SpiralScouts

[OldGreyEagle]

Thank you Mark, us mackeral snapin' papists have to stick together, dont we?

 

You explained what I was tryign to say to Rooster. A totally devout Baptist or Methodist, or whatever, taught the precepts of their faith since youth has as much a shot as salvation as a catholic.(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[Rooster7]

Glen,

 

Rooter7? It's Rooster7...What happen to the "s"? Don't tell me, the "s" stands for sin and Christ has blotted it out... ;-). Sorry, I was having a flashback to a MASH's Hams commercial.

 

Just out of curiosity...

 

So where does that teaching put me? I was raised Catholic. I know the doctrines (unless they've all changed since I was 18). I believe the Protestant faiths are more in line with Biblical teachings. I don't reject the Catholic Church as a body of believers, but I'm not convinced that the Church is properly imparting all of God's Word. So, how would you interpret that website quote in reference to someone like me? Im not concerned, just curious

 

As a point of interest, prior to 1972, the 12th point of the Scout Law read as follows:

 

A SCOUT is REVERENT. He is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties, and respects the convictions of others in matters of custom and religion.

 

I prefer this as opposed to the updated version, which is:

 

A Scout is reverent. A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.

 

While I remain a Scouter, I must admit I dont entirely follow the 12th point of the Scout Law as it reads today. I do not respect all of the beliefs that others may embrace. Just as I cannot respect the conclusion that 2+2=5, I cannot unconditionally respect what others believe...Only their right to believe as they wish.

 

Religious tolerance is not religious indifference. It is valuing the right of another person to hold beliefs that you know to be wrong.

 

 

[packsaddle]

Holy mackerel, OGE! I'll have to remember that one.

 

Rooster, I think I follow your thoughts. And I had to check the copyright, yep, before '72. As for respecting the right of others to believe, I agree with you. And I also think that unless a person actually shares that belief, it is unlikely that they have a basis for either respecting or rejecting the belief itself. But I think there is another distinction that you and FOG may be thinking about. I have tried to sort out that distinction. The best I can do is that: it is not necessarily incumbent on me (or anyone else) to respect a belief held by another person if that belief harms or lends harm to other persons. Or to use a previous example, if the belief in a rock (sorry FOG, I can't shake it) causes no harm to others I respect the right of a person to believe such. On reflection I might even learn enough to respect the belief itself (the way I feel about Native American beliefs). Again, if I don't really even know the belief, how can I feel anything whatsoever toward it? However, if 'rock worship' promotes something that is harmful to other persons (human sacrifice would be an extreme example) I would feel no duty to respect such belief, especially its practice. Anyone else want to try to help sorting this out?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Glenn]

RooSter7,

 

I guess your spelling Glenn with one "n" was a payback? Just kidding, an overly common mistake due to the two spellings of my name.

 

You asked how the Catholic Church's teachings relate to your situation. I'll speak here as a lay Catholic but again, only you and God know your heart.

 

Since you do not know/believe the Catholic Church is the Church started by Jesus, then this falls in the invincible ignorance teaching. Those that are invincibly ignorant, are not held accountable to leaving the Church. The term "invincibly ignorant" is not saying the person is "stupid", but is not aware/does not believe the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus stated.

 

If one is aware and believes that the Catholic Church is the one started by Jesus, but chooses to leave it because of not believing their dogmas and disciplines, then these are the people the quote was referring to.

 

Also, the dogmas/doctrines of the Church have never changed. In fact, they cannot. Public revelation ended with the death of the Apostles. There may be a formal declaration of a dogma (like the Immaculate Conception - Mary being born without sin), but this was always taught by the Church. Only when there is a heresy or discussion about a topic will the Church dogmatically declare it.

 

You may be thinking of the disciplines of the Church. These are simply teachings of how one should act and can change based on the times. Examples of this would be the celibacy of priests, abstaining from meat on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, and observing a penitential act for all Fridays (yes Mark, we are still supposed to either abstain from meat on Fridays or perform some other act of almsgiving, prayer, or fasting to remember Jesus' sacrifice for us).

 

Hope the above is more clear to you. I'd recommend you read the early Church Fathers (from the 1st three centuries). You might be surprised at what they taught.

[Glenn]

Rooster7 and Packsaddle,

 

You two bring up good points. I also have a problem with stating that I respect the beliefs of others when I believe they are false. But I do respect the person's right to believe what they do as long as they are not harming anyone or anything. If a person's "religion" believed in animal sacrifice, then I feel it is our duty as God's citizens to not allow that practice.

 

Rooster7, thanks for pointing out the differences in the two "Reverent" points. I was not aware of the previous wording. I too prefer the first version. Can you start a write in campaign?

[mk9750]

I must confess to a terrible weakness. I vowed I would refrain from this discussion. Can't do it. Much the same as I couldn't resist the last helping of ice cream in the refrigerator last night. What can I say, I'm weak.

 

OGE, Thanks.

 

Glenn,

 

You sound as if you have a very deep understanding of our faith (I hope I presume correctly that you are Catholic). I probably aught not be contradictary, but I was in the Seminary in high School, and am certain that what we learned was that Dogma is the core of our beliefs and are unchangable. Doctrine is man made, usually accompanied by a declaration that it is infallable as being Divinely Inspired. Fasting and Abstinence was taught to us as being Doctrine, and used as an example, problably because I was in the Seminary within a few years of when the rule was changed. I am aware that some sacrifice is still expected, but the entire practice used to be viewed as sinful to eat meat on Fridays. Now we are taught that extra Graces are obtained by doing some penetential sacrifice.

 

Rooster7,

 

Just a quick story to give you my understanding of your status as viewed by the Catholic Church:

 

When my oldest son was born, we sought his Baptism. Our Diocese rule is that Godparents must be one practicing Catholic, and one practicing Christian. My wife's brother, one of the most upstanding people I know, has been attending church with his wife, rather than being an active Catholic. Our parish Pastor refused to consider him as a Godparent, saying he was the worst kind of Christian, one that turned his back on his own church. I personally don't agree with this, but that was at least our Pastor's perception of people in your situation. How sad that there are still intolerant people, especially in positions like he is. As Glenn wrote, it is true that we see ourselves as the Church that Jesus started. I happen to believe this too, as it was the Protestant religions that rejected and walked away from the autority of the Pope in Rome, which was a direct line back to Peter and the Apostles. I will grant to you that the way our faith goes about teaching the Bible falls short of what I believe we should do. But it is the Church Jesus left us.

 

As far as the respect / reject of other's religions, I have to say Rooster7, that I vehemently disagree with you. If everyone in the world had the same attitude I think you have, that the followers of your faith must do no more than tolerate the right of others to believe as they wish, our society is in real trouble. This conversation is a great example. For the most part, it has been very civil. Yet it has been passionate, and usually very cerebral and spiritual. Yet my faith has not been changed, and maybe it has been strengthened. I am certain your faith has not wavered. If we continue to try to convince each other we are right, where does tht get us? I don't think it's closer to God.

 

As respectful as I can be, what I perceive as one of the tenets of many Protestant faiths, the requirement that followers be missionaries and bring to the unbelievers that which is your faith, I think is misguided. As a Catholic, I hope and pray that others find the same happiness in our faith as I do, or, in your case, come back to find it. I will do whatever it is to help that, because I think it is part of my duty. But I think it is not what God intends of us to try to force our faith on others. And that is what my perception of many Protestant faiths do.

 

I commend the strength of your belief. I truly mean no offense. I hope that comes through in what I write. And I stand shoulder to shoulder with you as fellow Scouters, and I am proud that we are in this great program together. But I think as far as this topic goes, I will now sign off.

 

Mark

[Glenn]

Mark,

 

You use the term doctrine synonymous with discipline. I use doctrine as synonymous with dogma. To be honest, I am not sure which is correct. Probably you. I looked the terms up in the Catholic Encylopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/), but doctrine was not defined. Well, it was defined as catechesis, or teaching. So I'm still confused.

 

In any case, it matters not. Dogmas cannot change. Disciplines can.

[packsaddle]

Glenn, I question part of your message, possibly because I didn't communicate my thoughts clearly. In my view, I (or you) am not qualified to judge another faith or religious belief if I do not fully understand it. Furthermore, I am not certain that such full understanding is attainable if I do not also hold that belief. Superficially, I might view a religious practice with disdain or prejudice until I gather more information. That, then, would be my weakness and it is a human characteristic shared by most people to some extent. For example, I know individuals who strongly condemn the concept of transubstantiation and the associated "receiving Jesus in the Eucharist", as I believe you referred to it. They condemn it as "ritual, possibly actual, cannibalism". I view them with curiosity but have no personal feelings against this ritual (whatever)...I obviously don't 'get' what they think. I do, however, see no harm in it (after all the materials start, at least, as vegetable).

 

In my mind these individuals (only two that I know) represent a contradiction: they seem so certain about something that 1) does no harm to anyone I know, and 2) they don't understand in the first place.

 

The concept of harm is where one huge gray area exists in my mind and that gray area is one reason that I hold that thought only tentatively. I am still searching for a better way to reconcile these things of faith.

 

However, the concept of 'falsehood' is a much stronger judgement. I might have an opinion that some idea promoted by another person is false if it disagrees with my idea (no way!). But I try to remember that it is only an opinion until I see objective evidence one way or the other. Such is rare in religious matters (perhaps impossible). Therefore I mostly recognize the differences and wait and search for the answers. Setting aside something you don't understand is one thing, but judging it as false implies that you actually 'know' something about it. It is a rather final judgement that is difficult to attain in scientific circles (risky too), perhaps it is easier in religion.

[NWScouter]

When I get in to disagreements with good Christians about doctrine (dogma, canon law, tradition, practice) I always cool my self off with reread 1 Corinthians 13, especially verse 12 For know we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we see face to face. Now I know only in part, then I will know fully, even as I have been known fully."

