Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-02-2015, 02:03 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(28-02-2015 03:18 AM)DLJ Wrote:  @PP

Thanks for your review of Vatican II.

I wish you'd put it in spoilers because I haven't seen Vatican I yet.

However, based on that 4 point review, can I assume that Vatican I was:

1. Anti-unity / in favour of disunity?
2. Anti-freedom?
3. Totalitarian?
4. Procedurally compliant?

And can I also deduce from this that you are too?

Consider If so, I have a few follow-up questions I'd like to ask.

Quote:1. Anti-unity / in favour of disunity?

It was 'for' unity within the Church, however, it was anti-unity when it came to accepting or tolerating heresies or heathen religions, yes.

Quote:2. Anti-freedom?

Depends on what you see as "freedom." I pretty much only see it as a buzzword, used primarily in political propaganda, that means whatever the person who's using it wants it to mean.

Quote:3. Totalitarian?

"Authoritarian" is actually the correct descriptor.

Quote:4. Procedurally compliant?

Yup.

Quote:And can I also deduce from this that you are too?

Pretty much, yes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2015, 02:48 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(27-02-2015 11:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(27-02-2015 11:35 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  I'm not a huge fan of vatican II however I still accept it since that's what a Catholic is supposed to do ( I could get the exact encyclical that says that but I'm to lazy). Really the only problems that exist in Vatican II are to be found in ambiguous wording and poor implementation. Other than that it's mostly in full continuity.

So since when does a council have to be "in full continuity" ? Do you realize how idiotic that is ? Was Trent" in "full continuity with the First Council of Jerusalem ? At what point exactly is "full continuity" a requirement for the Spirit to act through a council ?
I never said it had to be. It's just that PP and many traditionalists seem to think that it isn't.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TarzanSmith's post
28-02-2015, 02:53 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(28-02-2015 02:24 AM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
(27-02-2015 11:02 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  It's amazing to me the round robin they go through. They just keep making excuses they convince themselves are reasons. Most of them can't even say what's really wrong with Vat 2.

It's delusional and sad.

It's wrong because:

1) It teaches ecumenism, which goes against previous Church teaching.
2) It teaches that religious freedom is an inalienable right granted by God, which goes against previous Church teaching.
3) It teaches that the government has no right to enforce religion in their laws, which contradicts previous Church teaching.
4) It wasn't called, or preformed, in accordance to the regulations of every other Council that's been passed before Vatican 2, in other words, it was called and preformed illegally.

Seriously, I don't understand how this is even an issue to any outside observer. Look at what the Church was like in, say, the 18th century, and look it at now. How can you not notice the drastic changes?

Regarding religious freedom Dignitatis Humanis states that "it leaves untouched the traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and towards the one church of Christ". Which is probably in reference to the teaching laid down in Immortale Dei.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2015, 02:56 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(27-02-2015 11:41 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(27-02-2015 11:35 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  I'm not a huge fan of vatican II however I still accept it since that's what a Catholic is supposed to do ( I could get the exact encyclical that says that but I'm to lazy). Really the only problems that exist in Vatican II are to be found in ambiguous wording and poor implementation. Other than that it's mostly in full continuity.

But, but....the Bible has ambiguous wording...totally open to interpretation...so what's the big deal?
Bible is a work of literature meant for reflection. The documents of a council are closer to legal documents. Ambiguity in legal documents is in general a bad thing.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2015, 03:35 PM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2015 04:30 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(28-02-2015 01:49 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  What does that have to do with anything? Do you even know what ecumenicism means?

I do. Apparently you don't IF the first Christians had enough of an ecumenical view to BE Jews, it means a hell of a lot, now doesn't it. Jesus was a Jew. He never renounced Judaism. You cult did that, but not for a LONG LONG time.

(28-02-2015 01:49 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  Once again, what does that have to do with the part you quoted?

If your church FORCES people to SAY they believe when they don't (no religious freedom) you think your stupid god doesn't know the difference ?

