Burned at the stake for the Bible

[Thomas]

Regarding the execution of heretics:

Yes, we burned people at the stake for heresy.

No, it was not a justifiable action.

Yes, those engaged will have to answer for their sins.

No, I do not endorse execution under any circumstance.

Yes, we admit our guilt and our error, and ask forgiveness.

No, we promise never to do it again.

Yes, those who carried out such acts assumed they were doing the right thing.

No, they were not.

Yes, the law endorsed such harsh treatment of the accused.

No, it doesn't any more.

Yes, I know that admissions do not completely ease the pain of the afflicted.

No, I don't know what more we can do.

Yes, I do happen to think we should forgive, and move on.

No, I don't think forgive and forget, lest we fall into the same error again.

Yes, history has the habit of repeating itself.

No, never the same way twice.

Yes, people are still being killed today for their faith.

No, this time its mostly Catholics.

+++

Thomas

[Thomas]

Regarding infallibility:

Yes, we believe the Church is indefectible.

No, we do not believe anyone is infallible.

Yes, we believe man can possess infallible truth.

No, he cannot make it up as he goes along.

Yes, it is the Holy Spirit who guarantees infallibility.

No, it not an alarm bell that goes off when the wrong decision is made.

Yes, infallible statements are considered under the particular heading of ex cathedra statements and meet certain necessary conditions.

No, not everything a pope says is an infallible statement.

Yes, the Orthodox Patriarchates do acknowledge the infallibility of the Doctrinal Proclamations of the Ecumenical Councils prior to the Great Schism.

No, they don't acknowledge the infallibility of later Roman Councils.

Yes, the Pope on his own authority can declare an infallible doctrine.

No, he never has done against the will of the Bishops.

Yes, the Bishops can declare a statement of a Pope invalid.

No, they've never had to declare an infallible statement invalid.

Yes, there is a work-round if one was needed.

No, I don't find it unreasonable or illogical, quite the reverse.

Yes, it only makes sense if you believe in the God of Scripture.

No, it doesn't if you don't.

Yes, popes have been found to be in error.

No, they weren't allowed to get away with it.

Yes, the declaration of Infallibility at Vatican 1 upset a lot of Catholics.

No, that's no reason not to declare what has always been held true.

Yes, there are other doctrines besides infallibility that have less of a Scriptural foundation.

No, they are not as problematic as that one for the faithful.

Yes, only Catholics are bound by infallibly-declared doctrine.

No, I don't understand why non-Catholics make such a song and dance about it.

Yes, there are plent of people who want to 'prove' infallibility is a fix.

No, they've never succeeded.

Yes, you're welcome to have a go.

No, I'll not argue every case, I've more important things to do.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Hey Nick —

On Scripture and the creation of man, the Russian Orthodox Church says this:

We note that in the Book of Genesis, as in scientific evolutionary theories, Evolution proceeds from the lower to the higher, from plants to animals to men. Man is the crown of creation because he is made 'in our image, after our likeness' (Gen. 1:26), that is man resembles God the Holy Trinity. He is different from all else because God breathes life into him, that is, He endows him with 'a living soul' (Gen. 2:7). As regards the creation of the human body, this is made from 'the dust of the ground' (Gen. 2:7). We now understand this to mean the various chemical elements, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, calcium, iron, magnesium, sodium, phosphorus etc, which make up the human body's chemical composition and which are also found in the earth.

So the fundamental error you assume in reading two creations of the same thing (surely there would be dopplegangers of everyone bumping into each other) is failing to discern the distinction between essence and substance ...

Another way of reading it is Genesis 1:26-27 deals with universal human nature, which the Fathers term ousai, whilst Genesis 2:7 deals with the particular instance of that nature in the person, which the Fathers term hypostasis...

I get the feeling I'm wasting my time ... but when Pope John XXIII visited Communist Russia, he took a lot of flak from some quarters: "Whenever I come up against a wall of ignorance," he said, "I always try and loosen one little brick, one little bit ... "

... and if the Berlin Wall can come down, who knows what can happen!

Thomas

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Thomas

When Prof. Dawkins wanted to show just how stupid religion is ... he went to the US, and engaged evangelical Christians in an exercise which critics here likened to shooting fish in a barrel

Thomas, yes Bible-fundamentalists can be easy targets. But these observations are potentially diversions from a larger problem of fundamentalism. If I may....

