Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-02-2015, 10:00 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(26-02-2015 04:12 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 03:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Not because you say it is without a shred of evidence of logic.
Sorry yourself.
Fail.

Vatican II was a validly called Council attended by bishops appointed mostly by PRE-Vatican II popes. To intimate is was not somehow valid is rediculous.
You really are no Catholic are you ?

Quote:Not because you say it is without a shred of evidence of logic.
Sorry yourself.
Fail.

You're the one saying it's been disproven somehow. Well, show me.

Quote:Vatican II was a validly called Council attended by bishops appointed mostly by PRE-Vatican II popes. To intimate is was not somehow valid is rediculous.
You really are no Catholic are you ?

1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnEQIq4_AKI

2) Even if it was, like I said, the new pronunciations were non-dogmatic, and thus, can be repealed. Also, "Pre-Vatican 2 popes"? What's the significance of saying that? "Post-Vatican 2 popes" obviously couldn't exist before the Council was called.

So it took 2000 years for Vatican I to say that the role of the pope was to safeguard "handed down tradition", and THAT was in itself not a change ?
You are a funny man. A retarded man. But a funny man.
JESUS told the apostles that he had many things left to tell them that they could not "abide", and the Spirit would reveal later. You actually think YOU know more than your Jebus. LMAO.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2015, 10:00 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(26-02-2015 09:13 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 08:38 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  How the hell is it meaningless? The substance is different while the accident, IE the outward appearance, isn't. There, there's the meaning, clear as day.

It is utterly meaningless. Of fucking COURSE the substance is different than the "accident". EVERYTHING that exists this is true of. Can you see quarks, you fucking fool ? It's a distinction with no difference. The same thing is true of EVERYTHING. The "substance" of bread is NOT changed. It's STILL the SAME FUCKING ATOMS that made up the bread after the consecration, and they have in no way changed. There is nothing called "substance of bread" that is any different from just bread. Bread is bread. NOTHING has changed and there is NO EVIDENCE anything has changed. You don't even know the meaning of the god damn words you're trying to use.


(26-02-2015 08:38 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  So, you're trying to make the point that it was a validly called council, by saying it was attended by bishops that were there before the Council? Great logic, seriously, no flaws there.

Yet YOU are utterly UNABLE to tell us what the problem is with that. Fail. Nice try though.

(26-02-2015 08:38 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  The Council you idiot.

The Council passed the council ?
Are you retarded ?

(26-02-2015 08:38 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  Well you should, as the Fr. in the video explains 'why' it's not a valid Council.

But you are too stupid to explain it yourself. You really are an ignorant fool. "Father says so" so I'm supposed to believe it ? Hahahahahaha.

(26-02-2015 08:38 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  Nope, sorry.

THAT is how you debate ? LMFAO. Yes. Sorry. Every dogma they cooked up contradicted something they did not hold before. You don't even know when the seven sacraments were instituted ? You think they always existed ?

I'm not watching some fool priest do YOUR work for you.

(26-02-2015 08:38 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  What you know is equal to a pile of cow shit.

So you say. But you NEED a video to say anything. You really are a sad little imbecile.

Quote:It is utterly meaningless. Of fucking COURSE the substance is different than the "accident". EVERYTHING that exists this is true of. Can you see quarks, you fucking fool ? It's a distinction with no difference. The same thing is true of EVERYTHING. The "substance" of bread is NOT changed. It's STILL the SAME FUCKING ATOMS that made up the bread after the consecration, and they have in no way changed. There is nothing called "substance of bread" that is any different from just bread. Bread is bread. NOTHING has changed and there is NO EVIDENCE anything has changed. You don't even know the meaning of the god damn words you're trying to use.

The outward appearance of the atoms and quarks are still the accident, you troll, not the substance. You clearly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

Quote:Yet YOU are utterly UNABLE to tell us what the problem is with that. Fail. Nice try though.

