Originally posted by lucifershammer
We are discussing two positions here - and their relative merits and flaws. Whether you and I actually adhere to those views in our personal lives is irrelevant to this discussion.

Very well, we will not discuss what we beleive if you like. Does the Catholic church beleive that church doctrine and the Pope are infallible? Also, does the Catholic church teach that scripture is infallible?

Originally posted by no1marauder
In this case, "my" view of the world happens to coincide with the reality of the world and your's doesn't. Are you free to walk into any part of St. Peter's Basilica anytime you please because you are a member of the RCC? Entities like governments and huge, multinational non-profit organizations do own property and buy and sell the same on a regular basis. Your version is kinda sweet, but legally and factually incorrect.

Unlike you, I don't take the legal view to be paradigmatic for all reality. So, I'm not really all that concerned about being "legally incorrect".

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Unlike you, I don't take the legal view to be paradigmatic for all reality. So, I'm not really all that concerned about being "legally incorrect".

I see. So when you are discussing ownership of property you prefer to use metaphysics rather than the law. The extent you will stretch reality to try to escape the obvious conclusion that the RCC "financially(economically) benefited" from the indirect sale of indulgences is amusing, even if it is totally irrational BS. Basically, you dispute that the Church could ever "benefit" from anything. I suppose you realize how ridiculous you are being, but since you have no actual refutation of my premise you had to whip up something. I must say this is one of the lamest you've ever come up with and that's saying something.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
The government is an agent of the people, fully accountable to and controlled by them. All government assets are thus the assets of the people. The people, via elected legislation, decide on how they will be used.

The Catholic Church is not an agent of its members. The Church's assets are not the members'. The members do no decide on how they are used - there is no such mechanism of control.

1. Modern parliamentary democracy is not the only form of government, you know. Whether people have a say (directly or indirectly) over how government assets are used does not change the argument.

2. The Catholic Church is its members. Church assets are indeed held in lieu of and for the benefit of its members.

What you're talking about, in this context, is the Church hierarchy.

3. There is an extremely simple mechanism of "control" in the Church - it's called Vocation.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I see. So when you are discussing ownership of property you prefer to use metaphysics rather than the law. The extent you will stretch reality to try to escape the obvious conclusion that the RCC "financially(economically) benefited" from the indirect sale of indulgences is amusing, even if it is totally irrational BS. Basically, you dispute that the Chu ...[text shortened]... I must say this is one of the lamest you've ever come up with and that's saying something.

(More material for virtual applause)

Since, in your view, the government benefits financially/economically every time I pay my taxes and a charity benefits financially every time I donate money, I don't see the need to refute it.

I am not the one "stretching reality" here.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Since, in your view, the government benefits financially/economically every time I pay my taxes and a charity benefits financially every time I donate money, I don't see the need to refute it.

Are you really that happy with your comparison? Governments seem to be corrupt, susceptible to influence and abuse. What are you saying--that the Church is as corrupt as the US government, no more, no less?

Originally posted by whodey
Very well, we will not discuss what we beleive if you like. Does the Catholic church beleive that church doctrine and the Pope are infallible? Also, does the Catholic church teach that scripture is infallible?

Technically, the term "infallible" (in Catholic theology) can only be applied to the act of teaching by an authority (Pope, Church Councils) on matters of faith and morals. For doctrines, the corresponding term is authentic and for Scripture it's inerrant.

So, the answer to all three of your questions is - Yes.

Originally posted by lucifershammer


2. The Catholic Church is its members.

Oh, I wish you had admitted this earlier. It is indisputable that the Catholic Church's members have engaged in numerous, systematic acts of child molestation. You are now concedeing that the Catholic Chuch itself engages in child molestation.

Originally posted by lucifershammer


3. There is an extremely simple mechanism of "control" in the Church - it's called Vocation.

Could the members decide through vocation to turn St. Peters into a topless bar?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Are you really that happy with your comparison? Governments seem to be corrupt, susceptible to influence and abuse. What are you saying--that the Church is as corrupt as the US government, no more, no less?

The Church (laity, clergy and professed religious) is composed of human members. I wouldn't be surprised that they sin as much as anyone else.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Oh, I wish you had admitted this earlier. It is indisputable that the Catholic Church's members have engaged in numerous, systematic acts of child molestation. You are now concedeing that the Catholic Chuch itself engages in child molestation.

In the same way America engages in rape, murder, arson, violence etc.

EDIT: Never one to pass up the opportunity to play your word-games, Doctor?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Could the members decide through vocation to turn St. Peters into a topless bar?

They can try. 🙂

Originally posted by lucifershammer
(More material for virtual applause)

Since, in your view, the government benefits financially/economically every time I pay my taxes and a charity benefits financially every time I donate money, I don't see the need to refute it.

I am not the one "stretching reality" here.

How am I "stretching reality"???? A government DOES financially benefit when it receives more money; are you seriously asserting otherwise??? As does a non-profit corporation like the Church. You're the only one I ever heard claim differently.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
The government is an agent of the people, fully accountable to and controlled by them. All government assets are thus the assets of the people. The people, via elected legislation, decide on how they will be used.

The Catholic Church is not an agent of its members. The Church's assets are not the members'. The members do no decide on how they are used - there is no such mechanism of control.

This distinction is irrelevant to whether the entity in question "economically benefits". If the government had less money, the people who ran it couldn't do things that they want to do because of lack of funds. Ditto with the RCC. I am completely puzzled that anyone would actually dispute this simple truth.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Unlike you, I don't take the legal view to be paradigmatic for all reality. So, I'm not really all that concerned about being "legally incorrect".

Nor do you care about the "factually incorrect" part either apparently.