What If Churches Ask for More and No One Says Yes? (Catholic, Commandments)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, but why was the law suddenly changed? If there was nothing intrinsically immoral about the law then why was it a mortal sin to break it? Why is telling a lie venial while having a hamburger at a Friday night ballgame can send you to hell forever? Only because the Catholic hierarchy has the power to arbitrarily assign whatever acts they choose to either category based on a whim? Now if your answer to those questions is, "Yes, they can damn well say whatever the hell they want is mortal or venial. They can say walking on church grass is a mortal sin if they choose and it's a mortal sin because Jesus gave that power to St.Peter to loosen whatever the hell he felt like loosening" then I'm afraid you're exactly right, this kind of a point cannot be discussed because it is a dogma and dogma cannot be discussed. It is firm. There is no compromising on it, it is as firm and unmovable as the Great Pyramid. Therefore I am incapable of answering your question, Mike.
The Catholic Faith is a religion of authority and obedience.
The sin of disobedience is very serious. The Church has authority over her members just as a parent has authority over his children.
If a parent makes arbitrary or seemingly pointless rules for his children to follow, the children are still bound to follow in obedience in everything but sin.
If the Church makes arbitrary or seemingly pointless rules, the faithful are still duty-bound to obey.
There is virtue to be learned in willful obedience, especially when obedience is difficult or seems pointless.
The Catholic Faith is a religion of authority and obedience.
The sin of disobedience is very serious. The Church has authority over her members just as a parent has authority over his children.
If a parent makes arbitrary or seemingly pointless rules for his children to follow, the children are still bound to follow in obedience in everything but sin.
If the Church makes arbitrary or seemingly pointless rules, the faithful are still duty-bound to obey.
There is virtue to be learned in willful obedience, especially when obedience is difficult or seems pointless.
Self-appointed authority will have its spiritual consequences for those who assume that mantel of authority, IMO. The virtue of following pointless rules is non-existent for children or adults even though the self-discipline involved is meritorious in itself.
The Catholic Faith is a religion of authority and obedience.
The sin of disobedience is very serious. The Church has authority over her members just as a parent has authority over his children.
If a parent makes arbitrary or seemingly pointless rules for his children to follow, the children are still bound to follow in obedience in everything but sin.
If the Church makes arbitrary or seemingly pointless rules, the faithful are still duty-bound to obey.
There is virtue to be learned in willful obedience, especially when obedience is difficult or seems pointless.
Again, I say you are completely right. If the Church claims it has authority given to them by Jesus to say whatever act they want, even licking a vanilla ice cream cone on Sunday is a mortal sin then the onus falls on the shoulders of people to either meekly submit to their capricious whims on fear of going to some imaginary fiery inferno in the netherworld OR just standing up and saying, "You know what, none of this crap makes the slightest bit of sense to the rational mind so I'm going to tell the church authorities to just stuff it and begin living the only life I'm ever going to get the way I want to, not the way this body of dried up impotent old codgers commands me to."
That's called Freedom from Religious Tyranny, Mike. It what our forefathers came to America and fought and died for.
Self-appointed authority will have its spiritual consequences for those who assume that mantel of authority, IMO. The virtue of following pointless rules is non-existent for children or adults even though the self-discipline involved is meritorious in itself.
As you ought to know, we don't believe that legitimate spiritual authority is "self-appointed".
Again, I say you are completely right. If the Church claims it has authority given to them by Jesus to say whatever act they want, even licking a vanilla ice cream cone on Sunday is a mortal sin then the onus falls on the shoulders of people to either meekly submit to their capricious whims on fear of going to some imaginary fiery inferno in the netherworld OR just standing up and saying, "You know what, none of this crap makes the slightest bit of sense to the rational mind so I'm going to tell the church authorities to just stuff it and begin living the only life I'm ever going to get the way I want to, not the way this body of dried up impotent old codgers commands me to."
That's called Freedom from Religious Tyranny, Mike.
I have never found the laws of the Church to be unreasonable, much less "tyrannical".
But if merely spending an hour or so at church every Sunday is just a bridge too far for you, then live it up I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
It what our forefathers came to America and fought and died for.
Indeed. The USA was founded on explicitly anti-Catholic principles.
The Catholic Faith is a religion of authority and obedience.
The sin of disobedience is very serious. The Church has authority over her members just as a parent has authority over his children.
If a parent makes arbitrary or seemingly pointless rules for his children to follow, the children are still bound to follow in obedience in everything but sin.
If the Church makes arbitrary or seemingly pointless rules, the faithful are still duty-bound to obey.
There is virtue to be learned in willful obedience, especially when obedience is difficult or seems pointless.
"The church has authority over her members" IF members accept that authority.
The number of catholics may increase or decrease due to various factors, but the level of "obedience" in the catholic church has paled in comparison to what it was 'in the old days'.
I have never found the laws of the Church to be unreasonable, much less "tyrannical".
But if merely spending an hour or so at church every Sunday is just a bridge too far for you, then live it up I guess.
Indeed. The USA was founded on explicitly anti-Catholic principles.
Apparently the 6,000 catholic priests accused of sexual abuse in the United States didn't feel that the authority of the church mattered much (and that's only those who were formally accused).
As far as that "hour or so at church every Sunday" is a bridge too far, hence the closing of many catholic churches, hence the decrease number of Catholic priests in the U.S. (down "by more than half over the last five decades"), hence the many empty pews during mass, hence the decrease in the number of hours many catholic churches have confession each week, hence the number of catholics who simply live life their way.
I have never found the laws of the Church to be unreasonable, much less "tyrannical".
But if merely spending an hour or so at church every Sunday is just a bridge too far for you, then live it up I guess.
Indeed. The USA was founded on explicitly anti-Catholic principles.
The United States was founded on the principles of The Enlightenment, the rejection of a monarchy, and freedom of religion. Unless you think the Enlightenment is anti-Catholic, your argument is ridiculous.
If you want to look a few years later to the adoption of the Constitution, some other models were used, including the Constitution of the Illinois Confederacy and Anderson's Constitutions, but neither of those are anti-Catholic.
The United States was founded on the principles of The Enlightenment, the rejection of a monarchy, and freedom of religion. Unless you think the Enlightenment is anti-Catholic, your argument is ridiculous.
If you want to look a few years later to the adoption of the Constitution, some other models were used, including the Constitution of the Illinois Confederacy and Anderson's Constitutions, but neither of those are anti-Catholic.
Actually -- to a degree -- I would agree with him that the United States was founded on anti-catholic principles. We were taught, through centuries, to "pledge allegiance to the United States Of America", as opposed to having a church that had its fingers all over kings and queens and prime ministers and meddled in, and tried to control, the affairs of state.
The United States was founded on the principles of The Enlightenment, the rejection of a monarchy, and freedom of religion. Unless you think the Enlightenment is anti-Catholic, your argument is ridiculous.
Of course the Enlightenment was anti-Catholic, as are the [on principle] rejection of monarchy and freedom of religion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