(28-02-2015 01:49 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  Well, obviously, as our religion is the right one. There's no relativism to be had when it comes to truth, you ingrate.

Not obviously at all, as many mich more highly educated scholars than you will ever be don't buy into your crap, and and it's not "our religion" as you are not a Catholic.

(28-02-2015 01:49 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  That's actually a common misconception, one that even some Catholic theologians make. A Council isn't automatically a Council just because it's called by the Pope. The First Council of Nicaea was called by the 'Roman Emperor', not the Pope, and yet, it's still considered valid.

The POINT is what ? Roman Emperors can call councils. You have not said EXACTLY what it was about the "calling" that was invalid, AND virtually ALL the bishops of the church you *claim* to be a member of thought it was valid, ad sat for years attending it. Again, you are no Catholic.

(28-02-2015 01:49 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  Blah, blah, fucking blah. More pig-headed horseshit, and unsupported, paragraph-long rhetorics, from one of the stupidest atheists I've met in a long time....and that's saying something.

Just as I thought. you have NO education in the subjects here, and are totally incapable of defending your ignorant positions.

(28-02-2015 01:49 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  It declared new doctrines throughout history in order to acknowledge already long-standing theological realities, however, it always maintained the same spirit, traditions, and basic teachings. It never deviated into the secularist, hyper-tolerant, 'nice' Church that it is today.

"New doctrines" (hahahaha) oh really. The church of "tradition and scripture" declares new doctrines. Hahahahaha

You are a bigoted ignorant self-righteous non-Catholic. You claim to be a member of the very organization you reject. Go get help.
It's funny. There are quite a few of your types. Rather ignorant "dilettantes" who have never really studied either Theology or the Bible, are really unable to defend your rantings, ("well, well, just go watch the video") and are obviously VERY VERY angry about the changes in your church, but don't seem to be able to do what has to be done. Leave it. You really are not a Catholic, but hang on the fringe, criticizing instead of having the balls to actually make a total break. You're wasting your life. You have only one. The soon you jettison the crap the RCC is, the better off you'll be.

Still waiting for 10 bishops who think Vatican II was not correctly called or valid. The fact is you would *find* a reason to reject anything you didn't like. You don't like the changes, and they bother you very very much, and you cannot get on with life. You're completely stuck. Stuck in the distant past.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
28-02-2015, 04:50 PM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2015 05:16 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(28-02-2015 01:49 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
(28-02-2015 05:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The first Christians were still Jews for hundreds of years. Are you like totally ignorant of your own damn history ?


Is your god SOOOOO fucking stupid she wouldn't know that someone who says they believe when they don't is being dishonest ?


Which is precisely what Rome bitched about when Henry VIII did it in England and made "martyrs" of your cult members. That's only fine with you as long as it's YOUR religion, otherwise you whine to high heaven. What a fucking stupid thing to promote. Are you a member of ISIS ?


It was called by Rome, (the Pope) just as all the others. This is just rationalization.


This could be said of EVERY 200 year period since the year your church (supposedly) started. The Church did not pop full blown from anywhere. It DEVELOPED slowly over time and CHANGED. It was NEVER at one point in history a static organization. You're simply lying to yourself, and utterly ignorant of History. You're picking out one particular point in the LONG development process and saying "there, that's the time I like", so that's what I want.

You are ignorant of history, ignorant of your own cult, and willfully delusional. You want to refuse to accept because of you sinful pride, and you are using any means possible at your disposal to rationalize it to yourself. You need to go to Faaaather, and confess your sins. Tongue Shame on you. Maybe the BVM can intercede for you. Rolleyes

Quote:The first Christians were still Jews for hundreds of years. Are you like totally ignorant of your own damn history ?

What does that have to do with anything? Do you even know what ecumenicism means?

Quote:Is your god SOOOOO fucking stupid she wouldn't know that someone who says they believe when they don't is being dishonest ?

Once again, what does that have to do with the part you quoted?

