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...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.
![]()
![]()
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.
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.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.
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
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."
edited 5th Jul '14 9:31:00 AM by Euodiachloris
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.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.
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.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?
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
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
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
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

No, I was agreeing with you. I was refering to the earlier posts.
"All you Fascists bound to lose."