Why God may not be all powerful (1 Viewer)

[Joe OKC]

I will say I dont actually believe the bible to be anything more than a collection of allegorical tales meant to help us find our way,

Man is gonna makes mistakes...

Giza...

Joe

 

[Hoyasaint]

The Word is different from G-d. The Word comes from G-d. Doesn't turning the keys over to Peter then require G-d to point out who would be next to get the keys? One of the main themes that runs throughout the various versions of hte bible is the imperfection of man. So to assume that the Pope is the man who should now have the keys is either to a) Assume Peter and all those who have followed with 'the keys' are not infallible (which would equate them to G-d and further muddle the not so monotheistic approach the Catholic church has taken) or b) that Peter and the rest are indeed not perfect and that they have no business changing The Word, which is perfect.

Of course a great simplification, but it is a message board.

 

[CitySaint]

The Word is different from G-d. The Word comes from G-d. Doesn't turning the keys over to Peter then require G-d to point out who would be next to get the keys? One of the main themes that runs throughout the various versions of hte bible is the imperfection of man. So to assume that the Pope is the man who should now have the keys is either to a) Assume Peter and all those who have followed with 'the keys' are not infallible (which would equate them to G-d and further muddle the not so monotheistic approach the Catholic church has taken) or b) that Peter and the rest are indeed not perfect and that they have no business changing The Word, which is perfect.

Of course a great simplification, but it is a message board.

I think thats the whole point the church makes. If Jesus gave Peter the authority then it cannot be false because that would equate falsehood with God which is impossible. When Peter spoke with the authority Jesus gave him it is perfect and it would be impossible for it to be any other way.

 

[Saint Tex]

First of all, I'm not sure binding and loosing on earth and heaven translates into God deciding that truth was what Peter says it is.

Secondly, even if the translation is true, and God said what Peter holds true on earth, I will hold true in heaven, doesn't that just acknowledge that Peter can see the truth, like he did when he said Jesus is the Messiah? So God isn't telling Peter that he gets to change the truth. He's just acknowledging that when Peter sees the truth on earth, God will acknowledge that he's right--holding it to be the truth in heaven.

My question is--if the Pope gets to change the rules, what happened to all of the people who ate meat on Friday when it was still whatever kind of sin got you sent to hell? Are they still in hell, and the people who ate meat on Friday before and after it wasn't as bad a sin are in heaven?

 

[SaintsFan11]

I don't for a minute believe that the Pope has any more authority to speak for God than I do.

No offense, as far as I'm concerned the Pope does have more authority to speak for God than you do. I'm not a Catholic but the Pope has spent a lifetime studying the Christian faith and I would trust his opinion much more than yours. One can scoff at Catholic or Christian doctrine (whether from the viewpoint of a Protestant, Atheist or someone from another religious tradition) as much as one wants, but I don't think anyone can deny that the Pope is an intellectual heavywheight in matters of philosophy and theology.

It would be nice if one of the people more knowledgeable in Catholic teaching could wheigh in on the original poster's dilemma.

 

[jimwnola]

No offense, but I agree with whiteshadowen. The Pope may be well versed in theological doctrine but I don't see how that gives him anymore "authority" than anyone else.

These are the same people who bring us these words of wisdom, as to why women cannot be Preists:

"In the Church’s latest statement on this matter, Pope John Paul II, using his full authority as the successor of Peter, states categorically that the Church cannot — not will not, but cannot — ordain women, now or in the future. The Catechism of the Catholic Church sets it out clearly, quoting the decree Inter insigniores:

Only a baptized man (vir) receives sacred ordination. The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord Himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible."

 

[MSUSousaphone]

If you're going to argue something inside Catholic dogma, you have to view it in the context of a Catholic. Otherwise the argument IS flawed.

 

[SaintsFan11]

Not saying you're wrong, but what exactly is your theological basis for the ordination of women? What authority do you have to say he's wrong?

 

[jimwnola]

I can't even relate to any thought process that works along those lines. My idea of "God" and the world is so far removed from this type of analysis, it is a virtually impossible to quickly answer such a question. There are many implied premises behind such questions, that I'm not sure I accept.

It's like if you have someone gazing at the stars, contempating the unvierse, and trying to take it all in. He then makes a passing reference to his friend, "what do you think this all means?" The friend then takes out some sort of "rule book", turns to page 1123, looks up paragaph 4, section 2(a)(ii), spits out the written answer, and then looks at the person who asked the question like he was the idiot.

 

[ra]

Oh, God...
Ease our suffering in this,
our moment of great despair!
Admit this good and decent woman
into Thine arms and the flock...
...in Thine heavenly area up there.
And Moab he laideth down
behind the land of the Canaanites.
And, yea,
though the Hindus speak of karma...</pre>

 

[SaintsFan11]

I can't even relate to any thought process that works along those lines. My idea of "God" and the world is so far removed from this type of analysis, it is a virtually impossible to quickly answer such a question. There are many implied premises behind such questions, that I'm not sure I accept.