Quote:That's only fine with you as long as it's YOUR religion,


Well, obviously, as our religion is the right one. There's no relativism to be had when it comes to truth, you ingrate.

Besides, I doubt you'd be okay with a dictatorship existing instead of a democracy, so by that logic, you're only okay with a government enforcing rules as long as the government is in line with 'your' ideology, as well.

Quote:It was called by Rome, (the Pope) just as all the others. This is just rationalization.

That's actually a common misconception, one that even some Catholic theologians make. A Council isn't automatically a Council just because it's called by the Pope. The First Council of Nicaea was called by the 'Roman Emperor', not the Pope, and yet, it's still considered valid.

You're also ignoring the procedures that take place while the Council is in progress, as well.

Quote:This could be said of EVERY 200 year period since the year your church (supposedly) started. The Church did not pop full blown from anywhere. It DEVELOPED slowly over time and CHANGED. It was NEVER at one point in history a static organization. You're simply lying to yourself, and utterly ignorant of History. You're picking out one particular point in the LONG development process and saying "there, that's the time I like", so that's what I want.

You are ignorant of history, ignorant of your own cult, and willfully delusional. You want to refuse to accept because of you sinful pride, and you are using any means possible at your disposal to rationalize it to yourself. You need to go to Faaaather, and confess your sins. Tongue Shame on you. Maybe the BVM can intercede for you. Rolleyes

Blah, blah, fucking blah. More pig-headed horseshit, and unsupported, paragraph-long rhetorics, from one of the stupidest atheists I've met in a long time....and that's saying something.

It declared new doctrines throughout history in order to acknowledge already long-standing theological realities, however, it always maintained the same spirit, traditions, and basic teachings. It never deviated into the secularist, hyper-tolerant, 'nice' Church that it is today.

"as our religion is the right one."

Surely you cannot possibly be referring to the Vatican?

The Vatican’s track record contradicts their claim that they preach an infallible moral code. Consider their past attitude to slavery, eunuchs, heretics, witches, astronomy, evolution, anesthetics, vaccinations, the Nazis, Jews, Muslims, Protestants, women priests, and condoms.

The Vatican has been forced to revise their bad attitudes as the generations have gone by so as to keep some credibility in an increasingly tolerant and fair world. Yet if they had any real talent at sorting out ethical issues, they wouldn’t have made so many blatant mistakes in the past.

The Vatican has failed to learn humility from its own history of failures.

The Vatican is surprisingly dogmatic about its present day beliefs and rules. It’s no wonder the vast majority of everyday Catholics take little notice of them.

It’s probable that in the future the Vatican will reverse their thinking about birth control, homosexuality, women priests, premarital sex, genetic engineering, and stem cell research in the same way they’ve flipped their opinions on other issues.

When the Vatican tries to lecture the world on ethical issues people should demand objective reasons for their proclamations.

Given their track record, any “teachings” from the Vatican should be considered with suspicion.

There is no doubt that Catholicism, as promoted by an evil, immoral, greedy, arrogant, hypocritical and bigoted Vatican, could not be more "wrong."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Mark Fulton's post
28-02-2015, 05:04 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(28-02-2015 01:49 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
(28-02-2015 05:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The first Christians were still Jews for hundreds of years. Are you like totally ignorant of your own damn history ?


Is your god SOOOOO fucking stupid she wouldn't know that someone who says they believe when they don't is being dishonest ?


Which is precisely what Rome bitched about when Henry VIII did it in England and made "martyrs" of your cult members. That's only fine with you as long as it's YOUR religion, otherwise you whine to high heaven. What a fucking stupid thing to promote. Are you a member of ISIS ?


It was called by Rome, (the Pope) just as all the others. This is just rationalization.


This could be said of EVERY 200 year period since the year your church (supposedly) started. The Church did not pop full blown from anywhere. It DEVELOPED slowly over time and CHANGED. It was NEVER at one point in history a static organization. You're simply lying to yourself, and utterly ignorant of History. You're picking out one particular point in the LONG development process and saying "there, that's the time I like", so that's what I want.

