Ask a Unitarian Universalist

[SalesianSDB]

Are there any set “scriptures” or writings you use?

 

[mek42]

I think the best analogy is what I have already posted:

the difference between dieting and starvation.

We may be encouraged to diet for some periods. We are never encouraged to starve ourselves.

Similarly, we may be be encouraged to diet from the Scriptures for some periods (that is, discouraged from reading them) but we were never encouraged to starve from the Scriptures (that is, forbidden to read them.)

Would you kindly consider answering the question regarding how lightly you would disregard your priest’s advice to not do something?

 

[mek42]

There are a multitude of ancient historical events of great import that no one applies the same level of skepticism that they do to the events of Christianity.

Again, it is curious that the objection to Christian history’s reliability starts out as, “We don’t have any eye witness accounts of these events” and then transitions to, “Well, it’s because Christianity makes such stupendous claims that we need to doubt them.”

Pick one. And then we can chat.

This may well be because it is hot, and late, and humid, and hot, but I am unclear as the the category of things you wish me to pick one of. Apologies for my declining reading comprehension ability. Which reminds me to go drink some water. Thank you.

 

[PRmerger]

Would you kindly consider answering the question regarding how lightly you would disregard your priest’s advice to not do something?

If he discouraged me from doing something that was also discouraged by the Magisterium, then I would take it very, very seriously.

If he discouraged me from doing something which was not forbidden by the Magisterium, then I would probably dismiss it, depending upon how much I desired to do this activity (which was permitted by the Church but erroneously discouraged by my priest.)

 

[mek42]

If he discouraged me from doing something that was also discouraged by the Magisterium, then I would take it very, very seriously.

If he discouraged me from doing something which was not forbidden by the Magisterium, then I would probably dismiss it, depending upon how much I desired to do this activity (which was permitted by the Church but erroneously discouraged by my priest.)

Why do you say erroneously discouraged? Is it not possible for a priest to have the wisdom and experience to properly judge that a certain activity might lead to harm given a parishioners unique set of disordering? Even though such harm would not be expected to necessarily befall each member of the Church as a whole, thus no Magisterium decree?

Further, in the time period this whole discouragement idea started to be posted about, wasn’t the parish priest nearly the sole source of doctrine for the laity? How accessible were Magisterial decrees to the illiterate laity at the time?

 

[PRmerger]

Why do you say erroneously discouraged?

Because it would be erroneous for any priest to discourage me from reading the Scriptures.

Is it not possible for a priest to have the wisdom and experience to properly judge that a certain activity might lead to harm given a parishioners unique set of disordering?

I don’t understand the point of the question. For surely you know the answer: yes, it is entirely possible for a priest to have the wisdom and experience to properly judge that a certain activity might lead to harm. Of course.

Even though such harm would not be expected to necessarily befall each member of the Church as a whole, thus no Magisterium decree?

Sure.

Further, in the time period this whole discouragement idea started to be posted about, wasn’t the parish priest nearly the sole source of doctrine for the laity? How accessible were Magisterial decrees to the illiterate laity at the time?

If we are talking about the middle ages when the parish priest was nearly the sole source of doctrine for the laity, then the parishioner would, indeed, have no reason to dismiss the priest’s discouragement of reading the Bible.

Although, this is a curious example because if this were the case then this parishioner could not even read, so…what is the point of this scenario?

 

[Portofino]

But here’s where you stump them, Portofino:

You ask them, if you don’t have the Church, how do you know that the Gospel of Mark is inspired? How do you know that the Epistle of Barnabas is not inspired?

Yes The Protestants are left stranded, if they try to use the spiral argument, because they can’t get from saying the Bible is historically reliable, to saying it is inspired by God. If they defined the Bible as just the words of Jesus, they could get there, I think (they don’t have to prove that the words of Jesus are inspired by God if they believe there is a strong historical case that Jesus is God). But they would still be left stranded over everything else in the Gospels, as well as all of the epistles.

Unless they tried to tie Jesus’ promise of sending the Holy Spirit, to the inspiration of Paul and of the evangelists. I suppose they could make a compelling case there.

But I think this difficulty is why many Protestants *accept *the authority of the “early Church” – however they define that term – and then posit a “great apostasy”, after which point the Church is no longer “the Church”, at least until they themselves came along, to heal the breach.

In the long view, I think they rationalize that they have continuity all the way back to Jesus, at least in the sense that Catholics can really and truly consider that they have continuity all the way to Abraham and ancient Israel. Protestants must see the break as a passing of the torch – from Judaism to the early Christian church; then, from Catholicism to Protestantism.

 

[Portofino]

There are a multitude of ancient historical events of great import that no one applies the same level of skepticism that they do to the events of Christianity.

Again, it is curious that the objection to Christian history’s reliability starts out as, “We don’t have any eye witness accounts of these events” and then transitions to, “Well, it’s because Christianity makes such stupendous claims that we need to doubt them.”

Pick one. And then we can chat.

I appreciate your thoughts – it would be unfair, not to be as hard on historical documents of any kind!

