I'm sure that did a lot for his marriage. Personally, I think extremism of any kind doesn't work; the world isn't an extreme place, to me, so extreme beliefs just don't work for it. But, then again, I am a Methodist, so I might be biased against Mel on this one.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, more power to Mel. I'm sick and tired of people belonging to religions that claim to have individuals who speak for God who do not actually share the beliefs espoused by those individuals.
Mel's response -- that this makes no sense to him and seems unfair, but that it's the Pope's decree and therefore true -- is the only one that makes sense from someone who still wants to call himself a Catholic.
posted
Well, for what it's worth, I think most of the Catholics I know would get a giggle out of the question...
Of course, none of the Catholics I know share much in common with Gibson's ultra-conservative (even labeled as "fringe" by a lot of Catholics) beliefs.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
If it's so hard for American Catholics to believe Catholic doctrine, perhaps they shouldn't be Catholics anymore.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hrm, I might think it's sadder that you can just damn people to hell for ignorance.... But that might start a flame war, and I'm only half serious, here.
Most of my Dad's side is Catholic, but me ma was Presbyterian, so apparently they compromised and became conservative Methodist or something.... Which, at our church, is like diluted Catholicism.
[ February 11, 2004, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
I don't understand how someone can claim to belong to a religion and not believe most of what the religion teaches.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep. Or are even only dimly aware of what their religion dictates.
I know several Mormons who didn't realize that people can be sealed after death; I know literally dozens of Catholics who insisted that transubstantiation was meant figuratively, as a metaphor; I know quite a few Muslims who insist that it's okay to eat rum cake as long as the alcohol's been baked out.
I think part of my problem with joining any particular religion is that I pay a lot of attention to these kind of dictates, and won't join a religion whose decrees seem stupid to me -- unlike many people who are born into a faith and just ignore the ones they don't understand.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know several Mormons who didn't realize that people can be sealed after death
Are you sure? I mean, did they actually go to church? Really, several? Several proud Mormons who weren't aware of the possiblity of being sealed after death?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
The upshot in the article is that the pope didn't say what the press think he said, (and I'm too tired to go look up the original press claims) but it has some interesting things to say:
quote:The Vatican statement noted that section number 20 of "Dominus Iesus," states: "For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, ’salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit.’"
The Vatican press statement concluded: "The teaching of the Second Vatican Council taken up by the Holy Father, according to which those who are saved, even if they are not Christians, are saved by the grace of Christ, is precisely what ’Dominus Iesus’ declares regarding the unique and universal character of Christ."
*shrug* make of it what you will...
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nods to Kat* In fact, I'm pretty sure I saw a thread on here just recently in which someone raised Mormon didn't know about post-mortem sealings.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it seems to me that no two people ever see any large system of knowledge exactly alike. Can you find two economists who agree on economics in every single particular? Or physicists on physics? Programmers on programming? Here is something Chaim Potok said on that subject, in an interview, that I think is wonderful. He was a great man.
quote: Q: Many Christian groups have experienced and are experiencing internal controversies which I find very similar in principles to those that are dealt with in The Promise. Do you think it is possible for a religious group to be tolerant and allow for plurality of views and still maintain a clear identity and sense of purpose? If so, how do you do that?
A: That's a very serious problem. Within Judaism itself you will find a significant spectrum of difference in terms of responses to your question. For example, Jewish fundamentalist, the very orthodox, will say, "No, it is not possible. There is one reading of the Jewish tradition; all other readings are wrong."
I can see where the problem would come into very serious play with specific Christian fundamentalisms. I would suspect, though, that if a Christian fundamentalism looks deeply inside itself, it will find a spectrum of readings. It is inconceivable to me that a million or three million or half a million human beings will think and feel precisely the same way on any single subject. I think that we all finally ought to admit that while a system of thought has boundaries, the boundaries can be narrow or wide. Even the most fundamentalist of fundamentalism, if it really looks, will find fairly wide boundaries.
The trick then is: How do you respect one another? The alternative is disruption of a planet. It is no longer just burning people at the stake, throwing people out, excommunicating people or fighting wars. Either the species learn to listen--to listen--or we will simply disappear as a species. Now I submit that the price you pay for listening is far less than the price you pay for not listening and disappearing.
[ February 11, 2004, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw the thread too kat. I can't remember which thread, now, but it has to be on the first or second page. I'll go look.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I think you misinterpreted Pooka’s saying she didn’t know anything about post-mortem marriages. When it was clarified that what was being talked about was sealings of previous non-temple marriages, she said that in fact her grandfather had been sealed after his death.
