I am holier than thou
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-09-2013, 10:09 PM
RE: I am holier than thou
(20-09-2013 06:47 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Your turn!! Show me proof that God gave the Catholic Church authority. And you can't use the bible. That's like using Harry Potter books to prove the existence of Hogwarts.
Your request is like me saying to you. Prove that the earth is billions of years old and you can't use science.
The Bible is the ultimate authority, the actual divine inspired word of God. That is my evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2013, 10:10 PM
RE: I am holier than thou
(20-09-2013 10:09 PM)excubitor Wrote:  Your request is like me saying to you. Prove that the earth is billions of years old and you can't use science.
The Bible is the ultimate authority, the actual divine inspired word of God. That is my evidence.

Looks to me like that's a roundabout way of saying you can't prove your earlier ludicrous assertions using science.

Drinking Beverage

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
20-09-2013, 10:14 PM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2013 10:18 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: I am holier than thou
(20-09-2013 06:25 PM)excubitor Wrote:  
(20-09-2013 06:19 PM)NoSkyDaddy Wrote:  excubitor,
What about hermaphrodites? They're completely infertile. Can they have sex? And with whom? It seems GAAAAwD! created a bit of a sticky wicket. Being male and female simultaneously, to marry a man is male homosexuality, and to marry a woman is female homosexuality. To marry each other is male and female homosexuality combined. And with no chance for pregnancy (according to you) it would be lust in any case.
BTW, how many homeless people did you ignore to antagonize us again? Clearly you have nothing better to do tonight either.

A true Hermaphrodite is so rare that I cannot even be bothered to develop a position on it. I am talking about situations where people are clearly male or female.
I saw this http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage...nu=&recnu= You can read it if you interested in the subject. I am not.

So we're supposed to take the word of someone who is neither a geneticist, nor a physician, nor a pediatrician, nor has any scientific credentials at all, (but in fact a magician/magic-man/priest ?)
Jesus H. Fucking Christ. No wonder these fools are so deluded.
The fact that there IS even ONE hermaphrodite "created" by a *perfect* god, is enough to throw their whole bunch of stinking crap into doubt.
In fact, developmental sexual abnormalities are rather common, and most peds institutions have Genetic Clinics, that are booked solid. But this Catholic ignoramus wouldn't know anything about what actually goes on in real medical institutions. (BTW, the occurrence of these mutations also has something important to say about probability and Evolution, but he's WAY too stupid to even go down that road).
http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
20-09-2013, 10:21 PM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2013 10:28 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: I am holier than thou
(20-09-2013 10:09 PM)excubitor Wrote:  
(20-09-2013 06:47 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Your turn!! Show me proof that God gave the Catholic Church authority. And you can't use the bible. That's like using Harry Potter books to prove the existence of Hogwarts.
Your request is like me saying to you. Prove that the earth is billions of years old and you can't use science.
The Bible is the ultimate authority, the actual divine inspired word of God. That is my evidence.

So, I see you have no evidence then.
You really need to look up the term "circular".
You just flunked OUT.
Are you really a poe, whose mission here is to make the cat-o-licks look stupid ?
If so, you're doin' a great job. Thumbsup

BTW, your church does not teach that the set of human written and assembled texts, (called the Bible) are the "ultimate authority". It is the RCC's contention that the old men in red/purple dresses are the ultimate authority, and they get to (re) interpret the Bible anyway they like. You just flunked out of Catholic School too. Sheesh. One just might think you are a "funkee". Dodgy

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
20-09-2013, 10:25 PM
RE: I am holier than thou
(20-09-2013 10:06 PM)excubitor Wrote:  Refusing to recognise an obvious authority like the Pope is nothing short of disobedience. All men if they want to achieve eternal salvation must submit to the sovereign pontiff. That is the fact of the matter. Rebel against the Pope, the church and the scriptures is the same as rebelling against Jesus and God.

