Burned at the stake for the Bible

[juantoo3]

I just wish you would admit that the church still has the right to perfom such executions, because an infallible Pope would not have allowed such 'improper' executions in the first place.

This may answer some of your concerns:

Ignatius of Loyola - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Nick the Pilot]

juantoo3,

You said,

"...it is a crutch that promotes ethical laziness, rather than curing it."

--> Not at all. In fact, the day will come when all people who are 'ethically lazy' here on Earth come to regret it. This system is fully ethical. I would, however, agree that the system 'allows' for ethical laziness. But it will eventually come back and bite them on the behind. The good thing about this system is that it is 100% ethically fair as well as demanding of responsibility. I see no irresponsibility being tolerated in this system at all -- do you?

"So an admission from me would carry little to no weight or bearing on what the Catholic hierarchy deems appropriate or not."

--> Sadly true.

"Even some staunch Catholics of my aquaintance wince a bit over "infallibility." "

--> Then I suppose Thomas and even the Pope would say they are in error. And, I have always been fascinated by the Catholic concept called venial sin. I suppose Thomas and the Pope would say such Catholics were guilty of a venial sin?

"But if you must have an admission from me, will you reciprocate and admit that a tenet of Theosophy is the violent suppression of those who resist the Theosophic consolidation of all religions? Fair is fair, after all."

--> I really do not know where this statement is coming from. What makes you think violent suppression is a tenet of Theosophy? Can you cite some examples? On the contrary, the exact opposite is true -- Theosophy tries to bring everything out into the open -- foolishness and stupidity as well as wisdom.

It would be good to mention what Theosophy says will happen to people who violently suppress consolidation of all religions. They will have to bear their own bad karma as a result. Theosphy does not place this burden on them, they place it upon themselves. Theosophy does say all religions will be united in about 10,000 years. People who fight against this are merely blocking eventual progress.

"From where I sit, I think there is confusion of abuse of political power with theological doctrine...not that such isn't a habitual propaganda throughout the centuries...but that there *is* a genuine distinction to be made, and it serves no edifying or uplifting purpose to continue to confuse the two."

--> Can you give an example that fits into our discussion up to now?

"You speak as though Blavatsky's muse were corporeal."

--> They were. They had/have achieved what I can only describe as Buddhic consciousness, but they still retain physical bodies.

"It has long been my understanding that her automatic writings were dictated through a spirit entity."

--> They were, but dictated by 'spirit entities' who still retain physical bodies. Blavatsky and her Mahatmas communicated by telepathy. Blavatsky also astrally traveled to see her Mahatmas every night. (Everyone travels astrally every night.)

"This may answer some of your concerns: Ignatius of Loyola - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

--> Goodness me, I do not have time to read it (and many people out there in Internet Land do not either). Please list the main points in that article for us.

 

[Joedjr]

Hi,
Is this still an interesting thread? I think the point here is whether the authority of the RCC is real or imagined. Events in world history lead some of us to question the validity of claims made by the RCC. As I have read the Bible, it has shown me that some of the doctrine it holds as truth is invalid.
I'm sure the argument against what I say here is that I have not been guided by the appropriate teacher. Maybe. At the present time I have no desire to be "shown" the correct way to think. My Bible is written in english, a language I have been taught to understand. Words are combined to sentences to paragraphs and to chapters all to give an idea. Borrowing the concept of PaRDeS and the first level: peshat, these words do convey meanings.
Do you think there may be enrichment coming from this thread? We got some finger pointing and some hurt feelings, but the ability to find consensus might not be available.
.02
Joe

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Joedjr,

You said,

"I think the point here is whether the authority of the RCC is real or imagined."

--> Yes.

"Events in world history lead some of us to question the validity of claims made by the RCC."

--> Yes.

"As I have read the Bible, it has shown me that some of the doctrine it holds as truth is invalid."

--> I agree. That is why the RCC tried to stop people from reading it.

"At the present time I have no desire to be "shown" the correct way to think."

