tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post6637086045739866052..comments2024-03-21T04:02:46.799-07:00Comments on Little Catholic Bubble: The two teachings that prove the Church is of GodLeila@LittleCatholicBubblehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-34086069029651514792015-11-10T12:47:57.684-07:002015-11-10T12:47:57.684-07:00Teaching children what is right and wrong has litt...<i>Teaching children what is right and wrong has little to do with teaching them to believe in a system where what you actually do doesn't matter as long as you are repentant. </i><br /><br />What does this even mean? And what does this have to do with the working reality that actions do in fact matter, even when <i>we are repentant</i>?<br /><br />The whole point of repentance is to turn from vice to virtue. It’s not about acting like what we do does not matter. You think Catholics believe that because we can confess that we can be careless?? How do you tie that together with the whole idea of “dying to self” which is the central teaching of following Christ? This is not even accurate analysis.<br /><br /><i>Sexuality is innate to people and religion is not. </i><br /><br />False. People are naturally drawn to the mystery of life – hence the bigger questions: Why am I here? Was I created for something special or am I forever just a wandering pack of atoms? What does our existence mean? Am I really part of a bigger picture that I don’t yet understand? <br /><br />“Religion” or religious questions are very innate in all of us. Those questions have been put forth by every race and creed since the dawn of man. It’s also the entire intuitive foundation for certain branches of philosophical thought. <br /><br />The fact that people are intellectually lazy or religiously ignorant doesn’t mean religion is not intuitive or “innate” in the human heart.Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-66425789070286224882015-11-10T12:47:06.476-07:002015-11-10T12:47:06.476-07:00Can you demonstrate that masturbation is objective...<i>Can you demonstrate that masturbation is objectively harmful?</i><br /><br />Easily demonstrated when you hold it up to the base level logic of the Church which is natural law coupled to divine law, to begin with. A believer can and does see that this act harms his own soul because it goes against both types of those laws. Not too difficult for us to see how this is a sin once we understand that.<br /><br /><i> If our "sex organs are designed to complement each other" then why would God make us capable of masturbating? Surely he could have made us capable of feeling sexual pleasure in a context that he defined couldn't he?</i><br /><br />We don’t live life equating every human urge or human capability to automatic goodness. The fact that we feel all kinds of impulses and we are capable of acting on those doesn’t mean we’re free from exerting any self-control.<br /><br />That’s just like saying, “Why am I capable of anger? Why am I capable of punching someone? Hmm. God made me this way with these urges to punch, so obviously, He wants me to punch. So I will punch at will because I was made this way, and this urge is good and beneficial.”<br /><br />Or, “Why am I capable of eating a six-layer dark chocolate cake? Surely, God made me this way, so I will eat the cake every time I get the urge, because this urge is good and holy, and it hurts no one but me to eat this entire cake.”<br /><br />Extrapolate the logic and the law together and there’s your answer.<br /><br />We are not animals operating without reason. We have the capacity for higher reason. This gauge gives us higher understanding so that we can act according to our higher nature—not merely according to base animal instinct like sexual urges, violence, or eating.<br /><br />People are capable of all kinds of actions, does that automatically mean they’re good things to do, and should be acted upon, simply because they exist? Unhealthy attractions should be acted upon? Unhealthy habits are okay because they’re driven by urges? No reasoning is involved in this free-pass thinking.Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-79203859389818690212015-11-10T12:19:44.415-07:002015-11-10T12:19:44.415-07:00First of all, are you a Christian? I would like to...First of all, are you a Christian? I would like to know who my audience is so that I can tailor my comments to the person. Everyone is coming from a different place. So, are you a believing Christian?<br /><br />Second, these statements need clarifying:<br /><br /><i>"Teaching children what is right and wrong has little to do with teaching them to believe in a system where what you actually do doesn't matter as long as you are repentant."</i><br /><br />I have no idea what argument you are fighting against? I never said, nor does the Church, that "what you actually do doesn't matter as long as you are repentant". Actually, everything we do matters, a lot.<br /><br /><i>"Sexuality is innate to people and religion is not."