The term "fundamental" has negative connotations of being anachronistic, resistant to change, and authoritarian. One would understandably see some value in presenting one's religion in such a way as to avoid the impression of being "fundamentalist." PR imagery aside, almost any formal religion is prone to dogma, legalism, and ecclesiastic elitism. Regarding Romanistic Christianity as advanced by Paul and the modern-day Catholic Church, some would suggest they meet criteria for being "cultic" in the sense that they involved and depended upon substantial efforts towards establishing and maintaining ideological purity and towards having an operational monopoly on essential doctrine. Arguably, the Church can be described as a fundamentalist cult.

In particular, it is not uncommon to see the Church criticized for being a vehicle of a special kind of fundamentalism that emphasizes church doctrine vis a vis the Gospel. There are many historical examples of this (e.g., the Church's handling of schisms, large scale crusades against alleged heretics, Holy Inquisition, the introduction of totally new doctrine and texts that have no obvious referents in the Scripture, assertions of authority, hierarchy, and jurisdiction, and various political/ institutional/administrative developments).

As far as approach and style, the Catholic Church may actually be more fundamentalist in nature than Bible-fundamentalists. In more recent history, the rise of His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger to the position of Pope would seem to indicate that fundamentalism is indeed alive and well in the Catholic Church. He can be seen as a personification of the Church's efforts to preserve a fundamentalist view of its own position as earthly authority on "Doctrine of the Faith." The strength of the ideological commitment is evident from the breadth of policy. For example, Ratzinger endorsed denying the sacrament of communion to persons who do not align with Church doctrine. To use the Pontifical Council's language, the Church presumes to define the conditions under which "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse" a person the sacrament.

This brand of authoritarian fundamentalism will predictably raise PR concerns about the religious organization being hardline and unreasonable. Predictably enough, the lead spokesman - the Pope himself - will downplay the imagery by saying things like "I'm not the Grand Inquisitor." Yet the Pope made his reputation as enforcer of the Vatican's ideological positions. "He made the biggest headlines when his congregation silenced or excommunicated theologians, withdrew church approval of certain books, helped rewrite liturgical translations, set boundaries on ecumenical dialogues..."
CNS STORY: German theologian one of most respected, controversial cardinals

I was baptised a Roman Catholic. I'm not particularly interested in criticizing the church. I'm merely calling attention to the need to expand the idea of fundamentalism to include the cultic and organizational aspects of institutional religion and the insistence on mandatory doctrine.

[Thomas]

Hi Netti-Netti —

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

But these observations are potentially diversions from a larger problem of fundamentalism. If I may....

Of course ... although I would say that I regard most of what you post as subjective opinion, and inaccurate.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

The term "fundamental" has negative connotations of being anachronistic, resistant to change, and authoritarian.

Perhaps, but then I think that's a misuse of the term. I would say conservative. Fundamentalism to me means, as I posted from a Russian Orthodox site elsewhere, a lack of spiritual, ascetic, allegorical and/or poetic insight, but rather an overt emphasis on the literal.

As the Catholic Church has been a source of some of the world's most profound spiritual literature, produced saints and mystics of the first water, as well as a source and patron of the arts in the West for centuries, it cannot really be accused of fundamentalism, although I fully accept the idea of conservatism ... indeed, I would probably defend it, against those who seek change to keep pace with the whims of culture, which swings back and forth between this fad and that fancy, ever seeking novelty and the ephemeral.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

almost any formal religion is prone to dogma, legalism, and ecclesiastic elitism.

Human nature ...

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Regarding Romanistic Christianity as advanced by Paul and the modern-day Catholic Church,

well hang on ... you can't say 'Romanistic' and 'Paul' in the same breath without a massive anachronism. Paul was there before the Gospels ... the Roman Church was not there for at least some 800 odd years later.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

some would suggest they meet criteria for being "cultic" in the sense that they involved and depended upon substantial efforts toward establishing and maintaining ideological purity as well as a monopoly on essential doctrine. Arguably, the Church can be described as a fundamentalist cult.

Somewhat naive and simplistic, however.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

In particular, it is not uncommon to see the Church criticized for being a vehicle of a special kind of fundamentalism that emphasizes church doctrine vis a vis the Gospel.