--> Good for you!

"My Bible is written in english...."

--> You would not have been allowed to read such a Bible a few hundred years ago, a fact your friend Thomas refuses to acknowledge.

"Do you think there may be enrichment coming from this thread?"

--> Perhaps the value of this thread regarding the RCC has run out, but this thread is now taking a valuable new direction, now discussing misconceptions about Theosophy.

 

[Nick_A]

Nick, I don't know if I ever mentioned that an ancestor of mine was an archbishop and a friend of Helena Blavatsky probably to the annoyance of many with no understanding. Anyhow in doing some research I came upon this wonderful passage from a letter from the sister of Madam Blavatsky. It is rare to find such understanding today:

Next year Blavatsky went to Tiflis. On her way, at a church service at Sadonsk, she was recognised by the Most Reverend Isidor, former Exarch of Georgia, and later Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, who came to Sadonsk on his way from Kiev. He had known Blavatsky in her youth in Tiflis and he sent a servant to her with an invitation to visit him. Isidor enquired how and where she had travelled, where she was going now, etc. He very soon noticed the phenomena which surrounded her and was deeply interested in them; he questioned her about them, put mental questions, and, after receiving sensible A answers, was still more surprised. When saying good-bye, he blessed her and said words regarding her exceptional gifts, words which always remained very dear to her, as the opinion on her gift of a high priest of the Orthodox Church. He said: "Every power comes from God, you need not feel dismayed if you do not abuse this power given to you. There are many undiscovered powers in nature. Many of them are not known to man, but it is not forbidden to discover and to use them. Man will gradually obtain control over these powers and will be able to apply them usefully for humanity. God bless you in all your kind and good deeds.

 

[juantoo3]

"From where I sit, I think there is confusion of abuse of political power with theological doctrine...not that such isn't a habitual propaganda throughout the centuries...but that there *is* a genuine distinction to be made, and it serves no edifying or uplifting purpose to continue to confuse the two."

--> Can you give an example that fits into our discussion up to now?

I did. It is in the link.

"This may answer some of your concerns: Ignatius of Loyola - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

--> Goodness me, I do not have time to read it (and many people out there in Internet Land do not either). Please list the main points in that article for us.

I'm afraid the history I learned is a bit less flattering, hence my reticence. The short is that Ignatius Loyola was the founding member of the Jesuit order, the Society of Jesus, the "army of G-d," the "church militant," and the chief architect of the Counter Reformation...incidentally at the very same time and place in history you are discussing.

You want to know, but a tad bit of research is too much to ask? That tells me you probably already have the answers you prefer. Perhaps not the correct answers, but ones that *do* appeal to your motives and support your predilections.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Nick,

St. Nicholas Day is only seven days away!

Thank you for sharing that story. Theosophy stands for three Objects of Philosophy, one of which is to explore the undiscovered powers in humanity and nature. I am please that the good Reverend was able to pick up on such an issue so clearly.

 

[juantoo3]

We got some finger pointing and some hurt feelings, but the ability to find consensus might not be available.

It is inevitable there will be no consensus though. That's the occupational hazard, and the reason not to dwell unforgivingly on the past. It also further demonstrates the need for tolerance...precisely because consensus is impossible.

Tolerance is *not* acceptance. Tolerance is *in spite of* acceptance.

Dialogue requires at least two sides, otherwise there is no dialogue. Wisdom requires at least two sides. Chess requires two sides. Paradox requires two sides. If all were in agreement, none of these would hold any relevence.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

juantoo3,

You said,

"That tells me you probably already have the answers you prefer."

--> No, that tells you that I am a very busy person. I have many tasks I try to perform simultaneously. I have to prioritize everything, and I have several things more important to do right now than to read that article. Please feel free to select whatever you consider the more interesting and important things to read in the world. Pleae allow me the same freedom.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Joedjr,

Since you asked, I have been thinking about it, and there are two more valuable things this thread has shown. First, I have repeatedly offered one instance which threatens to pull apart Catholic claims of infallibility, perceived or otherwise. Thomas continues to refuse to address my argument. His contined silence is baffling. Have we hit on something for which he has no answer? Let's see how long Thomas' silence continues.