There's no problem with that specifically, it's just that the statement didn't make any damn sense. You're saying that the Council was valid because it was attended by bishops that were ordained before the Council, even though it would be impossible for any bishops to 'not' be ordained before the Council, unless they were ordained literally as the Council was being called. Do you get it now?

Quote:The Council passed the council ?
Are you retarded ?

No, the Council was passed illegally, you retard.

Quote:THAT is how you debate ? LMFAO. Yes. Sorry. Every dogma they cooked up contradicted something they did not hold before. You don't even know when the seven sacraments were instituted ? You think they always existed ?

Sorry again, bud. Dogmas don't invent anything new, they simply officially proclaim long-standing realities.

Quote:I'm not watching some fool priest do YOUR work for you.

I'm not going to write a damn thirty page essay for you, personally, when there's a another, already created, source that presents the arguments completely, and in detail.

Quote:So you say. But you NEED a video to say anything. You really are a sad little imbecile.

See above, you hopeless twat.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2015, 10:03 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(26-02-2015 09:53 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 09:46 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You can't possibly be serious. You think asking the perpetrators is objective ? Hahahahaha.
You think a study commissioned by the USC of Pedophile Protectors, (the very same people who DO accept the council you reject as authentic and real in every way), is legitimate ? You don't even know what side you're on. The uSCCB accepts Vatican II. The Catholic Church accepts the council. You are NOT a Catholic.
You forgot to define the words and explain what I asked.
BTW, I'll watch your video. I'll have a response later.
You're not doing well here at all. Did you think you were going to ?

Quote:You can't possibly be serious. You think asking the perpetrators is objective ? Hahahahaha.
You think a study commissioned by the USC of Pedophile Protectors, (the very same people who DO accept the council you reject as authentic and real in every way), is legitimate ?

If you actually read it, you would realize that that statistic was one they took from a study done by the John Jay School of Criminal Justice, not done by themselves, you moron.

Quote:The uSCCB accepts Vatican II. The Catholic Church accepts the council. You are NOT a Catholic.

Keep repeating that, it might actually become true after the thousandth time.

Quote:You're not doing well here at all.

Only in your diseased mind.

You are such a dolt. The USCCB COMMISSIONED the John Jay College to do the fucking study. You tell me 10 US bishops that do NOT accept Vatican II. YOu are a sad little troll.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2015, 10:04 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Quote:So it took 2000 years for Vatican I to say that the role of the pope was to safeguard "handed down tradition", and THAT was in itself not a change ?

1) You honestly think that wasn't his job before Vatican 1, once again, are you retarded?

2) Like I said, Councils don't 'change' anything, they simply officially acknowledge long-standing realities, whether they were discovered before that is irrelevant to whether they were realities or not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2015, 10:06 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Quote:You are such a dolt. The USCCB COMMISSIONED the John Jay College to do the fucking study.

Yes, and their results were accurate and have not been refuted, so unless you can refute this 'proof' that you're wrong, then fuck off.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2015, 10:06 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(26-02-2015 10:00 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 09:13 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It is utterly meaningless. Of fucking COURSE the substance is different than the "accident". EVERYTHING that exists this is true of. Can you see quarks, you fucking fool ? It's a distinction with no difference. The same thing is true of EVERYTHING. The "substance" of bread is NOT changed. It's STILL the SAME FUCKING ATOMS that made up the bread after the consecration, and they have in no way changed. There is nothing called "substance of bread" that is any different from just bread. Bread is bread. NOTHING has changed and there is NO EVIDENCE anything has changed. You don't even know the meaning of the god damn words you're trying to use.



Yet YOU are utterly UNABLE to tell us what the problem is with that. Fail. Nice try though.


The Council passed the council ?
Are you retarded ?


But you are too stupid to explain it yourself. You really are an ignorant fool. "Father says so" so I'm supposed to believe it ? Hahahahahaha.