It's like if you have someone gazing at the stars, contempating the unvierse, and trying to take it all in. He then makes a passing reference to his friend, "what do you think this all means?" The friend then takes out some sort of "rule book", turns to page 1123, looks up paragaph 4, section 2(a)(ii), spits out the written answer, and then looks at the person who asked the question like he was the idiot.

What if we applied that to the Constitution? Say I don't believe in being able to speak out against the war and I looked at the Lincoln memorial contemplating what exactly the meaning of liberty and the American ideal was, and I just knew that the Framers would have no place for dissent against the war on terror. A Constitutional scholar might say, 'that's preposterous, it's clearly written in the Bill of Rights that we have a right to dissent.' BUT I don't believe in going back to rule books. I know that the Framers would never have wanted us to have the right to dissent if they knew what the modern world would look like and the grave threat we faced.

 

[jimwnola]

You are comparing interpreting manmade secular governemental rules with man's attempt to explain the world through religious doctrine.

The Chief Justice has the power to tell us what are government thinks "freedom" is because our society and governemnt gives him the power to do so. It doesn't mean what he says is the "truth." It may be "true" within the context of our government and our agreed upon societal standards, but it has no authority over any other government nor is there any basis to conclude that our "truth" is "the truth." Similarly, the Pope has no fundamental authority to conclude what the "truth" of the world is, but Catholics have every right to believe in every word he says. Catholics have every right to believe only men can "speak for the lord." From an outsider perspective, I find that so silly (and some other things), that I place little weight on any authority to speak beyond the context of his own religion.

 

[Superfan]

This is my god

I pray to:

 

[Dougd]

If you're going to argue something inside Catholic dogma, you have to view it in the context of a Catholic. Otherwise the argument IS flawed.

I think this is central to any Catholic argument.

Catholicism is its own unique world. It is a dividing point you either argue within or outside of.

The precise verses are
Matthew 16:13 - 19

Quot

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in Heaven. 18 And so I say unto you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
I think one could argue that the above lines apply to Peter alone and not the legacy of popes that followed. (Not a very Catholic belief)

 

[DCSaints_Fan]

Looks like he did a pretty good job with that whole Inquisition and wink wink nod nod during the WWII. If the keys were passed to the Pope, sounds like every now and then the inmates run the asylum.

Uh, what wink wink nod nod during WWII? Are you implying that the Church was somehow complicit or responsible for the crimes of the Nazis? If so consider this passage from William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

pp. 234-235

Scarcely four months later, on July 20th, the Nazi government concluded a concordat wit the Vatican in which it guaranteed the freedom of the Catholic religion and the right of the Church "to regulate her own affairs." This agreement, signed on behalf of Germany by Papen and of the Holy See by then Papal Secretary of State, Monsignor Pacelli, later Pope Pius XII, was hardly put to paper before it was being broken by the government. But coming as it did at a moment when the first excesses of the new regime in Germany had provoked world-wide revulsion, the concordat undoubtedly lent the Hitler government much badly needed prestige.

On July 2t, five days after the ratifcation of the concrdat, the German government promulgated a sterilization law, which particularly offended the Catholic Church. Five Days later the first steps were taken to dissovle the Catholic Youth League. Durign the next year thousands of Catholic priests, nuns and lay leaders were arrested, many on trumped up charges of "immorality" or of "smuggling foreign currency." Erich Klausener, leader of Catholic Action, was, as we have seen, murdered in the June 30, 1934 purge. Scores of Catholic publications went suppressed, and even the sanctity of the confessional was violated by Gestapo agents. By the spring of 1937 the Catholic hierarchy in Germany, which, like most of the Protestant clergy, had at first tried to cooperate with the regime, was throughouly disillusioned. On March 14, 1937, Pope Pius XI issued an encyclical, "Mit Brenneder Sorge" (With Burning Sorrow), charging the Nazi government with "evasion" and "violation" of the concordat and accusing it of sowing "the tares of suspicion, discort, hatred, calumny, of secret and open fundamental hostility to Christ and his Church." On the "horizon of Germany" the Pope saw "the threatening storm clouds of destructive religious wars... which have no other aim than ... of extermination."

p.648

The conspirators continued to maintain contact with the British. Having failed to take any action to prevent Hitler from destroying Poland, they had concentrated their efforts on trying to keep the war from spreading to the West ....

Several channels were used. One was developed through the Vatican by Dr. Josef Mueller, a leading Munich lawyer... Early in October, with the connivance of Colonel Oster of the Abwehr, Mueller had journeyed to Rome and at the VAtican had established contact with th eBritish minister to the Holy See. According to Germany sources, he suceeded in obtaining not only an assurance from the British but the agreement of th ePope to act as an intermediary between a new anti-Nazi German regime and Britian.

There you have it - resistance to the Nazi regime, well before even the British were doing anything. And Shirer, who was a protestant, had every reason to find dirt on the RCC.