The other topic is Thomas' dependence on what now can only be described as blind faith. He refuses to answer my argument, yet he continues on telling us he is right and I am wrong. This thread has helped to show the depths of Thomas' blind faith.

Let me make one thing clear. I do not criticize Thomas or any person for having blind faith. But Thomas' continued, pompous way of telling me that he is right and I am wrong while refusing to discuss an issue that proves him wrong needs to be presented here to all members of this Forum. I am only too happy to provide this service.

 

[Joedjr]

Hi Nick the Pilot,

Joedjr,

Since you asked, I have been thinking about it, and there are two more valuable things this thread has shown. First, I have repeatedly offered one instance which threatens to pull apart Catholic claims of infallibility, perceived or otherwise. Thomas continues to refuse to address my argument. His contined silence is baffling. Have we hit on something for which he has no answer? Let's see how long Thomas' silence continues.

The other topic is Thomas' dependence on what now can only be described as blind faith. He refuses to answer my argument, yet he continues on telling us he is right and I am wrong. This thread has helped to show the depths of Thomas' blind faith.

Let me make one thing clear. I do not criticize Thomas or any person for having blind faith. But Thomas' continued, pompous way of telling me that he is right and I am wrong while refusing to discuss an issue that proves him wrong needs to be presented here to all members of this Forum. I am only too happy to provide this service.

I think Thomas has given us an answer. He doesn't agree with what the RCC did at those times nor does he have an answer of why. He has tried to introduce an idea that the RCC is somehow a different entity today than it was at those times. Could be, if you look back through their history the "facts" they consider truths have evolved over time. The concept of infallibility was not made official dogma till later, and considering the 2000 +,- years of existence, actually resent. For myself though, seems the library of thought that brought the world trouble in the middle ages is still the one used as reference.
As a former catholic and yourself also, can you recall being taught from birth that you have the right path and everyone else is wrong. Can you agree that (and it's been brought up many times here at interfaith.org) those that hold that their religion is the correct and the one and only, tend to express themselves in a particular way.

jauntoo3: wisdom requires at least two sides. Then it is possible that a consensus could be reached?
.02
Joe

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Nick the Pilot,


I think Thomas has given us an answer. He doesn't agree with what the RCC did at those times nor does he have an answer of why. He has tried to introduce an idea that the RCC is somehow a different entity today than it was at those times. Could be, if you look back through their history the "facts" they consider truths have evolved over time. The concept of infallibility was not made official dogma till later, and considering the 2000 +,- years of existence, actually resent. For myself though, seems the library of thought that brought the world trouble in the middle ages is still the one used as reference.
As a former catholic and yourself also, can you recall being taught from birth that you have the right path and everyone else is wrong. Can you agree that (and it's been brought up many times here at interfaith.org) those that hold that their religion is the correct and the one and only, tend to express themselves in a particular way.

jauntoo3: wisdom requires at least two sides. Then it is possible that a consensus could be reached?
.02
Joe

A secular truth is transient, meaning it changes over time as culture adapts to changing external conditions. A sacred truth is objective and timeless.

When I was a kid, my mother cooked fish on Friday. I asked why. She said because it was a mortal sin to eat meat on Friday. I informed her that this was changed years ago. Now it is a Lenten custom. She answered that perhaps the Pope was wrong.

Then it hit me that something like a mortal sin which must pertain to a sacred truth, cannot be a transient matter of custom. How could anyone accept someone as infallible that could so easily accept transient mortal sins. This was just another validation for me avoiding taking the church seriously.

In theory, a Pope would have acquired transcendent understanding. In practice, the exoteric church is political and without transcendent understanding which explains the blind acceptance of transient mortal sins.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Joe,

You said,

"I think Thomas has given us an answer. He doesn't agree with what the RCC did at those times nor does he have an answer of why."