</i><br /><br />I believe that everyone innately has a sense of God, so I completely disagree with what I think you are trying to say here. I believe that a sense of God is innate, and that sexuality is a part of every human being, and has a proper design, place, meaning, and order to it. So, now what? How do we go from here in this discussion?<br /><br />As for "why would God makes us capable of masturbating".... um, He "made us capable of many things, including strangulating our neighbors, beating up our friends, stealing from our grandma, and even having sex with a goat. So? Are you arguing that as long as we have sexual urges and are capable of acting on them, we are morally free to do so? I'm not sure your point bears out.<br /><br />And as for "demonstrating" that masturbation is objectively harmful (and could you remind me which virtue masturbation falls under?), let's start with your own premise and example, that stealing is demonstrably harmful. Show me how, objectively, it is harmful for a man to take $20 from a billion-dollar company (and assume also that no one will ever find out). Thanks! <br /><br />*for the record, I believe that act of stealing is objectively wrong, but I want you to prove that it is, since you made the claim that you could.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-53387204495426972652015-11-09T22:14:53.624-07:002015-11-09T22:14:53.624-07:00Stealing is wrong because we can demonstrate objec...Stealing is wrong because we can demonstrate objectively that it harms someone or society. Teaching children what is right and wrong has little to do with teaching them to believe in a system where what you actually do doesn't matter as long as you are repentant. <br /><br />When did I claim that following natural urges is a principal for everything in ones life? I didn't, what I said was that when kids reach the age puberty and their bodies mature for adulthood they naturally begin to have sexual urges. Sexuality is innate to people and religion is not. <br /><br />Can you demonstrate that masturbation is objectively harmful? If our "sex organs are designed to complement each other" then why would God make us capable of masturbating? Surely he could have made us capable of feeling sexual pleasure in a context that he defined couldn't he?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07843705352486244496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-48707894491889953942015-11-09T13:49:45.964-07:002015-11-09T13:49:45.964-07:00LizaMoore, Yes, keep at it! And remember, it's...LizaMoore, Yes, keep at it! And remember, it's not "blindly accepting" if you believe in the authority that instructs you. For example, if you heard directly from Christ that a certain sin was wrong, you would believe him, even if you didn't fully understand. That is the same thing with the Church. If you believe her to be what she claims to be, you will not be "lying to yourself" when you accept her authority on things you don't understand. <br /><br />Just like children of good parents aren't "lying to themselves" when they accept that they must do A, B or C even when they don't understand why, but are told by the parents they love and trust. Later, when they are more seasoned, they look back and understand.<br /><br />Anyway, you are on the right track and your heart is open!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-80114324239008135972015-11-09T11:08:53.529-07:002015-11-09T11:08:53.529-07:00So, Unknown, how exactly do you explain converts l...So, Unknown, how exactly do you explain converts like myself? I was raised Lutheran. I was never raised to believe that masturbation or even premarital sex was wrong. I wasn't raised to believe that abortion was wrong. I was raised to believe that using contraception was the responsible thing to do when you became sexually active.<br /><br />Despite this upbringing, I freely and voluntarily converted to the Catholic Church at age 22. <br /><br />So exactly how was I "brainwashed" by the Church? I'm really interested to hear your explanation.JoAnna Wahlundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09942928659520676271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-82495175750205762015-11-09T10:52:08.803-07:002015-11-09T10:52:08.803-07:00Chris, and more specifically the following verse: ...Chris, and more specifically the following verse: "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell." <br />Hmmmm, when speaking of lust and sexual sins, what in the world could Jesus be referring to here with this right hand business?<br />Lidia Purplehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09767496729601759923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-51301274420815203362015-11-08T09:57:20.404-07:002015-11-08T09:57:20.404-07:00This perpetuates control because it creates a rela...<i>This perpetuates control because it creates a relationship where the church diagnoses a non existent problem, but then turns around and says we have the cure as long you follow exactly what we say.