Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature
Free Software's surprising sympathy with Catholic doctrine
By Marco Fioretti
on
November 11, 2005 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
"The technological configuration underlying the Internet has a considerable bearing on its ethical aspects. Use of the new information technology and the Internet needs to be informed and guided by a resolute commitment to the practice of solidarity in the service of the common good. The Internet requires international cooperation in setting standards and establishing mechanisms to promote and protect [that common good]. Individuals, groups, and nations must have access to these new technologies. Cyberspace ought to be a resource of comprehensive information and services available without charge to all, and in a wide range of languages. The winner in this process will be humanity as a whole and not just a wealthy elite that controls science, technology, and the planet's resources. Determined action in the private and public sectors is needed to close and eventually eliminate the digital divide."
The above statements sound as if they could have been written by Richard M. Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation (FSF). In fact, they come from the Vatican Report "Ethics in Internet" (EiI). The FSF position on the same issues is that society "needs information that is truly available to its citizens -- for example, programs that people can read, fix, adapt, and improve, not just operate."
Affinities between Catholic doctrine and Free Software
Technically (and ethically) speaking, Free Software, regardless of its price, can be freely modified and shared, and is free from per-seat costs, royalties, patents, and similar restrictions. The same definition can be applied to file formats and communication protocols. The term Free (with uppercase F) here indicates software and standards available under these conditions. In recent decades, the Catholic Church has published several documents that clearly match this approach to information technology. Here are some examples.
For the purposes of this article, we can regard software programs as a category of machinery. The 1967 Encyclical of Pope Paul VI on the development of peoples "Populorum Progressio" said, "Unless the existing machinery is modified, the disparity between rich and poor nations will increase rather than diminish."
Then in 1971, the Pastoral Instruction "Communio et Progressio" (CeP) on the means of social communication stated:
With the right to be informed goes the duty to seek information. Information does not simply occur; it has to be sought. On the other hand, in order to get it, the man who wants information must have access to the varied means of social communication.
Consequently, the Catholic Church should not use proprietary file formats and computer protocols, since they can become a way to prevent access to information, restrict it or lock end users to any specific (maybe too expensive) software program.
This is very similar to Stallman's request to put an end to proprietary email attachments.
This right to information is inseparable from freedom of communication.
When it comes to computer-based communication, this can be only guaranteed with Free formats and protocols. It also implies that computer users should be free to choose which programs to use for such communication. The same wish was expressed by Stallman.
This freedom of communication also implies that individuals and groups must be free to seek out and spread information. It also means that they should have free access to the media....
An example of the cultural potential of the media can be found in their service to the traditional folk arts of countries where stories, plays, song and dance still express an ancient national inheritance. Because of their modern techniques, the media can make these achievements known more widely. They can record them so that they can be seen and heard again and again and make them accessible even in districts where the old traditions have vanished. In this way, the media help to impress on a nation a proper sense of its cultural identity and by expressing this, delight and enrich other cultures and countries as well.
Many developing countries are already successfully using free software and formats to preserve their cultural heritage since free software can be adapted quickly, at the smallest possible cost, to any language or dialect. Catholic missionaries worldwide should be informed that such tools exist.
Ten years after CeP, Pope John Paul II wrote in the Encyclical "Laborem exercens" that through work, man not only transforms nature, adapting it to his own needs, but he also achieves fulfillment as a human being and indeed, in a sense, becomes "more a human being." As long as he
intends his work also to increase the common good developed together with his compatriots, thus realizing that in this way work serves to add to the heritage of the whole human family, of all the people living in the world....
In Christian tradition, the right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone....
The Church has always proclaimed that "when a man works he not only alters things and society, he develops himself as well. He learns much, he cultivates his resources, he goes outside of himself and beyond himself."
The GNU Manifesto of the Free Software movement only talks about programming and programmers, but there we can find a vision of work (programming in this case) as a way to become a better person and help others: "The fundamental act of friendship among programmers is the sharing of programs.... GNU serves as an example to inspire and a banner to rally others to join us in sharing. This can give us a feeling of harmony which is impossible if we use software that is not free. For about half the programmers I talk to, this is an important happiness that money cannot replace."
In 2002, besides the above quoted EiI, the Vatican published "The Church and Internet," which reminds us that "Church leaders are obliged to use the full potential of the computer age to serve the human and transcendent vocation of every person" because the Internet "offers people direct and immediate access to important religious and spiritual resources." The same document points out that, as early as 1992, the Pastoral Instruction Aetatis Novae had called two-way communication and public opinion "one of the ways of realizing in a concrete manner the Church's character as communio." The Catholic Church is expected (EiI) "to have a visible, active presence on the Internet and be a partner in the public dialogue about its development" and "be of help by indicating ethical and moral criteria which are relevant to the process."
What about the file formats? The format used to store Church files is even more important than the programs used to access them. Official Church records should last and remain available for millennia. Nothing less durable than parchment, or less freely readable, should be used for these purposes, especially if its availability depends on the survival on any single private company.
Technology recommendations for the Church
The Catholic Church has acknowledged that the Internet is an opportunity too important for all humanity to be missed. However, to the best of my knowledge, the Church has not yet realized (at least officially) that Her concerns and recommendations on social communications should be reflected in the software, file formats, and computer protocols She uses.
The Free Software movement, albeit unintentionally, has already created software "machinery" that fully conforms to all the guidelines cited above. The Catholic Church's vision on means of social communication can be fully realized with free protocols and file formats such as OpenDocument. By itself, choosing the right technology will never be enough to achieve common good, but it is a necessary step in the right direction.
After I started writing this article I discovered two Christian pastors who have, each independently, come to similar conclusions. The first one is Rev. Parris of the Matheteuo Christian Fellowship, a Baptist Church, who has also published several manuals to help churches (and other non-profit institutions) to switch to Free Software. His "Penguin Driven Church Office" is almost exclusively a technical report, but also notes that "Richard Stallman ... may be an atheist, but his view of software has close theological parallels to Christian theology. Proprietary software limits my ability to help my neighbor, one of the cornerstone of the Christian faith."
I also came across a Catholic priest in Italy, Don Paolo La Terra, who is the director of the Diocesan Office of Ragusa (Sicily) for Catholic Education, Culture, School and University, besides teaching in several institutions. In his home page, Don Paolo declares he is convinced that "both the formulation and the philosophy of Open Source are very evangelic" and dedicates to his the readers "a verse which, I think, really is a theological foundation of Free Software: 'Simply I learned about her, and ungrudgingly do I share -- her riches I do not hide away' (The Book of Wisdom 7,13)".
The whole Catholic Church should steer in this direction. Remember the request contained in EiI: "Determined action in the private and public sectors is needed to close and eventually eliminate the digital divide." To this aim, the Church should officially adopt only free (in the sense explained above) file formats and computer protocols, both internally and for any communication with third parties. Practically speaking, this means, at least:
- Adopting the Free international standard OpenDocument for office documents in all Catholic institutions worldwide.
- Avoiding proprietary file formats and protocols on Catholic Web sites and in official Church documents, and not accepting them in any official communication.
- Making sure that all Catholic Web sites are certified as viewable with any browser.
Marco Fioretti is the author of The Family Guide to Digital Freedom and contributes regularly to Linux.com and other IT magazines.
Comments
on Free Software's surprising sympathy with Catholic doctrineNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
I should think it should matter no matter what your religion.
I should think it should matter no matter what your religion.
Agreed, but I'd add<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...or lack thereof! No matter what you believe (or don't), ethics has always to be a factor in any decision.
Agreed, but I'd add<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...or lack thereof! No matter what you believe (or don't), ethics has always to be a factor in any decision.
The Catholic Church and the Freedom of Information in the same sentence. An entity that is known to have suppressed information and knowledge contrary to its beliefs throughout history and continues to do so, as an example of Stallman's doctrine. Absolutely pathetic.
"This is funny".
Yeah. It really forces one to wonder if things really still stand as it's trendy and progressist to say they are, right?
The Church does have the responsibility to denounce wrong ideas that intrude upon her sphere of competence, which includes matters of faith and morality. For example, the Church has no problem whatsoever with the advancement of any scientific theory that is consistent with scientific observations. One must remember, however, that although a scientific theory can be proved false, it can never be proved true. So anyone who proclaims---as Galileo did---that a scientific theory is actually a truth ends up making the same mistake that Galileo did. As the human understanding of political and expressive freedom has developed over time, we can see now that the Church erred in her suppression of Galileo's ideas. Still, Galileo was wrong about the nature of a scientific theory, and the Church was right to denounce his flawed exposition, even if she went too far in terms of disciplinary action. Also, the tribunal was wrong to associate Galileo's specific assertions about Copernicanism with heresy, for no ecumenical council and no papal ex cathedra statement has ever defined geocentrism as part of doctrine.
In today's world, a good example of the Church's responsibility to denounce wrong ideas has to do with evolution. The Church affirms that, as a scientific theory consistent with observational data, the evolution of the human body by natural selection is a real possibility. However, she denounces those who, going beyond what is merely scientific, would make the philosophical claim that the human person is merely a body (or that if the human soul exists, then it too is a product of evolution).
Moreover, the Church has always had (and continues to have) the responsibility to suppress wrong ideas that are proclaimed as though they were issued from and by her own authority. There are certain ideas that need to be believed in order for one rightly to call himself "Catholic". If one writes a book as if one were a Catholic authority, but one nevertheless in the book argues against those very ideas necessary for Catholicism, then the Church has the responsibility to suppress the book, at least to the extent of making sure that it is not published by an organ of the Church. Such suppression is right and good, for it forces us to call a thing a duck only if it really is a duck.