[OldGreyEagle]

Hey, Alright Mark I was a high school seminarian as well. And let me tell the rest of you if you think the drop out rate is huge in Boy Scouts when the "fumes" take over, you have never seen attrition until you see atrition in a Catholic High School Seminary, but I digress

 

Went to St Charles Borromeo Seminary in Lockport, Il. It doesnt exist anymore. It was a diocessian seminary. It was located rather close to then Lewis College and not to far from Stateville. In fact, at the very beginning of the "Blues Brothers" while they are doing the fly over, the corner of the propery can be seen for about a milisecond

[mk9750]

Now darn it OGE, I vowed again...!

 

But this really isn't the topic I vowed to stop talking about. I also went to St. Charles Borromeo Seminary, in Wickliffe, (Cleveland) Ohio.

 

My class started with 71 boys, if I remember correctly. They announced the closing of the high school in the middle of my Junior year. There were 13 of us left. Some transferred to other Catholic H.S., 8 took English and Government in the summer and graduated in Sept., '76 instead of my June, '77. It was also a Diocesean Seminary. I still remember what would be the Patrol Cheer of the faculty if it were Scouts, repeated as a chant as we left for the weekend: "Remember, you're not 5 day Seminarians!" I have adjusted this line and used it often when talking to Scouts.

 

Amazing the coincidences sometimes, isn't it?

 

Mark

[neicie]

Hmmmmm...I thought this thread was about SpiralScouts, but I see that it has spiraled way off to somewhere else. Anyway, let's move on people. Pack up your soapboxes and go home. You know that no one ever wins or loses in these types of religous debates, so what's the point in continuing?

[Fat Old Guy]

Oh neicie, you're just peeved that we're not talking about you anymore. :-)

 

BTW, the word "Scouting" isn't copyrighted, it is trademarked. There is a difference. AFIK BSA does own the word Scout as it pertains to youth groups. They can come after you if they belive that your use of the word dilutes their trademark.

[Rooster7]

Glenn,

 

I hate to put myself in a box, or perhaps in regard to this conversation, an oven would be a more appropriate figure of speech. But, I do believe that the Catholic Church is the Church started by Jesus Christ. However, and this is not meant to upset you or anyone else in the faith (you, Mark, and OGE are some of my favorite guys on this forum), I left because Im became convinced that Martin Luther was right. I dont reject the basic teachings of Catholicism. Nevertheless, the Church embraces teachings and practices that I feel contradict Gods Word.

 

Mark,

 

As far as the respect / reject of other's religions, I have to say Rooster7, that I vehemently disagree with you. If everyone in the world had the same attitude I think you have, that the followers of your faith must do no more than tolerate the right of others to believe as they wish, our society is in real trouble. This conversation is a great example. For the most part, it has been very civil. Yet it has been passionate, and usually very cerebral and spiritual. Yet my faith has not been changed, and maybe it has been strengthened. I am certain your faith has not wavered. If we continue to try to convince each other we are right, where does that get us? I don't think it's closer to God.

 

Im not trying to convince you to change your faith. Im just exploring what your thoughts are on your faith as well as mine. In regard to our different views on respecting someone of a different religion - why is it important that I respect what that person believes, as opposed to simply respecting their right to believe something? If I told you that I believe George W. Bush was God and Bill Clinton was the anti-Christ, would you respect that belief? Of course not, thats insaneGeorge is a great guy, but even I know hes not God. The jury is still out on Bill. ;-)

 

As respectful as I can be, what I perceive as one of the tenets of many Protestant faiths, the requirement that followers be missionaries and bring to the unbelievers that which is your faith, I think is misguided. As a Catholic, I hope and pray that others find the same happiness in our faith as I do, or, in your case, come back to find it. I will do whatever it is to help that, because I think it is part of my duty. But I think it is not what God intends of us to try to force our faith on others. And that is what my perception of many Protestant faiths do.

 

Not every believer is required to be a missionary (someone who travels to other lands to spread the Word). However, most Protestants faiths do enthusiastically embrace the Great Commission. Isnt this what God calls us to do? For the most part we read the same Bible. What do you think about Matthew 28:19&20?

 

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

 

I commend the strength of your belief. I truly mean no offense. I hope that comes through in what I write.

 

Mark, I have not been offended by any of your postings. Furthermore, I respect your strength of faith as well. However, apparently, either due to something I said or failed to say, or perhaps due to a grammatical error, you seem to think I am hostile toward the Catholic faith. Im not. I just dont believe some of their teachings.

 

And I stand shoulder to shoulder with you as fellow Scouters, and I am proud that we are in this great program together. But I think as far as this topic goes, I will now sign off.

 

Fair enough.

 

[dsteele]

neicie -- thanks for trying to bring us back on track. I want to learn more. I had hoped we would discuss Spiralscouts.

 

DS