Mass Grave of Over 200 Children Found at Former Canadian Residential School

[tstorm823]

The Pope is, to Catholics, a direct conduit to God, is he not? For a direct conduit, they sure do seem to get it wrong a lot.

No. You are incorrect. The Pope is the bishop of Rome and head of the Church, not a direct conduit to God.

Sure thing. A canonised saint, a pope, and an official spokespeople for the Vatican are not authorities on Catholic belief, but you are.

Why the hell should I believe you over them? & You can hardly say you represent the current belief structure, & these are all outdated, because you specifically said that Catholics never preached it.

It's so transparently, obviously false.

I'm not saying they aren't authorities on Catholic belief, I'm saying you're quoting statements that aren't Catholic dogma. There are select few things that are essential beliefs in the Catholic faith, and everyone of any position may have different beliefs and interpretations of everything else. A pope saying something does not demand that belief of the rest of the Church outside of very specific circumstances.

Not to mention the things you chose to quote don't necessarily mean what they seem to out of context. Take St. Theophilus and add in the first half of that paragraph.

Give studious attention to the prophetic writings and they will lead you on a clearer path to escape the eternal punishments and to obtain the eternal good things of God. He who gave mouth for speech and formed ears for hearings and made eyes for seeing will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. To those who seek immortality by the patient exercise of good works, He will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things which neither eye has seen nor ear has heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man. For the unbelievers...

So what is the way to heaven, according to St. Theophilus? The patient exercise of good works. And studying and following the prophetic writings will lead one on a clearer path to that. Within that context, "unbelievers and the contemptuous" is meant to designate those who choose to reject those teachings that lead one to a life of patient exercise of good works. It is not a statement on the requirement of belief to get to heaven. If I might skip ahead a few steps, the Catholic Church doesn't really have hard stances on who does or doesn't go to heaven. The only real answer is "Jesus said some vague stuff, we don't know the specifics, just be a good person."

 

[Cheetodust]

The Pope is, to Catholics, a direct conduit to God, is he not? For a direct conduit, they sure do seem to get it wrong a lot.

In matters of faith and morality the pope is infallible. Tstorm is talking out his hole again. The fact that he can casually drop "popes say wrong things" in a discussion on Catholic values makes this like arguing with him about Basketball when he claims bouncing the ball is illegal. He either has no clue what he's talking about or is just lying to keep dragging this out because it's fun for him. It's up to you guys if you want to let him keep wasting your time

 

[Seanchaidh]

I'm not saying they aren't authorities on Catholic belief, I'm saying you're quoting statements that aren't Catholic dogma. There are select few things that are essential beliefs

Are we expected to conclude that everything residential schoolteachers believed concerning religion was an essential belief? You're talking nonsense.

 

[Thaluikhain]

In matters of faith and morality the pope is infallible.

Technically, no, he has to declare he's being infallible at that one time on that one issue for that to work.

Of course, how many people know or care about that is another matter, making him de facto infallible in effect.

 

[Revnak]

The church is still refusing to cooperate with investigations into these mass graves while the Canadian government is at least funding the investigation. Both parties responsible, but only one kinda sorta acting like it.

The Canadian government is also spending orders of magnitude more to fight any effort led by native peoples to look into these and other issues of relevance to them. The Canadian government is, was, and will continue to be the most responsible body for the continuing genocide of Native Peoples in Canada. Don’t let even a fucking minute of Trudeau’s bullshit smarm cover up the fact that his administration has spent far more fighting indigenous legal suits than those that came before it. They are not the lighter grey to the church’s black.

 

[tstorm823]

In matters of faith and morality the pope is infallible.

This isn't true. Infallibility is a very specific thing that only applies is incredibly rare cases. There are like six times ever it's been invoked. The doctrine of papal infallibility is actually a perfect example of how I'm right. Infallibility here does not mean incapable of being wrong in the sense of magical omniscience on moral questions, but rather it's incapable of being wrong because the Pope in specific instances has the authority to define Church doctrine, and say "if you don't believe this, you aren't Catholic". It's not magical voodoo knowledge, it's just the logical understanding that a person who can make the rules cannot be wrong about what they are. So, if that particular idea of papal infallibility, of the Pope saying "all Catholics must believe this teaching", has only happened like a half dozen times, what does that imply about every other thing a pope has ever said?

Side note: the Church is not refusing to cooperate with investigations. Like, there's this, but more directly, how do people think they got ground penetrating radar into a Church owned cemetery?

 

[Silvanus]

I'm not saying they aren't authorities on Catholic belief, I'm saying you're quoting statements that aren't Catholic dogma. There are select few things that are essential beliefs in the Catholic faith, and everyone of any position may have different beliefs and interpretations of everything else.