So far as the consistency between the principles of the free software movement and certain Catholic social principles is concerned, I tend to agree at least partially with the author of the above article. If the Church were interested in having the widest possible dissemination of her ideas, then distributing them under terms ensuring free redistribution and choosing open file formats for publishing are certainly points of compatibility. Further, if we identify from the general works of human enginuity those products that ought, for the sake of the common good, to be distributed as freely and widely as possible, then surely the Church's social teaching compels us to consider the terms by which those works are licensed.
In today's world, a good example of the Church's responsibility to denounce wrong ideas has to do with evolution. The Church affirms that, as a scientific theory consistent with observational data, the evolution of the human body by natural selection is a real possibility. However, she denounces those who, going beyond what is merely scientific, would make the philosophical claim that the human person is merely a body (or that if the human soul exists, then it too is a product of evolution).
Moreover, the Church has always had (and continues to have) the responsibility to suppress wrong ideas that are proclaimed as though they were issued from and by her own authority. There are certain ideas that need to be believed in order for one rightly to call himself "Catholic". If one writes a book as if one were a Catholic authority, but one nevertheless in the book argues against those very ideas necessary for Catholicism, then the Church has the responsibility to suppress the book, at least to the extent of making sure that it is not published by an organ of the Church. Such suppression is right and good, for it forces us to call a thing a duck only if it really is a duck.
So far as the consistency between the principles of the free software movement and certain Catholic social principles is concerned, I tend to agree at least partially with the author of the above article. If the Church were interested in having the widest possible dissemination of her ideas, then distributing them under terms ensuring free redistribution and choosing open file formats for publishing are certainly points of compatibility. Further, if we identify from the general works of human enginuity those products that ought, for the sake of the common good, to be distributed as freely and widely as possible, then surely the Church's social teaching compels us to consider the terms by which those works are licensed.
although a scientific theory can be proved false, it can never be proved true. So anyone who proclaims---as Galileo did---that a scientific theory is actually a truth ends up making the same mistake that Galileo did. As the human understanding of political and expressive freedom has developed over time, we can see now that the Church erred in her suppression of Galileo's ideas. Still, Galileo was wrong about the nature of a scientific theory, and the Church was right to denounce his flawed exposition, even if she went too far in terms of disciplinary action
Typical jesuitic rant designed to "frame" the issue in such a matter as to justify Papist actions.
The point if, of course, that no scientific theory of any kind ever claims to express the "Truth" in the ontological sense of "aletheia" or "'emet". A scientific theory is considered as true by default as long as it explains that which is observed. Period. The Papacy (which is not the "Church" with a capical "C" but only a heretical split-off of the true Church) is simply not qualified to express judgements about what scientist do or do not observe. Not at the times of Galileo, not today. The proper role of the Church (which the Papacy aims at impersonating) is to proclaim revealed eternal Truths and their correct interpretation, and not worry whether at any one given moment in time these Truths happen to agree or not with the prevailing social fads or even scientific observations.
The Papacy, in its self-aggrandizing manner, thought that it could meddle in everything and anything, politics, economics, arts and, of course, science. All this, of course, ad majorem Dei gloriam even if it committed more henious crimes in the process that all pagans or atheists taken together.
Your attempts at justifying the treatment of Galileo is sickening to any Christian or scientifically-inclined person.
Typical jesuitic rant designed to "frame" the issue in such a matter as to justify Papist actions.
The point if, of course, that no scientific theory of any kind ever claims to express the "Truth" in the ontological sense of "aletheia" or "'emet". A scientific theory is considered as true by default as long as it explains that which is observed. Period. The Papacy (which is not the "Church" with a capical "C" but only a heretical split-off of the true Church) is simply not qualified to express judgements about what scientist do or do not observe. Not at the times of Galileo, not today. The proper role of the Church (which the Papacy aims at impersonating) is to proclaim revealed eternal Truths and their correct interpretation, and not worry whether at any one given moment in time these Truths happen to agree or not with the prevailing social fads or even scientific observations.
The Papacy, in its self-aggrandizing manner, thought that it could meddle in everything and anything, politics, economics, arts and, of course, science. All this, of course, ad majorem Dei gloriam even if it committed more henious crimes in the process that all pagans or atheists taken together.
Your attempts at justifying the treatment of Galileo is sickening to any Christian or scientifically-inclined person.
The point if, of course, that no scientific theory of any kind ever claims to express the "Truth" in the ontological sense of "aletheia" or "'emet".
Galileo certainly did make such claims about scientific theory in his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina. When Galileo claimed that, through science, man could know the structure of nature as deeply as God Himself, even if not so broadly, do you suppose that Galileo was speaking of anything but Truth with a capital "T"?
A scientific theory is considered as true by default as long as it explains that which is observed. Period.
One can do this, and it is commonly done, but it leads to screwy thinking. It is better to consider that, until it is ruled out, a theory is a possible explanation of the observed data. Even after it is ruled out, however, a theory (like Newtonian mechanics) may still be useful for engineering.
The Papacy (which is not the "Church" with a capical "C" but only a heretical split-off of the true Church) is simply not qualified to express judgements about what scientist do or do not observe. Not at the times of Galileo, not today.
Ignoring the anti-Catholic elements of your diatribe, I agree that the Church is not so qualified. In fact, that was a main point in my previous post. I am surprised that you missed it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:^)
The proper role of the Church (which the Papacy aims at impersonating) is to proclaim revealed eternal Truths and their correct interpretation, and not worry whether at any one given moment in time these Truths happen to agree or not with the prevailing social fads or even scientific observations.
Again, anti-Catholic bits notwithstanding, we agree.
Your attempts at justifying the treatment of Galileo is sickening to any Christian or scientifically-inclined person.
You hyperbole falls flat on me, for I am both Christian and scientifically inclined.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:^) Moreover, I did not attempt to justify the treatment of Galileo. In fact, I pointed out that the Church erred in her treatment of him, though Galileo was wrong and the Church was right on at least one fundamental point.
Peace be with you. I am certainly not angry with you, though you disagree with me. I hope that you are not angry with me, even if I disagree with you.
Galileo certainly did make such claims about scientific theory in his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina. When Galileo claimed that, through science, man could know the structure of nature as deeply as God Himself, even if not so broadly, do you suppose that Galileo was speaking of anything but Truth with a capital "T"?
A scientific theory is considered as true by default as long as it explains that which is observed. Period.
One can do this, and it is commonly done, but it leads to screwy thinking. It is better to consider that, until it is ruled out, a theory is a possible explanation of the observed data. Even after it is ruled out, however, a theory (like Newtonian mechanics) may still be useful for engineering.
The Papacy (which is not the "Church" with a capical "C" but only a heretical split-off of the true Church) is simply not qualified to express judgements about what scientist do or do not observe. Not at the times of Galileo, not today.
Ignoring the anti-Catholic elements of your diatribe, I agree that the Church is not so qualified. In fact, that was a main point in my previous post. I am surprised that you missed it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:^)
The proper role of the Church (which the Papacy aims at impersonating) is to proclaim revealed eternal Truths and their correct interpretation, and not worry whether at any one given moment in time these Truths happen to agree or not with the prevailing social fads or even scientific observations.
Again, anti-Catholic bits notwithstanding, we agree.
Your attempts at justifying the treatment of Galileo is sickening to any Christian or scientifically-inclined person.
You hyperbole falls flat on me, for I am both Christian and scientifically inclined.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:^) Moreover, I did not attempt to justify the treatment of Galileo. In fact, I pointed out that the Church erred in her treatment of him, though Galileo was wrong and the Church was right on at least one fundamental point.
Peace be with you. I am certainly not angry with you, though you disagree with me. I hope that you are not angry with me, even if I disagree with you.
Galileo certainly did make such claims about scientific theory in his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina. When Galileo claimed that, through science, man could know the structure of nature as deeply as God Himself, even if not so broadly, do you suppose that Galileo was speaking of anything but Truth with a capital "T"?
Are you talking about the quote "We conclude that God is known first through Nature, and then again, more particularly, by doctrine, by Nature in His works, and by doctrine in His revealed word."? If yes, you are misunderstaning this quote (by Tertullian, BTW). If not, where *exactly* is he saying that "man could know the structure of nature as deeply as God Himself"? I do not see that in this letter.
Besides, even if her had made such statement he would have been wrong. That, in turn, does not make your claims and justifications right. As any schoolkid knows, two wrongs do not make a right.
One can do this, and it is commonly done, but it leads to screwy thinking. It is better to consider that, until it is ruled out, a theory is a possible explanation of the observed data.
That screwy thinking is the basis of modern science. Besides, when science says that it considers a theory as true this *by definition* means until it is proven wrong (I was taught this in 7th grade).
Ignoring the anti-Catholic elements of your diatribe.
"Catholic" means universal/counciliar. I said nothing against the universe or councils, I spoke of the Papacy. By calling my post a "diatribe" you do not, however, "ignore" its anti-Papist nature<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
for I am both Christian and scientifically inclined.
Maybe. It just that neither of these features of yours are detectable in your posts...
Even though I am not angry with you personally, I am always outraged when the Papacy is confused with the Church even though the Papacy's doctrines would have been denounced by the Church Father as heresies. The Papacy gets away with these claims only thanks to the ignorance of modern society (which it helped create).
Are you talking about the quote "We conclude that God is known first through Nature, and then again, more particularly, by doctrine, by Nature in His works, and by doctrine in His revealed word."? If yes, you are misunderstaning this quote (by Tertullian, BTW). If not, where *exactly* is he saying that "man could know the structure of nature as deeply as God Himself"? I do not see that in this letter.
Besides, even if her had made such statement he would have been wrong. That, in turn, does not make your claims and justifications right. As any schoolkid knows, two wrongs do not make a right.