Evolution, you scum sucking son of a motherless goat. Answer me or burn in hell.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2013, 10:34 PM
RE: I am holier than thou
The bishop of Rome was not always (even in Catholicism) the/an "ultimate authority".
Why would anyone think that when many of them were evil ?
Just proof this fool knows nothing about the history of his own cult.
The Roman Church recognizes now, and always has, the legitimacy of other sects of Christianity, (such as Angicanism). More proof this idiot flunked his "beligion" class.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2013, 11:14 PM
RE: I am holier than thou
(20-09-2013 10:34 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The bishop of Rome was not always (even in Catholicism) the/an "ultimate authority".
Why would anyone think that when many of them were evil ?
Just proof this fool knows nothing about the history of his own cult.
The Roman Church recognizes now, and always has, the legitimacy of other sects of Christianity, (such as Angicanism). More proof this idiot flunked his "beligion" class.
The Roman Catholic Church recognises the legitimacy of the Eastern Orthodox churches on account of the fact that there bishops are successors of the apostles. The Eastern Orthodox have lost only piece of truth which is that the Bishop of Rome is the supreme earthly authority of the church. In every other respect their doctrines are the same as the Roman Catholic Church except on some rather trifling hair splitting issues. The Roman Catholic Church does not recognise the legitimacy of the Anglican church or of any other of the protestant sects. Vatican 2 calls them separated brethren. The church concedes that these fellowships possess many elements of truth and grace by virtue of the fact that they were once all Catholic and all came from the Catholic church. They use the Catholic scriptures and uphold many doctrines which ultimately they received from the Catholic church such as the Trinity doctrine. However Vatican 2 also states that they are NOT churches in the proper sense of the word.

There is no shortage of material on the Internet that demonstrates very clearly that the early church regarded as supreme the authority of the Pope. Here is just one article http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-autho...ope-part-i
The use of the Pallium which could only be worn by the Pope is an example of a symbol of the great power that only the Pope wielded. Somewhere in the 9th century the Pope started to confer the Pallium to the metropolitan bishops. Patriarch of Constantinople, Photius in the 11th century with almost unbelievable arrogance actually conferred a Pallium upon the Pope causing a horrendous scandal. The Pope sent it back rightly saying that that was his job, to confer palliums. The fallout from this and various other outrageous examples of rebellion by Photius resulted in the Great Schism. As has been proved by every schism in the church throughout all history there is one thing common to them. Rebellion against the established authority of the Pope and setting oneself up as an independent authority.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2013, 11:28 PM (This post was last modified: 21-09-2013 01:16 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: I am holier than thou
(20-09-2013 11:14 PM)excubitor Wrote:  
(20-09-2013 10:34 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The bishop of Rome was not always (even in Catholicism) the/an "ultimate authority".
Why would anyone think that when many of them were evil ?
Just proof this fool knows nothing about the history of his own cult.
The Roman Church recognizes now, and always has, the legitimacy of other sects of Christianity, (such as Anglicanism). More proof this idiot flunked his "beligion" class.
The Roman Catholic Church recognizes the legitimacy of the Eastern Orthodox churches on account of the fact that there bishops are successors of the apostles. The Eastern Orthodox have lost only piece of truth which is that the Bishop of Rome is the supreme earthly authority of the church. In every other respect their doctrines are the same as the Roman Catholic Church except on some rather trifling hair splitting issues. The Roman Catholic Church does not recognize the legitimacy of the Anglican church or of any other of the protestant sects. Vatican 2 calls them separated brethren. The church concedes that these fellowships possess many elements of truth and grace by virtue of the fact that they were once all Catholic and all came from the Catholic church. They use the Catholic scriptures and uphold many doctrines which ultimately they received from the Catholic church such as the Trinity doctrine. However Vatican 2 also states that they are NOT churches in the proper sense of the word.

There is no shortage of material on the Internet that demonstrates very clearly that the early church regarded as supreme the authority of the Pope. Here is just one article http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-autho...ope-part-i
The use of the Pallium which could only be worn by the Pope is an example of a symbol of the great power that only the Pope wielded. Somewhere in the 9th century the Pope started to confer the Pallium to the metropolitan bishops. Patriarch of Constantinople, Photius in the 11th century with almost unbelievable arrogance actually conferred a Pallium upon the Pope causing a horrendous scandal. The Pope sent it back rightly saying that that was his job, to confer palliums. The fallout from this and various other outrageous examples of rebellion by Photius resulted in the Great Schism. As has been proved by every schism in the church throughout all history there is one thing common to them. Rebellion against the established authority of the Pope and setting oneself up as an independent authority.

