Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
But to hold onto the idea of Latin in the church when Latin is no longer capable of being a method of communication for all but a select few is to elevate practice over principle while completely missing what the practice was for. Speaking about the 'universality' of Latin in 2013 is just bewildering, unless I suppose you're talking about the universal incomprehensibility. The world's most widely understood language today is English. That's the modern language that fulfils the function that Latin fulfilled 1500+ years ago.

---

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The Church of England will take 10-20 years, maybe less if they can agree that it be at the Vicar's discretion as with divorcees.

---

Oh dear, this sounds like compromise and meeting the other side of the debate in a way forwards that is sort of amicable for people who's consciences reach different conclusions to other people...

As has been made clear to me this is not allowed, so please move along with your compromise and take it elsewhere, it is not welcome here...

---

And Sergius-Melli will be among the last who oppose it in his sense of fraternity with those who oppose it. It will be interesting to see if he joins those who leave the church in opposition to the acceptance of same-sex marriage.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Way to completely not answer the point about the Inquisitions and Autos da fé there, IngoB. Feel free to try again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
It is easy to sit in your high chair with your beautiful 'concepts' and be able to judge others by it. The fact that you completely misjudge people and marriage doesn't mean shit to you. As long as you can write your multi-paragraph posts defending your beautiful 'concepts'. I can tell you where to stick those concepts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
My suspicion now is that there are unspoken premises here too far apart to be bridged. One side argues from a world made by God for God. The other argues from a world made by God for humanity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
But guess what, I'm in the process of getting divorced. Is that because I don't share similar ideals of marriage to you? No. It's because real life is more than concepts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I'd put up with your concept philosophy a bit more, if you only would step down from your ivory tower of musings every now and then and wallow in the shit of reality like the rest of us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Seriously? You think Latin has special spiritual powers or something?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Way to completely not answer the point about the Inquisitions and Autos da fé there, IngoB. Feel free to try again.

---

I thought you were engaging with the question whether the RCC has ever changed her doctrines. I answered concerning that. If you are merely asking whether the Church once considered it justified to kill heretics, and now doesn't, then the answer is 'yes'.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm an analyst, not a judge. I indeed deal in concepts, including concepts about people, not with people. Obviously errors in analysis can have disastrous consequences in the real world, if applied by lawmakers, statesmen, pastors, ... But I consider this to be a safe place for analysis. It is not a policy clearinghouse of influential people, it is a place of discussion. It is in a good sense academic.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

I thought you were engaging with the question whether the RCC has ever changed her doctrines. I answered concerning that. If you are merely asking whether the Church once considered it justified to kill heretics, and now doesn't, then the answer is 'yes'.

---

quote:

---

As for the personal judgement of people, how much have you said about what it is like to be IngoB, and how much have I said about what it is like to be LeRoc?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm an analyst, not a judge. I indeed deal in concepts, including concepts about people, not with people. Obviously errors in analysis can have disastrous consequences in the real world, if applied by lawmakers, statesmen, pastors, ... But I consider this to be a safe place for analysis. It is not a policy clearinghouse of influential people, it is a place of discussion. It is in a good sense academic.

---

Here, then, is the crux of this miserable matter.

It staggers the mind, how you could be—blatantly and unashamedly—so unChristian, to deal with the living, breathing images of God as if we were merely the spiritless bones of your dry analytics.

You, white-washed tomb.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

IngoB: As for the personal judgement of people, how much have you said about what it is like to be IngoB, and how much have I said about what it is like to be LeRoc?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
My suspicion now is that there are unspoken premises here too far apart to be bridged. One side argues from a world made by God for God. The other argues from a world made by God for humanity.

---

I agree with the comment about the unspoken premises. However, please note what you are doing next. It is an attempt to say that the opponent is obviously wrong about these premises.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Seriously? You think Latin has special spiritual powers or something?

---

Not intrinsically, as a specific pattern of sounds, of course. But in people's heads, thanks to history and culture. In your head, as shown by your overly allergic reaction. There aren't just physical realities in this world, and the cultural momentum of Latin in Western culture is still large.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Slavonic and Greek liturgies among converts in the Anglophone world are disappearing faster than virgin Catholic choirboys.

---

As well they fucking should.