--> I agree.

"He has tried to introduce an idea that the RCC is somehow a different entity today than it was at those times."

--> Well, the main difference is that they could get away with exectutions way back then, and they cannot get away with them now. Also, there is no question in my mind that the RCC still would like to keep English Bibles out of the hands of English speakers, just as it did centuries ago. The only difference is that the RCC has no way of stopping the printing of English Bibles anymore.

"Could be, if you look back through their history the "facts" they consider truths have evolved over time."

--> True.

"As a former catholic and yourself also, can you recall being taught from birth that you have the right path and everyone else is wrong?"

--> Of course. I still wince when I am told by Catholocism — and Christiantiy — that Mahatma Gandhi is probably in Hell right now, while Adolf Hitler may have gone straight to Heaven merely by speaking a few words just before his death.

"Can you agree that (and it's been brought up many times here at interfaith.org) those that hold that their religion is the correct and the one and only, tend to express themselves in a particular way."

--> Certainly. It is called being closed-minded.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Nick,

You said,

"When I was a kid, my mother cooked fish on Friday. I asked why. She said because it was a mortal sin to eat meat on Friday. I informed her that this was changed years ago. Now it is a Lenten custom. She answered that perhaps the Pope was wrong."

--> That reminds me of fascinating discussions in my Catholic Sunday School classes many years ago. As you know, Catholics used to be required to go to church on Sundays. (This has changed. How can universal law change...?) At that time, the RCC had somethig called a 'special dispensation' which allowed people living in remote areas to not to go to church, because these remote areas did not have churches. We were told that maps existed, that a person could consult these maps, and if they lived in an area of 'special dispensation' they could avoid going to church.

Being the mischevious children we were, we delighted in torturing the Sunday School teacher with questions with like, "If I spend half of the week in an area of special dispensation, does that mean I do not have to go to mass? How about if I spend all of my time outside of an area of special dispensation, but enter it just before mass starts? How about if I hold my arm over the boundary of an area of special dispensation all Sunday long? How about if I straddle the boundary of an area of special dispensation all Sunday long? Will these things allow me to not go to mass, and not cause me to committ a venial sin?" (Answers were never forthcoming.)

Then there is the difference between a venial sin and a mortal sin. Then there is the topic of scapulas. On and on it goes. I kept trying to get answers to all of these questions. I never got them. This is a big part of why I left the church. (Fortunately, I have since found a belief system which actually encourages such questions, instead of discouraging them, as the RCC did/does.)

"How could anyone accept someone as infallible that could so easily accept transient mortal sins."

--> We await explanations that may never come.

 

[Quahom1]

Nick,

You said,

"When I was a kid, my mother cooked fish on Friday. I asked why. She said because it was a mortal sin to eat meat on Friday. I informed her that this was changed years ago. Now it is a Lenten custom. She answered that perhaps the Pope was wrong."

--> That reminds me of fascinating discussions in my Catholic Sunday School classes many years ago. As you know, Catholics used to be required to go to church on Sundays. (This has changed. How can universal law change...?) At that time, the RCC had somethig called a 'special dispensation' which allowed people living in remote areas to not to go to church, because these remote areas did not have churches. We were told that maps existed, that a person could consult these maps, and if they lived in an area of 'special dispensation' they could avoid going to church.

Being the mischevious children we were, we delighted in torturing the Sunday School teacher with questions with like, "If I spend half of the week in an area of special dispensation, does that mean I do not have to go to mass? How about if I spend all of my time outside of an area of special dispensation, but enter it just before mass starts? How about if I hold my arm over the boundary of an area of special dispensation all Sunday long? How about if I straddle the boundary of an area of special dispensation all Sunday long? Will these things allow me to not go to mass, and not cause me to committ a venial sin?" (Answers were never forthcoming.)