One can do this, and it is commonly done, but it leads to screwy thinking. It is better to consider that, until it is ruled out, a theory is a possible explanation of the observed data.
That screwy thinking is the basis of modern science. Besides, when science says that it considers a theory as true this *by definition* means until it is proven wrong (I was taught this in 7th grade).
Ignoring the anti-Catholic elements of your diatribe.
"Catholic" means universal/counciliar. I said nothing against the universe or councils, I spoke of the Papacy. By calling my post a "diatribe" you do not, however, "ignore" its anti-Papist nature<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
for I am both Christian and scientifically inclined.
Maybe. It just that neither of these features of yours are detectable in your posts...
Even though I am not angry with you personally, I am always outraged when the Papacy is confused with the Church even though the Papacy's doctrines would have been denounced by the Church Father as heresies. The Papacy gets away with these claims only thanks to the ignorance of modern society (which it helped create).
I do not see that in this letter.
In the letter, Galileo wrote:
"But nature, on the other hand, is inexorable and immutable; she never transgresses the laws imposed upon her, or cares a whit whether her abstruse reason and methods of operation are understandable to men. For this reason it appears that nothing physical which sense-experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called in question, much less condemned, upon the testimony of Biblical passages . . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>."
This would be fine if Galileo were merely talking about observations, but he's talking also about the theory that fits those observations. Galileo was arguing that demonstrated (proved) physical theory (such as that the earth moves) could be used to rule out certain interpretations of scripture. That would require, on our part, God-like knowledge of the universe's underlying construction, so that we can say that a theory is really true.
Unfortunately, we can never *know* that the earth moves, just as we can never prove a scientific theory true. It is possible that some advanced physical theory a million years from now could explain astronomical observations without postulating a moving earth. Those who would construct that theory in order to fit the future observations ruling out general relativity and quantum mechanics might look back on us and think that we are somewhat quaint for having thought about the world in terms of geodesics, orbits, and wave functions.
Besides, even if her had made such statement he would have been wrong. That, in turn, does not make your claims and justifications right. As any schoolkid knows, two wrongs do not make a right.
You've lost me here. As I admitted in my first post, even if the Catholic Church were right and Galileo wrong on this point of crucial philosophy, the Catholic Church still erred in her treatment of Galileo.
That screwy thinking is the basis of modern science. Besides, when science says that it considers a theory as true this *by definition* means until it is proven wrong (I was taught this in 7th grade).
The core of modern science is to invent a theory that explains all observations so far, to see what the theory would predict if it were true, and then to carry out an experiment that tests the prediction. Nowhere is there a requirement actually to believe that a scientific theory is true. Such belief is screwy, and, for example, it leads to a bunch of loud and bad arguments in "debates" over evolution. Just see anyone who thinks that natural selection has been proved true. Some conservative Christians would not be so wary of the teaching of evolution in science classrooms if it were made clear to kids that no theory can ever be proved true, not even something like natural selection, though it's the best scientific theory that we have.
We need to do better than seventh-grade-level definitions.
"Catholic" means universal/counciliar. I said nothing against the universe or councils, I spoke of the Papacy. By calling my post a "diatribe" you do not, however, "ignore" its anti-Papist nature<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
"catholic" means "universal".
"Catholic" refers to the Roman Catholic Church.
Your post was a "diatribe", for it appeared to me as "a thunderous verbal attack". I strove to be accurate, not pejorative.
And I *did* pointedly and explicitly ignore your anti-Catholic remarks in order to be able honestly to say that I agree with a couple of your points. If I had not pointed out that which I ignored (for the sake of agreement), then my agreement would have implicitly included the anti-Catholic remarks, and I would have been lying.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:^)
Maybe.
Well, I believe in One God, the Father, the Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth. I believe in One Lord, Jesus Christ, Who is the eternally begotten Son of the Father, is one in being with the Father, is fully God, and is fully man. I believe in the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son and Who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified. Hopefully, that makes me Christian.
As for being scientifically inclined, my father is an endocrinologist who spent most of his career doing research on the treatment of burn patients; my mother is a professor of neuroanatomy; and I have a Ph.D. in astrophysics. At the very least, we are inclined to have scientific dinner conversation when we get together.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:^)
It just that neither of these features of yours are detectable in your posts...
I urge you to read them more carefully.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:^)
Even though I am not angry with you personally, I am always outraged when the Papacy is confused with the Church even though the Papacy's doctrines would have been denounced by the Church Father as heresies. The Papacy gets away with these claims only thanks to the ignorance of modern society (which it helped create).
It would not be surprising that some of the Fathers would disagree with Catholic doctrine. After all, the Fathers often disagreed with one another, and some of them (like Tertullian) were excommunicated for serious error before they died.
I hope that, by the time we are done with this thread, we shall have succeeded at least in agreeing to disagree. I am willing to believe that you follow your conscience, as you should. I hope that you can see that I follow my conscience, as I should. Persons of good will who honestly seek the truth should endeavor to agree as much as possible and to identify the fundamental sources of disagreement without recourse to inflammatory and insulting language.
I have, for example, in this message used "Catholic Church" instead of "Church" to be specific and to honor your perception.
I should ask you to refrain from using the word, "Papist", as it is little more than a slur, although references to the "papacy" are perfectly reasonable.
In the letter, Galileo wrote:
"But nature, on the other hand, is inexorable and immutable; she never transgresses the laws imposed upon her, or cares a whit whether her abstruse reason and methods of operation are understandable to men. For this reason it appears that nothing physical which sense-experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called in question, much less condemned, upon the testimony of Biblical passages . . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>."
This would be fine if Galileo were merely talking about observations, but he's talking also about the theory that fits those observations. Galileo was arguing that demonstrated (proved) physical theory (such as that the earth moves) could be used to rule out certain interpretations of scripture. That would require, on our part, God-like knowledge of the universe's underlying construction, so that we can say that a theory is really true.
Unfortunately, we can never *know* that the earth moves, just as we can never prove a scientific theory true. It is possible that some advanced physical theory a million years from now could explain astronomical observations without postulating a moving earth. Those who would construct that theory in order to fit the future observations ruling out general relativity and quantum mechanics might look back on us and think that we are somewhat quaint for having thought about the world in terms of geodesics, orbits, and wave functions.
Besides, even if her had made such statement he would have been wrong. That, in turn, does not make your claims and justifications right. As any schoolkid knows, two wrongs do not make a right.
You've lost me here. As I admitted in my first post, even if the Catholic Church were right and Galileo wrong on this point of crucial philosophy, the Catholic Church still erred in her treatment of Galileo.
That screwy thinking is the basis of modern science. Besides, when science says that it considers a theory as true this *by definition* means until it is proven wrong (I was taught this in 7th grade).
The core of modern science is to invent a theory that explains all observations so far, to see what the theory would predict if it were true, and then to carry out an experiment that tests the prediction. Nowhere is there a requirement actually to believe that a scientific theory is true. Such belief is screwy, and, for example, it leads to a bunch of loud and bad arguments in "debates" over evolution. Just see anyone who thinks that natural selection has been proved true. Some conservative Christians would not be so wary of the teaching of evolution in science classrooms if it were made clear to kids that no theory can ever be proved true, not even something like natural selection, though it's the best scientific theory that we have.
We need to do better than seventh-grade-level definitions.
"Catholic" means universal/counciliar. I said nothing against the universe or councils, I spoke of the Papacy. By calling my post a "diatribe" you do not, however, "ignore" its anti-Papist nature<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
"catholic" means "universal".
"Catholic" refers to the Roman Catholic Church.
Your post was a "diatribe", for it appeared to me as "a thunderous verbal attack". I strove to be accurate, not pejorative.
And I *did* pointedly and explicitly ignore your anti-Catholic remarks in order to be able honestly to say that I agree with a couple of your points. If I had not pointed out that which I ignored (for the sake of agreement), then my agreement would have implicitly included the anti-Catholic remarks, and I would have been lying.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:^)
Maybe.
Well, I believe in One God, the Father, the Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth. I believe in One Lord, Jesus Christ, Who is the eternally begotten Son of the Father, is one in being with the Father, is fully God, and is fully man. I believe in the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son and Who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified. Hopefully, that makes me Christian.
As for being scientifically inclined, my father is an endocrinologist who spent most of his career doing research on the treatment of burn patients; my mother is a professor of neuroanatomy; and I have a Ph.D. in astrophysics. At the very least, we are inclined to have scientific dinner conversation when we get together.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:^)
It just that neither of these features of yours are detectable in your posts...
I urge you to read them more carefully.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:^)
Even though I am not angry with you personally, I am always outraged when the Papacy is confused with the Church even though the Papacy's doctrines would have been denounced by the Church Father as heresies. The Papacy gets away with these claims only thanks to the ignorance of modern society (which it helped create).
It would not be surprising that some of the Fathers would disagree with Catholic doctrine. After all, the Fathers often disagreed with one another, and some of them (like Tertullian) were excommunicated for serious error before they died.
I hope that, by the time we are done with this thread, we shall have succeeded at least in agreeing to disagree. I am willing to believe that you follow your conscience, as you should. I hope that you can see that I follow my conscience, as I should. Persons of good will who honestly seek the truth should endeavor to agree as much as possible and to identify the fundamental sources of disagreement without recourse to inflammatory and insulting language.
I have, for example, in this message used "Catholic Church" instead of "Church" to be specific and to honor your perception.
I should ask you to refrain from using the word, "Papist", as it is little more than a slur, although references to the "papacy" are perfectly reasonable.