More proof you are lying. The Roman Church accepts the Apostolic succession of the Anglican Church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession
In "Lumen Gentium", the Second Vatican Council said : "the church of Christ as *subsists* in the Catholic Church". They DID NOT say, it was IDENTICAL WITH the Catholic Church, FOR A REASON, ON PURPOSE. It DID say "Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside its visible confines. Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity." So I see you are really an ignoramus, and a liar. It's not nice to tell lies.

"However Vatican 2 also states that they are NOT churches in the proper sense of the word."
Prove it. Where does it say any of that ? Nowhere does any Vatican II document say anything even remotely like that. "Proper sense of the word"... bullshit. Thanks for proving you are a liar. Of course you would say the cat-o-licks would say that. What the hell did you THINK they would say ? Provide EXTERNAL evidence, or go away.

The Eastern Orthodox have "lost" nothing. They refused to accept the NEW assertion of the "primacy of Rome". You people always try to re-write history. Until the Great Schism, there was NO "primacy of Peter". They were equals. They "lost" nothing". They refused the "new" doctrine". No Ecumenical Council in the early church says one word about the Primacy of Peter, and you can't find any evidence of it. They cooked it up, and some of the other patriarchs refused to accept the NEW crap. Get your history straight. You are 100 % indoctrinated.

There is even doubt that Peter even ever was a bishop in Rome. He was forced there by the Romans, maybe. He held no office there, and you cannot prove he did. Historians know Peter was never a bishop in Rome. Saul of Tarsus also held no office there, and the church in Jerusalem HATED his guts. That much we do know. They kicked him out of Jerusalem. They cooked it up, and some of the other patriarchs refused to accept the NEW crap. Get your history straight. You are 100 % indoctrinated.
The Roman Church admits : ""the New Testament texts offer no sufficient basis for papal primacy" and that they contain "no explicit record of a transmission of Peter's leadership" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_...op_of_Rome In other words, they made it up. And they admit they made it up.

The Roman Church also recognizes the legitimate episcopal lines in the Anglican Church, and their apostolic historicity/authenticity, and their legitimate/authentic sacraments, including the Eucharist. Just more proof you failed in school.

BTW, correct English demands "their bishops", not "there bishops".
"F" in English also I see.

All circular self-affirming bullshit.
Here are some real scholars discussing the REAL history.
http://www.westarinstitute.org/events/eq...istianity/
The 5 patriarchs (Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, and Rome were EQUAL, until Rome asserted it's primacy. Ask any real historian. The VERY most that could be said, historically, was the bishop of Rome was the "first AMONG EQUALS". Don't give us Roman shit to support Roman shit. LEARN what "circular means, please, you idiot.

You can shove your sheep's wool ("pallium") up your fat RC ass. Meaningless drivel.
It is totally irrelevant WHAT "the early" church thought. More circular bullshit.
Who cares what happened in the 9th Century ? What happened almost 1000 years after the fact is irrelevant, obviously.
You do know that in the year 400, St. John Chrysostom was telling HIS congregation in HIS Christmas sermon, to STOP going to the synagogue. They STILL thought THAT LATE, they were JEWS. And you're gonna tell us those people actually thought the bishop of Rome was the ultimate authority ? Who cares ?
Your Professional Pedophile organization has proven it's a bunch on nasty old men, who, no one in their right mind, would want anything to do with.
Nice try. "Pallium" indeed. How lame. Now there's a new one. Sheeps wool actually proves something. Heh heh. Good one.
By all means, keep making a fool of yourself and your cult. You make our case for us. Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
21-09-2013, 04:26 AM
RE: I am holier than thou
Wow, excubitor really sucks at his religion... Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2013, 04:28 AM (This post was last modified: 21-09-2013 04:44 AM by excubitor.)
RE: I am holier than thou
(20-09-2013 11:28 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(20-09-2013 11:14 PM)excubitor Wrote:  The Roman Catholic Church recognizes the legitimacy of the Eastern Orthodox churches on account of the fact that there bishops are successors of the apostles. The Eastern Orthodox have lost only piece of truth which is that the Bishop of Rome is the supreme earthly authority of the church. In every other respect their doctrines are the same as the Roman Catholic Church except on some rather trifling hair splitting issues. The Roman Catholic Church does not recognize the legitimacy of the Anglican church or of any other of the protestant sects. Vatican 2 calls them separated brethren. The church concedes that these fellowships possess many elements of truth and grace by virtue of the fact that they were once all Catholic and all came from the Catholic church. They use the Catholic scriptures and uphold many doctrines which ultimately they received from the Catholic church such as the Trinity doctrine. However Vatican 2 also states that they are NOT churches in the proper sense of the word.