THAT is how you debate ? LMFAO. Yes. Sorry. Every dogma they cooked up contradicted something they did not hold before. You don't even know when the seven sacraments were instituted ? You think they always existed ?

I'm not watching some fool priest do YOUR work for you.


So you say. But you NEED a video to say anything. You really are a sad little imbecile.

Quote:It is utterly meaningless. Of fucking COURSE the substance is different than the "accident". EVERYTHING that exists this is true of. Can you see quarks, you fucking fool ? It's a distinction with no difference. The same thing is true of EVERYTHING. The "substance" of bread is NOT changed. It's STILL the SAME FUCKING ATOMS that made up the bread after the consecration, and they have in no way changed. There is nothing called "substance of bread" that is any different from just bread. Bread is bread. NOTHING has changed and there is NO EVIDENCE anything has changed. You don't even know the meaning of the god damn words you're trying to use.

The outward appearance of the atoms and quarks are still the accident, you troll, not the substance. You clearly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

Quote:Yet YOU are utterly UNABLE to tell us what the problem is with that. Fail. Nice try though.

There's no problem with that specifically, it's just that the statement didn't make any damn sense. You're saying that the Council was valid because it was attended by bishops that were ordained before the Council, even though it would be impossible for any bishops to 'not' be ordained before the Council, unless they were ordained literally as the Council was being called. Do you get it now?

Quote:The Council passed the council ?
Are you retarded ?

No, the Council was passed illegally, you retard.

Quote:THAT is how you debate ? LMFAO. Yes. Sorry. Every dogma they cooked up contradicted something they did not hold before. You don't even know when the seven sacraments were instituted ? You think they always existed ?

Sorry again, bud. Dogmas don't invent anything new, they simply officially proclaim long-standing realities.

Quote:I'm not watching some fool priest do YOUR work for you.

I'm not going to write a damn thirty page essay for you, personally, when there's a another, already created, source that presents the arguments completely, and in detail.

Quote:So you say. But you NEED a video to say anything. You really are a sad little imbecile.

See above, you hopeless twat.

You still have not defined "substance" and when you do reference your definition.
You are claiming there is something, (substances) that NOT ONE person on the face of the earth defines and YOU have no reference for your claim, and YOU cannot define "substance", or tell us what exactly that word means in your context.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2015, 10:15 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Quote:You still have not defined "substance" and when you do reference your definition.
You are claiming there is something, (substances) that NOT ONE person on the face of the earth defines and YOU have no reference for your claim, and YOU cannot define "substance".

Actually, it's been defined many times before by Church philosophers and theologians, you moronic dip-fuck. Here's a vague summary of it: "The substance is the essence, the nature, of a thing which exists in its own right."

If you want a more detailed explanation of what it is, then read the part in Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica about it, and stop buggering me for a ten page explanation of what it is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2015, 10:16 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(26-02-2015 10:00 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 09:13 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It is utterly meaningless. Of fucking COURSE the substance is different than the "accident". EVERYTHING that exists this is true of. Can you see quarks, you fucking fool ? It's a distinction with no difference. The same thing is true of EVERYTHING. The "substance" of bread is NOT changed. It's STILL the SAME FUCKING ATOMS that made up the bread after the consecration, and they have in no way changed. There is nothing called "substance of bread" that is any different from just bread. Bread is bread. NOTHING has changed and there is NO EVIDENCE anything has changed. You don't even know the meaning of the god damn words you're trying to use.



Yet YOU are utterly UNABLE to tell us what the problem is with that. Fail. Nice try though.


The Council passed the council ?
Are you retarded ?


But you are too stupid to explain it yourself. You really are an ignorant fool. "Father says so" so I'm supposed to believe it ? Hahahahahaha.


THAT is how you debate ? LMFAO. Yes. Sorry. Every dogma they cooked up contradicted something they did not hold before. You don't even know when the seven sacraments were instituted ? You think they always existed ?