</i><br /><br />Your assessment is incorrect.<br />So is it a question of what’s being taught, or is it about the fact that something is taught at all? Is it the subject matter itself, or the fact that it’s being taught that makes it “mind control”?<br /><br />Because colleges teach all kinds of ideas, so if it’s the actual act of teaching itself that’s the “mind control” variable, then I could easily argue that colleges are also into “mind control”. (Leila actually has made some good points in various comment threads in the past underscoring the truth to this idea of “re-education” of college-aged kids.)<br /><br />And if it’s about the subject matter, do you label it “mind control” because it’s merely going against what you believe? Because I could argue the exact opposite. That it’s “mind control” when you teach things your way.<br /><br />We choose to conform to Church teachings based on intellectual understanding of the truths presented. It would only be “mind control” if we had no choice. So it’s not “mind control” at all.Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-57960639257374536752015-11-08T05:55:56.224-07:002015-11-08T05:55:56.224-07:00And forgive me, but are you saying that people sh...And forgive me, but are you saying that people should follow their "natural urges" in terms of sexuality only? Or should they follow their "natural urges" in all areas of life? I'm a little confused as to your principal there. I'm wondering if you're saying that "natural urges" are the guide to our morality, or that if things are "possible" for us to do, then that means we are morally free to do that.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-80635073479609429862015-11-08T05:53:38.034-07:002015-11-08T05:53:38.034-07:00Oh, I see what you mean. You are claiming that the... Oh, I see what you mean. You are claiming that the Church is a brain-washing machine. How well do you think that has worked regarding masturbation and the other sexual issues such as contraception? ;) Not too well from my perspective as a Catholic! Believe me, I grew up Catholic and I never felt pressured to follow any Church teaching, and I literally went to mass every single Sunday of my life for my entire childhood. <br /><br />And you didn't answer my question: So if I tell my children not to steal because it is wrong and there will be consequences, even though they may feel a natural tendency to take things that are not theirs, I'm brainwashing and indoctrinating them into submission so that I can exercise control? Would you claim that? Thanks!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-73841825122991155432015-11-08T05:19:07.359-07:002015-11-08T05:19:07.359-07:00Thank you nubby! Yes I hope she will answer your q...Thank you nubby! Yes I hope she will answer your questions.<br /><br />Johanne, just to clarify one thing you said. I actually never said that everybody takes different routes to know that Jesus Christ is God. I have said many times that God, meaning the Father, calls each of us according to a voice that we can hear. Absolutely. He is drawing you to himself, he is drawing everyone on the planet to himself and they can either reject his call or accept it. Some people hear him through truth predominately, some through beauty predominately, some through goodness predominately, Etc. eventually the route will lead them to know Jesus Christ, either in this world or the next. But it's so much better to know the fullness of truth that was left for us here on earth.<br /><br /> But as for how we come to know specifically that Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity incarnate, i.e. God: Yes, I guess you could say that some people get a direct revelation that Jesus Christ is God, like St. Paul on the road to Damascus. But people also conclude that Jesus is God by an understanding that the resurrection actually took place. If Christ did not rise, then he is not God. To Nubby's questions, what sort of investigation have you done to see if the claims of the resurrection are true? Or do you dismiss them out of hand because they seem too impossible?<br /><br />Forgive me if my comment is not coherent ha ha because for me it's too early! I've got to get to mass here in beautiful Annapolis at the Naval Academy and then catch a plane!<br /><br /> Oh my gosh the United States Naval Academy… I'm just blown away by its beauty and I have so much respect for everyone here. Everyone should take a trip here and walk the grounds and take a tour. Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-33138078462328389982015-11-08T04:40:49.576-07:002015-11-08T04:40:49.576-07:00Either Jesus is or isn't the one true God. I f...<i>Either Jesus is or isn't the one true God. I firmly believe he isn't but I can't know for absolute certainty that he's not. No one can. <br />The reasoning that Leila and many other people describe (which are different--people come to the conclusion that Jesus is God by different routes) for that conclusion make no sense to me. Just because you, or Catholics generally believe something fervently doesn't mean it's true.