There is no shortage of material on the Internet that demonstrates very clearly that the early church regarded as supreme the authority of the Pope. Here is just one article http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-autho...ope-part-i
The use of the Pallium which could only be worn by the Pope is an example of a symbol of the great power that only the Pope wielded. Somewhere in the 9th century the Pope started to confer the Pallium to the metropolitan bishops. Patriarch of Constantinople, Photius in the 11th century with almost unbelievable arrogance actually conferred a Pallium upon the Pope causing a horrendous scandal. The Pope sent it back rightly saying that that was his job, to confer palliums. The fallout from this and various other outrageous examples of rebellion by Photius resulted in the Great Schism. As has been proved by every schism in the church throughout all history there is one thing common to them. Rebellion against the established authority of the Pope and setting oneself up as an independent authority.

More proof you are lying. The Roman Church accepts the Apostolic succession of the Anglican Church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession
Please demonstrate how your linked article states that the Roman Catholic church accepts any claims of apostolic succession by the Anglicans
Your own linked article states "The lack of apostolic succession through bishops is the primary basis on which Protestant communities are not considered churches by the Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic Church.[41]"

You article cites this article.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...es_en.html
This article directly states quoting lumen gentium
"FIFTH QUESTION

Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

RESPONSE

According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense[20]."

(20-09-2013 11:28 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "However Vatican 2 also states that they are NOT churches in the proper sense of the word."
Prove it. Where does it say any of that ? Nowhere does any Vatican II document say anything even remotely like that. "Proper sense of the word"... bullshit. Thanks for proving you are a liar. Of course you would say the cat-o-licks would say that. What the hell did you THINK they would say ? Provide EXTERNAL evidence, or go away.
I was mistaken. The words are not in Vatican 2 they are in the Popes encyclical Dominus Iesus which cites the Vatican 2 decree on Ecumenism. This decree concedes that Christians can exist in other communions by virtue of the baptism of the individual. However it deliberately avoids using the word "church" for any of these fellowships.
The Document Dominus Iesus is specifically a document which explains the Vatican 2 documents and adds more clarity to them.

(20-09-2013 11:28 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The Eastern Orthodox have "lost" nothing. They refused to accept the NEW assertion of the "primacy of Rome". You people always try to re-write history. Until the Great Schism, there was NO "primacy of Peter". They were equals. They "lost" nothing". They refused the "new" doctrine". No Ecumenical Council in the early church says one word about the Primacy of Peter, and you can't find any evidence of it. They cooked it up, and some of the other patriarchs refused to accept the NEW crap. Get your history straight. You are 100 % indoctrinated.
I was indoctrinated at age 45 after having grown up a protestant hating the Pope, was I? Give me a break. I have come to this conclusion after hundreds of hours reading church history. I gave you a link showing quotations from early church fathers which demonstrate the preeminence of Rome and the bishop there was preeminent over all the churches. You have completely ignored these quotations which are records of history. When I became a Catholic I read these historical accounts of the development of the church and became convinced by using my own intellect that the claims of the Roman Catholic Church were true.

(20-09-2013 11:28 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is even doubt that Peter even ever was a bishop in Rome. He was forced there by the Romans, maybe. He held no office there, and you cannot prove he did. Historians know Peter was never a bishop in Rome. Saul of Tarsus also held no office there, and the church in Jerusalem HATED his guts. That much we do know. They kicked him out of Jerusalem. They cooked it up, and some of the other patriarchs refused to accept the NEW crap. Get your history straight. You are 100 % indoctrinated.
The Roman Church admits : ""the New Testament texts offer no sufficient basis for papal primacy" and that they contain "no explicit record of a transmission of Peter's leadership" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_...op_of_Rome In other words, they made it up. And they admit they made it up.
Where do they admit they made it up?
Your article quotes an Eastern Orthodox priest who surely you would expect to be biased in favour of his camp. Alexander Schmemann says.
"It is impossible to deny that, even before the appearance of local primacies, the Church from the first days of her existence possessed an ecumenical center of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and Judeo-Christian period, it was the Church of Jerusalem, and later the Church of Rome – presiding in agape, according to St. Ignatius of Antioch. This formula and the definition of the universal primacy contained in it have been aptly analyzed by Fr Afanassieff and we need not repeat his argument here. Neither can we quote here all testimonies of the fathers and the councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement. It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance."[15]"

So I suppose Fr Alexander Schmemann is an ignorant idiot and liar like you claim me to be.

