This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Questions for a Catholic
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
That's still not inconsistent with what pezz is saying though.
Then what he said is not inconsistent what I said. So either his reply added nothing or he actually meant something other then what you think. Either way, my answer supports my original claim.
A lay person reading your original statement would probably have thought that prior to the Catholic Church being established, there were still chapels and church houses and so forth with ministers and priests speaking to crowds.
pezz is just clarifying a view that 'The Church' as mentioned prior to the establishment of the Catholic Church is simply a gathering of people to talk about Jesus. Your examples don't contradict that, but you didn't really talk about what The Church was prior to the establishment of the Catholic Church, so pezz did add something.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
A lay person reading your original statement would probably have thought that prior to the Catholic Church being established, there were still chapels and church houses and so forth with ministers and priests speaking to crowds.
Christianity was under persecution for much of it's first 300 year history, so of course there were no dedicated buildings. But buildings don't make a Church (there's a reason it's capitalized, and not lowercase like the building is). We see the first catacombs being employed in the 2nd century, and earlier than that people would give up their homes for the worship. But "ministers speaking to the crowds" was already happening with Jesus, and the Apostles started it right away after Pentecost. It was a coherent unit with rules (as young and evolving as they were) and a recognized leadership. That's the Church.
Your examples don't contradict that, but you didn't really talk about what The Church was prior to the establishment of the Catholic Church, so pezz did add something.
Because there is not "Church" before the "Catholic Church." At whatever point you can start calling it a Church, that's when the Catholic Church was founded.
Post by
Squishalot
Christianity was under persecution for much of it's first 300 year history, so of course there were no dedicated buildings. But buildings don't make a Church (there's a reason it's capitalized, and not lowercase like the building is). We see the first catacombs being employed in the 2nd century, and earlier than that people would give up their homes for the worship. But "ministers speaking to the crowds" was already happening with Jesus, and the Apostles started it right away after Pentecost. It was a coherent unit with rules (as young and evolving as they were) and a recognized leadership. That's the Church.
See, this would have made your initial response more complete.
Because there is not "Church" before the "Catholic Church."
4. It depends on what you mean by "Catholicism." "The Church" is mentioned quite a bit, and the Catholic Church
is what rose out of that
in the early First Century.
"The Church" that I was referring to was what you refer to as "The Church" that the "Catholic Church" rose out of.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
See, this would have made your initial response more complete.
Any answer I give has to assume a certain level of understanding, or I'd have to write an encyclopedia. There is no need to get into meta-discussions about what I could have said or the like. If something is unclear, sure ask for clarification, or if you disagree, say so.
"The Church" that I was referring to was what you refer to as "The Church" that the "Catholic Church" rose out of.
Yes, but the mentioning of it doesn't necessarily imply the founding if it: "...on this rock
I will
build my Church." It is from these ideas that rose the institution.
Post by
Squishalot
"The Church" that I was referring to was what you refer to as "The Church" that the "Catholic Church" rose out of.
Yes, but the mentioning of it doesn't necessarily imply the founding if it: "...on this rock
I will
build my Church." It is from these ideas that rose the institution.
Likewise, it doesn't deny the founding of it either. Hence, it's not inconsistent, but adding value by presenting a different view / interpretation.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Likewise, it doesn't deny the founding of it either.
To quote you, that's not inconsistent with what I said. The Church still rose out of that idea whether it was then, the next day, or 3 years later.
Post by
Squishalot
Likewise, it doesn't deny the founding of it either.
To quote you, that's not inconsistent with what I said. The Church still rose out of that idea whether it was then, the next day, or 3 years later.
I know. Again, it appears that pezz was attempting to clarify what occured prior to the rising of the Catholic Church, and thus, his statement added value despite not being inconsistent with you.
And here we are, arguing over a minor point hidden at the bottom of an innocuous post, as usual :) You're right - this really does deserve an achievement to read all this.
Post by
pezz
Your examples don't contradict that, but you didn't really talk about what The Church was prior to the establishment of the Catholic Church, so pezz did add something.
Because there is not "Church" before the "Catholic Church." At whatever point you can start calling it a Church, that's when the Catholic Church was founded.
Not true, if you're going to use a capital C in Catholic. The Catholic church has a specific hierarchy, a specific set of doctrines, and a specific set of customs. These were definitely not codified the moment the church started organizing.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Not true, if you're going to use a capital C in Catholic. The Catholic church has a specific hierarchy, a specific set of doctrines, and a specific set of customs. These were definitely not codified the moment the church started organizing.