Then there is the difference between a venial sin and a mortal sin. Then there is the topic of scapulas. On and on it goes. I kept trying to get answers to all of these questions. I never got them. This is a big part of why I left the church. (Fortunately, I have since found a belief system which actually encourages such questions, instead of discouraging them, as the RCC did/does.)

"How could anyone accept someone as infallible that could so easily accept transient mortal sins."

--> We await explanations that may never come.

and some children never grow up...

 

[mee]

so bringing it up to modern day bible reading , when a good translation is printed like the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION who are the ones that try to surpress that translation, For the most part i think it is CHRISTENDOM , nothing changes does it , the burning at the state may have moved on for the most part, but the opposition is still there, and the truth of the translation is not good in their eyes.
The NEW WORLD TRANSLATION was printed to get back to the true meanings of God , but my oh my what opposition there has been to a good translation. and yes more than likely that opposition has come from CHRISTENDOM.

And the true God JEHOVAH clocks it

 

[Joedjr]

Good morning Thomas, (well over here it's morning)

Hi Joe —


Generally, yes.

If I've confused you, I apologise. I do use a number of terms, and sometimes distinguish between 'Hebrew Scripture' as the Old Testament, but usually only in an historical context.

Thomas

Being as some of this thread is about reading the Bible: have you read the Bible cover to cover? Do you have a favorite translation?

Joe

 

[mee]

Burned at the stake for the Bible

yes there has been much opposition to reading the bible, not only in times past ,but also NOW and the opposition comes from those who CLAIM to represent the God of the bible. now that is BAD

 

[Thomas]

Hi Joe —

He doesn't agree with what the RCC did at those times nor does he have an answer of why.

Not sure about that ... as in the case of history generally, I often don't agree with what was done, but I can often understand why it was done, even if I am shaking my head. But then, I'm the first to admit I'm not a historian of the Church. If there's something I can't answer for you, I'll endeavour to find it.

... if you look back through their history the "facts" they consider truths have evolved over time.

We say theology 'unpacks' Supernatural Truth, rather than Truth evolving — although temporal truths do, of course, evolve, they are not the principle object of theology.

Doctrine and understanding develops by a natural progression according to circumstance — we grow in relation to Truth — sometimes developments, or rather the rate of change and growth, is forced upon us by external pressures.

Those who seek novelty, and chase the cultural fashions, fads and fancies, for example, insist the Church moves too slowly to be a relevant institution in the modern world, as if Truth itself changes ... we have our eyes set on the distant goal, and steer a course without deviation towards it, and resist the lure of the ephemeral and the transient as insubstantial (a doctrine shared by all the world's great Traditions), meanwhile those modern institutions show a tendency to collapse with alarming results...

So we do not change for change's sake, we do not see the need for Truth to evolve into something other than itself, but we do listen to the voice of temporal truth, natural truth, or the natural sciences, and we have learned to look for the wisdom and the insight therein, and apply that to what we know to better understand what we know.

In so doing, we hope to enable temporal man to seek those atemporal certainties ... that's what theology does.

The concept of infallibility was not made official dogma till later, and considering the 2000 +,- years of existence, actually resent.

The concept of infallibility was conscious and present in the Church from the Apostolic era (an example is detailed in Acts 10). The Church, in making dogmatic statements, acts to bring the truth into clearer perception and preserve from error (I think Vatican II in the 60s was the only Church Council not called to response to the need to clarify a dispute).

The two big disputes on the authority of the Church were the Reformation, which rejected the teaching function of the Church, something instituted by Christ in Scripture (answered by the Council of Trent), and Modernism, which rejected the Divine institution of the Church as such (answered by the First Vatican Council), again something instituted by Christ ... so in both cases we see a refutation of Scripture.

So whilst one might argue that certain aspects of infallibility were not dogmatically defined until the 19th century, one can demonstrate that such definitions comprise nothing new, but simply clarify what had always been the case.

