It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
No problem, friend.
If they misrepresent Church teaching they would potentilaly be defrocked. Its also an article of faith, that someone of honest faith cannot be led astray by the Church.
If a priest by some chance was preaching heresy, the Holy Spirit would ensure the faithful were not misled.
Its understood that Christ is present in the sacraments. The priest has sacramental authority to articulate Church teaching.
But I don't expect you to take my word for it. Probably better to enquire with some actual priests and get a sense of what they are all about and how they articulate and apply Church teaching as it relates to not only their congregation but also those that come calling.
Thats an honest question, but you'd have to be present at the time and of the congregation to know what was being taught and in what context.
A real Christian Church implores upon Christ to guide its teachings. If the protestations are genuine, Christ will work thru the Church. The honest prayers of the faithful keep the Church real.
Put it this way, a person of honest faith who prayed for guidance in such matters would be given the enlightenment they needed.
They might get it from the pulpit. Revelation might manifest elsewhere.
I can only really speak competently from a Catholic perspective and what is in the Chatechism, which is Church teaching spelled out. The Priest attempts to apply Church teaching to the flock and the realities of their times.
Church teaching by definition is infallible. It comes with a divine stamp. Its timeless. It doesn't change. Eternal truths remain just that eternal.
What is perfectly fallible is church policy. The Medici popes were hopelessly corrupt, but they never preached heresy. By the grace of the Holy Spirit it was impossible. The Church by definition cannot mislead the faithful in matters of faith and morals. Christ speaks thru the Church.
As individuals though, how the Medici Popes managed worldly Church affairs was highly questionable.
How Bishops might deal with the political and societal challenges of their times might be highly questionable too.
Pope John Paul II declared the Iraq War to be an unjust war when it launched. But this pronouncment was not infallible, as it was only the Church asserting its influence in World Affairs.
Its not actual teaching. It was policy articulated to address the reality of the times.
The faithful may debate its merits and do.
Personally I tend to defer to the Pope in such matters as I trust his frame of reference, as I would the current local Bishop.
Some priests I will tune out as I don't find their worldly outlook terribly inspiring, but I do as a matter of faith defer to their sacramental authority to dispense the sacraments of the Church, and they are perfectly competent to articulate actual church teaching (they all attend seminary for minimum 4 years) even if by some chance their own personal lives might be less than holy.
Priests are perfectly human but they are charged with articulating church teaching. If a person of honest faith approaches, the Holy Spirit will ensure that the Priest provide spiritual guidance required. Otherwise the Holy Spirit would not allow the Priest to be active in such capacity.
The strength of the Church and its capacity to do the divine will, really rests with the faith of its members, including the clergy, and their efforts to be vessels of the divine will. Participation in the Sacraments by definition increases one's capacity. Priest facilitiate the dispensation of the sacraments.
I told you you don't know what you're talking about and if from that you can't see that answers your question then take it however you want to take it. This thread needs to stay on topic.
Imho, that's the problem @timmer. Not everyone does, and some (including so called teachers of it) conveniently misinterpret it for their own purposes.
The article of faith as you say, that someone cannot be led astray by the Church, is something I question however. I personally believe it's not a matter of faith, but one should rely on their intellect, common sense, and most importantly, conscience (the little god in us all) to determine if someone is preaching heresy (if that was in fact the case for instance) or not.
We all have a conscience for a reason. People should rely on it more and they would intuitively know what is right and what is wrong - and not be led astray by anyone
I do know what I am talking about, by the way.
But this is beside the point. I don't care what a Christian may consider sinful or not. A southern Baptist may think he sins if he swears when drunk but might think it's ok to segregate or to own slaves or what have you. Christian notion of sins vary from denomination to denomination, sometimes from individual to individual. And feeling bad about one action you consider sinful does not mean the action you consider virtuous are even remotely moral. One of the reasons why I reject the notion of sin: it is not intrinsically a moral notion and can sometimes be amoral.
To get back on topic I have no idea and don't care what the murderer or a racist pastor considers sinful. What matters are the actions and the ideology they defend.
I'm telling you you don't know what you're talking about and for you to make the initial comment you made, you're a perfect example of the same people who claim to be of a particular faith and have completely misinterpreted or just couldnt comprehend the text they supposedly read. I have a masters degree in theology and studied the texts of many holy books, scrolls and scriptures and have no interest in discussing the topic of religion on an Internet forum, particularly with people who have an illinformed view of the subject matter they think they know but don't. If you want to discuss this further with others send them a pm but I don't want this derailment to continue within the thread. As I keep saying this thread needs to stay on topic.
But if one truly seeks the divine will one will come to the revelation of divine truth and all that implies. Morality is not relative. One will understand the nature of sin and eternal divine truths.
You would not question though if you had gone through a process that caused you to see the Church and its sacraments as manifestations of the divine will ie that Christ was present in the sacraments. The Priest has sacramental competence ( to use legal lingo) to articulate Church teaching. He cannot mislead on actual Church teaching, but he could very well give lousy advice, but still its an article of faith that the Holy Spirit is present in such consultations. If a person of honest faith seeks out spiritual guidance from a priest, the Holy Spirit is present guiding the discussion. Otherwise whats the point. Might as well consult the local bartender.
The Catholic theoglogy of conscience btw is that God speaks to us via our consciences. The divine will has been accessible to every ensouled human that ever lived.
The saving grace of Christ is timeless. It applies equally to those who walked the earth before Christ manifested as Jesus.
We wrestle with our conscience on a daily basis.
@timmer I am not a Catholic, however, I agree with the above point (that our conscience is our true access to a higher power). I felt it from an early age, and I articulated it at an early age. Some were taken aback that I said that when I did (under 10) but it's just something I've known. I don't see myself as a religious person, so I don't like to use the word 'God', but I believe that we all have it in us to be good, and bad. We have to find it within ourselves constantly to stay on the good side of our nature, because the bad side is always appealing to us, like a Jekyll & Hyde sort of thing. Whether one does that by finding God or by appealing to one's conscience and good nature (which one can consider godliness I suppose) through introspection and meditation does not matter to me.
Regarding your points about Priests having sacramental competences to articulate Church teaching, I don't disagree with that. Of course they do. However, for years, certain pastors (particularly in the US) have articulated a less than forgiving viewpoint on homosexuality for instance. I am not a religious person, but even I know that's wrong. It goes to your point above about people giving 'lousy advice' (again a characteristic of man-kind).
That's why I don't embrace religion (although I don't reject it outright either)......because I think it really has to do with the individual and not what denomination he/she belongs to or even how well read he/she is on scripture or teaching in his/her church.
We have to resist our temptation to do bad every day. Religion can guide us. It can facilitate our divination if you will, but it must be understood in its context. Ultimately, it's our (very personal) journey and it's up to us.....
We can know God if we seek God. It really is that simple.
But not every one does but so what.
Even so our job is to live and be productive in the world and put our talents to use ideally for the greater good. That's what I think, no matter what you might come to believe.
Regarding sexual morality I don't find the subject that interesting.
From a Catholic perspective no-one is comdemned for "doing sex"
The Church rather, teaches that all sexual acts outside of sacramental marriage involve a questionable morality.
I think anyone that has experience with sex, might agree that kind of goes without saying, even the homosexual, but I don't know.
Its an icky topic. We muddle through and if one's sex life is causing one problems or others problems, then maybe you clean it up.
Maybe it leads to a revelation. Who knows.
And even getting married doesn't change things much. The wife could get hit by a bus, or cheat on you, presenting another moral quandry.
We all have to deal with questions of sexual morality as we understand or experience it.
I understand you speak from a Catholic perspective (who are not consider Christians by many Christian sects, for grosso modo similar reasons you do not consider a racist pastor Christian: they think they are righteous before the Law, etc.). I do not reject the notion of God: I don't think there is one. Now there may be one, and I am ready to change my position on this specific matter if you or anybody else can prove me otherwise. But I do reject the notion of sin, whether there is a God or not, or rather sin as defined by religion(s). I do not consider consensual sex between adults to be wrong. Even if they are not married. I do think owning another human being as property or using violence or intimidation against another just because of what he is (gay, Black, what have you) is wrong. No matter what a priest, pastor or religious person may say, or whatever God would decree if he existed.
I try to get back on topic: what happened was not evil because it was sinful, it was evil because it was inhuman, violent, oppressive, hateful, etc. God is as far as I am concerned an irrelevance. But what his believers say is relevant, whether they were the victims or the "accomplices" (I am using the word accomplice broadly, what I mean is that this man did not kill in a vacuum). He murdered the members of a peaceful Christian community, but he did not murder them because they were Christians (whatever Rick Santorum said). He did because they were black. The Council of Conservative Citizens which inspired the murderer are Christians. Backward, obscurantist ones, but nevertheless they are Christians. And I don't see anything dishonest about acknowledging it.
Let me just say that I agree.
We'd probably be better off just removing this thread instead.
And there is also the possibility of martyrdom. I don't want him to become a martyr and thus an inspiration to white supremacists.
Also sending one racist to his death is sweeping things under the rug. Until next time.
Also, guns are but one part of this issue.
This individual is not alone. There are others like him. Where he gets his warped values from, who feeds them, who encourages them, and who tolerates them are as much an issue. Those sources must be found and rooted out. If they are funded in any way by the taxpayer, it must stop.
There are many who share his attitudes and values. They just don't go about doing the killing. They poison the minds of people like this however.
As with the CH attacks, it's a fine line between free speech and hate speech.
Indeed.
Treading over the same old tedious religious and racial ground is not going to achieve anything and we already have the CH thread if people want to carrying on flogging those particular wearisome horses.
The more intriguing aspect of this case for me is how it highlights America's fundamentalist devotion to the right to carry a gun.
Watching Obama's speech after the shooting you could feel his exasperation that he can literally do nothing because the house would never pass anything approaching a law on banning guns. I feel truly sorry for those sane, intelligent Americans who merely desire to life in a safe and civilised country but are held back by a majority of morons bereft of any reason.
Until someone has the courage to take the bull by the horns and actually come out and say 'the USA should ban guns' (and why not you Obama? Your 2nd term is nearly up Barrack why not leave a true legacy and publicly state what you clearly believe. Re-election is not an issue for you) then we will continue to see this every couple of months or so. The tragedy is that practically no one seems to think that the question of gun control is even worthy of debate.
Obviously it's never going to happen in my lifetime. Just like religion it's a blight that may be eradicated one day when education and reason have penetrated even the darkest recesses of delusion and fear but that's not going to happen anytime soon.
It's a shame. America is a damn fine country but populated by some serious imbeciles. So much for democracy. When the majority are idiots where does that leave the system of 'one Man one vote'?
http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/tally-of-attacks-in-us-challenges-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html?_r=0
The following quote is telling:
"William Braniff, the executive director of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland, said the outsize fear of jihadist violence reflected memories of Sept. 11, the daunting scale of sectarian conflict overseas and wariness of a strain of Islam that seems alien to many Americans.
We understand white supremacists,” he said. “We don’t really feel like we understand Al Qaeda, which seems too complex and foreign to grasp.”
I disagree with you as it is far easier to look outside and lay any blame there than looking in the mirror at yourself and seek out the problems with yourself. According to influential US senators an judges racism is no longer a problem. They clearly have not read any decent paper recently or missed all news coverage.
The one outside of the US is spend so much money on that is an economical crippling enterprise, if they spend half of the money on their own local troubles the US would be faring much better at home.
It is easier to blame the outside instead of looking inside that is the bloody difference. And in a big sense those ridiculous wars waged in the middle east are mostly responsible for the Resurrection of the IS terrorism. So in a sense the US is also responsible for its own current Islamic threat.
The other one has been 'brushed under the carpet' and is being covered up, while it continues to build like a pus-filled boil.