The Sanctity of The Confessional.

[the]

The biggest split that every one nkows about is that of the Catholics and protestants, and while they split into to unique groups They did so not over what they believed to be accuracy of scripture(more likley lack of scripture).

No, the biggest split was between the east and the west. It has been all down hill for the west after that, resulting most recently in the protestant churches many doctrines.

 

[muir]

The problem with confessing to a human is that human then knows your business

The catholic church has had a good grip on the minds of communities large and small around the world for a long time

There is another cult with a smaller following who do something similar. In scientology people are 'audited' by a member of the church who asks the new comer probing personal questions. They have a machine that tells them if a question has provoked an emotional response and they question further down that avenue. It is claimed this process is a healing one, much like catholic confession

It is possible that such a process might clear some emotional blockages but it also gives the church a lot of information about your sensitive issues....they know which buttons to press.

It also makes people, who are receptive already (because why else would they be seeking out such an organisation) think 'wow, these people really have all the answers in life'; so its a bit of a cheap trick really

It also gives the church a lot of leverage against you. Lets say you are a big hollywood star who has been in tinseltown too long surrounded by people who tell you how great you are all the time, so you are beginning to lose track of reality. If you went to such a cult and told them personal info on yourself they can control you because they could easily pass on any delicate info to the press...they own your ass and the next thing they like you to do is bind yourself financially

It reminds me a lot of techniques used in NLP....which frankly stinks too much of money and management speak for my liking. It is certainly of dubious scientific merit.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

The problem with confessing to a human is that human then knows your business

The catholic church has had a good grip on the minds of communities large and small around the world for a long time

There is another cult with a smaller following who do something similar. In scientology people are 'audited' by a member of the church who asks the new comer probing personal questions. They have a machine that tells them if a question has provoked an emotional response and they question further down that avenue. It is claimed this process is a healing one, much like catholic confession

It is possible that such a process might clear some emotional blockages but it also gives the church a lot of information about your sensitive issues....they know which buttons to press.

It also makes people, who are receptive already (because why else would they be seeking out such an organisation) think 'wow, these people really have all the answers in life'; so its a bit of a cheap trick really

It also gives the church a lot of leverage against you. Lets say you are a big hollywood star who has been in tinseltown too long surrounded by people who tell you how great you are all the time, so you are beginning to lose track of reality. If you went to such a cult and told them personal info on yourself they can control you because they could easily pass on any delicate info to the press...they own your ass and the next thing they like you to do is bind yourself financially

It reminds me a lot of techniques used in NLP....which frankly stinks too much of money and management speak for my liking. It is certainly of dubious scientific merit.

Any priest who reaveals anything heard in the confessional to absolutely ANYONE is automatically suspended, censured and excommunicated.

Priests are even forbidden to mention what they heard in confession to the penitent him/herself outside the confessional.

 

[muir]

In regard to your suppositions, I think your last one is spot on.

You aren't trying to villify people for being Catholic are you?

I am against all centralised power structures

The catholic church is one of these

What do you mean by being 'catholic'.....you state that as if it is a genetic condition. It isn't it is an idea. I can see how it might be part of someones cultural DNA

I have implied by referring to religious organisations as cults that i see them all the same way.....it just happens that this thread is about the catholic church

My country has problems with sectarianism between catholi cs and protestants....i think both sides need to grow up

If you want my opinion on the catholic church it is this:

Some very radical ideas moved northwards from a judaic tradition of questioning. These ideas moved through the prisms of western thought such as neo-platonism and have evolved into modern day roman catholic thought

Saul took these radical thoughts to Rome which was the preeminent power in its day. He knew these thoughts had to be modified to win over pagan converts. For example the cutting off of the foreskin was dropped. The worship of mary was elevated to replace pre existing cults centered around female deities such as Artemis or Isis. If you travel in that part of the world you will see many of these cults and it is a fascinating thing to see the overlap and evolution of ideas/religion

Christianity proved a successful religion because it appealled to people at a grass roots level. It had all sorts of messages which appealled to the COMMON MAN AND WOMAN. Ideas of equality in the eyes of the lord.

