(Letsgofishing;27357)
Uh...Yeah you realize thatI am not a catholic , I believe in many catholic ideas, I believe in the eucharist( love the eucharist) , praying to the saints, the sinlessness of Mary,, ect. ect. ect.But I am not afraid to call the church wrong( and the teaching that they are the only church is wrong), and I am not foolish enough to believe that they are not wrong on some points. I am also not afraid to spout some of my very anti - catholic theories. I could call myself a catholic, but I will not take my catholic practices above my christianity and above christ.I am a christian, I will not blindly follow the teachings of a organization without proof.
I've tried to stay out of this thread since my innitial posts at the beginning. I thought the set up was pretty ingenious, but I don't need to get myself into more trouble here.
Also, I became confident that the people involved would defend their positions well enough.I must say, I agree with Letsgofishing here, at least partially. I don't agree with the Eucharist, but I certainly don't exclude the possibility. I know many protestants who have begun to believe in Gold Dust, and see it as feasible, all while arguing that the Eucharist is ridiculous.
I mostly agree with Catholicism, at least with many things. Perhaps I'm a little agnostic about certain doctrines such as the understanding of Satan given the fourth Lateran council, and the Kabbahlistic proposition, which seems much more promising as far as Theodicy is concerned. I also perhaps disagree with the communion of the saints, but that is because of how I imagine the whole dying business to work.However, I agree with the Catholic approach to scripture. Surely it is imperative to submit some level of faith in the Church in order to accept the Canon they construct as authoritative. If we do not accept their authority, then the Canon is equally in question.(goldy;27348)
This post makes me chuckle. This is not a knock on our dear friend Ryan, but a very large percentage of his views and theology are quite different from true Catholic teaching. Maybe that's why people on here like the guy so much.
hehe.. didn't work for me
I've made my position clear already; adhering to authority, once authority is established and recognized, is noble, religious, and righteous. I disagree that being accountable, and making our teachings accountable, to that authority, should mean to surrender our right to properly reason and question effectively. Many devout Catholics disagree about a great many things. That's just fine. However, where a Catholic finds themselves in serious disagreement with the Catechism, then they are not properly Catholic any longer.I don't mind coming in the face of convention for the sake of truth. However, I do mind the arrogance of proclaiming what one believes to be truth without subjecting it to open criticism and intellectual and philosophical inquiry.That said, I have found that time and again the Catholic Catechism contains reasonable and true doctrines. Internally coherent, and philosophically and intellectually defensible.May I propose the real question here is not the 'place and purpose' authority has for the Church, but rather what that authority is meant for, and ultimately who the office belongs to {or rather, how we can decide who it belongs to}.{lurks away again}