TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Filum Romanum - A Thread for the Catholic Church

Go To

Gaon Smoking Snake from Grim Up North Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
#1026: Jul 4th 2014 at 4:50:53 PM

No, I was agreeing with you. I was refering to the earlier posts.

"All you Fascists bound to lose."
LoniJay from Australia Since: Dec, 2009 Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
#1027: Jul 4th 2014 at 5:07:27 PM

I was always told by my family that if you're baptised, then you are a Catholic, no arguments. You can certainly be a BAD Catholic, but you can't really be an ex-catholic. This doesn't go over very well with my irreligious but baptised brother. Then again, my family are kinda cafeteria Catholics anyway.

Be not afraid...
demarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#1028: Jul 4th 2014 at 5:22:40 PM

I wouldnt go that far, but I do agree that there is greater flexibility in belief than some people imply.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#1029: Jul 4th 2014 at 6:24:31 PM

I'll note that even dogma is potentially subject to revision, as much as the Church would like to say otherwise. A Vatican Council could replace the Trinity with a Quaternary (elevating the Virgin Mary to equal status with the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost), and probably keep the Church at least 90% intact.

Would they? Not with the current Church, but the future's wide open.

Madrugada Since: Jan, 2001
#1030: Jul 4th 2014 at 6:42:50 PM

No, they really can't. Sorry. Dogma is divinely inspired and immutable. That's the definition. It's the difference between dogma and doctrines.

edited 4th Jul '14 6:43:41 PM by Madrugada

probablyinsane Since: Oct, 2011 Relationship Status: I LOVE THIS DOCTOR!
#1031: Jul 4th 2014 at 6:59:21 PM

[up][up][up] It depends on which "rules" the Catholic disobeys. Ignoring the minor "Leviticus" type rules are usually OK, because even Jesus got pissed at the Pharisees for being law-crazy to the point of seriously inconveniencing poor people.

For example, all those ex-rules about animals to sacrifice. Corruption was so severe, that the priests would demand that people only buy overpriced animals from them. WTF.

Scholars have discovered that in those days if someone brought an animal of his own to offer it had to be examined by the priests and it would almost certainly be rejected; the priests would find something wrong with it. This meant that the only animals that could be offered were those which were bought from the temple herd that was kept in an open courtyard in the court of the Gentiles. These animals had already been approved by the priests. But again, a tremendously inflated price was demanded for those animals. In fact, a bird could be brought outside the temple for the equivalent of 15 cents of our money, but the same bird, bought within the temple from the authorized purveyors of animals, would cost as high as $15! This barefaced extortion, this demand for money from even the poorest of the poor was what aroused the flaming anger of our Lord.

Also, I get why they had to make all those "sex outside of marriage was bad". Of course, making unwanted babies was a NOT a good idea, especially back in those days when there seemed to be only one efficient birth control method and it was priced at its weight in gold. Of course, the fuck-twits had to put most of the blame on women (for being seductive temptress) and on the act itself being supposed "evul" instead of just freaking pointing out that raising a kid is very hard and very expensive.

I'm still waiting for the Catholic Church to finally realize that stigmatizing birth control is making it harder for poor people, just like how those Pharisees made it difficult for poor people because they demanded "certified" animal sacrifices all the time.

Plants are aliens, and fungi are nanomachines.
KnightofLsama Since: Sep, 2010
#1032: Jul 4th 2014 at 7:43:56 PM

I was always told by my family that if you're baptised, then you are a Catholic, no arguments

You could always get yourself excommunicated. waii

joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#1033: Jul 4th 2014 at 8:01:46 PM

It could be seen rather like the Marine Corp's saying that "The only 'ex-Marine' is Lee Harvey Oswald."

IE, you've got to really fuck up to be an ex-catholic.

I'm baaaaaaack
KnightofLsama Since: Sep, 2010
#1034: Jul 5th 2014 at 12:12:39 AM

[up] Technically I think apostasy can officially get you excommunicated but it's not enforced for PR reasons these days.

Jhimmibhob Since: Dec, 2010
#1035: Jul 5th 2014 at 7:24:51 AM

If I'm not mistaken, then even excommunicates are Catholics; they're simply Catholics to whom the sacraments are forbidden. Once baptized, no exit, far as the RCC is concerned ... which—if one no longer believes in it—is really no skin off one's nose.

[up] Plenty of people qualify for excommunication, but the Church usually doesn't bother unless you're very public and/or influential, and they need to make a public example of you.

edited 5th Jul '14 7:27:18 AM by Jhimmibhob

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#1036: Jul 5th 2014 at 9:28:58 AM

Like Mafiosi. I wonder if the priests at the churches will have the balls to refuse to give sacrament to the neighbourhood's known Mafiosi.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
#1037: Jul 5th 2014 at 9:30:23 AM

[up]Well, the ones who are that way inclined have just been given a wonderful excuse to that might get them out of immediately getting fitted for concrete boots. "Don't look at me: the boss is rather against you guys, you know... I'm just covering my behind in case he clamps down more, later." wink

edited 5th Jul '14 9:31:00 AM by Euodiachloris

joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#1038: Jul 5th 2014 at 9:33:33 AM

besides that, I think if they started ordering hits on priests they've have at least some trouble within the ranks.

