Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I absolutely agree and the proof is in how the other people of the time responded. 

As tension between the English Monarchy and the Papacy increased the Pope eventually took the extraordinary step of "deconsecrating" all burial grounds in England.  Per Catholic tradition a deceased person can only go to heaven if their earthly remains are buried in a consecrated grave.  Thus, this step theoretically meant that everyone in England would go to hell as would all of their ancestors. 

The purpose of this step by the pope was to convince to the English People to rise up against the monarchy.  Instead, the opposite happened.  The English Monarchy did have to deal with a few people that wanted to go back to being Catholic but the MUCH bigger problem for the English Monarchy was that a lot of people in England felt that the Anglican Church had not moved far enough away from Catholicism. 

It's an interesting point on religion, actually. 

People often tend to believe in the constricts of their religion, right up until it conflicts with something they personally want to do. 

I.e. the whole Catholicism / birth control thing. Sounds great until you're in your 30s and you already have two kids and really don't want any more. So the Pope may say it's a sin, but when the rubber meets the road, you're gonna be wearing rubbers from that point on. (Or getting snipped, or the woman going on the pill, etc etc. Point being the "rhythm method / NFP" is no longer your child-avoidance scheme.) You don't stop going to church nor do you stop professing to be a Catholic, even though you are openly and deliberately defying the beliefs of your religious leaders. Because being Catholic is identity, and you're not going to give that up just because their beliefs are actually really inconvenient to follow. 

Identity is really powerful. And I don't think we give enough weight to it when we look at human behavior. I feel like it's a much better explanatory factor than rationality. 

It's an interesting point on religion, actually.

People often tend to believe in the constricts of their religion, right up until it conflicts with something they personally want to do.

I.e. the whole Catholicism / birth control thing. Sounds great until you're in your 30s and you already have two kids and really don't want any more. So the Pope may say it's a sin, but when the rubber meets the road, you're gonna be wearing rubbers from that point on. (Or getting snipped, or the woman going on the pill, etc etc. Point being the "rhythm method / NFP" is no longer your child-avoidance scheme.) You don't stop going to church nor do you stop professing to be a Catholic, even though you are openly and deliberately defying the beliefs of your religious leaders. Because being Catholic is identity, and you're not going to give that up just because their beliefs are actually really inconvenient to follow.

Identity is really powerful. And I don't think we give enough weight to it when we look at human behavior. I feel like it's a much better explanatory factor than rationality.

That sounds like my wife, she'd never leave the Catholic Church, and attends religiously.

She doesn't buy everything they sell.

I've seen the term "cafeteria Catholics" used to refer to Catholics who ascribe to certain parts of the Catholic doctrine.  

What I've never understood about that is that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, to my way of thinking, makes this irreconcilable.  If the Pope is infallible then you can't agree with him on SOME issues, it HAS TO BE all or nothing.  

I know of no protestant religions that hold their leader as "infallible".  In fact, many protestant religions don't really have a leader at all, at least nothing comparable to the Catholic Pope.  Thus, I think that Protestants are are lot more free to engage in the selective adherence to various tenants of the religion without inconsistency.  

Point being the "rhythm method / NFP" is no longer your child-avoidance scheme.

Old Joke:

Q:  Do you know what they call women who use the rhythm method of birth control?
A:  Mothers.  

One problem with ultra strict interpretations of any religious "code" is that many people will either wonder off or quietly ignore it.  The other problem, I think, is that "experts" (ha) will interpret some religious text in very different ways.  This leads to schisms of course.

I dunno, I think David Koresh and Jim Jones were considered "infallible" right?

You are right (AFAIK) about Koresh and Jones but they led miniscule groups not large religions.  

I was referring more to this:

The Southern Baptist Convention has a "leader" of a sort and a governing council of a sort, but the individual churches vary a lot.  We're seeing the "United" Methodists in a major schism now as well.  It may be inherent that denominations tend to fracture into smaller and smaller pieces.

The Southern Baptist "leader" is more-or-less typical of large protestant denominations.  They may have a leader but he or she isn't a Pope which is analogous to a King.  They tend to be more like an "executive director" in that they manage the day-to-day operations but the power to make the big decision rests with the membership in one way or another.  

But yeah, there are "cafeteria Catholics", but all sorts of other people profess to believe something but do something completely different when it comes to them personally. I had a boss right out of college who was a Pakistani Muslim, who would fast during the day as is traditional for Ramadan (I think that was the holiday) but would drink beer otherwise (obviously not allowed). I had neighbors who were Mormon but were "Jack Mormon" and would come over and drink my homebrew. I've worked with an Indian Hindu who ate beef--just don't tell his mom lol.

Hell, there are more than a few vegetarians that suddenly are okay eating burgers when they're drunk.

This definitely happens with at least most religions.  The specific issue, as I see it, with Catholics is that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility makes it more inconsistent for a Catholic than it is for a Protestant.  Ie, you can be a Southern Baptist and disagree with the Denomination on say Birth Control (I don't even know what their stance is, just using your example from above).  Within the Catholic faith I've never quite understood how someone can be a Catholic but disagree with them on a given issue.  

If the Pope is infallible then Catholic doctrine (which is approved by the Pope) must necessarily be correct in ALL instances.  The alternative is that the Pope is not infallible in which case I would say that you aren't really a Catholic.  It is different for a Baptist or a Methodist because Baptists and Methodists do not believe that their religious leaders are infallible.  Thus, they can disagree with them.  

If the Pope is infallible then Catholic doctrine (which is approved by the Pope) must necessarily be correct in ALL instances.  The alternative is that the Pope is not infallible in which case I would say that you aren't really a Catholic.  It is different for a Baptist or a Methodist because Baptists and Methodists do not believe that their religious leaders are infallible.  Thus, they can disagree with them. 

I think anyone of any religion can and will disagree to a certain extent with one issue or another.
no matter how strictly things are worded.
It's the individual's mind and moral compass that make the call.

Perhaps weak and irresponsible and undisciplined to the letter of the religion, but..........

it is what it is 

Silver was once mined in a German town called "Joachim's Valley." Coins minted from this mine were called "joachmisthaler," which was shortened into "thaler," which later morphed into the word "dollar." Provided by FactRetriever.com