NationStates Jolt Archive

Thought this might stir up a hornet's nest. But in all seriousness can the moral authority of a billion people be held by one man? Does this restrict open disscusion within the Catholic church and envitably lead to Dogma with one man being infalible

Ideas please.....

Thought this might stir up a hornet's nest. But in all seriousness can the moral authority of a billion people be held by one man? Does this restrict open disscusion within the Catholic church and envitably lead to Dogma with one man being infalible

Ideas please.....
It's a choice. While it was as you described prior to the Reformation, in all, the HRCC is a choice. It weilds no temporal power outside the Vatican City area.
As to whether one believes a single man can wield the moral authority of a billion people-that's up to the Billion people. Nobody can force you to believe, trust, or place your faith in anyone.

Being Catholic is a choice and the pope has little hard political power outside the Vatican.

But from a theological pint of view, I agree that it is an overly centralised and authoritarian method of running a church.

a theological pint of view

i'd like one of those

Thought this might stir up a hornet's nest. But in all seriousness can the moral authority of a billion people be held by one man? Does this restrict open disscusion within the Catholic church and envitably lead to Dogma with one man being infalible

Ideas please.....
John Paul II was an aberration. Prior to him popes had been progressing toward a less dictatorial and more collegial style of leadership. He turned the clock back on that.

THough he is like the political leader in the vatican, he's not the political leader of most of the people he has influence over. He's a religious leader. As a Catholic, I think the popes in the early church and about 100 years after the Council of Trent have been at least decent. It's like the Dalai Lama, one of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs, or the Archbishop of Canterberry. The pope doesn't really change your day to day lives and most Catholcs don't listen to him 100% of the time. If he said something stupid, very few Catholics would listen to him (unlike right-wing evangelicals and Bush... sorry, I'm just kidding).


And, it's technically DOCTRINE that defines the Pope as infallible not DOGMA.

Dogma is things that you can't change with it still being the same religion - the belief in the trinity, Jesus's ressurection, etc...

Doctrine are things taht can be changed, like the question of female priests, if priests should get married.

This is what my religion text book said (I got to a Catholic School, Mount St. Joesph, Baltimore. It's a Xaverian Brother sponsered High School).

John Paul II was an aberration. Prior to him popes had been progressing toward a less dictatorial and more collegial style of leadership. He turned the clock back on that.

In truth, that would be regressing, since that is how the church started out in the first place. Of course, in this case, regression might be the best thing overall. =)

okay in that case would it not be better for a group (like the Orthodox church or the General Synod) to decide, that way there would always be disscusion. Diversity is good because it can bring up ideas, most rubbish but some good, that one school of thought would not be able to achieve. That is why I thing the Protestant reformations were a good thing. Even if we are all wrong and will go to hell it caused everyone to think, WHY they were what they were rather then just what they are by birth. This eventitably made all of the churches stronger in their conviction. Even if something is true, some opposition against it is usually a good thing in my opinion because people arecontinually having to look at it and re value it again. This prevent it just being accepted as a truth without any emotion. Well thats my opinion anyway.

anyone else?

Thought this might stir up a hornet's nest. But in all seriousness can the moral authority of a billion people be held by one man? Does this restrict open disscusion within the Catholic church and envitably lead to Dogma with one man being infalible
Ideas please.....What are you talking about?

I dont know about you but I think the new pope looks deliciously eeeeeeeeevil. Shoudln't they ahve picked someone a bit younger anyway? THis guy looks like he is about to croak already. Well, perhaps since he has the ability to eat souls he will live for longer than I expect. Didn't he work for the Nazis? THey shoulda had a black pope.

I dont know about you but I think the new pope looks deliciously eeeeeeeeevil. Shoudln't they ahve picked someone a bit younger anyway? THis guy looks like he is about to croak already. Well, perhaps since he has the ability to eat souls he will live for longer than I expect. Didn't he work for the Nazis? THey shoulda had a black pope.

From a purely political point of view, picking an older pope may be a good idea. There seem to be many in the church who would like more progressive leadership, but John Paul was so well-liked that jumping from him to a more progressive pope might cause unrest and stir up too much controversy. If they replace him with a conservative who won't be there long, they can wait until some of the memories have faded before trying for a more progressive pope.

Not saying that's why they chose him, of course, but it would make political sense.

From a purely political point of view, picking an older pope may be a good idea. There seem to be many in the church who would like more progressive leadership, but John Paul was so well-liked that jumping from him to a more progressive pope might cause unrest and stir up too much controversy. If they replace him with a conservative who won't be there long, they can wait until some of the memories have faded before trying for a more progressive pope.

Not saying that's why they chose him, of course, but it would make political sense.

good point

I think they should take a page out of the media handbook for greater viewership and cause all the controversy they can. After all any publicity is good publicity. Everyone forgot about the Catholic church entirely until the priest/alter boy scandal broke.

All I have to say is that Jesus Christ is my High Priest. I don't need a pope. Thank you, thank you very much.

It's a choice. While it was as you described prior to the Reformation, in all, the HRCC is a choice. It weilds no temporal power outside the Vatican City area.
As to whether one believes a single man can wield the moral authority of a billion people-that's up to the Billion people. Nobody can force you to believe, trust, or place your faith in anyone.
You said what I was going to say. Thanks for saving me the typing!