plenty of little girls were raped too.  One gets the distinct impression from such a usage that you might consider the rape of little girls as less sinful or less disturbing somehow.



chrispillertkd said:


> What I am incredulous of now is the fact that people can't get over the moral failings of others and so lose faith in a message they claim to have believed in the first place, especially when people being sinners - and that includes being hypocrits - is part and parcel of the message she has preached since the time of Christ.



If you don't understand that, then you don't understand people - at all.  When those claiming to be arbiters of morality and the will of God show themselves to be nothing of the sort, many will lose faith.  People are not logic machines, they are emotional creatures.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 24, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Well then you have no idea what my point is, because I've never made an argument here about the abuse scandal. You put forth an argument that the Church was not responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, and I responded with a list of crimes that the Church as a whole was unambiguously responsible for over its history. I never mentioned the abuse scandal, nor did your point that I responded to.


 
My apologies for thinking you were referring to the scandal since the example of the Spanish Inquisition I used earlier pretty much precludes the Church being responsible for the actiions of the Spanish Crown. You'd have to have ignored all the facts of the case to even make an argument otherwise. I gues sin that sense I did not understand you. 



> By the way, what's with the need to compulsively label every mention of the rape or abuse of children with the adjective "homosexual"? It's not even accurate, since plenty of little girls were raped too. One gets the distinct impression from such a usage that you might consider the rape of little girls as less sinful or less disturbing somehow.


 
It's not every mention of rape. It's just as it relates to the sex abuse scandal since something like 81% of the cases involved the homosexually rape of pre-teens and teens by priests. Most people mis-label the scandal as having to do with pedaphelia, but that isn't accurate. Using the term homosexual rape is an attempt to use a clearer label for what happened. 

If you draw the conclusion from my posts that I consider the rape of girls as less sinful or disturbing you're very sadly mistaken. 



> If you don't understand that, then you don't understand people - at all. When those claiming to be arbiters of morality and the will of God show themselves to be nothing of the sort, many will lose faith. People are not logic machines, they are emotional creatures.


 
Again, people's personal moral failings have nothing to do with whether or not what they proclaim is true. If you don't get that, well then you just don't understand people - at all. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 24, 2011)

chrispillertkd said:


> Most people mis-label the scandal as having to do with pedaphelia, but that isn't accurate. Using the term homosexual rape is an attempt to use a clearer label for what happened.



Except it's not clearer, to the tune of 19% by your own numbers.  In any case, pedophilia is a perfectly accurate descriptor, since people that do not suffer from it are uninterested in having sex with children, homosexually or otherwise.



chrispillertkd said:


> Again, people's personal moral failings have nothing to do with whether or not what they proclaim is true. If you don't get that, well then you just don't understand people - at all.



My point is that is perfectly true logically, but people do not react to that situation in the perfectly logical fashion.  Your barb at the end is just wrong, since people do not always react logically to a situation, particularly one as emotional and deeply-held as religious faith.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Feb 24, 2011)

chrispillertkd said:


> Actually, you're missing my point. Perhaps purposefully, I don't know. There is absolutely no evidence that _the Church_ is responsible for the actions of priests that homosexually raped boys.


Yes there is Chris. We know that the powers that be in the Catholic church moved pedo priests away from the seat of their crimes when said priests were outed. The problem was that instead of turning these scumbags over to the authorities, the Catholic church decided that its image was more important than its children and moved these pedos to other parishes, where they continued abusing children. The powers that be, including Ratzinger only began caring when society found out about their dark, little secret. *Cardinal Law and Ratzinger are as guily as the pedo perpetrators!*

I will say it again, *The catholic church is responsible for the suffering and torture of literally thousands of children. It is responsible for mental, physical and sexual torture*. Many believed in another thread that waterboarding is torture and yet, the Catholic church did much more to innocents. They have raped, beaten and demeaned those they should've been protecting and shame on anyone who defends them.

You cannot separate the church from its leadership and congrigents. They are one in the same. You can't say Enron was a noble business venture, it's just that the guys who managed it were *******s. They are one in the same.


----------



## cdunn (Feb 25, 2011)

The current institution of the RCC has some serious issues with abuse of power, whatever the worth of the nebulous body of doctrine called the 'Church' that is expounded upon in the Liturgy. Many Protestant Churches are not much better, according to the insurance companies that settle their lawsuits for sexcapades. Rates are not very well established, but secular teachers aren't doing real great either, although intra-student sexual misconduct seems to be about three times as common as teacher-student misconduct. We do not know the real rates - it is expected that many victims do not report out of shame and unwillingness to 'rock the boat'. 

Perhaps the appropriate lesson here needs to be more about power, opportunity, and organizational coverup than it does about any particular religion. There are likely a lot of patriarchs, primarchs, and principals that should be removed from authority.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 25, 2011)

cdunn said:


> The current institution of the RCC has some serious issues with abuse of power, whatever the worth of the nebulous body of doctrine called the 'Church' that is expounded upon in the Liturgy. Many Protestant Churches are not much better, according to the insurance companies that settle their lawsuits for sexcapades. Rates are not very well established, but secular teachers aren't doing real great either, although intra-student sexual misconduct seems to be about three times as common as teacher-student misconduct. We do not know the real rates - it is expected that many victims do not report out of shame and unwillingness to 'rock the boat'.
> 
> Perhaps the appropriate lesson here needs to be more about power, opportunity, and organizational coverup than it does about any particular religion. There are likely a lot of patriarchs, primarchs, and principals that should be removed from authority.



One might also take a gander through the Google News for the list of martial arts instructors arrested for similar offenses on a near-daily basis.  It doesn't get much comment on MT or any martial arts discussion forum; I guess because people don't want to think about it much (not that I blame them).  However, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  The main difference is that with martial arts, there typically isn't a central structure open to criticism based on accused coverups as their is with religious institutions; it tends to just be individual instructors.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 25, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> One might also take a gander through the Google News for the list of martial arts instructors arrested for similar offenses on a near-daily basis. It doesn't get much comment on MT or any martial arts discussion forum; .


 
e-Budo has regular content on that very topic..........and a very _select_ clientele :lol: .


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 25, 2011)

elder999 said:


> e-Budo has regular content on that very topic..........and a very _select_ clientele :lol: .



I regularly go through Google News looking for interesting articles about martial arts or martial artists to post on MT, and I intentionally don't post those kinds of stories.  But they are out there, and it's frankly an epidemic, and most martial artists I know would rather not know about it - might be the same as most Catholics or most Christians for that matter; head in the sand, refusing to believe the problem is all that serious.

It's a problem wherever adults are in charge of children; it attracts those who are twisted that way as well as all the good and decent people who just want to teach.  Kid's camps, scouting, physical education and sports, teachers, clergy, counselors, coaches, martial arts instructors, and so on.  The problem is not limited to one group.  One issue that the Catholic Church must face up to is that unlike most of the others, it has a single hierarchy of authority and a recent history of covering up crimes by clergy against children.  That is something that must be addressed; but the abuse happens everywhere there are kids and adults in charge of them.


----------



## cdunn (Feb 25, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It's a problem wherever adults are in charge of children; it attracts those who are twisted that way as well as all the good and decent people who just want to teach. Kid's camps, scouting, physical education and sports, teachers, clergy, counselors, coaches, martial arts instructors, and so on. The problem is not limited to one group. One issue that the Catholic Church must face up to is that unlike most of the others, it has a single hierarchy of authority and a recent history of covering up crimes by clergy against children. That is something that must be addressed; but the abuse happens everywhere there are kids and adults in charge of them.


 
That's a significant portion of the point I was meandering towards.


----------