The codified doctrines are not what define the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ to carry out his work until the second coming. The codified doctrines are means by which that work is carried out.
Post by
pezz
I don't think Jesus had a denomination in mind. Unless he did, the only thing that distinguishes the denominations theologically is doctrine and custom.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I don't think Jesus had a denomination in mind. Unless he did, the only thing that distinguishes the denominations theologically is doctrine and custom.
No he had his Church in mind. Over the 2000 years since it's founding, numerous groups have broken away from the Church, from the Marcionists in the early second century to the Sedevacantists just a couple decades ago.
Obviously anyone who isn't dissenting just for the sake of dissenting is going to think his Faith is the best one. The Catholic Church marks it's founding in the Bible, and traces it's history unbroken from then until the present day.
Post by
Squishalot
I don't think Jesus had a denomination in mind. Unless he did, the only thing that distinguishes the denominations theologically is doctrine and custom.
No he had his Church in mind. Over the 2000 years since it's founding, numerous groups have broken away from the Church, from the Marcionists in the early second century to the Sedevacantists just a couple decades ago.
Obviously anyone who isn't dissenting just for the sake of dissenting is going to think his Faith is the best one. The Catholic Church marks it's founding in the Bible, and traces it's history unbroken from then until the present day.
This, mind you, relies on the presumption that the existing Catholic Church is the only valid form of his Church. An Anglican or Protestant (or Mormon, for that matter) can similarly trace their history back as well. Perhaps Mormons less so.
White Anglo-Saxon males trace their history back to England. The fact that you had the American Civil War in between doesn't mean that they're no longer valid Anglo-Saxon males. The break off from the Catholic Church doesn't preclude the Anglican Church from claiming a lineage back to the founding of the Church in the Bible.
Post by
Monday
Perhaps Mormons less so.
We don't trace our history all the way back, but we believe that we're the true Church, as we believe the Catholic Church has lost many precious truths (and any sort of Protestant church is wrong, being formed of man, not God).
Honestly, there are only two Churches that can be true, mine and the Catholic Church. Ours was a rebirth ordered from God himself, obviously making us the true Church. However, if Joseph Smith was incorrect, then the Catholic Church, being the branch dating back to the time of Christ, is the only other option.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
This, mind you, relies on the presumption that the existing Catholic Church is the only valid form of his Church.
Except that's not how even we look at it. Imagine a bunch of overlapping circles. We believe we're the Church that most encompasses the Truth, and the various other Faiths have lost varying amounts of that Truth. So it would be more valid to say we believe the Catholic Church to be the
most
valid.
White Anglo-Saxon males trace their history back to England. The fact that you had the American Civil War in between doesn't mean that they're no longer valid Anglo-Saxon males. The break off from the Catholic Church doesn't preclude the Anglican Church from claiming a lineage back to the founding of the Church in the Bible.
Races can't be founded, religions can. So your analogy doesn't really work.
Post by
Squishalot
Hm, I never replied to this, but I don't recall what my train of thought was, so I'll have to let it drop.
Hyper, just wanted your view on a debate I'm having with a couple of friends:
1. Marriage (as defined by Christianity) is the union between a man and a woman under God.
2. Marriage (as defined by secular laws in most countries/states) is the union between a man and a woman.
The PM of Australia recently came out (not that way) and said that her government would support a change to marriage laws to allow homosexual couples marital recognition.
This resulted in a couple of Christian friends of mine denouncing the proposed change, suggesting that 'marriage', by definition, is between a man and a woman under God, and it wasn't the Government's place to infringe on religious freedoms. (Not paraphrasing, this is almost word-for-word verbatim.)
So, a couple of questions I'd like to hear your thoughts on:
1) Do you think that the common definition of 'marriage' amongst non-religious people is "union between a man and a woman under God"? (this was a proposition put forward)
2) Do you have any issues with a Government legislating on secular marriage, in contrast to religious marriage? (i.e. that they can call a civil union 'marriage', even if it won't be recognised by the Church)
3) If the answer to (2) is 'no', can you see any reasonable justification to oppose a change to what is essentially a secular law on religious grounds?
I'm just trying to work out if I'm missing something around what their views are, or whether they're not thinking through it logically.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
This resulted in a couple of Christian friends of mine denouncing the proposed change, suggesting that 'marriage', by definition, is between a man and a woman under God, and it wasn't the Government's place to
infringe on religious freedoms
.