</i><br /><br />No one here has ever said that ‘fervent belief’ is what makes our beliefs true. <br />For the love of everything intellectual, I hope that lurkers understand that Catholics don’t close our eyes and make a wish that our beliefs are true. We use our brains and a priori and a posterori reasoning. The same avenues of thought everyone should (and does) use, Johanne. <br /><br />So your assertions here beg a few questions:<br />What kind of reasoning do you use to say Christ is not truly God? <br />What criteria do you look at? And how can you be so firm that he’s not God when you just said you “can’t know for certainty that he’s not”. <br /><br />How can you give us a certitude of response when you are not certain in your own conclusion? Makes no sense.<br /><br />You talk about “routes” people take, like you just hand-wave those away. Then you should understand those routes (intellectually) and not just shrug at that, because, truthfully, you take the same exact routes—everyone does. Reason is the gauge. We use it or we don’t.<br /><br />What historical, logical, or theological records/arguments do you look at?<br />What do you put on the table (intellectually) to consider?<br />What do you contrast or compare? <br />How do you reason? <br />Do you trust what you’re looking at? <br />Do you fill the holes of what you don’t know with knowledge or do you hand-wave our beliefs because you think beliefs are merely strong wishes based on no evidence?<br />Don’t you see any logical holes in the path itself? Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-57826550365003101462015-11-08T01:21:31.824-07:002015-11-08T01:21:31.824-07:00Indoctrinating children from before they can form ...Indoctrinating children from before they can form coherent thoughts to believe that they are inherently sinful and can only survive by obeying the church is control. <br /><br />A child that has been raised for his entire life to believe that masturbating is bad does not wonder why his God would give him urges to masturbate, or why his God would even make it possible for him to masturbate. Instead he blames himself for being weak or not faithful and continues turning back to the church that told him his natural urges were wrong. This perpetuates control because it creates a relationship where the church diagnoses a non existent problem, but then turns around and says we have the cure as long you follow exactly what we say.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07843705352486244496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-86776102781694969462015-11-08T00:38:46.382-07:002015-11-08T00:38:46.382-07:00leila
it's too late to answer you coherently!leila<br />it's too late to answer you coherently!Johannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07861467738117604139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-78900905283111610672015-11-08T00:37:39.032-07:002015-11-08T00:37:39.032-07:00Margo-
Johanne, how can the beliefs possibly be tr...Margo-<br /><i>Johanne, how can the beliefs possibly be true to Catholics but not objectively true?</i><br /><br />Very simple. human beings believe all sorts of things that they are certain are true that other people don't believe at all. I'm sure there are many things I firmly believe and experience as true that would be false to you. Either Jesus is or isn't the one true God. I firmly believe he isn't but I can't know for absolute certainty that he's <i>not</i>. No one can. The reasoning that Leila and many other people describe (which are different--people come to the conclusion that Jesus is God by different routes) for that conclusion make no sense to me. Just because you, or Catholics generally believe something fervently doesn't mean it's true.Johannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07861467738117604139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-85121608105976028642015-11-07T21:13:03.045-07:002015-11-07T21:13:03.045-07:00Johanne,
So my interpretation of what you said i...Johanne, <br /><br />So my interpretation of what you said is that either a) every single pope for 2000 years was unbelievably faithful and docile to the church out of the goodness of his heart and belief or b) every single pope for 2000 years was power-hungry and would do anything to make sure that the power of the church was manifest in complete consistency and continuity. <br /><br />If there is another option please tell me. I am open to hearing what you are saying that I am missing. What is the third option? But those two options above do not comport with human nature and real life at all. If you can show me where anything like it has ever happened, I'm listening. I don't censor you. You can make your case by giving a third option, if I have misunderstood you. Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-80847864175722844102015-11-07T21:06:40.447-07:002015-11-07T21:06:40.447-07:00**Many popes were evil and unfaithful to Christ.