An erroneous criticism, however.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

There are many historical examples of this (e.g., the Church's handling of schisms, large scale crusades against alleged heretics,

But that was then ... this is now. You do not refuse to go to hospital because of the way medicine was practised in the 15th century. How the Message and Mission is being handled now is the 'live' issue ... the rest is the debate of historians. Critics who continually drag up the past, do so, it seems to me, because they cannot offer any sustainable contemporary and meaningful criticism.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Holy Inquisition,

Actually, seen in its overall context, and not just its Spanish aberration, the Office of the Inquisition saved many, many more than it condemned. Prior to that, any mayor or magistrate could execute someone on theological grounds, and they did, in vast numbers. The Office was introduced to check this practice ... and huge numbers elected trial by the Inquisition rather than the secular authorities ... and huge numbers were acquitted. There really is an awful lot of nonsense touted around about the Inquisition.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

the introduction of totally new doctrine and texts that have no obvious referents in the Scripture,

Not in the Catholic Church there's not ... just that old literalism again, and lack of spiritual discernment.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

assertions of authority, hierarchy, and jurisdiction, and various political/ institutional/administrative developments).

Quite acceptable. Would you rather chaos? Anarchy? The survival of the fittest, the strongest man rules?

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

As far as approach and style, the Catholic Church may actually be more fundamentalist in nature than Bible-fundamentalists.

Demonstrable nonsense. what you mean is, we accept the notion of authority and hierarchy, whereas some do not ... but then they don't have to care for or administer for others.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

In more recent history, the rise of His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger to the position of Pope would seem to indicate that fundamentalism is indeed alive and well in the Catholic Church.

Again, a subjective determination that few would agree with. Have you read his encyclicals? or are you just following the media line?

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

He can be seen as a personification of the Church's efforts to preserve a fundamentalist view of its own position as earthly authority on "Doctrine of the Faith."

The Church throughout its history has never seen itself as other than that. That's what Scripture says it is.

PS — You do know it was Cardinal Ratzinger who was responsible for the Document from the Church in which we 'fessed up for all the wrong we've done, and asked forgiveness ... not a very fundamental thing to do, is it?

The same guy who's just launched a Catholic/Moslem dialogue ... anyway ...

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

The ideological commitment is evident from the breadth of policy. For example, Ratzinger endorsed denying the sacrament of communion to persons who do not align with Church doctrine.

Nothing new there. It's called putting your house in order ... something long overdue in some quarters.

And yet the priest has the right to distribute the sacrament to those outside the Church, as I have witnessed first hand. What Benedict speaks out against is hypocrisy.

I have seen people come into my Church at Midnight Mass and receive communion, in the full knowledge they don't believe a word of what they've just listened to. I have seen them leave the altar and palm the Eucharist, grinning from ear to ear.

Shall I come into their homes and ridicule all that they hold dear? I practice forgiveness and patience and humility, but I am also told not to cast pearls before swine, nor feed what is holy to dogs ...

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

To use the Pontifical Council's language, the Church presumes to define the conditions under which "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse" a person the sacrament.

Of course it does ... or do you suggest it's left to the whim of the individual? Remember that the Sacrament of the Eucharist belongs to the Church, and She authorises Her ministers ... so it is entirely fitting that they should be instructed accordingly.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

This brand of authoritarian fundamentalism will predictably raise PR concerns about the religious organization being hardline and unreasonable.

In a culture of egoism and philosophical relativism, of course it will, but that is a cultural trend, and like all trends, it shall pass.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Yet the Pope made his reputation as enforcer of the Vatican's ideological positions. "He made the biggest headlines when his congregation silenced or excommunicated theologians, withdrew church approval of certain books, helped rewrite liturgical translations, set boundaries on ecumenical dialogues..."

Yes ... and did he make headlines when he invited one of those excommunicated theologians to lunch, to discuss matters in a cordial and friendly way? Of course not ... that kind of image wouldn't suit the media and her critics at all, would it?

Remember how sure the media was that a Nazi had ascended the throne of Peter when he was elected, because a 12 year old boy was drafted into the Army? How they held their breath as they waited for the new holocaust? Then ... nothing ... and a sea of red faces, with nothing to say ...

Meanwhile Gunter Grass went public that he volunteered for the SS becuase they got the best of everything, including the girls ... was he stripped of his Nobel Prize? Err ... no ...

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

I was baptised a Roman Catholic. I'm not particularly interested in criticizing the church.

Don't see much balance coming forward though, either.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

I'm merely calling attention to the need to expand the idea of fundamentalism to include the cultic and organizational aspects of institutional religion.