You are ignorant of history, ignorant of your own cult, and willfully delusional. You want to refuse to accept because of you sinful pride, and you are using any means possible at your disposal to rationalize it to yourself. You need to go to Faaaather, and confess your sins. Tongue Shame on you. Maybe the BVM can intercede for you. Rolleyes

Quote:The first Christians were still Jews for hundreds of years. Are you like totally ignorant of your own damn history ?

What does that have to do with anything? Do you even know what ecumenicism means?

Quote:Is your god SOOOOO fucking stupid she wouldn't know that someone who says they believe when they don't is being dishonest ?

Once again, what does that have to do with the part you quoted?

Quote:That's only fine with you as long as it's YOUR religion,


Well, obviously, as our religion is the right one. There's no relativism to be had when it comes to truth, you ingrate.

Besides, I doubt you'd be okay with a dictatorship existing instead of a democracy, so by that logic, you're only okay with a government enforcing rules as long as the government is in line with 'your' ideology, as well.

Quote:It was called by Rome, (the Pope) just as all the others. This is just rationalization.

That's actually a common misconception, one that even some Catholic theologians make. A Council isn't automatically a Council just because it's called by the Pope. The First Council of Nicaea was called by the 'Roman Emperor', not the Pope, and yet, it's still considered valid.

You're also ignoring the procedures that take place while the Council is in progress, as well.

Quote:This could be said of EVERY 200 year period since the year your church (supposedly) started. The Church did not pop full blown from anywhere. It DEVELOPED slowly over time and CHANGED. It was NEVER at one point in history a static organization. You're simply lying to yourself, and utterly ignorant of History. You're picking out one particular point in the LONG development process and saying "there, that's the time I like", so that's what I want.

You are ignorant of history, ignorant of your own cult, and willfully delusional. You want to refuse to accept because of you sinful pride, and you are using any means possible at your disposal to rationalize it to yourself. You need to go to Faaaather, and confess your sins. Tongue Shame on you. Maybe the BVM can intercede for you. Rolleyes

Blah, blah, fucking blah. More pig-headed horseshit, and unsupported, paragraph-long rhetorics, from one of the stupidest atheists I've met in a long time....and that's saying something.

It declared new doctrines throughout history in order to acknowledge already long-standing theological realities, however, it always maintained the same spirit, traditions, and basic teachings. It never deviated into the secularist, hyper-tolerant, 'nice' Church that it is today.

"however, it always maintained the same spirit, traditions, and basic teachings."

Huh? You must think in some sort of intellectual bubble that the historical facts have failed to penetrate.

Popes have behaved atrociously and made numerous immoral proclamations over the centuries. Their history could keep today’s reader appalled and entertained for weeks!
(http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatica...Contents). Christ’s vicar on earth has given license to warmongering, anti Semitism, the murder and torture of millions, incest, the stealing of people’s assets, the protection of criminals, misogyny, pedophilia, prostitution, the spread of Aids, homophobia, money laundering and much more.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2015, 05:11 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(28-02-2015 02:56 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(27-02-2015 11:41 PM)Anjele Wrote:  But, but....the Bible has ambiguous wording...totally open to interpretation...so what's the big deal?
Bible is a work of literature meant for reflection. The documents of a council are closer to legal documents. Ambiguity in legal documents is in general a bad thing.

Actually that's not at all what the texts in the Bible were written for. The literacy rate was < 5 %. Don't they teach you people Biblical Studies ?

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
28-02-2015, 05:26 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(28-02-2015 05:04 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "however, it always maintained the same spirit, traditions, and basic teachings."

Huh? You must think in some sort of intellectual bubble that the historical facts have failed to penetrate.

Popes have behaved atrociously and made numerous immoral proclamations over the centuries. Their history could keep today’s reader appalled and entertained for weeks!
(http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatica...Contents). Christ’s vicar on earth has given license to warmongering, anti Semitism, the murder and torture of millions, incest, the stealing of people’s assets, the protection of criminals, misogyny, pedophilia, prostitution, the spread of Aids, homophobia, money laundering and much more.

