As far as I know there are three. Possibly four.
1. The Infallibility of the Pope
2. The Immaculate Conception of Mary
3. The Assumption of Mary
4. The impossibility of ordaining women
The first one is infallible because it was a decree of an Ecumenical Council (Vatican I). The decrees of the Ecumenical Councils (Nicaea, Trent, Vatican I, etc...) are also infallible.
To Soothing Dave, if #4 is not a teaching of the extraordinary Magisterium, it certainly is one of the ordinary Magisterium and, because that is the case, the impossiblity of ordaining women is Truth.
Liberalism, and it's brother Modernism, is a sin. Can I get a witness from the congregation?
Pray for John Paul II
A year ago I started writing my thoughts and mini stories and results of Bible studies on certain subjects, and since I now had a spell check at my disposal, I thought this should be a snap.
My wife is an avid reader, and had a working career in an office and showroom, so naturally I took my first great work to her for final approval.
I still have no idea why she had problems reading it, because it was so brilliantly structured, It was in one solid block of words, all in upper case (to make it very easy to read,) and I had even written it with out sentence breaks and periods, and comas, and all those funny little things so the reader could easily follow the line of thought with out all the brain interruptions that punctuation marks cause.
I asked her to read it out loud, so I could experience the brilliance of my first sure to be award-winning piece.
Well to my dismay, I found out that my wife, who I had always considered to be very intelligent, failed me completely.
She had no sense of story flow what so ever, she kept hesitating, and starting over at key points where flow is so important, and then she would mumble something about needing "cumas" or something like that, and saying such dumb things as "Oh, this should be the starting of a new sentence, as if I didn't know that. Sheeesss
So anyway, I said why don't you correct it (as if there was anything to correct), so she wasted three full days trying to find something wrong with my article, so she could mark it all up, and make it appear that she had done more work on it then I had.
Well I pretended to humor her along, acting like it was conceivable possible for me to make a mistake here or there, (even with a spell checker) but when she got finished, I had to go print off an un- edited copy of it just so I could see what it was when I had written it.
Well to make a long story short, after this harrowing and deflating experience, I decided to not take chances anymore, so I started to put in comas every 8 words, and a period every 32 words, paying careful attention that I never use more then 4 comas per 32 word sentences.
But do you think this satisfied her? You guessed it, and would you believe it, she then started taking them out instead of putting them in, showing me that she had no intentions of trying to get along what so ever, so in anger, I made up a sheet of nothing but periods, and another of comas, and I gave them to her and in frustration said, "here, use the damn things anywhere you want," and we have done pretty well since.
The main reason I have written this is to warn you of what this obsession with punctuation marks can lead to.
Yesterday, I was praying, and I said to God, "Help me to better understand your word "COMA" and to change with knowledge and…. and…. and...,. I don't believe it. I said "coma" in my prayers "coma" and that is frightening "coma" because, can you imagine what my prayers are going to sound like when I start doing them in HTML code (question mark)
Does this mean that you believe we become God, or are absorbed into God, losing our individual identity?
Reminds me of a joke. A Hindu (Buddhist, New Ager, Unitarian Universalist, etc.) goes up to a NY City Hot Dog cart. The guy says "What'll ya have?"
The Hindu responds: "Can you make me one with everything?"
(rim shot)
I don't think our identities will be completely gone, but they will be radically changed. All of the bad will be gone. We will gladly serve forever at the throne, at the wedding feast. People who ask if they will be married, if their favorite dog will be there, etc. really don't understand that such things were designed to bring a shadow of God's bliss to us on earth. Marriage was the union of two souls, in Heaven all souls will be united. Any wonderful emotion you can think of will be as nothing compared to the joy we will experience there.
We certainly won't "become" God, or be absorbed into God to the loss of our personhood. We will be however, surrounded by God, enveloped by God, embraced by God.
SD
Ha. Shows how little you know. You forget the Church is universal. The blankey is Metric.
SD
I'm sorry vmatt, but I don't try to argue the meaning of Revelation. The style of literature used is wildly imaginative and I refuse to get into interpretation battles about it. We have a hard enough time trying to agree on the meaning of the stuff written as history.
In what sense are they one? In what sense do "twain become one" in marriage, a type of the church? Paul says that in marriage your interests become that of making your spouse happy.
And when I don't wish to make her happy anymore and wish to make another happy? No, it's not just about my interests. Man and wife become one, typified by the creative act. I didn't even see your post yet when I wrote above about marriage. It is the union of two souls, a taste of the eventual union of all believers. A true union, like the Trinity.
In this sense is God and Jesus one also, but their individual identity remains Father and Son, two beings..
Two persons. One God. Does not the rest of the Bible lead you to a monotheisim?
SD
About ten years ago there was a song from the guy in the Georgia Satellites about a kid who sent a love note to his teacher and she returned it graded.
I love you period
Do you love me question mark
Please please exclamation point
I wanna hold you in parentheses
SD
I'm still awaiting yours. But you gonna keep trying to change the subject cuz you don't have one. So for the 3rd time, chapter and verse please?
Who are "the faithful"?
True. No evidence in Scripture---amen on this statement. I've looked and looked for it, but it just isn't there. Thanks for the quotes from the Fathers.
"This is My body," "You must eat My flesh and drink My blood," "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" are "startingly clear" teachings!?!?!?
What IS clear about "This is My body" is that Jesus was using a metaphor, as He so often did to vividly illustrate truth. Yes, we must appropriate His sacrifice for ourselves as though we were eating His flesh. If one takes this statement ("This is My body") literally, one would have to take all other metaphors He employed literally also. Like "I am the Light of the world," "I am the Door," "I am the Alpha and Omega," "I am the vine," "You are the branches," "My sheep hear My voice," etc. The same is true of "You must eat My flesh and drink My blood." If one reads the context of John 6, it is so easy to see that eating and drinking are synonymous with "coming to Him," which He repeats over and over. It is also a beautiful illustration of how we are united to Him AND nourished and given life by Him. Oh! The analogy is FULL of wonderful morsels of truth!!! To think you literally bite into His flesh, chew Him up, and swallow Him and drink His blood is.......too ludicrous for words.
As for "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone," at first reading, one may see it your way. But if taken in the context of the passage, and especially if taken in context of the whole of Christ's and the apostles' teaching, it becomes clear that it has been misunderstood. This is what we mean when we claim that the Holy Writings interpret themselves...all the parts shed light on each other...All it takes is reading and comparing.
Are you speaking of Titus 2:15, which says, "Say these things. Exhort and correct with all authority. Let no one look down on you"?
Could you re-word this for me? I don't understand.
Which process of the universe are you not part of?
I don't deny our interdependence, D, but if you think you are one with your toaster oven, you've got real problems. ;o) I'm in relationship with things outside myself, but there is a distinct difference between not-me (outside my skin) and ME (inside my skin).
(Though it's a rich vein, I'll skip over the distinction between your "autonomous" before and "interdependent" above)
I share mass with the toaster, I share a limbric system with my cat and can experience an emotion with her, in that experience subject/object are dual only if perceived such. If you wish to debate for the point of duality of experience, you can try your wits against thinkers even in the west such as William James or Bertrand Russell.
"Consider the case of the alzheimer's patient who has progressed to the point of catatonia. "
A functioning mind is necessary for consciousness, but is not consciousness. A functioning mind can be conscious of itself as a horny dog, or it can be conscious of itself as a spiritual being. A functioning mouse brain is only aware of… We agree that a body/mind is a requirement for "self" but the two do not comprise an identity relationship - unless you have become positivist or joined The Church of Scientism on me. The usual framework is nested hierarchies of existence: (matter(body(mind(consciousness(soul(spirit)soul)consciousness)mind)body)matter). Or some variation (remarkably consistent across religions. Healthy humans are comprised all levels in constant development (though conscious awareness may reside in different parts - at different times. When absorbed in playing tennis, "Angelo" IS (his consciousness of himself) is his body. I would say you are identifying (in this discussion) as who you are as "body/mind/consciousness." To you, that is you, that is where your conscious awareness of who Angelo is. So this is the Angelo you expect will be the Angelo that continues (sorta) after-death.
there is a distinct difference between not-me (outside my skin) and ME (inside my skin).
Yes, your skin and physical body have simple location; in one location there is your skin in another there it is not. That is the way with material objects. If you are saying you have a body that consists of matter that is not your toaster, we agree. But we're not discussing your body, but your self.
Yes, you have skin, is that where your self resides? No skin, no self? I'm explaining by absurdity here, not attempting to redicule you. Skin, bones, nerves, brain cells, endocrine system… which is you? Which part of your self resides where; which is lost if your arm is cut off? If you go anywhere near here, you enter the long-debunked fallacy of reductionism and materialism. Move up just a level to mind, then another to that transcending mind and then to the "process" or force that governs what "exists". You are a part of that as much as a wave is part of the ocean; you are claiming your drop is distinct, autonomous (though interdependent) and naming that "Angelo's Self". And further saying that that drop will re-appear, reform in an existence without time or space. What wave in what ocean will this drop of Angelo's self being bobbing at what frequency in what direction?
Let's imagine, look, for a moment beyond the sea - part of the planet - past the solar system and stars and universe, to the unseen into which all of this came into existence. Are you not part of all that, that (call it process for a start) that one thing going on? Is your self, yes, distinct from this (not the same as its entirety), but not separate from it? Is this where we derail? The difference between distinct from and separate from? Who are you? A leaf or a part of a tree? I maintain that as your understanding, spiritually, grows, you can experience yourself, directly experience, as part of the tree and more and more, without boundaries, (the boundary of skin for the most tiny example.) You are the part of all this. You are the part that knows it exists. The part that can say "How awesome thou art!"
Who is it that is aware of your "self"?Anyway, back to the subject: I do not deny the existence of "self" but what most think their true self is. For example, it is not their thoughts, these can be observed objectively, therefore they are not all of the self. The self is not located in a specific part of the body. Another common misconception is that self has simple location: it is "there.""I" am self-aware. If you deny the existence of a "self", who is doing the denying?
I asked first. :). But of course the follow up is if there is something that is aware of something else (self), then there is another awareness other than "self." Here we can go off further…
I will answer this far for now: The self that can observe your thoughts, without being them, the self that is observing your thoughts is closer to your true self and it exists in a glimpse of eternal time.
Eternal because it observes without concepts and without judging, controlling or discoursing on the thoughts it observers. To do so, it must be contantly in the present moment: now, now, now, now, continually. No: "I just thought," no "That thought reminds me… tommorrow I hope…"
Bare awareness of the present moment. The only time that truly exists. Past is memory and regrets; future is hopes and fears. No one has ever lived a moment in the past or a moment in the future, past and future are mental experiences, experiences occuring now, not existing in a real time=future/past. You can only exist in the only time that exists in reality: the ever-present now. Past and future are concept useful for many things, but they do not really exist as "time" only as concepts and thoughts.
[Imagine for a moment what this after-death self in eternity- outside time - will do with memory and past and future.]
Exist in bare awareness in the present moment, observe reality without pre-condition or judgement; notice "who" this "self" is and where, or if, it ends and "not-self" begins. Your "self" is there without need of past or future, they are not real as we think of our time (remember that neither time nor space are absolute qualities; what is the relative time in eternal and absolute beingness?
I have a thought experiment that may spark a better understanding of what I am trying to communicate. Perhaps it won't, perhaps another time.
thank you for your reply, very much.