It occurred to me that events tend to be treated with less skepticism than recorded conversations (dialogues) or ideas of a more philosophical nature. I’m thinking, as a perfect example, of the level of due skepticism that is applied to the dialogues of Plato, vis-a-vis how historically accurate a portrayal they give of the life and thought of Socrates.

We know that Plato admired Socrates, yet it also seems that he used him as a mouthpiece for his own ideas. For example, most philosophers and historians are skeptical that Socrates ever taught what has come to be known as Plato’s “Theory of Ideas.” Of course, in the case of skepticism regarding the historical reliability of Plato’s Dialogues – which do appear to have a literary, fictitious dimension – there is comparison between Plato’s Socrates and Xenophon’s Socrates. For whatever reason, Plato’s tends to be privileged as more historically accurate than Xenophon’s, which still is not to say that Plato’s is accurate enough to be considered “historically reliable” in anything but the broadest strokes (“Socrates lived; he taught in the agora; he was reputed to be ugly; he had a wife and children; he claimed he knew nothing; he claimed the unexamined life is not worth living; he used irony; he was condemned to death for impiety”). It is thought that the early dialogues of Plato most closely represented what the man Socrates probably taught, where the “Middle” and “Later” dialogues show an evolution of Plato’s own thinking, that takes Socrates to a place where he himself had never gone (though, in a different way, this is not dissimilar – in principle – to the “development of doctrine” via centuries of Church tradition).

With the Gospels, there are four accounts that agree with each other in most essential respects. However, there appears to have been an element of some of those texts influencing others (Mark influencing the others, and Matthew and Luke possibly drawing upon a common “Q” source, which I realize is a hypothesis and not a proven fact!) It’s not clear to what extent these texts were written independently of each other, independently in the sense that each evangelist was not aware of the text written by the evangelist who came before him.

But I don’t think it’s unfair that there is skepticism regarding events that are not known to be anything but supernatural, within the context of our current understanding of what is physically possible. When we read accounts of Paul Bunyan, historical reliability is not even a question; it’s automatically chalked up to legend. So I don’t think Carl Sagan’s statement that, “the more extraordinary the claim, the more higher the burden of proof” (“extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”) is unfair, and I don’t think any historical document that alleges events that are not known to be physically possible would be spared the same level of skepticism.

 

[Tomdstone]

There has never been any teaching from the Magisterium in which Catholics were forbidden to read the Scriptures.

‘We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament; unless anyone from the motives of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.’ (Edward Peters. Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Council of Toulouse, 1229, Canon 14, p 195.)
‘Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary.’ (Council of Trent: Rules on Prohibited Books, approved by Pope Pius IV, 1564).

 

[Porknpie]

‘We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament; unless anyone from the motives of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.’ (Edward Peters. Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Council of Toulouse, 1229, Canon 14, p 195.)
‘Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary.’ (Council of Trent: Rules on Prohibited Books, approved by Pope Pius IV, 1564).

The quote is taken out of context. The Church has always fought herasy and will always prevail just as Christ promised his Church would. Here’s and excerpt from a Catholic.com tract here.

But there is another possibility, and that is Toulouse, France, where a council was held in 1229. And, yes, that council dealt with the Bible. It was organized in reaction to the Albigensian or Catharist heresy, which held that there are two gods and that marriage is evil because all matter (and thus physical flesh) is evil. From this the heretics concluded that fornication could be no sin, and they even encouraged suicide among their members. In order to promulgate their sect, the Albigensians published an inaccurate translation of the Bible in the vernacular language (rather like the Jehovah’s Witnesses of today publishing their severely flawed New World Translation of the Bible, which has been deliberately mistranslated to support the sect’s claims). Had it been an accurate translation, the Church would not have been concerned. Vernacular versions had been appearing for centuries. But what came from the hands of the Albigensians was an adulterated Bible. The bishops at Toulouse forbade the reading of it because it was inaccurate. In this they were caring for their flocks, just as a Protestant minister of today might tell his flock not to read the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation.

Pork

 

[Miriam1947]

NowHereThis
Junior Member

**
Ask a Unitarian Universalist**
Unitarian Universalism is a diverse movement, so I can’t speak for everyone in it. But I will do my best to answer any questions you may have about Unitarian Universalism (as I see it).

Perhaps it might be a good idea to get back to the purpose of this thread. I would love to know more about Unitarians and what they believe.

OP, do Unitarians as a group believe in the divinity of Christ?

If this question has already been asked and answered please anyone give me the post number.

Thanks.

 

[PRmerger]

‘We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament; unless anyone from the motives of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.’ (Edward Peters. Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Council of Toulouse, 1229, Canon 14, p 195.)

This has already been addressed. It dealt with an intentionally mistranslated version of the Bible.

What you are doing is like a Muslim stating, “Even your holy book says that Jesus was just a man and not divine!”

When you ask for proof he quotes St. Paul stating, “the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one MAN, Jesus Christ”.

‘Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary.’ (Council of Trent: Rules on Prohibited Books, approved by Pope Pius IV, 1564).

Amen!

 

[ffg]

True. See the Summa Theologica for a great example of that. or the CCC, in my opinion. Or all the papal bulls and encyclicals. And reams of counciliar documents.