But on the general principle, I think you’re right. ::sigh:: I’m quite frustrated by how many people seem to lack a basic knowledge of what they claim to believe. Especially when I have to deal with their kids in confirmation class. “My mom said ____.” “Well, that’s not what our church teaches.”
Edit: Ah. I forgot about L&F. But was he talking about sealings or marriages?
Liquor & Fireworks says he's a Mormon, and had never heard of the practice. I've seen a similar thread on BeliefNet, too, in which some other skeptical Mormons had posted; I'll see if I can track it down.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
that comes right after the marriage bit. Sealing of a marriage performed in life = yes
Marriage to people dead, without one in life = no
So...there's a very good reason he's never heard of marriage (the initial one) after death. It doesn't exist!
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, there are also religions which practice layers of secrecy, making it so some members are intentionally unaware of certain practices.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to be labled pro-Pope or Anti-Gibson, but I believe I heard that Gibson's sect is soooooo strict, and soooo conservative that they DON'T believe the Pope is infallible.
They follow a creed that goes back centuries to before the Pope's decree of Infallability. They claim to be more Catholic than the Pope.
Now face it. That is conservative.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for finding that sndrake - I was looking for that exact passage.
The Catholic Church does not teach that people outside the Church cannot obtain salvation. Gibson is wrong about this.
First, there are several Orthodox sects that are recognized as true descendents of the original Church, even though they reject the authority of the Peter.
Second, as the quote illustrates, salvation is obtainable by those "not formally and visibly membersof the Church." It also says we're not sure exactly how this works but it does emphasize such salvation is through the grace of Christ.
The document this comes from is DOMINUS IESUS, published by the Vatican with approval of Pope John Paul II in 2000.
The document does say several things which non-Catholics find tough to swallow:
Salvation is only possible through Christ and the Church. Note, it does not say whether the person has to express a belief in Christ - it just says salvation is a obtained throught Christ's grace only. As explained above, Christ's grace works through the Church, so even a "non-Catholic" who receives salvation was somehow in communion with the Church.
Most non-Catholic Christian denominations are not "true churches." Basically this means that their lineage is not traceable straight through to Christ.
The preferred ("best") means of salvation is through full, active membership and participation in the Catholic Church.
posted
Kat, have you really never heard members of your church speaking, or seen them posting on the internet, things that just make you want to send them back to kindergarten Sunday School (or whatever your equivalent) because they obviously weren’t paying attention the first time through?
If you haven’t, I envy you.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Re ak's quote above: Potok has oversimplified and overgeneralized Orthodox views (here, as in so many places) so much that he makes statements that are not true, except in certain very specific cases.
posted
Thank you, Dagonee. I was wondering what Gibson was talking about, since my most recent info was Domini Iesus.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Kat, have you really never heard members of your church speaking, or seen them posting on the internet, things that just make you want to send them back to kindergarten Sunday School (or whatever your equivalent) because they obviously weren’t paying attention the first time through?
Yeah, I have. It's not usually unawareness of ordinances, though. I really am skeptical that there are adult Mormons that don't know about sealings.
However, the number of Mormon guys I've run into who think that holding the Priesthood means they are always right by definition, or the number of people who don't seem to be aware that e-mail forwards do not hold the same doctrinal weight as scripture make me want send them back to Primary, because they missed the point the first time.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I really am skeptical that there are adult Mormons that don't know about sealings."
I know a few Mormons who deny outright that the whole Kolob thing's in scripture, too. *shrug* Like you said, I don't understand how it's possible, but....
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kolob is mentioned in one verse in one book of scripture, but sealings are pounded in in every talk about temples and every time we sing Families Can Be Together Forever. I mean, sealings are ultimately the point of those big shiny buildings we keep being exhorted to attend.
It's like not hearing about the Euchrist if you're Catholic. Not just being fuzzy details, but not even hearing of it. Unless you live under a rock, I just can't believe that.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's sad that we would criticize Gibson for "damning his wife to Hell." I agree with Tom on this one - I think to truly adhere to a religion means to support their teachings even when you don't understand or agree with some doctrines.
Someone who would alter the doctrines he had been taught so they don't apply to people that he likes may have good intentions, but he would not be what I consider a good example of one adhering to religious beliefs.
Too common is the concept of a spiritual smorgasbord - pick and choose whichever doctrines and teachings that you like; call truth that which you most agree with and dismiss everything else as extreme and mean. I think it takes a lot of arrogance to construct a religion out of what you think is right, rejecting the bits you don't like, and then say that your way is the truth. If we were capable of understanding religious truths based on our own feelings and whims, why would we have so many different doctrines?
