Alexis responded to Acid Reindeer's criticism of major western religions:

"Cults demand uniformity; free thought is not an option. Religions know people will fail because we’re all human; we all f*** up."

The Catholic Church demands uniformity also. A noted theologian at Boston College wrote a book suggesting the possibility that non-christians could get to "heaven". He taught from his own book in his classes at B.C.

The Vatican sent him a little note telling him to stop teaching this and recant what he suggested or risk being ex-communicated.

Wow! those Catholics are strict!!! Sorry i couldn't find a link to that info. Short of time.

About Warytraveller2:

Again and again he sounds like a cult apologist and it seems repeatedly that his purpose on this board is to obfuscate and do whatever he can to confuse visitors and/or readers regarding issues raised.

Warytraveller2's remark about the Roman Catholic Church is evidence of this.

See [www.culteducation.com]

The issue of what is a "cult" is reviewed and defined in-depth through the above link.

BTW--the Pope, unlike Werner Erhard, was elected. And despite his traditional authority is responsive to the various layers of Catholic leaders and the laity.

The church certainly does not fulfill the definition of a "destructive cult," though it has its problems.

Anyone following the response of the Catholic Church to the current clergy abuse scandal can see this.

See [www.culteducation.com]

EST/Landmark has never really addressed the harm done by their courses that has resulted in personal injuries. Instead of assuming such responsibility they created required paperwork to preclude lawsuits and lock participants into "binding arbitration."

The Catholic Church has acknowledged responsibility and publicly paid out millions of dollars in settlements without gag orders.

Compare this to Landmark in the Neff case.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Neff was paid off, but required to sign a gag order.

The Catholic Church actually has little if anything in common with destructive cults.

But Warytraveller2's attempt to force such an analogy, is once again really rather revealing.

If it sounds like "cult apology," it just might be "cult apology."

See [www.culteducation.com]

Warytraveller seems to be focused on subverting this board, in whatever way possible.

Though subtle at times, this comes through in his posts eventually.

yeah, ok, but he's, warytraveller that is, has a good point and the same thing has bothered me for the longest time. My family is irritatingly christian, although not catholic and my non-christianity has been one of the subliminal hard things between us. Expedia is sending me my one way ticket to Hell, on Heresy Airlines....

as far as the Catholic church is concerned:

[members.aol.com]

"There are a lot of disagreements about when Popes are infallible and when they aren't. The First Vatican Council and other recent Catholic sources that have claimed infallibility for the Pope have been interpreted in different ways by different people. Catholics don't agree with each other about papal infallibility, and non-Catholics also disagree over how to interpret the doctrine. Since Popes have often erred, some Catholic apologists have claimed that papal infallibility has only been exercised twice: the Immaculate Conception decree of Pope Pius IX in 1854 and the Assumption of Mary decree of Pope Pius XII in 1950. However, even those decrees have errors in them. For example, in the Immaculate Conception decree, Pope Pius IX referred to Mary as the crusher of Satan's head in Genesis 3:15. That interpretation was derived from a mistranslation of the passage that was part of Catholic Bibles for centuries. The crusher of Satan's head in Genesis 3:15 is actually masculine, not feminine. There's no reason to believe that Mary is the fulfillment of Genesis 3:15, contrary to what Pope Pius IX wrote in the Immaculate Conception decree. Because of such errors, some Catholics claim that not even the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary decrees are infallible. Only some parts of those decrees are exercises of papal infallibility. Other Catholics argue that Popes have exercised papal infallibility more often. However the doctrine is defined, there's no evidence that Popes have any power of infallibility, and the Catholic Church's failure to further define the doctrine reflects that. The Catholic Church has been vague on this issue for obvious reasons.

While the Catholic Church tries to avoid responsibility for papal errors by defining papal infallibility in a vague way, it demands obedience to the Pope at all times, as though every word coming from his mouth is infallible. The Catholic Church thereby avoids responsibility while commanding obedience. It can err repeatedly, yet still claim infallibility, and demand obedience at all times, even when it's erring. For example, the Second Vatican Council taught ("Dogmatic Constitution on the Church", no. 25, emphasis mine):



This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to decisions made by him.



Nobody knows just when the Pope supposedly is speaking infallibly and when he isn't, and he's to be obeyed even when he isn't speaking infallibly. This reasoning allows the Roman Catholic Church to derive all of the benefits of claiming infallibility, such as having hundreds of millions of people obey it, while avoiding the responsibilities of claiming infallibility"


Hmmmmmm..... Interesting..... same wine, different bottles.... when will Forum Leaders pick up on this useful technique ?

OK Socrates, but Warytraveller2 is here to essentially undercut criticism of EST/Landmark and generally muddy the water.

The Catholic Church has its problems and "holy mysteries," but Landmark is not so mysterious, it's a for-profit privately owned business and the complaints keep pouring in.

And the excerpt you previously posted was written by an evangelical Protestant. No surprise that he is critical of the Catholic Church.

See [members.aol.com]

That may be his purpose, although one should be cautious when ascribing motives to others, or "mindreading". Even if it is his purpose, no harm in letting him have his say. If his points can be rebutted, then let's rebut them. Critical thinking is well honed thereby.

Please, lets not reduce ourselves to the level of those wretched trainers who rely on nothing else than their ordained authority to shut off any discussion, criticism, or intellectual challenges. The worst, the absolute worst fate that could happen to this board is that it adopts their way of coping with threats.

Warytraveler should thump his tub all he wants and we should resoundingly thump back if need be. Real dialog is the one thing these mind control rackets can't tolerate. I'd prefer to demonstrate the power of active, searching thought and see how it stacks up against their product.

Socrates:

To a certain point, but it may become a waste of space and a bother to others on the board.

E.g. "flames" (diatribes) are edited out.

This board does have rules, which each user agrees to in advance.

It is also a moderated board, which is understood and advised in advance.

People who post here as apologists ("Trolls") are not really welcome or appreciated.

This board is about meaningful dialog centered upon an exchange of ideas and information, not promotional rhetoric or apology for some group.

Great post Socrates. I hope agreeing with you in know way diminishes your acceptance with the rank and file members.

It is excellent and informative. Here is a dirty little secret I've been hiding. I go to Mass almost every Sunday with my wife and daughter. I used to hate it but we have had 2 excellent priests at our local parish. Both are passionate, intelligent and often inspiring. Their homilies make it worth putting up with the dogma and ritual that I just can't get into.

Of course there is the chanting, singing, and professing of ones faith in the Catholic Church etc...... They haven't brainwashed me yet but they believe there is still time!!!

We occassionally go to other churches in the areas but our priests have been head and shoulders above the others. Of course, I'm speaking for myself.( i.e "It's true for me.")

It could be that the church sends their "A Game" priests to parishes touched by the sex abuse scandal. This was the case with our parish.

Both priests integrate scriptural readings into the tangible experiences that we call life.

Let's here it for Father Bob and Dan. They are an exemplary model for the priesthood.

Be wary of "Warytraveller2"

First he posts comments critical of the Catholic Church, then he says he likes it.

Back and forth we go and around and around.

Again, Warytraveller2's purpose here seems to be to create conflict, generate apologies and do whatever he can to disturb the board.

It seems he has attended quite a few groups listed on the Ross Institute database.

Didn't that include EST, TM and some other group?

Now he's a Catholic, or at least the Catholic Church is on his latest list of organizations to visit.

Whatever (yawn).

Same old pattern, and it is getting boring.

rrmoderator wroe:

"first he posts comments critical to the Catholic church...."

Actually, I said I liked the local priest's homilies. And I liked both Father Bob and Father Dan also. That's all.

RR continued:

"Didn't that include Est, TM and some other groups?"

Nope. your confusing me with someone else. I simply said I liked the Est Training. Now I'm saying I like the local priest.

It seems that saying you liked something here the moderators don't approve of is tantamount to heresy. Excommunication is the only answer to this heretical behaviour. Althoug it's not thought-reform per-se, it is a form of indoctrination, teaching someone to accept doctrine uncritically.

It all comes back to my first post on this board. Does anyone dare state what they believe in or what organizations they think are good?

I have stated I liked some things in life. If you wish, you can attempt to tear them down. I'am not looking for anyone's approval here.

But which one takes more courage? Proffessing one's faith and taking a stand for something you believe in or simply attacking and deriding the experiences of others?

Thanks for the forum to express my thoughts on these issues. It is technically excellent.

Before you get all wiggy and think I'm trying to get you to become Catholic, keep in mind I only go to church once or twice a year. My husband is also an atheist and I DONOT try to convert him.

Having stated that, getting to know the religion I was raised with was/is an important part of my recovery process from landmark and primerica. And I could do that without stepping into a church or talking to a priest or nun.

Since you brought it up, Socrates, here it is for ya :wink: …..

As for the Catholic Church's teachings on whether you will rot in hell or not, it is best summed up by the info below:

(From www.ewtn.com) In an allocution (address to an audience) on December 9th, 1854 Pope of Vatican I, Pius IX, said:

We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?


The Church's understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Latin, "outside the Church, no salvation"), is as follows:

"This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church". The Catechism goes on to quote Lumen Gentium (14): "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience -- those too may achieve eternal salvation" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 847).



So the Catholic Church does NOT teach that every person who is not Catholic will rot in hell. Anyone who will tell you you are going to rot in hell because you're not Catholic is WRONG, acording to the Catholic Church.



(From www.newadvent.org) Explanation of Papal Infallibility

The Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church -- is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent" (Densinger no. 1839 -- old no. 1680).

For the correct understanding of this definition it is to be noted that:

* what is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration (see above under I).

* the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church's in order to be infallible.

* infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:

- The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher ar allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.

- Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).

- Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.

-Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.

It should be observed in conclusion that papal infallibility is a personal and incommunicable charisma, which is not shared by any pontifical tribunal. It was promised directly to Peter, and to each of Peter's successors in the primacy, but not as a prerogative the exercise of which could be delegated to others. Hence doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be considered infallible. To be infallible they must be issued by the pope himself in his own name according to the conditions already mentioned as requisite for ex cathedra teaching.

If you want to, you can go to [www.newadvent.org] to read the entire entry.

Ex Cathedra:

Literally "from the chair", a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority. The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives. But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."


I'm sure you will have your own interpretations, so I won't bother to give mine. ...... at least for now :twisted: