|
07-15-2010, 04:16 PM | #1 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Orson Scott Card and the Roman Catholic Church
how are they different in their intellectual reconciliation of moments causing cognitive dissonance?
http://www.mormontimes.com/article/1...ce=queue_title LDS explain away bad conduct or bad decisions by leaders in much the same way Catholics do. They argue Pope is not really infallible as non-Catholics really claim, but rather only when he speaks ex cathedra, from the chair of Peter. Otherwise he is just a man. And apparently excommunication means in the modern RCC something different than what it means in the LDS Church. However, even murder is apparently forgivable. But if one examines the essence of the arguments, we use the same logic as the RCC defenders of the faith, just apply them to different facts. Or we twist and turn and say BY's priesthood policy really wasn't racist.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
07-15-2010, 04:24 PM | #2 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
Catholics claim the Pope is infallible, but don't really believe it. Mormons claim their prophet is not infallible, but don't really believe it.
So goes the old saying. |
07-15-2010, 05:05 PM | #3 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
that's the saying, but in reality, LDS treat their prophet much in the same way, Catholics treat the pope.
The true Catholic doctrine is not that the Pope is infallible but that he is infallible ex cathedra, from the chair of Peter. LDS teach the prophet when speaking from the pulpit and moved upon by the Holy Ghost will not lead us astray. The distinctions are not that great.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
Bookmarks |
|
|