It's the same with the Church ... I am loyal to the Church, but that does not make me a saint, nor even stop me being a sinner ... and nor has any other member ever claimed anything other than that, I think (and if they have, they were wrong). There seems to be a desire to show that if someone sins personally, then the whole Church is invalid because of it, which is, of course, utter nonsense ... it's the fact that man is inclined to error that Christ guaranteed His Church in the first place.

As I have read the Bible, it has shown me that some of the doctrine it holds as truth is invalid.

Naturally I would challenge that. In fact, I don't think anyone has ever been able to objectively demonstrate a doctrine as possessing no Scriptural validity. The best that can be done is object according to subjective interpretation of the Scripture in question, but that does not comprise a proof as such.

At the present time I have no desire to be "shown" the correct way to think.

Steady, that seems like a statement of the sloth or the egotist — neither of which describes you, from what I know — but it does suggest just a smidgeon of a belief in personal infallibility?

My Bible is written in english, a language I have been taught to understand.

C'mon Joe ... I would rather suggest that in learning the language we were given the basics of understanding, whereas to understand a particular art or science requires the further learning of more detailed knowledge ...

I think science would argue that because you can read means nothing more than you can read ... it does not assume that reading implies understanding, let alone religion.

... I would also argue that because one can read and understand English, that Sacred Scripture will reveal itself, utterly and entirely and in its every dimension, is a huge and erroneous assumption.

Try saying that to a poet, or the author of a technical manual!

A Brief History of Time, by Stephen Hawking, is one of those most-bought, least-read books in the English language. I was given it, and I actually read it, from cover to cover (probably because I've developed the discipline to continue reading impenetrable texts) ... but do I fully understand it? I gave up on Love in the Time of Cholera by Gabriel Garcia Marques three times, on the fourth it rapidly became my favourite novel above all.

Christ's dialogue with the Pharisees, who could read and understand their Sacred Scriptures, evidences otherwise — and he wrote the book!

I don't think one can claim that, without claiming personal infallibility.

Catholic doctrine accepts the fallibility of the individual as axiomatic — it has been my experience that many argue against the Doctrine of Infallibility when they don't really know what it means, or are bothered to find out, or accept they got it wrong even when you point out the misunderstanding ... and invariably end up arguing from the standpoint that their opinion is infallibly right, whatever the evidence might say to the contrary!

I continually argue and wrestle with that doctrine, as I do others ... as has been said elsewhere, Christianity is a challenge, but if you're going to take it on theology, then you'd better be ready for the process ... to me it seems like the tempering of a soul and the polishing of a stone, and sometimes the process is personally uncomfortable.

My experience of theology involves a dimension of moving beyond my comfort zones, mentally and spiritually ... but then (unlike everything else I've tried) the Church has never let me down, in fact quite the opposite, She is full of surprises!

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

When I was a kid, my mother cooked fish on Friday. I asked why. She said because it was a mortal sin to eat meat on Friday. I informed her that this was changed years ago. Now it is a Lenten custom. She answered that perhaps the Pope was wrong.

Actually your mother was wrong. It was never considered a mortal sin to break a fast.

Then it hit me that something like a mortal sin which must pertain to a sacred truth, cannot be a transient matter of custom.

Quite right. A mortal sin is considered mortal because it refuses the offer (and conditions therein) of salvation. Ergo if you make a decision that cuts you off from the source of life ...

How could anyone accept someone as infallible that could so easily accept transient mortal sins. This was just another validation for me avoiding taking the church seriously.

But that's not what is professed. No mortal sin is 'transient', but then, by the grace of God the outcome is not irrevocable. A mortal sin is an offence against God, that's why we consider it mortal — God does retain the option however to forgive whomsoever he chooses — this does not render the mortal sin itself transient, but rather points to the Lord's infinite depths of mercy.

In theory, a Pope would have acquired transcendent understanding.

Actually, the Church preaches otherwise. Infallibility rests on the Word of God, not the word of man, and God said He would be with his Church always and evil will not prevail against Her — what the soul is to the body, the Holy Spirit is to the Church.

Thomas