...**Many popes were evil and unfaithful to Christ.<br /><br /> Oh I hate voice texting or voice writing or whatever this is. This machine can never understand me and I really just need to give it up ha ha! I sound completely illiterate and I should never attempt this except when I'm at home on my computer. Please forgive me because what you read was a complete mess thanks to misinterpretation by this stupid machine. I love clarity so I'm frustrated by how my comments are ending up! Anyway, I'm on a plane most of tomorrow and I will try to straighten things out when I get home ha ha.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-29464210170575649122015-11-07T20:58:46.797-07:002015-11-07T20:58:46.797-07:00Johanne, how can the beliefs possibly be true to C...Johanne, how can the beliefs possibly be true to Catholics but not objectively true? Either Jesus Christ is the one true God or He's not, right? What other option is there?Margohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09456678968658724716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-63745768189441042922015-11-07T20:45:07.026-07:002015-11-07T20:45:07.026-07:00Margo
No, I don't think Catholic beliefs are o...Margo<br />No, I don't think Catholic beliefs are objectively true but I understand they are unquestionably true to Catholics.<br /><br />Leila-- I have answered your questions several times but I think you're right that we're talking past each other, because I don't have any response that I haven't already stated. Thanks.Johannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07861467738117604139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-33340931171419065132015-11-07T19:49:22.729-07:002015-11-07T19:49:22.729-07:00*papal infallibility not people infallibility ha h...*papal infallibility not people infallibility ha haLeila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-79130334948937292402015-11-07T19:48:46.732-07:002015-11-07T19:48:46.732-07:00It is tricky to discuss this because Catholicism i...<i>It is tricky to discuss this because Catholicism is self-referential--as in "the Catholic doctrine is infallible because Catholic doctrine says so."</i><br /><br />No not at all. That is not how we arrive at the conclusion. We look at the history and know that Jesus Christ died and rose from the dead. We also look at the history and we see that he established a church to teach in his name. If Jesus rose from the dead than he is God. If he is God then we can trust the church he founded. It's very linear, it's not circular at all. It starts with history and it starts with the resurrection. <br /><br />And oh my gosh I really hate this phone because I can't scroll back up easily and look at what you guys wrote and what I'm writing, and I can't wait to get back to my regular computer. Bear with me.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-81321857310284317522015-11-07T19:44:07.645-07:002015-11-07T19:44:07.645-07:00See, this is where I wish that we could have this ... See, this is where I wish that we could have this conversation over coffee because we are completely missing each other here. <br /><br /> Of course faithful Catholics know and believe that the Catholic Church cannot change truth. But that's not the point of this piece. From a secular perspective, the church is merely a human institution. So what if there is a "rule" that they human institution can't change teaching? If it's merely a human institution, then in 2,000 thousand years, some week or evil or even mentally ill leader would break the rules. That's just human nature. Give me one other institution which even begins to compare with this 2,000 year record of every unique and diverse leader saying the same thing? And you are assuming that all the Popes actually were totally faithful and saintly. At least you must think that because you think they're all perfectly obedient and would never go against the church teaching, and yet we know that many popes were actually quite evil. How do you account for the fact that even day, even the ones who had preached heresy as bishops up until the point of being elected pope, suddenly stopped being who they had always been before, and taught the truth? I'd love to tell you the one story about the pope who was a heretic and promised to the Empress that once he inserted himself in the papacy he would start teaching the popular heresy that many bishops already were teaching. When he was anti-Pope he actually did teach that heresy, but the real Pope was still in prison. When the anti-Pope actually did become the real Pope when the previous Pope died, he suddenly refused to preach the heresy that he and the Empress had agreed to. They're all sorts of amazing stories but the point is, even the evil Popes ended up not changing doctrine. <br /><br />Every secular or dissenting person I've ever talk to assumes that the pope can change teaching whenever he wants to. But you are saying that he can change teaching (because it's a human institution only) but he won't? Even through millennia? If that's what you're saying then what would be the reason other than... I don't know? Because he's faithful? No, many popes were evil and I'm faithful to Christ. That he is power-hungry? Well, it was every pope a power-hungry scoundrel? And they would be a lot more power if they said things that more people agreed with wouldn't they? I'm trying to get at what a *secular person* or non-Catholic would think the motive is for each Pope over two millennia to preserve Catholic doctrine. And how this would this uniformity ever actually happen in merely human terms? Can you give me any sort of parallel in any other organization with hierarchical leadership? Especially one that spans millennia.