PP will put the super-duper Catholic spin on them and say, “history got it wrong” or “that’s not true” (no evidence mind you, just total denial). And 3...2...1...

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
28-02-2015, 05:30 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(28-02-2015 01:49 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
(28-02-2015 05:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The first Christians were still Jews for hundreds of years. Are you like totally ignorant of your own damn history ?


Is your god SOOOOO fucking stupid she wouldn't know that someone who says they believe when they don't is being dishonest ?


Which is precisely what Rome bitched about when Henry VIII did it in England and made "martyrs" of your cult members. That's only fine with you as long as it's YOUR religion, otherwise you whine to high heaven. What a fucking stupid thing to promote. Are you a member of ISIS ?


It was called by Rome, (the Pope) just as all the others. This is just rationalization.


This could be said of EVERY 200 year period since the year your church (supposedly) started. The Church did not pop full blown from anywhere. It DEVELOPED slowly over time and CHANGED. It was NEVER at one point in history a static organization. You're simply lying to yourself, and utterly ignorant of History. You're picking out one particular point in the LONG development process and saying "there, that's the time I like", so that's what I want.

You are ignorant of history, ignorant of your own cult, and willfully delusional. You want to refuse to accept because of you sinful pride, and you are using any means possible at your disposal to rationalize it to yourself. You need to go to Faaaather, and confess your sins. Tongue Shame on you. Maybe the BVM can intercede for you. Rolleyes

Quote:The first Christians were still Jews for hundreds of years. Are you like totally ignorant of your own damn history ?

What does that have to do with anything? Do you even know what ecumenicism means?

Quote:Is your god SOOOOO fucking stupid she wouldn't know that someone who says they believe when they don't is being dishonest ?

Once again, what does that have to do with the part you quoted?

Quote:That's only fine with you as long as it's YOUR religion,


Well, obviously, as our religion is the right one. There's no relativism to be had when it comes to truth, you ingrate.

Besides, I doubt you'd be okay with a dictatorship existing instead of a democracy, so by that logic, you're only okay with a government enforcing rules as long as the government is in line with 'your' ideology, as well.

Quote:It was called by Rome, (the Pope) just as all the others. This is just rationalization.

That's actually a common misconception, one that even some Catholic theologians make. A Council isn't automatically a Council just because it's called by the Pope. The First Council of Nicaea was called by the 'Roman Emperor', not the Pope, and yet, it's still considered valid.

You're also ignoring the procedures that take place while the Council is in progress, as well.

Quote:This could be said of EVERY 200 year period since the year your church (supposedly) started. The Church did not pop full blown from anywhere. It DEVELOPED slowly over time and CHANGED. It was NEVER at one point in history a static organization. You're simply lying to yourself, and utterly ignorant of History. You're picking out one particular point in the LONG development process and saying "there, that's the time I like", so that's what I want.

You are ignorant of history, ignorant of your own cult, and willfully delusional. You want to refuse to accept because of you sinful pride, and you are using any means possible at your disposal to rationalize it to yourself. You need to go to Faaaather, and confess your sins. Tongue Shame on you. Maybe the BVM can intercede for you. Rolleyes

Blah, blah, fucking blah. More pig-headed horseshit, and unsupported, paragraph-long rhetorics, from one of the stupidest atheists I've met in a long time....and that's saying something.

It declared new doctrines throughout history in order to acknowledge already long-standing theological realities, however, it always maintained the same spirit, traditions, and basic teachings. It never deviated into the secularist, hyper-tolerant, 'nice' Church that it is today.

"as our religion is the right one."

Why you such a fan boy?

Are you a paid employee, or are you at the bottom of the pile with the other "faithful" brainwashed plebs?

You happy for your nephew to have a sleep over at Father O'Flaherty's place?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: