Improving your happiness and changing your personality for the better
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data (pdf file)
The case against type dynamics (pdf file)
Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI (pdf file)
Reinterpreting the MBTI via the five-factor model (pdf file)
Do the Big Five personality traits interact to predict life outcomes? (pdf file)
The Big Five personality test outperformed the Jungian and Enneagram test in predicting life outcomes
Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traits
Or they were never guided by a holy spirit and just chose popes based on who would get them the most influence over the people. Maybe sometimes they needed a more passive pope who would bend to their will and other times a more dominating pope. Aren't most popes set up to be dictators anyway? Since that is kind of their job to tell people how to interpret god's word and to maintain hierarchy all the way down the pyramid until you get to the lower priests who deal with the congregations (who are at the very bottom)?
I kind of like this new guy. Not sure why. I am not catholic but something about him is, ok.
Maybe Catholics today are more savvy when it comes to politics, social issues and knowledge so instead of relying on holy men to interpret the word of god, or Jesus, they are just taking it upon themselves or letting secular groups (socionics) influence them more. When organized religions fall it will not be from the outside. It will come from those within the religion. They will no longer have blind faith and the people will turn on their leaders. What the result will look like, I don't know. Just some thoughts... We will probably be dead by then anyway.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I'm going to speak in favor of organized religions. I think it's good to have a community to belong to because otherwise you're just sitting in your room with Hindu Goddess Kali adult coloring books and chakra cleansing bottled tea shouting ungrammatical phrases in Sanskrit and that's no good. I don't like super hierarchical organized religions like the Roman Catholic Church though because those are just based on fear and people don't even know what they're supposed to believe, they just sit there waiting for people to tell them what to believe. I think there should be organized religions of freely-associating people without strict hierarchies. It's really a matter of maturity in my opinion.
That is interesting to see you have a good word for organized religion. It's more popular these days to criticize organized religion [as if disorganized religion were some sort of virtue], and to say, "I'm spiritual, not religious" - which seems to turn out to be about as deep as you so aptly describe it. It's also so American, in our independent pioneer tration, to be anti-establishment ["just me and my own god"].
I used to think similar things as you do of the Catholic church, and avoided it, as anyway I loved my own faith practice. But at one point, unexpectedly, I was moved to examine the assumptions I had made, which unexpectedly became an extensive study, through which I found all of my assumptions were wrong. Also you have a lot of wrong assumptions here. Maybe someday you will examine them.
May you keep on seeking truth, as you seem to have a heart for it.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
I have enough to know that the Earth isn't flat.
I guess I was being a little harsh on Catholicism though. I hear individual Catholics speak out against specific decisions of the Catholic Church all the time so I don't think of them as just a bunch of cowering sheeple. It still does seem a little fear-based to me though (which isn't any sort of direct truth evaluation on it.)
@Aylen, because you had asked why I was making a distinction about the false name of the abuse problem being pedophilia [link to the brief official definition is there], I thought I would tell you something I further I learned about the official definition. Pedophilia describes only pre-pubescent children, and the definition of pedophilia does not include any distinction between whether the abuse victims are male or female, or if perpetrated by male or female. Just any pedophilia is crime. However the distinction of male or female, heter- or homosexual is made for all post-pubescent victims. That is why it is clear that at least 80% of the victims are of a homosexual nature.
This 80% figure does not factor in the also-widespread issue of sexual crimes against seminarians, who are all male, so that additional (and linked) problem is all homosexual. So even though the responsible bishops, cardinals and the current pope are refusing to speak of the homosexual nature of the problem, it is impossible to hide the obvious fact that the key to the problem lies there, so I don't know how long this charade can go on. One cannot avoid blaring key facts and expect to get to the bottom of the problem, which is what these crimes are crying out for.
____
[I want to add that there is no impication that all homsexuals are pederasts. That would be unjust, just as it is unjust to imply that all priests have this proclivity].
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
Well as to the dictator, yes, he is described that way, and there is even a book of that title.
[A reviewer of The Dictator Pope writes: "The most valuable service provided by the author of The Dictator Pope is the psychological portrait of Pope Francis: manipulative, hypersensitive, and often downright vindictive—certainly not the cheerful populist that his supporters make him out to be."]
I have seen the vindictiveness and been shocked by it. Not something one would ever see in the previous two, who were more lambs. Also this pope has an amazing amount of sketchy buddies and advisors, and I haven't heard of any admirable ones yet (except the ones he mistreats). I also liked him at first, particularly because of his kindly ways and "humility". That was truly my impression, and I rejoiced in it. But now that the first impression is gone by and I have seen him and heard him in action, I would certainly not call him either. I liked the previous two popes, the only ones who have been popes since I have been Catholic, so the bad surprises of this pope have inspired me to learn about many of the previous popes. I learned that even the ones I like much more, because of all their good works, have issues [though they seem more like blind spots than what I judge to be character flaws in this one]. So, it's true, popes are not infallible persons, it's just that they can make infallible pronouncements. [But they don't do that often - and recent ones seem to avoid it. A pope is only infallible when speaking "ex cathedra", or, from the chair - and that last happened about 100 years ago).]
I heard there were some impressive Pius', over the years. Here is a Pius Clock with the last 12 Pius' on it:
[There is a Hollywood movie out with a Hollywood version of what a Pius XIII would be like and I listened to a review of it. (A mixed bag; it's not deeply insightful).]