These ideas spread thoughout the Roman sphere of influence so successfully that the Roman power elites felt threatened and tried persecuting the christians. This failed leading to Constantine seeing the potential of this new religion as a binding force if it was given state sanction

Of course if these ideas were to apply to the mighty power of rome then it would have to be grandified....have you visited the vatican or hagia sophia? If not you should. SEE THE GRANDEUR. Is that grandness befitting the ideas of an honest carpenter who railed against the commerce in the temple?

Christianity then spread through Europe because 'barbarian' kings recognised the benefits it would have in tying them closer to christendom with its centres of arts and learning which they coveted

What i think is that what you see today as 'christianity' is a perversion of what its central figure was actually saying and yes i do think my politics are close to his; i do not believe in his divinity...anymore than the 'divinity' of anyone else.......IMHO

I'm sorry if these ideas conflict with the wealth and grandeur of the catholic church......that is not an attack on individual catholics...their views are for their conscience

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Muir:
Jesus was a poor carpenter - and he did not refuse people doing good things for him personally. In fact, one time Mary Magdalene, whom he had saved from an angry crowd, and whose sins he had forgiven anointed his feet with VERY expensive perfume. The only one who objected was Judas Iscariot, who sold him to his enemies.

I don't think Catholics do wrong when they give money for the purpose of building a beautiful church to honor Jesus. Nor is it wrong for the hierarchy to honor the intention of donors and use the money on the gilding of altars.

My point is, Christ chose for himself what was poor, but for those who love him, it isn't wrong to give him the best. Of course none of this up until the present day would make sense unless you believed that he is in fact the Son of God - ie. a Divine person.

 

[muir]

Muir:
Jesus was a poor carpenter - and he did not refuse people doing good things for him personally. In fact, one time Mary Magdalene, whom he had saved from an angry crowd, and whose sins he had forgiven anointed his feet with VERY expensive perfume. The only one who objected was Judas Iscariot, who sold him to his enemies.

I don't think Catholics do wrong when they give money for the purpose of building a beautiful church to honor Jesus. Nor is it wrong for the hierarchy to honor the intention of donors and use the money on the gilding of altars.

My point is, Christ chose for himself what was poor, but for those who love him, it isn't wrong to give him the best. Of course none of this up until the present day would make sense unless you believed that he is in fact the Son of God - ie. a Divine person.

We don't know for sure that these events happened

If we look at the bible objectively as we would look at any historical source then we must recognise agendas and biases within it

We must stay objective....that is not to say it is without value...every human act or creation says something about humanity

The problem with money being spent on alters and churchs is that there are often people who need help that are being overlooked....to balance this out a little i will point to the King Hassan II mosque in casablanca made at astronomical costs within a poor country or the Aga Khan who seems to be living the highlife from money donated by his people. Hell its been going on since the pyramids and before....think of the embodied human energy in those buildings.....when will the people be put first?

I see every day areas where public money can be put to better use. For example there is a massive revamp of some public buildings in my country at the moment, yet public sector workers are being paid less and taxed more and front line services are suffering. These people are the backbone of the country but money is going to large corporations to do tasks (the olympics is another blackhole, stealth tax) because the politicians and the business men are in bed together and consorting to line their own pockets

 

[randomsomeone]

Yes, the historical pendulum has swung back and forth many times for the Catholic church and continues to do so. Even so, the daily dynamics of the everyday believer (and even those in Rome) is overwhelmingly centered on the very simple, humble beginnings of the faith. The qualities that are held up as example, as inspiration, as objective, are those of the carpenter and his followers and of the early church. The church properties, the art, the heirarchy, the Vatican, the power (whatever remains)...even the Pope...are all really ancillary. The grandeur can go poof in an instant....some great art would be lost, but little else.

Catholic practice has changed a good bit through the centuries, too, but usually at an slow, evolutionary rate. The reason I suspect is that "practice" is somehow connected to "belief", and while the "belief" can mean may things, it should not be lost altogether in the name of change. Why? Because it is timeless and valuable and authentic. So any change will respect the core belief and amplify and restate this, but in modified, updated terms. I will tell you, there has been massive changes in the Catholic church during my lifetime....most are very cool, some notsomuch (imo). It is dynamic though, and mindboggling to watch and to be somewhat engaged in. Still, my own personal journey remains very much connected to those more ancient inspirations.