Why Organized Religion is a Problematic Way to Grow Closer to God.

  • Thread starter Thread starter at_peace
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
at_peace said:
Giving the response “Whatever” is dismissive and sounds like something my teenage daughter might say, with a heavy, disrespectful sigh and roll of the eyes.

It’s not the mature, well thought out response of a spritually mature adult.
Click to expand...
I think he’s right, don’t sweat the small stuff. Part of our faith is obdience.
 
at_peace said:
I maintain that we can serve Christ effectively without the smothering bureaurocracy of the Roman Catholic Church. I assert that the structure of the Church often interferes with the original message of Jesus, of which one aspect was to simplify spiritual life away from the strangulating edicts and mandates of Judaism and the corruption of the Pharisees…
Click to expand...
What “smothered” you personally in the Catholic Church?
 
TriuneUnity said:
So if a Catholic has a question about, say, a passage in the book of 2 Corinthians, that the Catholic Church hasn’t infallibly interpreted, where does he or she go to get the “right” interpretation? Since they cannot rely on their own judgment (or whatever other criteria you would use to interpret any other book).
Click to expand...
Speaking solely for myself… Since it is appropriate for a Catholic to derive an interpretation or meaning for a passage of Scripture, I can do so…but when there is any issue that I find, or if I am in doubt as to the meaning of that Scripture…I will go to my Parish Priest and ask.

Now to take that a step farther… in the case 2 Corinthians, if you were to go to this link… drbo.org/chapter/54001.htm you will be at the first chapter of 2 Corinthians…and as you read down through the passages you will come upon explanations of certain passages as an aid to understanding. That is one of the reasons I tend to favor this version of the Douay-Rheims.
 
RobHom said:
Speaking solely for myself… Since it is appropriate for a Catholic to derive an interpretation or meaning for a passage of Scripture, I can do so…but when there is any issue that I find, or if I am in doubt as to the meaning of that Scripture…I will go to my Parish Priest and ask.

Now to take that a step farther… in the case 2 Corinthians, if you were to go to this link… drbo.org/chapter/54001.htm you will be at the first chapter of 2 Corinthians…and as you read down through the passages you will come upon explanations of certain passages as an aid to understanding. That is one of the reasons I tend to favor this version of the Douay-Rheims.
Click to expand...
Okay, and I would approach it the same way. But the Catholic apologetic du jour is that we must have an infallible definition of Scripture in order to be unified as to its meaning. Asking your parish priest, or even your bishop, doesn’t ultimately resolve it.

In the end, it’s still the interpretation that you consider the most accurate. How is that different than so-called “private interpretation?”
 
Good post Edwin.

When i read posts like these, the first thing that comes to mind is our humble Saints and monks.
 
at_peace said:
My new religion? I remain a baptized Christian who is not a part of any congregation. I recently decided to stop attending Mass based on the arguments I discussed in my opening post.
Click to expand...
You still profess to be a baptized Christan, but you have stopped going to Mass. In what way do you now “Keep Holy the Sabbath”?
 
TriuneUnity said:
Okay, and I would approach it the same way. But the Catholic apologetic du jour is that we must have an infallible definition of Scripture in order to be unified as to its meaning. Asking your parish priest, or even your bishop, doesn’t ultimately resolve it.

In the end, it’s still the interpretation that you consider the most accurate. How is that different than so-called “private interpretation?”
Click to expand...
Thanks for making my point on that so succienctly and clearly.

And, it’s the points that the Catholic Church HAS infallably declared itsself that are problematic for me. Some of them appear to be merely to maintain the Catholic claim to it’s exclusive right to call itsself “The One True Church” and perpetuate its bureaurocratic hold. Examples would be declarations regarding the Papacy being the Chair of Peter, claims that only the Catholic Eucharist is valid, claims that oral tradition dictates that a priest must be part of an unbroken line of succession.

Things like that aren’t really important to me, my spiritual growth as a Christian, but they are central to Catholic triumphantalism.
 
Al_Masetti said:
You still profess to be a baptized Christan, but you have stopped going to Mass. In what way do you now “Keep Holy the Sabbath”?
Click to expand...
Jesus said the Sabbath should serve man. As far as keeping the Sabbath Holy, most Catholics do not observe a strict Sabbath, but make a beeline to their cars to rush out to the Mall afterwards.
 
hello at peace,

You are a baptised christian, and stopped going to mass correct?

I have some thoughts going on in my mind about this. When I read your opening post, you said that Christianity arose from Judiasm, but I need you to make this clearer for me because the thrust of your opening statements is religions end up corrupt and this is why organized religion is bad. The other comparisons make some sense I guess, but not the one about Christianity.
Yes, I know Jesus was a Jew, thats not my confusion.
My confusion is, you seem to imply that the root origins of Christianity sprouted off an angry dissatisfyed group who splintered away and invented Jesus to start something new.

I could be misreading it to get this feeling, I just wanted to know if you could explain where you are coming from.

So, you are not going to Mass because you feel the church is corrupt or because the whole concept of Christianity is off the mark?
 
TriuneUnity said:
Okay, and I would approach it the same way. But the Catholic apologetic du jour is that we must have an infallible definition of Scripture in order to be unified as to its meaning. Asking your parish priest, or even your bishop, doesn’t ultimately resolve it.
Click to expand...
I guess the only way that I can answer that…is that I have never been one to embrace “apologetic du jour”… in that I have never espoused to “having to have” an infallible definition of Scripture, in that there are only those that have been infallibly defined, and otherwise… if there is a difference, I was always taught the in the event of dispute, where a passage not infallibly defined was at question…the Church is the final arbiter.
In the end, it’s still the interpretation that you consider the most accurate. How is that different than so-called “private interpretation?”
Click to expand...
If you are referring to an interpretation done by my Priest or Bishop…I see that as rather different than “private interpretation” as they are far more educated as to the subject. 🙂
 
My feeling is that the message of Jesus has been distorted over and over again to serve the career aspirations of various Christian leaders over the centuries. The corruption of Christian institutions by this inherent human tendency is problematic for many people, including myself.

I can better serve Christ outside of the Church. I see many good people who do this. Many people tire of the constant political machinations they encounter in church parishes and congregations, be they Catholic or Protestant.
 
RobHom said:
I guess the only way that I can answer that…is that I have never been one to embrace “apologetic du jour”… in that I have never espoused to “having to have” an infallible definition of Scripture, in that there are only those that have been infallibly defined, and otherwise… if there is a difference, I was always taught the in the event of dispute, where a passage not infallibly defined was at question…the Church is the final arbiter.
Click to expand...
That may be the case, certainly. However, if the Church is the final arbiter, and yet doesn’t have the supposed charism of infallibility (being that only applies to ecumenical councils and ex cathedra statements)… the Church is giving you its educated interpretation. Which is great and I would argue in most instances that interpretation will probably be better than yours or mine. However, that is not much different than when I go to my own pastor to answer a question I have about scriptural interpretation.
If you are referring to an interpretation done by my Priest or Bishop…I see that as rather different than “private interpretation” as they are far more educated as to the subject. 🙂
Click to expand...
I don’t know about that. I have seen some pretty loony interpretations by priests (have you read Andrew Greeley? LoL). All in all though, yes, they’re probably more educated.

So, really, aren’t your ideas on scriptural interpretation not all that different from mine, other than the hiccup of an infallible church on 10 verses or so of Scripture?
 
TriuneUnity said:
Okay, and I would approach it the same way. But the Catholic apologetic du jour is that we must have an infallible definition of Scripture in order to be unified as to its meaning. Asking your parish priest, or even your bishop, doesn’t ultimately resolve it.

In the end, it’s still the interpretation that you consider the most accurate. How is that different than so-called “private interpretation?”
Click to expand...
How private is private? It’s about guidance where confusion might throw people off. We also read Scripture at a multitude of levels. E.g., I took the vowed name of “Naaman” based on my “personal” relationship with that story. The Catholic Bible Gestapo have not caught me yet.

Shhhh. Don’t tell them where to find me!
 
at_peace said:
Giving the response “Whatever” is dismissive and sounds like something my teenage daughter might say, with a heavy, disrespectful sigh and roll of the eyes.

It’s not the mature, well thought out response of a spritually mature adult.
Click to expand...
And yet, it is still the best response this post could hope for. It’s just that flawed.
 
mercygate said:
How private is private? It’s about guidance where confusion might throw people off. We also read Scripture at a multitude of levels. E.g., I took the vowed name of “Naaman” based on my “personal” relationship with that story. The Catholic Bible Gestapo have not caught me yet.

Shhhh. Don’t tell them where to find me!
Click to expand...
That’s true…but that is not any different than the methods that Lutherans, Anglicans, and Reformed Christians will use to interpret Scripture. However, as an apologetic method, this is called “private interpretation” when used against Protestants. But not with Catholics.
 
LutheranDK said:
And yet, it is still the best response this post could hope for. It’s just that flawed.
Click to expand...
There have been several thoughtful responses on this thread, and interesting discussion. A sarcastic “whatever” is not the type of response a Christian should aspire to give. However, I’ve noticed that there is a lot of arrogence and lack of charity at this forum, and in fact, at any discussion site where religion is the topic.
 
TriuneUnity said:
That’s true…but that is not any different than the methods that Lutherans, Anglicans, and Reformed Christians will use to interpret Scripture. However, as an apologetic method, this is called “private interpretation” when used against Protestants. But not with Catholics.
Click to expand...
The difference is that we do have certain passages that – because of the excruciating theological exigencies – must be understood in one certain way by Catholics. Y’know: “This IS my body.” or "Thou art Peter . . "

But even those passages may be taken in a personal way by Catholics, as long as we understand the dogmatic meaning. For example, we are encouraged, when the priest says the words of institution: “This is my body” to place our own bodies, devotionally, upon the paten in union with our Lord’s sacrifice . . . For a Catholic to claim that “This is my body” means ONLY that mercygate’s body is offered in the Mass would be heretical (not to mention unspeakably stupid).

The caution against private interpretation applies only to interpretations that contradict the deposit of faith. Surely you have similar caveats in your tradition? Even “sola Scriptura” people hedge their exegesis with certain guidelines (except the rabid me-and-Jesus-and-the-Book types).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top