Cyril and Methodios (Enlighteners of the Slavs) turn in their graves every single time an Orthodox liturgy is served in a language not understanded of the people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The fun bit is that your reaction, as uncomprehending and dismissive as it is, is such a neat confirmation of the symbolic power I'm talking about. A mere whiff of Latin, and you go mental, because it is not just another language. Even to you, even now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Way to completely not answer the point about the Inquisitions and Autos da fé there, IngoB. Feel free to try again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Saying "I can't agree with such-and-such" is a very far cry from stating "Such-and-such is obviously wrong." One problem here is that you don't seem willing or able to acknowledge that any such distinction exists.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
OK. The church has changed its mind on things. So why would it be such a deal breaker if it changed its mind on this one?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Here, then, is the crux of this miserable matter. It staggers the mind, how you could be—blatantly and unashamedly—so unChristian, to deal with the living, breathing images of God as if we were merely the spiritless bones of your dry analytics. You, white-washed tomb.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Well, he's a Protestant. The ignorant rubbish you spew about Protestantism is therefore a statement about what it's like to be LeRoc. If LeRoc is gay, you've stated that he probably doesn't want the holy "classical Catholic marriage" that you want.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Jesus didn't stick to this analysis. He didn't go into 8 paragraph logical discussions about what sin people had committed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Saying "I can't agree with such-and-such" is a very far cry from stating "Such-and-such is obviously wrong."

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

IngoB: Jesus isn't posting on SoF.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

IngoB: Jesus isn't posting on SoF.

---

But shouldn't you, as a self-proclaimed Christian, at least have somewhere in the back of your mind "What did Jesus think about this?" Especially if your treatment of this issue seems to be exactly opposite to His.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

I keep repeating it. The strange thing is: I like Catholics. I have a very high respect for them, and for many aspects of the Catholic Church. I've never encountered one who's even remotely like Ingo. I understand that he's a convert, maybe that explains it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

IngoB: Jesus isn't posting on SoF.

---

But shouldn't you, as a self-proclaimed Christian, at least have somewhere in the back of your mind "What did Jesus think about this?" Especially if your treatment of this issue seems to be exactly opposite to His.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Here, then, is the crux of this miserable matter. It staggers the mind, how you could be—blatantly and unashamedly—so unChristian, to deal with the living, breathing images of God as if we were merely the spiritless bones of your dry analytics. You, white-washed tomb.

---

Would it be fair to say that you are not a big fan of analyses?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Jesus didn't stick to this analysis. He didn't go into 8 paragraph logical discussions about what sin people had committed.

---

Jesus isn't posting on SoF. I am, however, and so are you.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
When you are talking about physics with a colleague, IngoB, and you have a disagreement with him, I should hope you don't respond, "Well your view is obviously stupid, and you're just too ignorant to know any better. It's that rotten, string theory DNA of yours." You do that sort of thing when you're talking about theology at any rate. Because, it seems, you feel the Ship doesn't count.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

The Silent Acolyte: Jesus isn't here. I am.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

IngoB: Note that he is not shown praying in his Father's house, nor doing charitable deeds. He is debating matters of faith with the learned.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I keep repeating it. The strange thing is: I like Catholics. I have a very high respect for them, and for many aspects of the Catholic Church. I've never encountered one who's even remotely like Ingo. I understand that he's a convert, maybe that explains it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
My understanding is that secular historians tend to argue today that the inquisitions were considerably blackened, as part of anti-Catholic propaganda, and were not as bad as once thought. Indeed, there are even some arguments that the inquisitions were more humane than the secular authorities, and prisoners would try to be moved from the latter to the former.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Of course you may chose to term such a complete reversal on the Jewish Deicide as "doctrinal development" but if so, you can also apply that to gay marriage. Fortunately you won't find many early commentators on Gay Marriage that you have to develop away.

---

For a doctrine to be completely reversed, it has to exist in the first place. I note that your own Wikipedia link states clearly: "Although not part of Christian dogma, many Christians, including members of the clergy, preached that the Jewish people were collectively guilty for Jesus's death." Please note that unlike Protestantism, the RCC has a Magisterium. And however much that Magisterium might get ignored, misrepresented or misinterpreted in RC practice - including by RC clergy - it is ultimately the Magisterium that must reflect any Divine protection of the Truth (or not). Fuck-ups "lower down" are regrettable, but expected.

There is also a long and consistent history of popes speaking out against Christian practical antisemitism, starting with Pope Gregory I in the sixth century AD. See for example here for a summary, note the threat of excommunication. That is not to deny the rampant antisemitism in Europe throughout the ages, which clearly often also had the blessings of local RC clergy. But this cannot be declared simply as the official position of the Church. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

The First Council of Nicaea, in 325, forbade clergy from engaging in usury (canon 17). At the time, usury was interest of any kind, and the canon merely forbade the clergy to lend money on interest above 1 percent per month (12.7% APR). Later ecumenical councils applied this regulation to the laity.

