I don't mean to act like a question machine, but I believe it was Socrates who used questions to see if his fellow discussants had any merit to their logic.
Well considered questions are always in order.
First of all, do you consider yourself "devout", if a "buffet" style is not good enough? If so, how do you define "devout"? Is it following all the commands in a book? Is it doing what you feel inside is right?
This dictionary definition of the word is a good fit:
Main Entry: de·vout
Pronunciation: di-'vaut
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English devot, from Old French, from Late Latin devotus, from Latin, past participle of devovEre
Date: 13th century
1 : devoted to religion or to religious duties or exercises
The point is that the word "devout" means many things to many different people, including Jesus himself. Think of the Beattitudes, many of which were paradoxical and contrary to logic, but really made sense in the end. Maybe "devout" needs to be thought about more carefully too.
I think the Beatitudes are profound yet sufficiently simple as to be clearly understood quite easily. With respect to words, when one doesn't wish to accept the popular meaning, one often adjusts the meaning to suit one's needs and then makes an effort to persuade others to agree. Some do, some don't.
Second, you seemed to miss the point of my post. You claim that "the intent is clear". Jesus tells us if we were to only remember two things that we should remember to love our neighbors as ourselves and to love our God with all our heart. This is not a clear statement at all, in fact it is very ambiguous.
I'm sorry to have missed your point. Perhaps it was over my head. However, I can't imagine how a command could be expressed with greater clarity. The word "love" encompasses it's synonyms, "cherish" and "charity". Taken together, the dictionary definitions involved are:
To hold dear; to keep or cultivate with care and affection; benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity; generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering
If there is ambiguity lurking in there, it, too, has gone over my head. On the other hand, universal obedience to this command would result in the Utopia long sought but never achieved. Do you disagree?
The Ten Commandments, in my opinion, do not cover it all, especially in the realm of politics.
Among others, obedience to the Ten Commandments requires:
Assistance for the weak and the poor,
Defense of the nation,
Faithfulness to one's oath,
Honesty,
Truthfulness,
Somehow, I wish these attributes could be reduced to a serum with which politicians could be innoculated.
For example is it "loving thy neighbor" for legislators to focus on pork-barrel legislation to get reelected? We find two things in conflict here. Is the "neighbor" the legislator's constituents, whom he is giving direct benefit to, or is the "neighbor" the legislator's countrymen, whom he is spending uneccessary amounts of their taxes to help his reelection chances. Which one does he need to "love" more?
Strictly adhering to his sworn oath to protect and defend the Constitution, the primary duty of members of Congress is to the nation as a whole. After the needs of the nation have been met, then the legitimate needs of the individual constituencies may be met. It is sad, though, that many abuse their sacred trust. In so doing, they are disobeying a Commandment or two.
Maybe my logic is faulty, but it seems to me that the Ten Commandments and the Great Commandment can be interpreted by different people in different ways because they are so ambiguous. If God wanted us to know exactly what is moral all the time why didn't He send down a guy who gave us a bunch of rules? I feel like the spirit that the Great Commandment conves is what is important, and that very spirit cannot be the same for everyone.
The explanation for your detailed question is quite simple. The encapsulated version goes like this.
From Adam and Eve, all of the generations have been named in the Old Testament together with the prophets whose mission was to preach the word of God as He revealed it to them. The teachings promised that a Messiah would come.
Jesus came and was accepted as the Messiah by some but rejected by the Sanhedrin because they were expecting to become powerful in a temporal kingdom and were not interested in hearing about the Kingdom of Heaven. They arranged to get rid of Him.
Before His crucifixion, He established His Church when he said to the Apostle, Simon, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock (Peter) I will build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." With these words, the Church was not only established, but He said that the Church would last for all time.
This also authorized a line of successors because the Church was destined to last beyond the death pf Peter.
At the same time. Christ said to Peter, Whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven. These are the words which conferred infallibility, in matters of faith or morals, upon Peter and his successors.
The final words to Peter were, "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. As Christ had, on a number of occasions forgiven the sins of penitent persons who had asked for forgiveness, He extended this power to Peter.
So there we have the foundation and, as we know, the line of successors, over two millennia, now numbers 265. As Christ was the teacher, so have been His successors. In their role as infallible theological teachers and interpreters of scripture, it is the popes, who through their bishops and priests pass the teachings of Christ to the faithful.
So, you see, Roman Catholics are comfortable in the knowledge that what you suggest has already been taken care of. Practical Catholics understand that the Church is not a democratic organization where the members may, by a majority vote, decide to add, subtract, or modify theology to suit some style, fad, or passing fancy. They see it more as a voluntary membership that requires obedience to its "rules". Those who do not wish to obey all of the rules are not required to remain.
Of course, there are those who call themselves Catholics but who, in truth, do not obey the rules. While they do not wish to be labeled as hypocrites, I can't think of a better description.
Others, over the years have found it impossible for them to obey the rules and have gone off and organized a church of their own. Henry VIII, the most well known of these turned a marital spat into a whole new church and dealt harshly with any of his subjects who disagreed.
Thousands of others who disagreed with the Vatican went their own way and, even they, had disagreements among themselves and forks, branches, splits occurred so that by now there are many thousands of religions that include the word "Christian" in their names.
Plus, there are countless individuals who have no formal religious affiliation but read scripture. Put any ten of them in the same room and you'll get twenty interpretations of a passage.
Whenever I hear someone compare the Catholic Church, to another Christian religion, I suggest to that person that it would be a good idea to trace that religion back to its roots to see from whence it came.
What do you think?