I'll start off by saying that it's pretty crazy to call gays being allowed to marry an infringement of your religious freedoms. What ever your opinion, what they are allowed to do or not do is not a matter of your freedoms, it's a matter of theirs. Unless your friends are indeed saying that allowing them (the gays) to marry infringes on their (the gays') rights -- in which case, I don't think they understand what a right is.
Now, that aside...
1) Do you think that the common definition of 'marriage' amongst non-religious people is "union between a man and a woman under God"? (this was a proposition put forward)
I don't know how people define it. I'd very much doubt that very many even relate it to God anymore, and it seems an ever decreasing amount define it as between a man and a woman. I would say that if it is the case that they define it differently, then they are talking about something radically different than I (or religious people) am
2) Do you have any issues with a Government legislating on secular marriage, in contrast to religious marriage? (i.e. that they can call a civil union 'marriage', even if it won't be recognised by the Church)
3) If the answer to (2) is 'no', can you see any reasonable justification to oppose a change to what is essentially a secular law on religious grounds?
I've made this point several times here, but I'll make it again. I don't think the government has any business in marrying people (under any real definition of the word). The government can and should back up any contracts between 2 or more people. Now every marriage would contain some sort of contract (at the very lest to protect a possible child), but anything that is beyond that is baggage carried over from the previous understanding of marriage.
So in essence, I don't have a problem with the ultimate end of this movement towards sexual freedom. I just disagree with the method and semantics of it.
As a caveat,
These views are heavily influenced by my political leanings, and are not the views of most Catholics or Christians. All Catholics would agree that homosexual acts are immoral, but not everyone agrees on the government's role in the regulation of morality.
Post by
Squishalot
I'll start off by saying that it's pretty crazy to call gays being allowed to marry an infringement of your religious freedoms. What ever your opinion, what they are allowed to do or not do is not a matter of your freedoms, it's a matter of theirs. Unless your friends are indeed saying that allowing them (the gays) to marry infringes on their (the gay's) rights -- in which case, I don't think they understand what a right is.
Good then, I'm not going completely insane.
I don't know how people define it. I'd very much doubt that very many even relate it to God anymore, and it seems an ever decreasing amount define it as between a man and a woman. I would say that if it is the case that they define it differently, then they are talking about something radically different than I (or religious people) are.
Define it differently to what was proposed, in the 'united under God' sense? Fair enough.
I don't think the government has any business in marrying people (under any real definition of the word).
Yes, I did forget your view on that. That was silly of me.
So in essence, I don't have a problem with the ultimate end of this movement towards sexual freedom. I just disagree with the method and semantics of it.
But specifically, that's a pre-existing issue with the method and semantics of secular marriage in the first instance, not necessarily a change from secular marriage being solely for hetero couples but to homosexual couples, am I correct in understanding?
These views are heavily influenced by my political leanings, and are not the views of most Catholics or Christians. All Catholics would agree that homosexual acts are immoral, but not everyone agrees on the government's role in the regulation of morality.
Of course. But a reasonable caveat for future readers who may not understand your political leanings.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
But specifically, that's a pre-existing issue with the method and semantics of secular marriage in the first instance, not necessarily a change from secular marriage being solely for hetero couples but to homosexual couples, am I correct in understanding?
Yeah, more or less. Methodologically I don't think we should have to ask the government if we can get married (regardless of whether they let everyone do it, it's still something they should not have authority over), and semantically I don't think what they should be doing should be called marriage because it would be nothing more than a simple contract and it needs to lose all that extra religious baggage.
Post by
Squishalot
and semantically I don't think what they should be doing should be called marriage because it would be nothing more than a simple contract and it needs to lose all that extra religious baggage.
This bit is notable. The religious baggage comes from the Church. I understood your viewpoint to be that even the secular 'civil union' isn't something the government should be regulating, and so, there isn't any religious baggage in this regard.
What the government regulates as 'marriage' is essentially a case of "register your contract with us for perks". Noting that while the government shouldn't have authority over whether you can or not, if they want to provide perks to those who are in such family contracts (e.g. be it married, de facto, etc.), it's reasonable for them to require you to register your family contract in order to receive benefits. Much like having to register for any other kind of welfare before you get paid it.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
It does carry a lot of religious baggage: gays can't get married, polygamy is illegal, sibling marriage is illegal. If it really were just a simple contract for the distribution and management of wealth and benefits, then there should be no laws like that.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.