As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Catholicism and the Vatican
Tarranon
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Because it's brewing up in the new thread and I actually want to hash this out without dragging it off topic.
I am having difficulty seeing this as anything other than special pleading. A fundamental part of the catholic church is its hierarchy and the way they interpret scripture and set the traditions that eventually become the domga that you follow today. Everything supposedly not evil about the catholic church that you follow today? It's pretty much the result of these higher ups deciding on it based off of scripture, divine revelation, and tradition, followed by swiftly kicking the shit out of anyone that disagreed.
Catholicism is inseparable from its leadership, and I have no idea how you could believe that the Vatican is just some peripheral.
TubularLuggage wrote: »Atomic Ross wrote: »TubularLuggage wrote: »If the Vatican and the organization that is the Church dissolved tomorrow, Catholicism would still exist.
Then help me out. As an outsider, I see "Catholicism" as the fealty to and dogma of the Holy See. The approach to faith, divinity, and the Biblical word seems to be fairly well similarly represented in the myriad other denominations of Christendom.
Again, I don't expect someone who doesn't believe in any of this to understand. I'm not disillusion enough to think I'm going to convince anyone here of anything. Someone asked a basic question to any Catholics here and I answered.
I am having difficulty seeing this as anything other than special pleading. A fundamental part of the catholic church is its hierarchy and the way they interpret scripture and set the traditions that eventually become the domga that you follow today. Everything supposedly not evil about the catholic church that you follow today? It's pretty much the result of these higher ups deciding on it based off of scripture, divine revelation, and tradition, followed by swiftly kicking the shit out of anyone that disagreed.
Catholicism is inseparable from its leadership, and I have no idea how you could believe that the Vatican is just some peripheral.
You could be anywhere
On the black screen
On the black screen
Tarranon on
0
Posts
I don't think it's as nonsensical as it sounds, actually. In the last thread, one of the Catholics, rightly, acknowledged that Catholicism is essentially a cult (not in the pejorative sense—though of course, I have no love for cults). I don't think many cults would define themselves based on their temporal political hierarchy. I reckon most would say that hierarchy itself is like an expression of an underlying truth that defines the religion. This is handy, because it makes the cult seem mystical, and it also shields the temporal authority from any sort of accountability.
Imagine having this conversation with a scientologist. Would a scientologist say that the current incarnation of the cult's political authority—with the Sea orgs and whatnot—is necessary and sufficient for the cult's identity? I doubt it. That stuff could all disappear and scientology would remain—because it's a metaphysical truth. It's a truth that's revealed and expressed through the political hierarchy, but not defined by it necessarily.
But a huge portion of what differentiates catholicism from other catholic sects is its emphasis on universality, and this is derived from their leadership and their strict adherence to dogma.
I get what you are saying about the favorable conditions that keeping leadership peripheral to the church itself bestows, but catholics are pretty good at having their cake and eating it too. Their leadership is, theologically speaking, the closest thing to god on earth. But the second they start doing bad? Auto excommunication. So, church leaders are holy and integral parts of the church until they're not, essentially.
On the black screen
It's like playing D&D but making up a bunch of rules to replace parts of the ruleset you don't like. What you end up with might be awesome and fun, but you can't call it D&D any more.
All all that leads to this--for better or worse, as a Catholic you accept that the Pope is the direct spiritual successor to St. Peter. He IS the Church. Saying that the Catholic Church and the Pope are severable is nonsensical because they are the same thing.
Origin Handle - OminousBulge
XBox Live GT - TheOminousBulge
Whereas Protestant Yahweh basically came and went with Jesus and now all there is to do is accept what he left or burn in hell.
Catholicism isn't quite "progressive revelation" (as in Baha'i religion), but it's somewhere between that and the finality of Protestantism.
AFAIK there's a similar sort of metaphysical split in Islamic sects. The Shi'ites believe Allah still inspires/gives magic powers to the imams (though, interestingly, not so much anymore since the 13th one went into "occultation"); whereas the Sunnis are like the Protestants in that they think Muhammad was the end all be all.
That was kind of what I thought, though many in the other threads seem to want to argue otherwise. Which is fine, and I'd love to hear it, but without all the handwaving and assurances that as a non-Catholic, I wouldn't understand.