Look, what the Papists are saying is hardly something extremely original for any religion or system of ethics. You would hear the same ideas from Muslims or Buddhists or most Europeans. The ONLY place were these type of ideas are in disputed are the Western turbo-capitalist societes (to use E. Luttwack's expression), in particular the USA, where greed and a fast buck for the already obscenely rich is considered sacred dogma. Otherwise, civilized mankind pretty much seems in consensus on this type of issues.
This article should be re-written like so:
"Civilized mankind and the Free Software Foundation agree on a number of basic moral values bla bla bla bla...."
Also - since the Papist are trying to impersonate traditional Christians (which is ludicrous since most of their dogmas have no basis in Patristic teachings - such as the Immaculate Conception or Papal infallability which are 19th century inventions) you cannot refer to their views on technology as "doctrine". In the words of Saint Vincent of Lerins, 5th century, only that which has been taught "by all (Christians), everywhere and always" constitutes correct (Orthodox) doctrine. The Papist have been raving modernists and innovators for over 10 centuries now and are still continuing, but to call their statements about the Internet as "doctrine" is incorrect.
Lastly - I would submit that 99.999999% of Papist do not even know their *own* doctrine any more. Ask any Papist what the dogma of "Immaculate Conception" means and the vast majority will answer that it refers to the virginity of the Mother of God. This is, of course, wholly incorrect. Or ask them where the idea of "sacred heart" really means - and typically they will be clueless.
Pope-worshipping is about all that is left from this sorry institution.
This article should be re-written like so:
"Civilized mankind and the Free Software Foundation agree on a number of basic moral values bla bla bla bla...."
Also - since the Papist are trying to impersonate traditional Christians (which is ludicrous since most of their dogmas have no basis in Patristic teachings - such as the Immaculate Conception or Papal infallability which are 19th century inventions) you cannot refer to their views on technology as "doctrine". In the words of Saint Vincent of Lerins, 5th century, only that which has been taught "by all (Christians), everywhere and always" constitutes correct (Orthodox) doctrine. The Papist have been raving modernists and innovators for over 10 centuries now and are still continuing, but to call their statements about the Internet as "doctrine" is incorrect.
Lastly - I would submit that 99.999999% of Papist do not even know their *own* doctrine any more. Ask any Papist what the dogma of "Immaculate Conception" means and the vast majority will answer that it refers to the virginity of the Mother of God. This is, of course, wholly incorrect. Or ask them where the idea of "sacred heart" really means - and typically they will be clueless.
Pope-worshipping is about all that is left from this sorry institution.
"You would hear the same ideas from Muslims or Buddhists or most Europeans"
Get real, Buddhism? Christianity would be a much better comparison IMHO, since Christianity is all about being selfless and looking out for others.
Interesting choice of words though, because without religion's that teach good moral values and humanity unto others there would be no *civilized* mankind.
Get real, Buddhism? Christianity would be a much better comparison IMHO, since Christianity is all about being selfless and looking out for others.
"Teach this triple truth to all: A generous heart, kind speech, and a life of service and compassion are the things which renew humanity."
Buddha
also, read this:
<a href="http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/buddhismtoday/bc036.htm" title="sgi-usa.org">http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/buddhismtoday/bc0<nobr>3<wbr></nobr> 6.htm</a sgi-usa.org>
Interesting choice of words though, because without religion's that teach good moral values and humanity unto others there would be no *civilized* mankind
Agreed.
"Teach this triple truth to all: A generous heart, kind speech, and a life of service and compassion are the things which renew humanity."
Buddha
also, read this:
<a href="http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/buddhismtoday/bc036.htm" title="sgi-usa.org">http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/buddhismtoday/bc0<nobr>3<wbr></nobr> 6.htm</a sgi-usa.org>
Interesting choice of words though, because without religion's that teach good moral values and humanity unto others there would be no *civilized* mankind
Agreed.
"Get real, Buddhism? Christianity would be a much better comparison IMHO, since Christianity is all about being selfless and looking out for others."
And Buddhism is about...?
"Interesting choice of words though, because without religion's that teach good moral values and humanity unto others there would be no *civilized* mankind."
So us atheists aren't civilized. Suuuuure.
And Buddhism is about...?
"Interesting choice of words though, because without religion's that teach good moral values and humanity unto others there would be no *civilized* mankind."
So us atheists aren't civilized. Suuuuure.
not all atheists, only some:
"America is the only nation in history which miraculously has gone directly from barbarism to degeneration without the usual interval of civilization."
Georges Clemenceau
Deep down, the US, with its space, its technological refinement, its bluff good conscience, even in those spaces which it opens up for simulation, is the only remaining primitive society.
Jean Baudrillard
America is the most grandiose experiment the world has seen, but, I am afraid, it is not going to be a success.
Freud, Sigmund
It is, I think, an indisputable fact that Americans are, as Americans, the most self-conscious people in the world, and the most addicted to the belief that the other nations of the earth are in a conspiracy to under value them.
James, Henry
but most importantly:
Sitting at the table doesn't make you a diner, unless you eat some of what's on that plate. Being here in America doesn't make you an American. Being born here in America doesn't make you an American.
Malcolm X
"America is the only nation in history which miraculously has gone directly from barbarism to degeneration without the usual interval of civilization."
Georges Clemenceau
Deep down, the US, with its space, its technological refinement, its bluff good conscience, even in those spaces which it opens up for simulation, is the only remaining primitive society.
Jean Baudrillard
America is the most grandiose experiment the world has seen, but, I am afraid, it is not going to be a success.
Freud, Sigmund
It is, I think, an indisputable fact that Americans are, as Americans, the most self-conscious people in the world, and the most addicted to the belief that the other nations of the earth are in a conspiracy to under value them.
James, Henry
but most importantly:
Sitting at the table doesn't make you a diner, unless you eat some of what's on that plate. Being here in America doesn't make you an American. Being born here in America doesn't make you an American.
Malcolm X
And America is largely Christian. By and large, it's more religious than Europe. So, your point is?
the grandfather post claimed that its parent stated that atheists are not civlized which is incorrect. the OP only implied that some (read: American) atheists are not civilized. The quote list then lists opinions on this subject.
The claim that most Americans are Christians is irrelevant to this as the topic is not "most" but "atheists". Note that Christians are not thereby excluded from the "non-civilized" category either. Hence, you could easily state that all Americans, Christians or not, are uncivilized as this is quite compatible with proposition that only American atheists are uncivilized. None of which is stated anywhere in this thread, but which can be logically compatible with that which is, in fact, stated. You miss the point because you are logically challenged.
The claim that most Americans are Christians is irrelevant to this as the topic is not "most" but "atheists". Note that Christians are not thereby excluded from the "non-civilized" category either. Hence, you could easily state that all Americans, Christians or not, are uncivilized as this is quite compatible with proposition that only American atheists are uncivilized. None of which is stated anywhere in this thread, but which can be logically compatible with that which is, in fact, stated. You miss the point because you are logically challenged.
Someone's got an axe to grind! Bless your soul - I must be that 00.000001% left in the world that *owns* the doctrine. "Papists" are obviously so incredibly stupid...hmm...and yet quite a number now sit, or soon will, on the highest court in the land. Maybe you should argue your case before them...
most religions preach ethics, but as a radical atheist i feel i have more ethics than most people i see around me. and i fully realize everyone would probably say that.
however the point remains: this article could have said the same of just about any religion or belief system out there. ethics and religion to me just seem two intersecting sets.
in fact, to go one step further, this article could have had the title "the catholic doctrine's surprising sympathy with atheism."
however the point remains: this article could have said the same of just about any religion or belief system out there. ethics and religion to me just seem two intersecting sets.
in fact, to go one step further, this article could have had the title "the catholic doctrine's surprising sympathy with atheism."
Dostoevsky quite correctly postulated that "if God does not exist, all is allowed". Non-religious ethics have absolutely no rational basis whatsoever. That does not mean that they are bad in any way, in fact atheist are often much kinder people than religious folks, but the fact is that their choice of ethics is based on strictly nothing. No atheist can ever justify "why not" no matter how appalling and evil the suggested propostion would be. All he can answer is "because". And simply "because" is never an adequate answer to "why".
Think about it!
Think about it!
If God does exist, then what's the reason?
depends on the person. the realization that all humans are brothers to each other and children of the same God, that the evil are eventually punished, that right/wrong and good/bad are objective realities and not the products of our current preferences or state of mind, the happinness cannot be found in evil deeds, that the evil you inflict on others harms them less than it harms you, that sin is a result of delusion and that sobriety can only be achieved through the abandonement of self-will, etc.
you should maybe begin by reading C.S. Lewis. or Dostoevsky (who used to be an atheist, BTW).
you should maybe begin by reading C.S. Lewis. or Dostoevsky (who used to be an atheist, BTW).
Your reasons include 4 that do not require God, one (objective morality) whose connection to God is disputable, and one (punishment of evil) that is not only a selfish reason but exists without God (we have police and jails).
The difference is that these reasons act as an internal imperative for the believing person, they are not driven by a society and its ability to inhibit behavoirs. Also, what could objective morality be based on outside the ultimate "objective reality" of God (Who says "I AM")?
Re:if ethics then religion # sorry friend
Posted by: Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier on November 12, 2005 02:37 AM
Non-religious ethics have absolutely no rational basis whatsoever.
I would disagree with this, strongly. There's a very rational basis for a system of ethics that does not posit a higher being, life after death, or potential punishment for behavior during life -- mainly, ethics based on self-interest.
Most people don't want to have people stealing from them -- so most people can agree that stealing is Bad. Most people don't want to be murdered, so they can all agree that being murdered is Bad, and shouldn't be done. Etc. No higher power is necessary to arrive at a system of ethics.