I'm baaaaaaack
demarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#1039: Jul 5th 2014 at 8:15:27 PM

They've hit Priests before. Up in Rome is one thing, but down in Mafia country what matters is loyalty to the familia. That said, I dont know if they would actually kill someone just for denying sacraments. It's not like that cuts into profits or anything.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#1040: Jul 7th 2014 at 11:25:19 AM

I don't know how much of that went on to the Protestant churches.

All and none, in a way. The metaphysics are more similar than they should be. At the same time, Augustine and Aquinas used Platonic/Aristotlean philosophical arguments to arrive at their conclusions, but most of the more inflammatory denominations you're talking about tend to take the conclusion as a given and fill in their own line of thought leading up to it with little to no knowledge of the original.

demarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#1041: Jul 7th 2014 at 11:32:23 AM

I would agree with that. The original Protestant thinkers certainly knew where they were getting these ideas, but I dont think very many current leaders in the evangelical movement still identify with neo-Platonic ideas, or care enough to even think about it.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#1042: Jul 7th 2014 at 12:16:20 PM

I've run into more than a few that outright deny there was any overlap — despite Aquinas citing them directly and exhaustively.

Hatshepsut from New York Since: Jan, 2011
#1043: Jul 7th 2014 at 12:50:43 PM

No, they really can't. Sorry. Dogma is divinely inspired and immutable. That's the definition. It's the difference between dogma and doctrines.

Right, except if they change something in the dogma category, can't they just do the whole "We are at war with Eurasia, we have always been at war with Eurasia' thing?

Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#1044: Jul 7th 2014 at 12:57:35 PM

Dogma is a set of principles laid down as incontrovertibly true by an ideology to serve as its basis. They can't change it by definition, theological or linguistic.

Hatshepsut from New York Since: Jan, 2011
#1045: Jul 7th 2014 at 1:00:31 PM

But I see people (including but not only the Catholic church) changing their views all the time and claiming to be consistent with their prior views. Or at least claiming that they are now presenting a nuanced view of their prior opinions. I'm not saying it's bad, I'm just saying that it happens.

Jhimmibhob Since: Dec, 2010
#1046: Jul 7th 2014 at 1:08:18 PM

[up]That's because not every view is a dogma, much less an infallible Magisterial teaching. Even views and opinions based on such infallible dogma can change, if the change involves a better or more mature construal of the (itself unchanged) dogma.

Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#1047: Jul 7th 2014 at 1:23:16 PM

Now that I think about it, one may conceivably be able to make a case for annulling a declaration of dogma, at least for items added to it over time. For instance, infallibility was dogmatically defined very recently, and the way it got passed was a transparent power grab.

That wouldn't actually be considered changing it, so much as considering it an invalid declaration to begin with.

edited 7th Jul '14 1:25:05 PM by Pykrete

Madrugada Since: Jan, 2001
#1048: Jul 7th 2014 at 1:41:13 PM

If it's wrong or changeable, it ain't dogma. It is, at best, "doctrine" and may simply be "tradition" or "practice". Papal Infallibility is not dogma and never was. It's doctrine.

Dogma is 1) Divinely revealed, 2) Supported by the Scriptures, and 3) Immutable — not open to change.

95%, probably more, of what Catholics believe does not count as dogma. We have lots of doctrines, and lots and lots of traditions and practices, but very little actual dogma.

edited 7th Jul '14 1:41:55 PM by Madrugada

Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#1049: Jul 7th 2014 at 1:45:12 PM

Papal infallibility was being vaguely treated as if it were dogma for several centuries prior, but it was formally defined as dogma in the First Vatican Council.

I'm not certain if Magisterial is though — that's the one that tends to cause concrete problems, as Papal tends to reserve itself for abstract theological matters.

edited 7th Jul '14 1:47:06 PM by Pykrete

Hatshepsut from New York Since: Jan, 2011
#1050: Jul 7th 2014 at 2:17:52 PM

[up] This is the sort of thing I am talking about, and I grant that changes in dogma are going to be slow (for political reasons.) I'm not disputing the definition of dogma, I'm saying that people are going to change what they consider to be dogma. Ask a Catholic of AD 1000 or a communist of 1850 what their dogma is on a given subject, and they will give a different answer than a Catholic or communist of 1950.

Basically, I agree with the earlier assertion about church councils being capable of saying that isn't dogma, this is dogma. This is the immutable dogma, not that, even though we thought that was until now.

edited 7th Jul '14 2:19:34 PM by Hatshepsut


Total posts: 4,059
Top