Theologians and philosophers are always going to write a lot. That doesn’t change basic teaching or eliminate the underlying Truth.

99% of Catholics haven’t read 1% of what has been written over a 2000+ year span.

That doesn’t have any weight on if the Church is the one that Christ founded, or that the underlying teaching is too complicated.

And the point of the post I responded to was a thought that the Church exists to rubber stamp teaching, if I remember correctly. That is backwards world history. Chicken or egg?

 

[nmgauss]

Theologians and philosophers are always going to write a lot. That doesn’t change basic teaching or eliminate the underlying Truth.

99% of Catholics haven’t read 1% of what has been written over a 2000+ year span.

That doesn’t have any weight on if the Church is the one that Christ founded, or that the underlying teaching is too complicated.

And the point of the post I responded to was a thought that the Church exists to rubber stamp teaching, if I remember correctly. That is backwards world history. Chicken or egg?

And 93% of Catholics don’t read the Bible. That means they will rely on their priest, right or wrong.

Also, the Magisterium is divided into the infallible and fallible category. So, how are Catholics supposed to know whether a Church decree originated from the fallible or infallible part of the Magisterium?

 

[ffg]

A lot of people in the Church don’t understand the fallible / infallible definitions. They are very much mis-represented by folks outside of the Church and used as ammo. Which confuses Catholics in large numbers.

I’m not perfect on it, but I believe I heard on Catholic radio fairly recently, that over his entire pontiff, Blessed Pope JPII ‘used infallibility’, if you will, twice (in two documents, I think).

Someone can correct me if I’m wrong on that. If I’m wrong, maybe it’s been used twice over decades.

But this is where the nice part about how we were made come to life. You don’t have to be in the know, to have confidence in the history of the world as it occured.

People don’t convert to the Catholic Church because of faith alone. They study, study, study some more and reason either a lot or a little that triggers the confidence to know Church history goes back to a few guys called by a stranger to listen.

 

[Tomdstone]

The quote is taken out of context. The Church has always fought herasy and will always prevail just as Christ promised his Church would. Here’s and excerpt from a Catholic.com tract here.

But there is another possibility, and that is Toulouse, France, where a council was held in 1229. And, yes, that council dealt with the Bible. It was organized in reaction to the Albigensian or Catharist heresy, which held that there are two gods and that marriage is evil because all matter (and thus physical flesh) is evil. From this the heretics concluded that fornication could be no sin, and they even encouraged suicide among their members. In order to promulgate their sect, the Albigensians published an inaccurate translation of the Bible in the vernacular language (rather like the Jehovah’s Witnesses of today publishing their severely flawed New World Translation of the Bible, which has been deliberately mistranslated to support the sect’s claims). Had it been an accurate translation, the Church would not have been concerned. Vernacular versions had been appearing for centuries. But what came from the hands of the Albigensians was an adulterated Bible. The bishops at Toulouse forbade the reading of it because it was inaccurate. In this they were caring for their flocks, just as a Protestant minister of today might tell his flock not to read the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation.

Pork

Specifically, what passages were mistranslated? Tyndale was accused of mistranslation and burned at the stake, but many of his translations are acceptable today. For example, using the word love instead of charity.

 

[PRmerger]

And 93% of Catholics don’t read the Bible. That means they will rely on their priest, right or wrong.

Even if your premise is correct, the conclusion is not. 93% of Catholics not reading the Bible does not equate to “therefore, they rely on their priest right or wrong.”

Also, the Magisterium is divided into the infallible and fallible category. So, how are Catholics supposed to know whether a Church decree originated from the fallible or infallible part of the Magisterium?

Why does it matter whether something is infallible or infallible, in this context?

 

[arcangel49]

Potential children, and it’s not murder because murder by definition is illegal and abortion is legal. There is a meaningful difference between “potential” and “actual”. Children are potential adults, but we don’t give them the right to vote, or the privileges of driving.

Meanwhile, the couple involved are actual adults, with all the rights that entails, including the right to make personal medical decisions appropriate for their unique circumstances. Between the potential child and the actual adults, the rights of the actual adults have all the weight.

So that having been said, where is the line between potential and actual child for me? That’s when the child can survive outside the womb (viability). That’s a meaningful line because now there is a way to distinguish between what the child is and, for example, a donated organ. Donated organs are living and they carry a distinct human genetic code. But they cannot survive without being attached inside a person, and a viable child can.

At one time murdering a black person was legal. Does that make it right? Does that make them any less of a person?

 

[PRmerger]

Specifically, what passages were mistranslated? Tyndale was accused of mistranslation and burned at the stake, but many of his translations are acceptable today. For example, using the word love instead of charity.

I don’t know what verses were mistranslated.

But suffice it to say that the doctrines of the Albingensians were something that you would not submit to, so the verses that were mistranslated that support their heresies would be mistranslations to you as well.

To wit: the Albingensians believed that 2 gods ruled the universe.

You do wish to reject that, right, Tombdstone?

 

[nmgauss]

Even if your premise is correct, the conclusion is not. 93% of Catholics not reading the Bible does not equate to “therefore, they rely on their priest right or wrong.”