Most people don't want to have people stealing from them -- so most people can agree that stealing is Bad. Most people don't want to be murdered, so they can all agree that being murdered is Bad, and shouldn't be done. Etc
The reasons you are listing are external imperatives, not self-limitations. To illustrate:
I am walking on a country road at night, nobody is around, only an old woman is walking home. I want to kill her to take her 5 bucks to purchase something. I am also very skilled, so I leave no traces behing, nobody will see me, and my example shall not inspire other who, educated by the "opium of the people", fail to realize that good and evil does not exist (I am the only atheist in my society). Why should I *not* kill her?
That's a little extreme. How about this "there is nothing wrong in cheating on your wife if she never finds out".
Do you get my point?
The reasons you are listing are external imperatives, not self-limitations. To illustrate:
I am walking on a country road at night, nobody is around, only an old woman is walking home. I want to kill her to take her 5 bucks to purchase something. I am also very skilled, so I leave no traces behing, nobody will see me, and my example shall not inspire other who, educated by the "opium of the people", fail to realize that good and evil does not exist (I am the only atheist in my society). Why should I *not* kill her?
That's a little extreme. How about this "there is nothing wrong in cheating on your wife if she never finds out".
Do you get my point?
You're a moron. I'd argue with you, but you make no sense, so I see no point.
You are, of course, quite correct and your lofty argument shame me. I bow my head in contrition and leave our otherwise facinating discussion with a deep sense of awe at your eloquence and logic. Gratitude overwhelms me and I weep...
Fine then you also condone your wife cheating on you if you never find out. If you do not condone this behavior, then you are saying you will not limit your behavior to what you expect others to limit theirs.
This, leads to the idea that athiest have no limits on their behavior (as previously stated.) However, if athiests have no limits, then any reasonably smart athiest should suspect all others to want to kill them for one reason or another. A reasonable smart athiest would also realize that he is not perfect and that someone would find a way to succede in killing him. Therefore, the athiest should realize the only way to remain alive is to kill every other human, and would attempt do so as the urge to survive is even stronger than the urge to keep a species alive. This would lead to the end of an athiest species without behavioral limits. Therefore, either athiest need behavioral limits (a.k.a. ethics) or all athiests are attempting or planning the murder of every other human (very unlikely.)
Note: I do believe in a holy spirit, just wanted to point out that even athiest have a reason for a system of ethics.
This, leads to the idea that athiest have no limits on their behavior (as previously stated.) However, if athiests have no limits, then any reasonably smart athiest should suspect all others to want to kill them for one reason or another. A reasonable smart athiest would also realize that he is not perfect and that someone would find a way to succede in killing him. Therefore, the athiest should realize the only way to remain alive is to kill every other human, and would attempt do so as the urge to survive is even stronger than the urge to keep a species alive. This would lead to the end of an athiest species without behavioral limits. Therefore, either athiest need behavioral limits (a.k.a. ethics) or all athiests are attempting or planning the murder of every other human (very unlikely.)
Note: I do believe in a holy spirit, just wanted to point out that even athiest have a reason for a system of ethics.
I know that picking on typos is rude, but... how did you manage to misspell "atheist" NINE TIMES?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
yes, is true that "ethics not equal to religion"
but religion (all religions) has its own ethics, so... the two things are strongly correlated.
but religion (all religions) has its own ethics, so... the two things are strongly correlated.
It is a FACT that anyone who claims there exists a "god" or "supreme being" who forms the basis of our moral code is *fundamentally* anti-human.
By convincing others that there exists some higher power that judges our behavior basically allows religionists to wield moral authority over other humans that they would not otherwise have.
In turn, this ill gained moral authority is most often used to advance fundamentally immoral, anti-human causes. This makes sense since religionists base their moral code on wisdom that was NOT in fact handed down by any "god", but instead by various HUMAN authors over the course of many centuries.
Now contrast this to atheist doctrine, which posits that humanity itself if the absolute moral authority, so we MUST have our own strong (but dynamic and adaptable) moral code in order for us as a species to continue to exist and to flourish as we always have. Utimately, this is a far more human (and thus humane) philosophy than any myth based religion, and is rightly the only correct moral philosophy for anyone who believes (as I do) that it is humanity itself, and not some made up "supreme being" that is the center of our collective existence.
It is long past time for humanity as a group to throw off that shackle on our minds known as God and instead have faith in ourselves. Know that we are the supreme power in our own lives, to take responsibility not only for ourselves, but for our families, our communities and our world collectively.
Ubuntu
By convincing others that there exists some higher power that judges our behavior basically allows religionists to wield moral authority over other humans that they would not otherwise have.
In turn, this ill gained moral authority is most often used to advance fundamentally immoral, anti-human causes. This makes sense since religionists base their moral code on wisdom that was NOT in fact handed down by any "god", but instead by various HUMAN authors over the course of many centuries.
Now contrast this to atheist doctrine, which posits that humanity itself if the absolute moral authority, so we MUST have our own strong (but dynamic and adaptable) moral code in order for us as a species to continue to exist and to flourish as we always have. Utimately, this is a far more human (and thus humane) philosophy than any myth based religion, and is rightly the only correct moral philosophy for anyone who believes (as I do) that it is humanity itself, and not some made up "supreme being" that is the center of our collective existence.
It is long past time for humanity as a group to throw off that shackle on our minds known as God and instead have faith in ourselves. Know that we are the supreme power in our own lives, to take responsibility not only for ourselves, but for our families, our communities and our world collectively.
Ubuntu
Where did you get your authority to proclaim humanity itself is the absolute moral authority?
Why must our species continue to exist? For what end? If what you say is true, you'll eventually die and cease to exist. You will not experience anything further, so why bother to live, or worse yet, procreate. You believe your ultimate destiny is annihilation. Why should we, as a species, seek to perpetuate nothingness?
The life of an atheist is a very depressing life indeed. For you, earth is as good at it ever gets. As sad as that is, regrettably for some of them that ignore Truth until the end, earth is as good as it FOREVER gets.
But I thought that free software was in the bazaar.
In "The Cathedral and The Bazaar", the "cathedral" is the FSF and the GNU project, which started nearly ten years before the Linux kernel. Raymond claims that Linux developed faster because Linus was more open to outside contributions and also released much more frequent point releases, whereas the GNU project used a much more structured development model. Both, of course, are free software.
Neither Politics nor Religion should be brought up at the table.
if you do not like it, go eat somewhere else and let the adults choose their discussion
You are italian: Did you forgot, for example, that the chatolic church obstacoles the teaching of other religions in public italian schools and imposes its own doctrine? Is that freedom?
Sorry, that's just not true. The Church does not have the political or military power to force this, even if it wanted to.
Further, no one is forced to be a Catholic. The 1,000,000,000+ Catholics in the world choose to be so, sometimes even to the point of martyrdom.
The liberals, communists and free market supporters also say that Free Software/Open Source is a "modern way" of their philosophies.
but only US turbo-capitalists barbarians do not
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 12, 2005 12:55 AM
see this:
<a href="http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2145809/sap-dismisses-open-source" title="vnunet.com">http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2145809/sap-dis<nobr>m<wbr></nobr> isses-open-source</a vnunet.com>
As I said above, all civilized mankind agrees on a fundamental set of principles, a "social consensus" if you wish, only the modern barbarian hordes do not.
(I know - he is not American, but Israeli, but his mindset is 100% red, white n blue. A typical bushite/likudnik in all his glory)
<a href="http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2145809/sap-dismisses-open-source" title="vnunet.com">http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2145809/sap-dis<nobr>m<wbr></nobr> isses-open-source</a vnunet.com>
As I said above, all civilized mankind agrees on a fundamental set of principles, a "social consensus" if you wish, only the modern barbarian hordes do not.
(I know - he is not American, but Israeli, but his mindset is 100% red, white n blue. A typical bushite/likudnik in all his glory)
Re:but only US turbo-capitalists barbarians do not
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 12, 2005 01:33 AM
It's interesting how you generalize your statements. Capitalism flourishes with OPEN MARKETS. Any true believer in capitalism, pure capitalism, embraces an open and conservative landscape. Ultimately one in which ALL business can thrive and compete on merits, features, value, etc. alone.
So, I believe I can say, that your real problem is with the success this country has which is largely due to it's open business practices when compared with those of other countries.
Yet you lump the US generally into the same pile with no regard for the complexity of this nation and it's huge number of differing opinions.
Here is a newflash for you I just know you will flame me for:
- I am an American
- I am Conservative
- I believe is small government and little regulation "for regulation's
sake" - I am an Constitutional Originalist
- I believe in open trade
- I believe in VERY limited government impedance/regulations on the business
(especially small business) - I believe in harsh punishment of ANY company that abuses it's power or
workers - I believe in Open Source and Open Standards, unimpeded by government or
otherwise - I believe if you have a business model that is Open Source, you can still
operate in a corporate environment, if you do it right. - I believe anyone who fully UNDERSTANDS open source, and is a Fiscal
Conservative, will embrace it's Openness as true to the heart of
Conservative Capitalism.
So, I believe I can say, that your real problem is with the success this country has which is largely due to it's open business practices when compared with those of other countries.
It is true that there is still the chance for companies like Microsoft to turn into monopolies, and I believe that the courts made a BIG mistake by not breaking MS up, but the market forces involving Linux and business is proving to scare the crap out of MS. They know where this is leading. The market will do what the DOJ didn't.
Oh, one more piece of flame bait.... I am a Bush supporter, and a Christian... Flame away....
If you believe that the US is a "success" then all arguments are futile. I will just point out that you speak of "huge number of differing opinions" only to list a boring litany of exceedingly predictable and mutually implicating views. Calling yourself a "Christian" and a "Bush supporter" was, in this context, rather superfluous (even though, IMNSHO, these are mutually exclusive categories).
"Typical modern American" would have been quite enough.
"Typical modern American" would have been quite enough.
Hook Line and Sinker. Superflous, interesting. Still a matter of you NSHO so it's an arbitrary judgement. Christian and Bush supporting mutually exclusive.... very interesting. I would have expected the "....Vast Right Wing..." label or at least the infamous, albeit, vaporous/tenuous "...Religious Right..." label.
How is this mutually exclusive? Have you not seen, or heard any of the religious labeling and bashing of Bush or the administration. I would have thought his opponents and all of these "intellectual" types around here to have seen that and tossed that bone around the yard a bit...
Typical Modern American. Didn't watch the recent election did you... There isn't much of a "Typical" American. This country is built on it's diversity and your ability to lump me and every other American in to one full sum, to paint with one broad stroke, shows a lack of understanding or an ability to divest your observations from your conclusions.
As to our success. I guess it's all relative. When you complain about the Monopolies and evil corporations of the US that seem to keep eveyone else in the world from reaching the top of the mountain, I guess your argument looses merit. You are then complaining about a level of success. You have a singular, circular logic.
Boring Litany of Blah Blah Blah... Predictable and mutually implicating views... Interesting argument here. Implicating.... Yes, I guess you were right. I implicated my views... The list was just for that. It was meant too.
You use those negative terms to describe my list to reinforce your "superior" logic and thought. I stand by those points, but if you think that is every American, you are sorely mistaken. And again it brings me back to your need to generalize to make your point.
I think you also miss my point. I have a broad range of views (that you see as being typical of all Americans, which it is not, at least not anymore) and I was simply trying to state that your generalization misses the point that your characature of the US denies that a true capitalist can be as much of an Open Source proponant as anyone. In fact, open models are decisively NOT socialist in nature. So go on with your general slurs against the big bad US. You and your type... those who are intellectually above others, whether by geography, political leaning, 'theism, or just disdain for the US, can go blow...
Hows that for another Typical Amercian?
'theism, or just disdain for the US, can go blow... Hows that for another Typical Amercian?
as much as Harleys, Pitbulls, SUVs, Freedom Fries, etc. : 100% (sorry, apple pie is not on the list, not being American at all).
But back to your main point:
your characature of the US denies that a true capitalist can be as much of an Open Source proponant as anyone. In fact, open models are decisively NOT socialist in nature
I notice with some amusement that you stay well clear of the concept of "free software" and choose the "corporate-compatible" "open source" "value-free" concept instead. As I said - predicatable and boring.
as much as Harleys, Pitbulls, SUVs, Freedom Fries, etc. : 100% (sorry, apple pie is not on the list, not being American at all).
But back to your main point:
your characature of the US denies that a true capitalist can be as much of an Open Source proponant as anyone. In fact, open models are decisively NOT socialist in nature
I notice with some amusement that you stay well clear of the concept of "free software" and choose the "corporate-compatible" "open source" "value-free" concept instead. As I said - predicatable and boring.
Last year, Americans spent $2.6 billion on birdseed. That's more than twice as much as they spent on prepared baby food, and two and a half times as much as they spent on food for needy nations. They shelled out a further $733 million on feeders, houses and baths for birds.
-- Jim Sterba in the Wall Street Journal
-- Jim Sterba in the Wall Street Journal
I don't understand the critics to the article.
I don't think the point of the text is saying something like "the catholic church is good", "W the Pope", like some other seem to perceive.
The fact that an "organization" undoubtly capable of an influence over many millions of people substains Open Source is interesting for everyone interested in Open Source.
Perhaps I understand this better because I'm italian?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
If you read "European Union Adopts OpenDocument as an internal standard" you don't have to endorse EU nor OpenDocument to find the reading interesting!
I don't think the point of the text is saying something like "the catholic church is good", "W the Pope", like some other seem to perceive.
The fact that an "organization" undoubtly capable of an influence over many millions of people substains Open Source is interesting for everyone interested in Open Source.
Perhaps I understand this better because I'm italian?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
If you read "European Union Adopts OpenDocument as an internal standard" you don't have to endorse EU nor OpenDocument to find the reading interesting!
I think the title may have been misleading. The article isn't about church doctrine as it pertains to the bible per se but about the the churches concern for openness of information and how it pertains to technology. I thought the article might have been trash when I read the headlines but I found it really interesting. All the anti catholics and athiests should take a chill pill and settle down. Just because you believe something different doesn't mean you cant appreciate what you might have in common.
Not really. The use of open standards by any organisation is commendable. But the article seems to draw parallels between catholic doctrine and the principles of free software. It seems to indicate religious ideas, where there are none. That is probably offensive.
I would like to thank the author of the article for a very perceptive and even courageous article on software freedom and the Church.
As a Catholic (who knows what "Immaculate Conceptions" means, and where the patristic sources are for the Papacy - does that make me on in a million?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-), I have thought long and hard about freedom in software and the approach of the GNU project. It was Microsoft's greed and methods (not to mention the sponsorship of some of Bill's charitable works) that persuaded me to use Linux at home, exclusively, and even inflict it on my wife and children. I value the choice to benefit from other people's generosity, in willing to learn from other people's handiwork, and to share my commitment with others. I thank all the contributors to free software for helping humanity at large, and not in keeping things to yourselves or in subjecting your users to unjust licenses.
Tomorrow, I will be sharing the ideas of free software with other Catholics, and I hope they will benefit from this as well, and so it goes on.
Again, I praise the author's courage in such a brave title - the venom of some of the responses only goes to show what a misunderstood body the Church actually is. No, some in her past have not fulfilled their calling, but let's not drag the whole thing through the mud as a consequence. And let us not forget how much her members contributed to the establishment of science in the west (for example, <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods40.html" title="lewrockwell.com">http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods40.html</a lewrockwell.com>).
As a Catholic (who knows what "Immaculate Conceptions" means, and where the patristic sources are for the Papacy - does that make me on in a million?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-), I have thought long and hard about freedom in software and the approach of the GNU project. It was Microsoft's greed and methods (not to mention the sponsorship of some of Bill's charitable works) that persuaded me to use Linux at home, exclusively, and even inflict it on my wife and children. I value the choice to benefit from other people's generosity, in willing to learn from other people's handiwork, and to share my commitment with others. I thank all the contributors to free software for helping humanity at large, and not in keeping things to yourselves or in subjecting your users to unjust licenses.
Tomorrow, I will be sharing the ideas of free software with other Catholics, and I hope they will benefit from this as well, and so it goes on.
Again, I praise the author's courage in such a brave title - the venom of some of the responses only goes to show what a misunderstood body the Church actually is. No, some in her past have not fulfilled their calling, but let's not drag the whole thing through the mud as a consequence. And let us not forget how much her members contributed to the establishment of science in the west (for example, <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods40.html" title="lewrockwell.com">http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods40.html</a lewrockwell.com>).
who knows what "Immaculate Conceptions" means, and where the patristic sources are for the Papacy
I will assume you do understand the former and ask you this. If the Mother of God is indeed born without sin, then how can Christ be of fully two natures, one human and one divine (the Theantropos the Fathers spoke of) when he is not born of a "normal" human being (all of which are affected by the Original Sin). If His mother was "superhuman" (I mean this literally, not sarcastically) then from whom could He inherit His human nature?
What would be the *Patristic* explanation of this obvious contradiction?!
As for the Patristic sources for the Papacy, please explain why it took the Roman-Catholic Church OVER EIGHTEEN CENTURIES to finally proclaim the the dogma of Papal infallability (on matter of faith and ex-cathedra, of course) and what scriptural basis there is for it?
I will be waiting for your answer with great anticipation!
I will assume you do understand the former and ask you this. If the Mother of God is indeed born without sin, then how can Christ be of fully two natures, one human and one divine (the Theantropos the Fathers spoke of) when he is not born of a "normal" human being (all of which are affected by the Original Sin). If His mother was "superhuman" (I mean this literally, not sarcastically) then from whom could He inherit His human nature?
What would be the *Patristic* explanation of this obvious contradiction?!
As for the Patristic sources for the Papacy, please explain why it took the Roman-Catholic Church OVER EIGHTEEN CENTURIES to finally proclaim the the dogma of Papal infallability (on matter of faith and ex-cathedra, of course) and what scriptural basis there is for it?
I will be waiting for your answer with great anticipation!
Notice that even though several poster claim to know their religion - none can answer your (basic) questions.
Pitiful.
Pitiful.
Please excuse my delay in replying - I didn't check the thread over the weekend. Although this isn't really the forum for such arguments, I summarise my reply as follows:
A. I fail to understand your difficulty over the Immeculate Conception - just because Mary was conceived without sin does not mean Christ did not inherit a "normal" human nature. What is normal about sin - it is the rejection of God's plan, and is therefore adnormal. As Scripture states, "Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like us in all things except sin" (GS 22).
B. Therefore, there is no contradiction. However, if you require a source from the Fathers of the Church, here is a hymn to Our Lady from St. Ephraim (an Eastern Father, 306-373)
You alone and your Mother,
are more beautiful than any others;
For there is no blemish in you,
nor any stains upon your Mother.
Who of my children
can compare in beauty to these?
C. Papacy - the Church only defines things that are already believed for the benefit of the faithful, therefore, the timing of the definition does not matter one bit to its truth. If the Holy See reiterates its doctrine on the Trinity, does that have an effect on its validity? The Scriptural basis is essentially Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church", and in the next verse "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (sounds like infallibility to me), later in John 21:15-17 Jesus solemnly tells Peter "Feed his sheep and take care of his lambs." See this article for more, <a href="http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/dlongene/youpeter.html" title="christendom-awake.org">http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/dlongene/y<nobr>o<wbr></nobr> upeter.html</a christendom-awake.org>
D. Patristic sources for the Papacy. I hardly know where to start. A quick search on Google throws up tons of stuff (e.g. <a href="http://www.catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/" title="catholic-forum.com">http://www.catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/</a catholic-forum.com>)<nobr>.<wbr></nobr> Moreover, the three volume set "The Faith of the Early Fathers" by William A. Jurgens is excellent as a compilation of the Fathers of the Church.
Here are a few:
(1) Tertullian (c. AD 197) speaks of Peter apart from Paul as ordaining Clement as his episcopal successor (De Praescrip Haer 32).
(2) The Poem Against Marcion (c. 200 AD) states how "Peter bad Linus to take his place and sit on the chair whereon he himself had sat" (III, 80). The word "chair" (cathedra) in ecclesiastical language always means one's episcopal throne (i.e. the bishop's chair).
(3) Caius of Rome (214 AD) calls Pope Victor the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter (Euseb HE V, 28).
(4) Hippolytus (225 AD) counts Peter as the first Bishop of Rome (Dict Christian Biog I, 577).
(5) Cyprian (in 250) speaks of Rome as "the place of Peter" (Ep ad Anton), and as "the Chair of Peter" (Ep ad Pope Cornelius).
(6) Firmilian (257) speaks of Pope Stephen's claim to the "succession of Peter" and to the "Chair of Peter" (Ep ad Cyprian).
(7) Eusebius (314) says that Peter was "the bishop of Rome for twenty-five years" (Chron an 44), and calls Linus "first after Peter to obtain the episcopate" (Chron an 66). He also says that Victor was "the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter" (HE III, 4).
(8) The Council of Sardica "honors the memory of the Apostle Peter" in granting Pope Julius I the right to judge cases involving other episcopal sees under imperial Roman law (Sardica Canon IV, and Ep ad Pope Julius).
(9) Athanasius (340's) calls Rome the "Apostolic Throne" -- a reference to the Apostle Peter as the first bishop to occupy that throne (Hist Arian ad Monarch 35).
(10) Optatus (370) says that the episcopal chair of Rome was first established by Peter, "in which chair sat Peter himself." He also says how "Peter first filled the pre-eminent chair," which "is the first of the marks of the Church." (Schism Donat II, 2 and II, 3).
(11) Pope Damasus (370) speaks of the "Apostolic chair" in which "the holy Apostle sitting, taught his successors how to guide the helm of the Church" (Ep ix ad Synod, Orient ap Theodoret V, 10). Damasus also states how "The first See is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church" and says how Rome received primacy not by the conciliar decisions of the other churches, but from the evangelic voice of the Lord, when He says, "Thou art Peter..." (Decree of Damasus 382).
(12) Ambrose (c. 390) speaks of Rome as "Peter's chair" and the Roman church where "Peter, first of the Apostles, first sat" (De Poenit I, 7-32, Exp Symb ad Initiand).
(13) Jerome (c. 390) speaks of Rome as the "chair of Peter" and the "Apostolic chair," and states that Peter held the episcopal chair for twenty-five years at Rome (Epistle 15 and se Vir Illust I, 1).
(14) Augustine (c. 400) tells us to number the bishops of Rome from the chair of Peter itself (in Ps contra Part Donat), and speaks of "the chair of the Roman church in which Peter first sat" (Contra Lit Petil).
(15) Prudentius (405) writes how in Rome there were "the two princes of the Apostles, one the Apostle of the Gentiles, the other holding the First Chair" (Hymn II in honor of St Laurent, V).
(16) Bachiarius (420) speaks of Rome as "the chair of Peter, the seat of faith" (De Fide 2).
(17) Prosper of Aquitaine (429) calls Rome "the Apostolic See" and the "Chair of the Apostle Peter" (Carm de Ingratis).
(18) The Roman legates at the Council of Ephesus (431) declare how "it is a matter doubtful to none that Peter lived and exercised judgement in his successors" and how "the holy and most blessed [Pope] Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place" (Acta Councilia, session 3, tom III, col 621).
(19) Peter Chrysologus (440) speaks of "blessed Peter living and presiding in his own see" (Ep ad Eutech).
(20) Pope Leo the Great (440) says how "the whole Church acknowledges Peter in the See of Peter (Rome)" (Serm II, 2).
(21) At the Council of Chalcedon (451), the assembled bishops respond to the teaching of Pope Leo the Great by crying out, "Peter has spoken through Leo." The sentence of the council is pronounced by the legates "in the name of Leo, the Council, and St. Peter" (Canons of Chalcedon).
(22) The Synodical Letter to Pope Leo from Chalcedon calls the Pope "the interpreter of Peter's voice."
(23) Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian III (450) speak of "the primacy of the Apostolic See (Rome), made firm on account of the merits of Peter, Chief of the Corona of Bishops" (Inter ep Leon I, Vol XI, col 637).
A. I fail to understand your difficulty over the Immeculate Conception - just because Mary was conceived without sin does not mean Christ did not inherit a "normal" human nature. What is normal about sin - it is the rejection of God's plan, and is therefore adnormal. As Scripture states, "Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like us in all things except sin" (GS 22).
B. Therefore, there is no contradiction. However, if you require a source from the Fathers of the Church, here is a hymn to Our Lady from St. Ephraim (an Eastern Father, 306-373)
You alone and your Mother,
are more beautiful than any others;
For there is no blemish in you,
nor any stains upon your Mother.
Who of my children
can compare in beauty to these?
C. Papacy - the Church only defines things that are already believed for the benefit of the faithful, therefore, the timing of the definition does not matter one bit to its truth. If the Holy See reiterates its doctrine on the Trinity, does that have an effect on its validity? The Scriptural basis is essentially Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church", and in the next verse "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (sounds like infallibility to me), later in John 21:15-17 Jesus solemnly tells Peter "Feed his sheep and take care of his lambs." See this article for more, <a href="http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/dlongene/youpeter.html" title="christendom-awake.org">http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/dlongene/y<nobr>o<wbr></nobr> upeter.html</a christendom-awake.org>
D. Patristic sources for the Papacy. I hardly know where to start. A quick search on Google throws up tons of stuff (e.g. <a href="http://www.catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/" title="catholic-forum.com">http://www.catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/</a catholic-forum.com>)<nobr>.<wbr></nobr> Moreover, the three volume set "The Faith of the Early Fathers" by William A. Jurgens is excellent as a compilation of the Fathers of the Church.
Here are a few:
(1) Tertullian (c. AD 197) speaks of Peter apart from Paul as ordaining Clement as his episcopal successor (De Praescrip Haer 32).
(2) The Poem Against Marcion (c. 200 AD) states how "Peter bad Linus to take his place and sit on the chair whereon he himself had sat" (III, 80). The word "chair" (cathedra) in ecclesiastical language always means one's episcopal throne (i.e. the bishop's chair).
(3) Caius of Rome (214 AD) calls Pope Victor the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter (Euseb HE V, 28).
(4) Hippolytus (225 AD) counts Peter as the first Bishop of Rome (Dict Christian Biog I, 577).
(5) Cyprian (in 250) speaks of Rome as "the place of Peter" (Ep ad Anton), and as "the Chair of Peter" (Ep ad Pope Cornelius).
(6) Firmilian (257) speaks of Pope Stephen's claim to the "succession of Peter" and to the "Chair of Peter" (Ep ad Cyprian).
(7) Eusebius (314) says that Peter was "the bishop of Rome for twenty-five years" (Chron an 44), and calls Linus "first after Peter to obtain the episcopate" (Chron an 66). He also says that Victor was "the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter" (HE III, 4).
(8) The Council of Sardica "honors the memory of the Apostle Peter" in granting Pope Julius I the right to judge cases involving other episcopal sees under imperial Roman law (Sardica Canon IV, and Ep ad Pope Julius).
(9) Athanasius (340's) calls Rome the "Apostolic Throne" -- a reference to the Apostle Peter as the first bishop to occupy that throne (Hist Arian ad Monarch 35).
(10) Optatus (370) says that the episcopal chair of Rome was first established by Peter, "in which chair sat Peter himself." He also says how "Peter first filled the pre-eminent chair," which "is the first of the marks of the Church." (Schism Donat II, 2 and II, 3).
(11) Pope Damasus (370) speaks of the "Apostolic chair" in which "the holy Apostle sitting, taught his successors how to guide the helm of the Church" (Ep ix ad Synod, Orient ap Theodoret V, 10). Damasus also states how "The first See is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church" and says how Rome received primacy not by the conciliar decisions of the other churches, but from the evangelic voice of the Lord, when He says, "Thou art Peter..." (Decree of Damasus 382).
(12) Ambrose (c. 390) speaks of Rome as "Peter's chair" and the Roman church where "Peter, first of the Apostles, first sat" (De Poenit I, 7-32, Exp Symb ad Initiand).
(13) Jerome (c. 390) speaks of Rome as the "chair of Peter" and the "Apostolic chair," and states that Peter held the episcopal chair for twenty-five years at Rome (Epistle 15 and se Vir Illust I, 1).
(14) Augustine (c. 400) tells us to number the bishops of Rome from the chair of Peter itself (in Ps contra Part Donat), and speaks of "the chair of the Roman church in which Peter first sat" (Contra Lit Petil).
(15) Prudentius (405) writes how in Rome there were "the two princes of the Apostles, one the Apostle of the Gentiles, the other holding the First Chair" (Hymn II in honor of St Laurent, V).
(16) Bachiarius (420) speaks of Rome as "the chair of Peter, the seat of faith" (De Fide 2).
(17) Prosper of Aquitaine (429) calls Rome "the Apostolic See" and the "Chair of the Apostle Peter" (Carm de Ingratis).
(18) The Roman legates at the Council of Ephesus (431) declare how "it is a matter doubtful to none that Peter lived and exercised judgement in his successors" and how "the holy and most blessed [Pope] Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place" (Acta Councilia, session 3, tom III, col 621).
(19) Peter Chrysologus (440) speaks of "blessed Peter living and presiding in his own see" (Ep ad Eutech).
(20) Pope Leo the Great (440) says how "the whole Church acknowledges Peter in the See of Peter (Rome)" (Serm II, 2).
(21) At the Council of Chalcedon (451), the assembled bishops respond to the teaching of Pope Leo the Great by crying out, "Peter has spoken through Leo." The sentence of the council is pronounced by the legates "in the name of Leo, the Council, and St. Peter" (Canons of Chalcedon).
(22) The Synodical Letter to Pope Leo from Chalcedon calls the Pope "the interpreter of Peter's voice."
(23) Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian III (450) speak of "the primacy of the Apostolic See (Rome), made firm on account of the merits of Peter, Chief of the Corona of Bishops" (Inter ep Leon I, Vol XI, col 637).
Thanks for your very interesting and thorough reply which, alas, does not really answer my questions. Here is why:
a) The dogma of the Immacuate Conception: it states that Mary was concieved without the Original Sin (if that is the expression in English - the sin of Adam) and not without a personal or parental sin. There is no doubt that the Church did teach that the Mother of God was without blemish (that she was "all-holy), but that refer to her and not to the supposition that at her conception she was somehow different from other human beings. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states "No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture". The Papacy came up with this dogma in reaction to an already non-Patristic idea by Saint Augustine (yes, individual Father can err, as Saint Augustine himself admitted he might have in the "disclaimer" he wrote at the end of his writing) of the original sin as being not a consquence of the actions of Adam, but a co-responsability. Thus Christ, in the Papist conception, could not be born from a "defiled" mother, hence this Immaculate Conception. However, since ONLY the Mother of God and no other woman had been similiary conceived, it would not make Christ born of a "normal" human mother but of a super-human or extra-human mother (again, I mean this not sarcastically, but literally).
The mistaken Thomistic belief that "philosophy is the servant of theology" underlies what is, in substance, a *logical conclusion* reached to "resolve" a theological contradiction. We are dealing with a *necessity*, not a revealed truth. This is why it took until December8, 1854, to have an first "infallible" Pope decree that this innovation was now dogma.
b) the Primacy of the Pope. First, the Paristic understanding of the passage you quote is that Christ refers to the *faith* expressed by Peter. Furthermore, Rome was considered as the "first among equals" (primus inter pares) for one formal and one historical reason. The formal one was that it was the capital of the Roman Empire, the historical one is that, at least originally, Rome was far less suseptible to heresies that the Easter Partiachates (this was well illustrated at the time of the monopylete (English sp.?) heresy). However, none of that has *ANY* connection to the idea of Papal infallability which I asked about. If you look into the condition during which the 1st Vatican Council was held (civil war and trapped bishops) as well as the heated dabates (get Strossmayer's speech) you will see that even as late as the 19th century there was no concensus on what primacy, much less so infallability, of the Pope. That was also an innovation required by circumstances.
As for "he Church only defines things that are already believed for the benefit of the faithful" it begs the question of how this compares to Saint Vincent of Lerin's definition that only that which is believed "by all, always, everywhere" is truly correct and can be termed as having the authority of a Patristic consensus.
I very much encourage you to read the early Church fathers and their writings on ecclesiology. Also - look into the various crisis which the Church underwent during the time of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils and the role of Rome at the time and you will see that even the Roman Popes themselves had a radically different conception of their ministry that today's Popes.
a) The dogma of the Immacuate Conception: it states that Mary was concieved without the Original Sin (if that is the expression in English - the sin of Adam) and not without a personal or parental sin. There is no doubt that the Church did teach that the Mother of God was without blemish (that she was "all-holy), but that refer to her and not to the supposition that at her conception she was somehow different from other human beings. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states "No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture". The Papacy came up with this dogma in reaction to an already non-Patristic idea by Saint Augustine (yes, individual Father can err, as Saint Augustine himself admitted he might have in the "disclaimer" he wrote at the end of his writing) of the original sin as being not a consquence of the actions of Adam, but a co-responsability. Thus Christ, in the Papist conception, could not be born from a "defiled" mother, hence this Immaculate Conception. However, since ONLY the Mother of God and no other woman had been similiary conceived, it would not make Christ born of a "normal" human mother but of a super-human or extra-human mother (again, I mean this not sarcastically, but literally).
The mistaken Thomistic belief that "philosophy is the servant of theology" underlies what is, in substance, a *logical conclusion* reached to "resolve" a theological contradiction. We are dealing with a *necessity*, not a revealed truth. This is why it took until December8, 1854, to have an first "infallible" Pope decree that this innovation was now dogma.
b) the Primacy of the Pope. First, the Paristic understanding of the passage you quote is that Christ refers to the *faith* expressed by Peter. Furthermore, Rome was considered as the "first among equals" (primus inter pares) for one formal and one historical reason. The formal one was that it was the capital of the Roman Empire, the historical one is that, at least originally, Rome was far less suseptible to heresies that the Easter Partiachates (this was well illustrated at the time of the monopylete (English sp.?) heresy). However, none of that has *ANY* connection to the idea of Papal infallability which I asked about. If you look into the condition during which the 1st Vatican Council was held (civil war and trapped bishops) as well as the heated dabates (get Strossmayer's speech) you will see that even as late as the 19th century there was no concensus on what primacy, much less so infallability, of the Pope. That was also an innovation required by circumstances.
As for "he Church only defines things that are already believed for the benefit of the faithful" it begs the question of how this compares to Saint Vincent of Lerin's definition that only that which is believed "by all, always, everywhere" is truly correct and can be termed as having the authority of a Patristic consensus.
I very much encourage you to read the early Church fathers and their writings on ecclesiology. Also - look into the various crisis which the Church underwent during the time of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils and the role of Rome at the time and you will see that even the Roman Popes themselves had a radically different conception of their ministry that today's Popes.
even as late as the 19th century there was no concensus on what primacy, much less so infallability, of the Pope. That was also an innovation required by circumstances.
this is also why the so-called "Old Catholics"/"Christian Catholics" appeared...
this is also why the so-called "Old Catholics"/"Christian Catholics" appeared...
This discussion is, unfortunately, ending up as an endless intellectual argument. In the end, you either accept the Church's claims in carrying on Christ's work (despite her members, at the best of times), with the authority and certainly that this involves, or you do not and you then decide what you believe yourself (based on _your_ interpretation of the Scriptures or _your_ interpretation of the Patristic sources).
As far I am concerned, Our Lord gave St. Peter the powers to bind and loose - I gave ample evidence that this power was passed on, and continues to be passed on. There is a tendency today to magnify the Pope's power beyond the restrictive definition that Vatican I made - he is not impeccable or infallible in all things, but only when it is a matter of preserving and teaching the faith to the whole Church.
Moreover, I do not think that the Church teaches that Christ "could not be born from a defiled mother", but that He simply choose that way. All of Mary's graces stem from her honour as the Mother of Our Lord. And as St. Athanasius stated:
"He (Christ) took it (His body) from a pure and unstained Virgin, who had not known man." (On the Incarnation of the Word 8)
As the "defender of orthodoxy", I'd rather believe St. Athanasius than any modern day interpreter!
As for Rome being "first among equals", I offer you this quotation from the Bishop of Arles in the 5th century:
"Through blessed Peter, prince of the apostles, the most holy Roman Church should hold soveregnty over all the Churches of the whole World"
But, to conclude, it is all a matter of faith in the end - either you take Our Lord's words to St. Peter that he was to be the rock on which the Church was built literally, or not, and if so, you then trust that Church in all matters of the faith. I, for one, cannot believe that Christ promised to be with us always, but at the same time leave us a wayward Church with no real leadership.
As far I am concerned, Our Lord gave St. Peter the powers to bind and loose - I gave ample evidence that this power was passed on, and continues to be passed on. There is a tendency today to magnify the Pope's power beyond the restrictive definition that Vatican I made - he is not impeccable or infallible in all things, but only when it is a matter of preserving and teaching the faith to the whole Church.
Moreover, I do not think that the Church teaches that Christ "could not be born from a defiled mother", but that He simply choose that way. All of Mary's graces stem from her honour as the Mother of Our Lord. And as St. Athanasius stated:
"He (Christ) took it (His body) from a pure and unstained Virgin, who had not known man." (On the Incarnation of the Word 8)
As the "defender of orthodoxy", I'd rather believe St. Athanasius than any modern day interpreter!
As for Rome being "first among equals", I offer you this quotation from the Bishop of Arles in the 5th century:
"Through blessed Peter, prince of the apostles, the most holy Roman Church should hold soveregnty over all the Churches of the whole World"
But, to conclude, it is all a matter of faith in the end - either you take Our Lord's words to St. Peter that he was to be the rock on which the Church was built literally, or not, and if so, you then trust that Church in all matters of the faith. I, for one, cannot believe that Christ promised to be with us always, but at the same time leave us a wayward Church with no real leadership.
What role do vendor ethics play?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 11, 2005 05:51 PMI'm not just talking about M$ lobbying to pass pro-homophile laws in the US. I'm talking about a 30 year history of deception, lies, stealing, over charging, breaking contracts and other illegal practices. M$ has not been punished for breaking the law, but has nonetheless been found guilty on numerous occasions. It's an ongoing problem and appears part of that company's corporate culture. Buying into M$ is then buying into that system of values and ethics.
But does that matter? (yes/no)?
#