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It's like not hearing about the Euchrist if you're Catholic."
You'd be amazed how many Catholics aren't aware of what the Eucharist actually is meant to be.
----
Dag, they're the teachings of HIS church. *shrug* And if we're going to respect individual's rights to say "homosexuality is wrong because God says so, even if I don't understand why and my gut feeling says otherwise," we have to respect someone's right to say "my wife is going to Hell according to my beliefs, even if I don't understand it and I regret it."
Personally, I would have a seriously hard time belonging to a church whose beliefs I actually regretted -- but I'm impressed by those people who are able to do so.
posted
They think it's a symbolic thing they do to remind them of Christ's sacrifice.
Which would have been an opinion for which they would have been killed by the Catholic church, back when it mattered.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would argue that merely knowing the EXISTENCE of the Eucharist makes them no more Catholic than knowing that sealings EXIST but believing that they're just metaphorical ways to say two people care about each other would make someone Mormon.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, they're the teachings of HIS church. *shrug* And if we're going to respect individual's rights to say "homosexuality is wrong because God says so, even if I don't understand why and my gut feeling says otherwise," we have to respect someone's right to say "my wife is going to Hell according to my beliefs, even if I don't understand it and I regret it."
When Gibson talks about "speaking from the Chair," he is speaking about the Pope - that's what the expression means. And the last published document with the Pope's imprimature contradicts what he is saying.
I respect his right to say what he thinks the beliefs of his church are. However, as has been mentioned by several people here on the board in other contexts, it is the duty of people he is supposedly speaking for to clarify the Church's position to outsiders.
All I've done is provide information based on my understanding of Gibson's and my shared faith. It contradicts what Gibson says. I've provided a link to the official Church document from which I obtained my contradictory opinion.
I've never said he doesn't have the right to say such things. I've just said he's wrong.
posted
You're preaching to the choir, to some extent. But in the same way that some people insist that the Bible says to kill witches, and other people insist that it doesn't, the most you can say here is that "MY version of Catholicism, which is the more popular one, doesn't teach that. And interpreting a number of statements logically would seem to indicate that this interpretation is seriously flawed, anyway."
But in my experience, no one is ever that logical involving their own religion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If someone says "Person A has said X," and someone else shows documentation that Person A actually said Y, we're not talking about religious beliefs subject to multiple interpretation.
So what I'm saying is, when Gibson says, "The Pope says all non-Catholics are going to hell" it is a fairly straightforward argument to say "The Pope did not say that" with documentation.
I agree with your take on anyone disagreeing with Gibson's belief that "All non-Catholics go to hell." There, we're on much less straightforward ground for arguing.
posted
"So what I'm saying is, when Gibson says, 'The Pope says all non-Catholics are going to hell' it is a fairly straightforward argument to say 'The Pope did not say that' with documentation."
Except when it comes to religion, sadly, which tends to defy all logic. Because the official rationale here (as I understand it) is that the Pope, when divinely inspired, said that non-Catholics were going to Hell, but that the Pope has since not been divinely inspired and cannot be trusted to be completely accurate since.
For that matter, religions have a habit of ignoring documentation. Surely if someone's religion taught that the Pope DID say something, and you produced scientific evidence that he in fact said the opposite, their faith would demand that they deny the accuracy of your evidence.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except I'm not trying to convince him - I'm trying to convince you and the other jatraqueros.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to back up Dag with a reality check from a non-Catholic (me), early responses clearly assumed that Gibson's statements about salvation and non-Catholics were simply in line with the Pope's position. And that Catholics who didn't believe what Gibson did were uninformed about their own church.
After a quick check, I found some material that indicated Gibson's beliefs are actually in contradiction to Catholic positions. Dag searched some more and found better source material to verify that.
Gibson can believe what he likes - the fact that it's contrary to current Catholic doctrine is carries it out of the mainstream.
There are better examples, especially in the U.S., of Catholics disagreeing with their church (abortion and the death penalty would be two examples), but they are generally aware that their own views and the those of the Church are in conflict.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is what he said documented anywhere besides a gossip column? I mean, these type reporters are famous for taking things out of context.
There is a big difference between saying "My wife could be going to hell" and saying "She is going to hell."
My husband could be going to hell. I have no way of knowing what is truly in his heart. But I don't damn him or say that he is going, there is a difference.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:<deleted, because it is not nice to take frustration out on friends>
See, it's posts like this, plus my uncurable curiosity that make me want to write a bot to continually harvest Hatrack so I can read the juicy posts people think better of minutes later.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