I'm not watching some fool priest do YOUR work for you.


So you say. But you NEED a video to say anything. You really are a sad little imbecile.

Quote:It is utterly meaningless. Of fucking COURSE the substance is different than the "accident". EVERYTHING that exists this is true of. Can you see quarks, you fucking fool ? It's a distinction with no difference. The same thing is true of EVERYTHING. The "substance" of bread is NOT changed. It's STILL the SAME FUCKING ATOMS that made up the bread after the consecration, and they have in no way changed. There is nothing called "substance of bread" that is any different from just bread. Bread is bread. NOTHING has changed and there is NO EVIDENCE anything has changed. You don't even know the meaning of the god damn words you're trying to use.

The outward appearance of the atoms and quarks are still the accident, you troll, not the substance. You clearly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

Quote:Yet YOU are utterly UNABLE to tell us what the problem is with that. Fail. Nice try though.

There's no problem with that specifically, it's just that the statement didn't make any damn sense. You're saying that the Council was valid because it was attended by bishops that were ordained before the Council, even though it would be impossible for any bishops to 'not' be ordained before the Council, unless they were ordained literally as the Council was being called. Do you get it now?

Quote:The Council passed the council ?
Are you retarded ?

No, the Council was passed illegally, you retard.

Quote:THAT is how you debate ? LMFAO. Yes. Sorry. Every dogma they cooked up contradicted something they did not hold before. You don't even know when the seven sacraments were instituted ? You think they always existed ?

Sorry again, bud. Dogmas don't invent anything new, they simply officially proclaim long-standing realities.

Quote:I'm not watching some fool priest do YOUR work for you.

I'm not going to write a damn thirty page essay for you, personally, when there's a another, already created, source that presents the arguments completely, and in detail.

Quote:So you say. But you NEED a video to say anything. You really are a sad little imbecile.

See above, you hopeless twat.

The statement "The Council was passed" is meaningless. It just proves you are a retard. The Council passed *documents* and constitutions and other things. Councils don't pass councils. You can find NOT ONE other person on the planet that says the "Council was passed". It's an incorrect and meaningless term. It's like saying the "senate was passed". A council is the BODY that does the passing. Idiot. Mybe you might take a class in the Church and actually learn something so you don't have to listen to little insane priests to tell you things you don't understand. Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2015, 10:18 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(26-02-2015 10:15 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
Quote:You still have not defined "substance" and when you do reference your definition.
You are claiming there is something, (substances) that NOT ONE person on the face of the earth defines and YOU have no reference for your claim, and YOU cannot define "substance".

Actually, it's been defined many times before by Church philosophers and theologians, you moronic dip-fuck. Here's a vague summary of it: "The substance is the essence, the nature, of a thing which exists in its own right."

If you want a more detailed explanation of what it is, then read the part in Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica about it, and stop buggering me for a ten page explanation of what it is.

There is no such thing as substance or essence apart from the thing itself. That Platonic bullshit is from the intellectual childhood of civilization.

I suggest you move beyond ancient and medieval philosophy and join the Enlightenment. In other words, time to grow up.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2015, 10:18 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(26-02-2015 09:57 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 09:26 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  ... still though, 1950-2002 is a pretty damn long time period for such a low record of abuse allegations in comparison with the general populace.

That's a poor endorsement of an institution that explicitly declares itself infallible, demands its followers do as it says (but not, apparently, as it does), and claims supernatural facility that elevates it above the common capacities of fallible, mortal man.

That just ONE of its officers/representatives slipped through divine, "inerrant" screening makes an instant lie of its affectations, demolishes its credibility, reduces it to just another human institution as corrupt and fallible as any of them. That it wasn't one but thousands on par with general population statistics only makes the rubble, as Mr. Churchill said of another cataclysm of similar scale, bounce.

Yeah, no. The officials that represent, though trained to resist sin more resiliently than other men, are still men. No one ever claimed that they were morally infallible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: