Dawkins Demolished

[vinteuil]

I used to believe all the stuff about 'Papal infallibility' until an old flame (a committed Italian RC on the council of her local church in Piacenza) advised that the final arbiter for a Roman Catholic was always their [some grammarians might prefer here: "her or his" ] personal conviction, not that of the Pope.

... indeed so. And also, there is a real question as to how often (if ever) papal infallibility has ever, in fact, been exercised. The criteria for what it wd mean for the Pope to declare something ex cathedra 'infallibly' are open to question. Various Catholic theologian mates of mine incline to the presumption that there have not been any unqualified 'infallible' pronouncements so far...

[MrGongGong]

So if the church isn't necessary for "salvation" then there really is no difference between the CofE and Roman Catholic churches ?

[Tapiola]

So if the church isn't necessary for "salvation" then there really is no difference between the CofE and Roman Catholic churches ?

No churches are necessary for salvation. Salvation must come from within, imo.

[MrGongGong]

No churches are necessary for salvation. Salvation must come from within, imo.

Well that certainly removes ALL the differences between the Catholics and the Anglicans then

(it's all made up anyway .........)

[amateur51]

No churches are necessary for salvation. Salvation must come from within, imo.

Salvation usually comes on the pitch at half-time surely?

Unless it's Church Army's turn

[Serial_Apologist]

Well that certainly removes ALL the differences between the Catholics and the Anglicans then

(it's all made up anyway .........)

A redemptive agreement is reached then... I'd be sad to see all our churches and cathedrals fall into disrepair or be converted from worshipful use.. and not just because that would reduce tourist choice - one of this country's last remaining sources of outside income.

[MrGongGong]

Of course when one is considering academic legitimacy one has only to remember that

Prof Richard Dawkins : Oxford University
Prof Simon Says: Université de bois d'écrou

nuff said bro

[scottycelt]

Hmm - I've always thought that the Catholic Church's view is 'once a Catholic, always a Catholic', and that there is also a doctrine of 'Papal infalibility'. As far as deciding to accept the Pope's teaching, what about things like contraception? I know many Catholics do use it, but the Pope's instruction is that it's sinful, & it is preached against by priests. If you doubt that, consider this -

"Ignoring the mountain of evidence, some maintain that the Church considers the use of contraception a matter for each married couple to decide according to their "individual conscience." Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly."
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control (scroll down to the end to find this quote)

It always arrives at this subject, doesn't it ...

The Church's position has always been perfectly clear on the subject of artificial contraception, whether some Catholics practise it or not. The Church rules that stealing is wrong, that murder is wrong, but some Catholics will still steal and commit murder. That surely does not mean that the Church is necessarily wrong about stealing and murder?

Believe it or not, Floss, Catholics are human beings and would certainly never claim to be always doing the right thing ... shameful, I know!

A pronouncement of papal infallibility is always made clear at the time and is indeed an extremely rare occurrence. Many outsiders appear to be confused as to what it actually means. It does not mean that the Pope never errs or is incapable of committing sins himself, but that whatever is ruled is considered central to Church teaching and is therefore obligatory on all Catholics. Those who cannot accept such a teaching are perfectly free to join the Church of England (or any other) or even share a seat with Dickie Dawkins on his double-decker bus.

The Catholic Church is not a democratic institution and was never intended to be ... it is a ruling/teaching organisation concerned with its mission to promote what is sees as Truth not Opinion. Every Catholic knows that, and that might even be what attracts them to their Church in the first place. There are also, of course, plenty of lapsed Catholics around as well. Why should any of this be particularly controversial?

These Church/Secular conflicts have been around for centuries and will always be with us, I strongly suspect.

[Serial_Apologist]

Université de bois d'écrou

nuff said bro

I hear there's a squeeze on entries...

http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/Nut-Crackers-/48788/i.html

[vinteuil]

The Church's position has always been perfectly clear on the subject of artificial contraception.

I am not sure that St Thomas Aquinas would agree with you.

[Flosshilde]

The Catholic Church is not a democratic institution and was never intended to be ... it is a ruling/teaching organisation concerned with its mission to promote what is sees as Truth not Opinion.

This does rather conflict with your earlier assertion that you are free to make up your own mind - which must surely be based on your opinion, & if that conflicts with what the Church says, is in conflict with the Truth?

There are also, of course, plenty of lapsed Catholics

Lapsed, not ex.

[scottycelt]

This does rather conflict with your earlier assertion that you are free to make up your own mind - which must surely be based on your opinion, & if that conflicts with what the Church says, is in conflict with the Truth?



Lapsed, not ex.

Don't quite get your last point, Floss ...

No conflict at all with my earlier statements, as far as I can see ...

A member of any organisation is hardly free to make up their own rules to suit themselves, to my knowledge ... apart from possibly the lucky members of the local Anarchist Club?

A truth cannot be just an opinion but a fact. Either something is true or it is not. If you don't believe something is true it hardly makes sense to be a member of an organisation that insists it is.

What any malcontent is perfectly free to do is to accept the ruling or leave that organisation and maybe join another more in keeping with their own particular viewpoint?

[amateur51]

A truth cannot be just an opinion but a fact. Either something is true or it is not. If you don't believe something is true it hardly makes sense to be a member of an organisation that insists it is.

But what about circumstances where there are no facts about a scheme but you are required to believe nonetheless that it is true because, say, your parents enrolled you into the scheme when you were nobbut a wain?

[scottycelt]

I am not sure that St Thomas Aquinas would agree with you.

I'm also not sure that St Thomas Aquinas would agree with me ... I'd be far too pathetically weak and mamby-pamby for his liking ...

[scottycelt]

But what about circumstances where there are no facts about a scheme but you are required to believe nonetheless that it is true because, say, your parents enrolled you into the scheme when you were nobbut a wain?

You mean only a wee wean, Ams ... ?

Don't even wee weans grow up into big horrible adults themselves, and then possibly decide to cancel any subscriptions their parents might have thought best to make on their (the wee weans) behalf ... ?