Oooook... that's not really the same thing as claiming the Catholic Church "never" preached it, is it? You have Catholic authorities expounding on it right there. Whether you are now required to believe it doesn't negate the fact that they did preach it.

 

[tstorm823]

Oooook... that's not really the same thing as claiming the Catholic Church "never" preached it, is it? You have Catholic authorities expounding on it right there. Whether you are now required to believe it doesn't negate the fact that they did preach it.

Certain members of the Church saying something is a very different thing than that being Church doctrine. Even a Pope.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Certain members of the Church saying something is a very different thing than that being Church doctrine. Even a Pope.

And members of a church believing something is not the same thing as that being church doctrine.

 

[Silvanus]

Certain members of the Church saying something is a very different thing than that being Church doctrine. Even a Pope.

And something not being Church "doctrine" is not the same thing as something never being preached.

 

[Gergar12]

Trudeau is a war criminal.

 

[CM156]

In matters of faith and morality the pope is infallible.

Papal Infallibility is the most misunderstood doctrine in all of the Catholic faith, both by Catholics and by non-Catholics. The Pope has to specifically go through a process to invoke it, which has been done once since Vatican I ended in the 1870s. One time in over 150 or so years.
Unless you're at least 70 years old, it hasn't been done in your lifetime.

Trudeau is a war criminal.

Which Trudeau?

 

[tstorm823]

And something not being Church "doctrine" is not the same thing as something never being preached.

Something never being preached is different than something never being preached "by the Church", which is what I said. It's a silly standard to judge by anything a member of a group has said when discussing the position of the collective group.

 

[Silvanus]

Something never being preached is different than something never being preached "by the Church", which is what I said. It's a silly standard to judge by anything a member of a group has said when discussing the position of the collective group.

Not just "a member". The leader and highest representative, as well as an official spokesperson and a canonised saint. But, let's put that routine downplaying aside.

Say the leader of the Labour Party says, "we'll nationalise the banks". Would it then be untrue to say "the labour party" wants to nationalise the banks? And further: say that particular issue is a sticking point for a particular voter. Would that voter be justified in taking that statement into consideration, and voting accordingly?

 

[tstorm823]

Say the leader of the Labour Party says, "we'll nationalise the banks". Would it then be untrue to say "the labour party" wants to nationalise the banks?

Possibly, or possibly not. If Donald Trump says he wants to do something at odd with the majority of the Republican Party, both historically and at present (as he did a lot), do you then say "the Republican Party wants to do that thing Donald Trump said". Does the Republican Party want to nuke hurricanes? Does the Democratic Party want socialized medicine because Bernie Sanders said so? You're diving head first into the "any group I don't like is the combination of whatever positions I can find within it that suit my argument against them" trap. Don't do that.

 

[Silvanus]

Possibly, or possibly not. If Donald Trump says he wants to do something at odd with the majority of the Republican Party, both historically and at present (as he did a lot), do you then say "the Republican Party wants to do that thing Donald Trump said". Does the Republican Party want to nuke hurricanes? Does the Democratic Party want socialized medicine because Bernie Sanders said so?

Bernie Sanders is not the leader and highest, most influential representative of the Democratic Party. And what Pope Eugene said clearly isn't that much "at odds" with thought among others in the Church, considering the official spokesperson for the Vatican said that was generally the position.

You're diving head first into the "any group I don't like is the combination of whatever positions I can find within it that suit my argument against them" trap. Don't do that.

Bollocks. If you said "that's not the current position", or "that hasn't generally been the position", then that would've been fine. But you went with "that's never been the position". Rewriting history. A bit like saying the Church has "never been involved in inquisitions", because inquisitions aren't part of Church dogma.... while Vatican-approved Inquisitors are out slaughtering non-believers nonetheless.

And it's not exactly difficult to find this shit. It's not hyper-selective, taking one or two out of a hundred different positions. Dip a hand into almost anywhere in that institution's long and ignoble history and you'll find something ultraviolent or discriminatory.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Which Trudeau?

Yes.

 

[tstorm823]

Dip a hand into almost anywhere in that institution's long and ignoble history and you'll find something ultraviolent or discriminatory.

You're starting with this premise and then reasoning backwards to whatever you want to be true.

 

[Silvanus]

You're starting with this premise and then reasoning backwards to whatever you want to be true.

Not at all; that's a conclusion reached after looking. The looking came first, and the evidence was screamingly obvious to anybody not predisposed to automatically excuse any incidents they found.

 

[tstorm823]

Not at all; that's a conclusion reached after looking. The looking came first, and the evidence was screamingly obvious to anybody not predisposed to automatically excuse any incidents they found.

No, it isn't. Saying you've looked in a vacuum without being predisposed to anti-Catholic bias is about as silly as saying you've lived without the influence of racial prejudices. If anything, it's the more absurd claim of the two.