I think you are particularly interested in seeing the Church conform to your image of it ... sadly, it won't do that, I'm afraid ... She has another image in mind, an eternal one.

The truth is, if either Church or Papacy had followed cultural advice, both institutions would have vanished centuries ago, as have all those institutions which informed us we should be like them ... so you will excuse us if we stick to what we have always believed.

Thomas

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Thomas

We made mistakes, we have admitted our errors, we have said we are sorry, and we have asked forgiveness ... what more can we do ... what more do you want?

For you to admit that you are not infallible. You cannot possibly square your claim to infallibility with "admitting errors": it was not by accident that your Church initiated a deliberate policy of burning people alive for disagreeing with you, and proclaimed it in documents marked by all the "magic words" which are supposedly the hallmarks of an "infallible" pronouncement.

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

Thank you for a fascinating discussion on burnings and infallibility. I agree with Bob that the infallibility discussion is not over. But I would like to put these two topics aside for the moment, and return to the original topic of this thread, which has gotten lost in all of this.

It is true that English-speaking people were forbidden to read or possess a Bible written in English?

You were quoted,

"ROFL! Ah dear! If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny! How anyone can derive the creation of a single species twice, from Scripture, I have no idea ... but then the world is full of surprises."

--> If you were actually interested in hearing the answer, instead of mocking me as you are obviously now doing, I would consider answering your question. Oh, yes, please remember that the 'idiot' who first taught me the point in question was an open-minded Catholic priest. (Whether he 'derived' it himself, or got it from another 'idiot' Catholic priest remains to be seen.)

[juantoo3]

The saying about beating a dead horse comes to mind....

[Joedjr]

Hi Nick the Pilot,

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Thomas,
It is true that English-speaking people were forbidden to read or possess a Bible written in English?

Yes it's true. In my family, the generation before me, were not allowed to read the Bible.
Joe

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

The saying about beating a dead horse comes to mind....

Metagrumbles?

[Joedjr]

Hi,
Just a little more off topic: Maybe we should start a thread on whether it's Paul or Peter that has the bulk of influence on RCC thought. I vote Paul.
.02
Joe

[Nick the Pilot]

Joe,

You said,

"Yes it's true. In my family, the generation before me, were not allowed to read the Bible."

--> I have only recently become aware of this surprising Catholic prohibition. But I was recently able to put it to good use. There are a lot of Mexican-Americans in my part of the USA. As you probably know, most Mexican-Americans are Catholic.

Well, one day, I was talking to a Mexican-American man at work. I got him to talk a little bit about his church. As soon as he said, "...Bible study...," I asked him, "You are not Catholic, are you?"

He said, "Why, no, as a matter of fact, I'm not. That's amazing. How did you know?"

I said, "Because Catholics do not have Bible study classes." (He was shocked to hear such a thing.)

Which leads us to wondering why Catholics spend years going to Sunday School, yet never attend Bible Study classes. And it also leads us to wondering why the people of your father's generation were not even allowed to read a Bible in English. Or why last century was chosen as a time to lift such a ban.

We await Thomas' explanations.

"Maybe we should start a thread on whether it's Paul or Peter that has the bulk of influence on RCC thought. I vote Paul."

--> I strongly encourage you to start such a thread. Go for it.

[Penguin]

Nick the Pilot:-

We await Thomas' explanations.

You seem so keen and hellbent to make Thomas accountable for everything the Catholic church has done in the past. How can he have all the answers for the actions of people in previous generations???!!! He can only offer an opinion which he has done.
Time to take a chill pill dude and lessen the witch hunt?

[seattlegal]

Fundamentalism is basically declaring what is essential, (or infallible,) and what is therefore beyond criticism. (Reminds me of the actions of the man of lawlessness in 2 Thess 2, especially the part about being sent "strong delusion.")

Only lies and untruth needs this kind of protectionism in order to be propped up. The truth can survive honest criticism, whereas beloved untruths will be exposed if allowed to be exposed to honest criticism.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Joedjr

Yes it's true. In my family, the generation before me, were not allowed to read the Bible.
Joe

Curious, as my family, who come from Ireland, follow the tradition of having a Family Bible, in which are recorded births, baptisms, marriages, deaths, entries into orders, etc., so that prohibition must be local ...

The Bible itself is massive, a huge coffee table thing, gilt edged pages, illustrations, commentaries ...

Thomas