As to elected popes being guided by the Holy Spirit, they certainly are. But the problem is people can ignore the guidance of the Holy Spirit. People can actually not hear God's will because of their own will or because they are living separated from God because of serious sin that lords over their life that they have not repented of. (Looks at the red-hats in that Benedict video I posted. Who do you think is lord over their life and will?).
But in spite of our infallibility, whoever is elected pope is leading the church, however badly. Jesus speaks to him, and I guess he must listen, at least sometimes (But we know God does not override his or anyone's will). The Apostle the Iscariot was a chosen-twelve Apostle even though Jesus knew how bad his heart was. God works with cracked pots and somehow gets the job done. We have a long history of bad popes (and good, holy ones, and even Saint ones) so we've been through this before. I learned early on, before converting, the amazing truth that no bad pope has ever infallibly taught an untruth about faith and morals. One can read all about miraculous reigns of bad popes over the centuries and how they were prevented from an intention to infallibly teach falsehoods on faith and morals (which would thereby change the infallible teaching of the Church on faith and morals) because in every case, as they got closer to this manifesting their intention, they either converted, died, or had a change of heart just before doing so.
That has driven home the reality that the infallible words of a pope has nothing to do with blabbing to newspapermen on jet planes. I expect this pope, being a regular person like the rest of us, will either get much worse, or he will convert (Because people don't just stay the same. They choose a path and go that way.). There is a lot of people praying for the latter, including me! Daily.
Mystics have said of the Church today that it is "the time of the laity" and there is a lot of talk about what that might mean. I don't know, but I know I have learned a lot about faith and the teachings of the Church not from clergy but from lay people, so that I, like legions of other lay people, recognize misteachings from the highest places of the Church as soon as I hear them. [to be fair, many of these lay people refer he works of great Saints, bishops, and religious of the past and we learn from them]. We have many priests, bishops and cardinals today who pledged to teach the faith and don't, and haven't for decades. So now well-informed lay persons are teaching the lay persons, and informed communities are sprouting up everywhere. It is invigorating to meet more and more once-lost people, who now feel informed and guided. I meet them in parishes and gatherings everywhere, as well as online. Another thing the "time of the laity" might mean is that many lay persons are praying the Church into reform. I am trying, and I know so many who are trying even harder and more faithfully.
My husband and I are really enjoying lately learning and getting real perspective on what is going on now through watching the Taylor Marshall and Tim Gordon videos. They add some humor as well as historical perspective on what is happening in the Church today. Humor helps a weighty subject. Like last night we watched one (on the topic of describing what is excommunication) where Tim Gordon was making a comparison of many the American Bishops, particularly Archbishop Dolan of NY, being just like Michael Scott of The Office. Yes, there is a real lack of manliness in the fatherhood of these bishops, and there is a real parallel to Michael Scott, in that same sort of self-conscious, self-important, weak, pathetic way.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
Papal infallibility is a meaningless concept. No one is infallible.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
According to Christian doctrine, all Christians are saints - there is no other qualification.
Improving your happiness and changing your personality for the better
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data (pdf file)
The case against type dynamics (pdf file)
Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI (pdf file)
Reinterpreting the MBTI via the five-factor model (pdf file)
Do the Big Five personality traits interact to predict life outcomes? (pdf file)
The Big Five personality test outperformed the Jungian and Enneagram test in predicting life outcomes
Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traits
Right. No one is infallible. Yet a fallible pope can make an infallible proclamation. (Actually simple, uneducated and/or immature persons have been known to utter the most profound realities which arise from the heart that are absolutely eternally infallible: i.e., "God is love" and "Jesus is Lord".)
It's not a meaningless concept; it's a real concept and a functioning reality of the Catholic Church for 2000+ years as far as statements of popes in strict and narrow situations ["ex cathedra", as mentioned above]. Because of this, popes have less power as time goes on, as no pope can undo or rewrite any infallible proclamation on faith and morals. However, as we can see lately a pope can say things, leaning on the respect he has as pope, which are hearsay and which contradict Church teaching. However the lay are getting educated and it's not just sliding by and easily accepted as if truth had changed. This pope speaks a lot, but avoids accountability. And also like popes of the past century he avoids making any infallible statements.
You have half a truth here. That partial definition of saint has always been taught by the Catholic Church, but seeing it as the only definition of saint is strictly a recent Protestant invention, one that came about for the self-comfort a man suffering from one of the more common forms of OCD: scrupulosity. [Martin Luther].
But Christians have believed in every century, since the first century (and the first martyr of the Church, St. Stephen) in also the other definition of Saint. So you reject the first 1500 years of Christianity, but I don't.
Last edited by Eliza Thomason; 03-14-2019 at 12:15 AM.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
I thought the point of "papal infallibility" was that it had to be verified by scripture. Otherwise, no one could say whether the pope was making an "infallible" statement about Christian dogma.
The bible on numerous occasions says that all those in the church of Christ are saints:
https://www.whatchristianswanttoknow...a-bible-study/
http://justforcatholics.org/a50.htm
https://www.gotquestions.org/saints-Christian.html
https://www.compellingtruth.org/Christian-saints.html
Similarly, all Christians are priests.
Improving your happiness and changing your personality for the better
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data (pdf file)
The case against type dynamics (pdf file)
Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI (pdf file)
Reinterpreting the MBTI via the five-factor model (pdf file)
Do the Big Five personality traits interact to predict life outcomes? (pdf file)
The Big Five personality test outperformed the Jungian and Enneagram test in predicting life outcomes
Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traits