Lateran III decreed that persons who accepted interest on loans could receive neither the sacraments nor Christian burial.[15] Pope Clement V made the belief in the right to usury a heresy in 1311, and abolished all secular legislation which allowed it. Pope Sixtus V condemned the practice of charging interest as "detestable to God and man, damned by the sacred canons and contrary to Christian charity."

Theological historian John Noonan argues that "the doctrine [of usury] was enunciated by popes, expressed by three ecumenical councils, proclaimed by bishops, and taught unanimously by theologians.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
The best part is where you diagnose my "problem" as a Protestant, making very personal judgments about my character and beliefs indeed, and when the symptoms predicted by your generalizations turn out to have been completely wrong in my particular case, the new information somehow only confirms your analysis of me even more.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

Don't mistake my desire for fraternity with a lack support on an issue since every time you do, you do me, any effort I put into finding a way forwards, and yourself a great disservice in the process. [/QB]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Seriously? You think Latin has special spiritual powers or something?

---

Not intrinsically, as a specific pattern of sounds, of course. But in people's heads, thanks to history and culture. In your head, as shown by your overly allergic reaction. There aren't just physical realities in this world, and the cultural momentum of Latin in Western culture is still large.

---

I think Orfeo would agree it's been trumped by Public Opinion for quite some time now.

[ 21. August 2013, 21:23: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Seriously? You think Latin has special spiritual powers or something?

---

Not intrinsically, as a specific pattern of sounds, of course. But in people's heads, thanks to history and culture. In your head, as shown by your overly allergic reaction. There aren't just physical realities in this world, and the cultural momentum of Latin in Western culture is still large.

---

I think Orfeo would agree it's been trumped by Public Opinion for quite some time now.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
My understanding is that secular historians tend to argue today that the inquisitions were considerably blackened, as part of anti-Catholic propaganda, and were not as bad as once thought. Indeed, there are even some arguments that the inquisitions were more humane than the secular authorities, and prisoners would try to be moved from the latter to the former.

---

Snicker. The rebuttal to this would be to burn you at the stake. In a humane fashion of course.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

Don't mistake my desire for fraternity with a lack support on an issue since every time you do, you do me, any effort I put into finding a way forwards, and yourself a great disservice in the process.

---

I mistake your total obstruction of any proposal to move forward discussed on here with "not yet" but what about my brothers who are Christian bigots and similar noises as a lack of support. Giving lip service while attempting to sabotage the discussion of any practical action is in practice a lack of support. But feel free to enumerate your efforts to actually do something. I haven't seen them mentioned in discussion on the ship.

I'm sure that once the people who ignore you and move forward achieve their goals, you'll be happy to step up and say you were making great efforts to find a way to make it happen. You've said as much in your last post. [/QB]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
My understanding is that secular historians tend to argue today that the inquisitions were considerably blackened, as part of anti-Catholic propaganda, and were not as bad as once thought. Indeed, there are even some arguments that the inquisitions were more humane than the secular authorities, and prisoners would try to be moved from the latter to the former.

---

Snicker. The rebuttal to this would be to burn you at the stake. In a humane fashion of course.

---

I'm just trying to get my head round this. Do you mean that the Catholic Church would rebut those historians who are now saying that the inquisitions were blackened and partly fictionalized? Why would they do that?

So they would burn me at the stake, for decrying the 'black legend'? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I actually put in the effort to produce a response, but to be frankly honest the only thing I can really muster to say in reply is 'go fuck yourself'.

I think 6 years of public record sort of puts your comment out...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
My understanding is that secular historians tend to argue today that the inquisitions were considerably blackened, as part of anti-Catholic propaganda, and were not as bad as once thought. Indeed, there are even some arguments that the inquisitions were more humane than the secular authorities, and prisoners would try to be moved from the latter to the former.

---

Snicker. The rebuttal to this would be to burn you at the stake. In a humane fashion of course.

---

I'm just trying to get my head round this. Do you mean that the Catholic Church would rebut those historians who are now saying that the inquisitions were blackened and partly fictionalized? Why would they do that?

So they would burn me at the stake, for decrying the 'black legend'? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

---

I was not theorizing what those Catholic Church would do. I was responding to your nonsense myself, IngoB has already done his "Well, it really wasn't so many and besides it was usually the secular authority that did it at Church behest" little tap dance earlier in this thread.

Next you're going to tell me why all those Sephardic Jews who loved the humane Inquisition so much suddenly decided to move from Spain to the Netherlands, England, and the Levant. They must have gone for the waters.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Your analysis is beggared because, as you yourself say, you don't deal with people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
The point is, in light of the Christian Truth, what am I going to do?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
What I'm saying is that having long arguments about theoretical concepts without looking at the people involved, can be a bad thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Well, here's the thread in question, IngoB, specifically when the crap about Protestants starts flowing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
The best part is where you diagnose my "problem" as a Protestant, making very personal judgments about my character and beliefs indeed, and when the symptoms predicted by your generalizations turn out to have been completely wrong in my particular case, the new information somehow only confirms your analysis of me even more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
It's the same here on this thread. You make a generalization about homosexuals, contrary evidence is proposed, and yet the generalization and the conclusions drawn from it don't change on bit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Do you argue like that about physics?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
In the mean time the RC clergy can perform same-sex marriage, preach it as a good thing and make polite applause when the pope says no.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As for unchanging RCC dogma there's always Usury ... Last I checked, the doctrine of Usury had changed enough to have a Vatican Bank.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
IngoB, for God's sake, in the bowels of Christ INCLUDE. Reach UP. Count your brethren - the ones you deny, refuse, brand - more worthy. The way GOOD Roman Catholics do. Like the sublimely broken Henri Nouwen.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So you are saying that the idea of the 'black legend' is itself fiction?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So you are saying that the idea of the 'black legend' is itself fiction?

---

Anti-catholics in various times and places created exaggerations of the duration and times of Catholic persecution of Jews, Moors, unreified homosexuals and protestants. Certainly Catholics in the nineteenth century in the US were treated badly and assumed to be as toxic as their predecessors.

That's not to say these acts didn't occur or were "humane" or insignificantly trivial in number. People were tortured, killed, forced to convert or handed over to an obedient secular state to do the same.
They may have been late in coming but the apologies by John Paul II were not the errors of someone who wasn't as smart as IngoB. When you start getting arguments like "the humane inquisition" you are witnessing bullshit scholarship by people who are impressed with their own cleverness.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

IngoB: Well? Have a look then and tell us what we haven't considered in these arguments.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Has anyone mentioned the 'humane inquisition'? I don't recollect that. My point was that some historians have argued that in some countries the inquisitions could be more humane than the secular authorities. One reason for this, is that the secular powers might treat heresy as treason, the punishment for which could be severe. The inquisitions often prescribed penance, although of course, they could and did use torture, and handed people over to be executed.

I've never come across a historian who said that the inquisitions were OK; but some of them have argued that their history was heavily propagandized, as part of Protestant and patriotic (and anti-Spanish) rhetoric. Hence, the 'black legend', which seems to have endured for centuries, and of course, still exists in the popular imagination (well, I think it does).

But of course, historians have been able to actually study the detailed notes and minutes of the inquisitions themselves.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Usury is indeed an interesting case. What changed there is the meaning of money. Basically, modernity developed capitalism. And in capitalism, money itself is expected to work, money earns more money. So if I lend you money but ask for no interest, then actually I'm losing money. Because I could have invested my money elsewhere, and received more money back for my trouble. Interest then becomes (or can become, if appropriate) a just compensation for my losses.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
This is fighting the wrong fight. There are many threats to marriage. Homosexuality isn't one of them.

---

That is naive. Homosexuality is the contemporary issue which is driving the civil conception of marriage further away from what the Church considers to be the true and right conception of marriage. One does not have to agree with the Church to see that.

{snip}

But to declare that accepting homosexuality concerning marriage is no threat to marriage as conceived by the Church is obviously wrong.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

You say "completely wrong", I say "spot on", let's call the whole thing off. Seriously though, let's.

---

quote:

---

Well, let's just wait until the contrary evidence has turned from a hopeful proposition into a tangible reality. You might just remember that you weren't really able to find fault with my generalization?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Usury is indeed an interesting case. What changed there is the meaning of money. Basically, modernity developed capitalism. And in capitalism, money itself is expected to work, money earns more money. So if I lend you money but ask for no interest, then actually I'm losing money. Because I could have invested my money elsewhere, and received more money back for my trouble. Interest then becomes (or can become, if appropriate) a just compensation for my losses.

---

In other words, everybody else is doing it so it's now okay if we do as well?

Wow. Just... wow. What amazing moral leadership in THAT area. You basically just offered a justification that was all about keeping up with the secular Joneses.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Your analysis is beggared because, as you yourself say, you don't deal with people.

---

I still don't know what you are really getting at. What precisely would you have me do, and how do you expect it to change my analysis?

---

quote:

---

Originally posed by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
If gays really want to do something like marrying, and not just adopt the sad shell that civil law has made of marriage, then they need to stop having sex until they get married, stick with that one sex partner till death after having married, and look into adopting several kids during their relationship. Who knows, maybe lots of gays are interested in that, but I wouldn't bet on it.

---

Fuck you.

---