Basically, the conversation has so far gone:
"So, Catholicism and the Vatican are inseparable, right?"
"No. Catholicism would exist without the Vatican."
"Oh, really? How so?"
"Sorry, man. You wouldn't get it."
s'fine. It's kind of a cluster eff right now with both tangents going on in both threads.
On the black screen
Jesus didn't found any other Christian denomination. It's kind of a big deal. Joseph Smith or Martin Luther aren't quite in the same league. This is why the Vatican is central to the Catholic Church.
As a Catholic, this seems pretty straightforward to me. The organization was founded by Christ himself, it's a direct continuation of the original setup. The Church is holy, catholic (the word means universal) and apostolic. The Vatican is central to the Catholic Church because it prevents the religion from becoming some televangelist nonsense.
I can say, with 100% confidence, that if you were to publicly deny the infallibility and authority of the Pope as inherited from St. Peter, you would be excommunicated for heresy. It's about as non-Catholic a thing as you could possibly say.
My point is that in a province where the majority is catholic, you don't say "Amen" because the Pope said so. You say it because it has always been that way and your parents taught you to say it when you started participating in Church.
But, I doubt the Catholic Church would stay united long after this theoretical disappearance of the Holy See
Which I agree with, totally.
And that would seem to negate the "You can totally be Catholic without the Vatican" argument some are making.
With the exception of the episcopalians, protestant christian religions are pretty different from catholicism. There's a lot of tradition and ceremony that would be dropped, not to mention the community that one belongs to. I guess you could also count ethnic groups as well in a lot of cases. If you drop catholicism, you're not just dropping the hierarchy and the dogma.
Origin Handle - OminousBulge
XBox Live GT - TheOminousBulge
Origin Handle - OminousBulge
XBox Live GT - TheOminousBulge
Okay, and I can get down with this idea of religion-as-social-ritual, but I think my greater issue is concurrence of faith, as in, maintaining one's Catholic-ness while denouncing the acts of the Vatican and its officers.
Strictly speaking, a parishioner cannot denounce Catholicism. They can, however, be denounced by Catholic leadership. There's no room for interpretation outside of the See.
If you still desire the secular benefits of your former Catholic community and they are withheld from you due to your exile, you've dropped nothing.
They've dropped you.
Didn't somebody already mention the Episcopal Church? It's a whole denomination for people that still feel catholic.
I know it's not that simple, but I think it still makes a good example.
Origin Handle - OminousBulge
XBox Live GT - TheOminousBulge
The current Shi'ite authority structure involves Ayatollahs; if Iran were overthrown or became a secular state, though, there would probably still be Iranian Shi'ites.
You are underestimating the extent to which cults are able to sustain themselves.
Which still amounts to the same thing. You lose a lot.
Origin Handle - OminousBulge
XBox Live GT - TheOminousBulge
Rule #2 is that you can't talk about Church Fight Club.
The Catholic Church is defined in by the Pope and the rest of the Church structure like the Vatican. The fact that the religion might continue even if all the priests were brutally murdered does not mean it still wouldn't be defined by the Pope and the rest of the Church structure. For example, Shiites are defined by the final imam even if he has been dead for hundreds of years.
No, I'm just arguing a separate issue.
I have no doubt that if something befell the Vatican that Catholics would rally to replace it and find biblical precedent for doing so. I'm simply wondering (and honestly, doubting) that one can maintain their distinctly Catholic faith outside the precepts and accords of the Vatican should the See and mainstream Catholicism continue to exist.
Or, to sum up, if there is exclusive criteria for group membership, one cannot fail those criteria and still claim membership.
What exactly is the point of asking Catholics to renounce their faith along with their allegiance to the political structure of their faith?
If you're going to go that route, it doesn't make sense to me to say "you should be a Protestant." I mean, it's not like Protestantism makes any more sense than Catholicism. The lack of a political structure in Protestant denominations doesn't really change the fact that, you know, the Bible is largely Mesopotamian mythology and Jesus did not actually rise from the dead.
It's a minor quibble, but ... I prefer to be direct in my attempts to deconvert people.
While the end result may be similar, the semantic difference between self-exile and external ostracization is gargantuan.
:^:
I do like honesty...
Origin Handle - OminousBulge
XBox Live GT - TheOminousBulge
That's "how" they can, and I imagine it's what Tubular meant when he said you wouldn't understand.
Though of course, as you note, there are ways to rationalize it.
My grandmother does not need the Pope to pray to Ste-Anne so that nothing bad will happen to her grandchildren. A Pope decided that Anne became a saint, sure. But now that she is one, my grandmother pretty much decided by herself to pray that specific saint. She will continue to do so even if the Vatican is crushed under a big asteroid.
Most Catholics I know really don't care that much about the theological foundation of their own religion. Religion as a mainstream cultural phenomenon is way more important, in my opinion.
Edit : What Qingu said...
And I'm sure losing all that is entirely ok so long as you're right.
Origin Handle - OminousBulge
XBox Live GT - TheOminousBulge
Well, that's the thing. Most any Protestant can change their political alliance without changing the core tenets of their faith. My parents and my mother's parents were both raised devoutly Southern Baptist, but converting to the more laid-back and cerebral Methodism was simply a matter of choice and driving to a different church on Sundays.
But Catholicism doesn't seem to offer this, according to what those here are saying. "Catholicism" may as well be equal to "Christian" in this discourse, ergo renouncing the leadership that defines the Church's existence is tantamount to disavowal of the entirety of Catholicism.
Except when apparently it's not, but I've yet to get a good response on that point.
Origin Handle - OminousBulge
XBox Live GT - TheOminousBulge
Hmmm. While I agree in principle, at this point any shift away from the political structure is a positive, as each defection lessens the Church's power, which they've systematically abused. And while I'd love to see the atheist population grow, it seems like convincing a faithful Catholic into essentially similar beliefs they had previously (minus the institution of the Catholic Church) would be easier than trying to push them all the way into atheism. I mean, my first aim would be to get people out of Catholicism - any Christian church that doesn't rape kids is an improvement at this point, even *shudder* megachurches. Anyone who later becomes an atheist is just a bonus.
I guess what you said would also be absurd, but it's like adding a zero to a nonillion.
Edit: I didn't even include the stuff about saints. Do Catholics actually believe Saint George fought a real dragon or is that interpreted like a metaphor now?
Off topic, but...
If you're going purely by scientific fact, and hard evidence, you can't conclude that God doesn't exist. You can conclude that, in your view, it's highly unlikely, but it can't be disproven. I've never understood when some people claim that they need hard evidence, then turn around and conclude that it definitely didn't happen. It seems contradictory.
Pony made a post not too long ago that says this better than I probably will, on the topic of Atheists trying to convert people, vs Theists trying to do convert people.
With a Theist, whether or not you agree with their faith, their motivation is typically positive, at least to them. They've found something that brings them joy and happiness, and they want to share it. You can disagree with their beliefs, but they truly believe they're doing something nice for you.
When an Atheist tries to convert someone, they're trying to take away something that has made someone happy, and has given them spiritual contentment. It seems like nothing but a dick move to try and deprive them of that.
I know you personally will never change your view on that, and ultimately, you're completely entitled to that view. Also, this is probably best left for another discussion.
For a Catholic in a country where Catholicism is mainstream and the biggest religion, the Pope isn't what make them Catholic. It's their birth, their family and their faith.
If you ask a kid in Quebec about the importance of the pope, he will probably say that the pope is the leader of the Christians. We don't really learn what is protestantism before a while, and it is kind of shocking when you learn that some people don't "follow" the Pope.
I've made my break, forsaking the vast social network and privilege that staying in the faith would have brought me. So yes, being honest and truthful is better than living a lie to get the benefits that are awarded for irrational groupthink, even at the cost of being forsaken.
But that's not Catholicism in any form. It's culture. By that argument, I can become Hispanic by learning Spanish and enjoying tamales.
And I can speak Spanish, and tamales are fucking awesome. So I guess I'm Hispanic.
And I know this sounds a little combative, which I apologize for. It's not my intent.
edit: wow, Luggage, that's some pretty offensive shit right there. I've seen religion make people unhappy and personally atheism has improved my life immensely and I feel it can do the same for others.
But yeah, probably not the thread.
Also, when I try to convert a gay Catholic away from his religion who's miserable because it teaches him he's a terrible, sinful person and he should never be who he is
it's not because I get my jollies off taking people's toys away.