<br /><br />And at some point I'd still love to talk about truth and how you arrive at that. What is the source of truth? How can we know truth? That's at the crux of everything and that is the conversation between Jesus and Pilate.<br /><br />Anyway, I hope I'm being clear but maybe not. This post was not about what the laity or the faithful think, it's about how this could possibly be the case if the church is not of God, not founded by God. I'm interested to know how that could be.<br /><br /> I totally get that you understand that we Catholics believe that the Church is founded by God and does not teach error in doctrine. That's very basic, and I'm glad that you have gotten that from reading this blog. But that doesn't have anything to do with my question.<br /><br />And no, I didn't say that the idea of people infallibility did not come around until recently, I said it was not officially defined until recently. It's similar to how the church *always* believed in the immaculate conception of Mary in her mother Anne's womb, but did not officially define that teaching until recent centuries. Usually something is officially defined when there is a popular heresy arising, or a specific reason in history to emphasize the teaching.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-12098820680398745792015-11-07T19:33:06.947-07:002015-11-07T19:33:06.947-07:00Johanne,
Quick question, how can Catholic beliefs...Johanne,<br /><br />Quick question, how can Catholic beliefs/doctrine be true for Catholics but not true for others? It's genuinely fascinating to me how someone can come to an understanding of the Catholic faith, yet think of it as false. Do you think it is possible for Catholicism to be true for everyone as well as being objectively true regardless of whether people believe it or not? Thanks! :)Margohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09456678968658724716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-53808410606186391752015-11-07T19:27:03.110-07:002015-11-07T19:27:03.110-07:00I don't know all the reasons why I have my dou...I don't know all the reasons why I have my doubts on some of the teachings - most I agree with and accept fully. I'm sure how I was raised comes into it somewhat but I don't think that's all of it.<br /><br />Better to admit it, pray and study more intensely. If I blindly accept something that I'm unsure of, it wouldn't be sincere but lying to myself. It isn't hard being obedient where my doubts lie. <br /><br />Intense praying and studying about my doubts has brought me closer to the Church. That could be why the doubt is there. I'll keep at it.<br />LizaMoorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07802523171389972822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-78363972508940142892015-11-07T19:16:02.414-07:002015-11-07T19:16:02.414-07:00"do you feel that the Catholic Church is powe..."do you feel that the Catholic Church is power-hungry to the point where it overrides human nature of wanting to be popular or wanting to take the (natural) path of least resistance? "<br /><br />" I am sort of impressed that you know that the Catholic Church will not change. For the wrong reason of course, but at least you know the truth of it"<br /><br />Is the "wrong reason" you're referring to the idea that the Catholic church is "power-hungry"?<br /><br />If so I think this time you are not understanding my point! First of all, I've been on your blog for four years so how could I <i>not</i> understand that Catholic doctrine (to devout Catholics) is unchangeable. I am not saying that<i>I</i> believe it's true--from what I know I believe very little of it and certainly not that Catholic doctrine comes from God. But the point is that's what Catholics believe.<br /><br />And so not changing doctrine, as I see it, is not about being power hungry. It's about not taking away the thing that gives your lives meaning--The Church. I think it would be incredibly cruel for a Pope to start changing besides the point that by definition he can't.<br /><br />It is tricky to discuss this because Catholicism is self-referential--as in "the Catholic doctrine is infallible because Catholic doctrine says so."<br /><br />It surprises me that you say the idea of Papal infallibility didn't come around until the 1900s. If so, you can't claim that doctrine hasn't changed in 2000 years. Because isn't Papal infallibility a central tenet of Catholic doctrine?Johannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07861467738117604139noreply@blogger.com