(20-09-2013 11:28 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The Roman Church also recognizes the legitimate episcopal lines in the Anglican Church, and their apostolic historicity/authenticity, and their legitimate/authentic sacraments, including the Eucharist. Just more proof you failed in school.
This is utterly false. What school did you go to? Clearly you have no knowledge of Apostolicae Curae in 1893 where Pope Leo XIII declared all Anglican orders "absolutely null and utterly void."

(20-09-2013 11:28 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  BTW, correct English demands "their bishops", not "there bishops".
"F" in English also I see.

All circular self-affirming bullshit.
Here are some real scholars discussing the REAL history.
http://www.westarinstitute.org/events/eq...istianity/
The 5 patriarchs (Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, and Rome were EQUAL, until Rome asserted it's primacy. Ask any real historian. The VERY most that could be said, historically, was the bishop of Rome was the "first AMONG EQUALS". Don't give us Roman shit to support Roman shit. LEARN what "circular means, please, you idiot.
What's the westarinstitute? What is the Pilgrim church of Christ? They have an obvious bias against the notion of the primacy of the Pope/ I have no doubt there seminar will be a biased polemic. Seriously. You call that an authority? Besides pumpkin. The seminar is nothing to do with the debate of whether the Pope was first among equals. Its about the debate of the roles of women in the church having equality amongst a male dominated church. Completely different subject. What school did you go to? Find a proper historical authority to prop up your ridiculous claims that the Pope was not the primary bishop in all the ages of the church.


(20-09-2013 11:28 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You can shove your sheep's wool ("pallium") up your fat RC ass. Meaningless drivel.
It is totally irrelevant WHAT "the early" church thought. More circular bullshit.
Who cares what happened in the 9th Century ? What happened almost 1000 years after the fact is irrelevant, obviously.
So any kind of historical information that does not suit your purpose is labelled as bs and irrelevant. If you want to ignore the historical record there is not much I can do for you. Whatever evidence I provide will be rejected.


(20-09-2013 11:28 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You do know that in the year 400, St. John Chrysostom was telling HIS congregation in HIS Christmas sermon, to STOP going to the synagogue. They STILL thought THAT LATE, they were JEWS. And you're gonna tell us those people actually thought the bishop of Rome was the ultimate authority ? Who cares ?
Your Professional Pedophile organization has proven it's a bunch on nasty old men, who, no one in their right mind, would want anything to do with.
Nice try. "Pallium" indeed. How lame. Now there's a new one. Sheeps wool actually proves something. Heh heh. Good one.
By all means, keep making a fool of yourself and your cult. You make our case for us. Tongue
That is just one proof amongst a hundred. You can fill books with all the historical evidence.
Even protestant scholars admit to the primacy of Rome.
Protestant scholar Dr. Adolph Harnack stated.
"Ignatius is our first external witness in regard to the Roman Church. After making allowances for exaggeration of language in his letter to the Romans, it remains clear that Ignatius assigns a de facto primacy to the Roman Church among its sister churches and that he knew of an energetic and habitual activity of this church in protecting and instructing other churches. [6]"

Obviously this Lutheran scholar is also a liar, failed at school, fool, idiot in your eyes.
Even though he became a professor at multiple universities and had a specialty in church history.

Here is another convert http://www.amazon.com/Upon-This-Rock-Scr...0898707234 who has written one such book.

The preview of the book says
"Ray goes through the Scriptures and writings from the first five centuries of the early Church to demonstrate that the early Christians had a clear understanding of the primacy of Peter in the See of Rome. He tackles the tough issues in an attempt to expose how the opposition is misunderstanding the Scriptures and history. He uses many Evangelical Protestant scholars and historians to support the Catholic position. This book contains the most complete compilation of Scriptural and Patristic quotations on the primacy of Peter and the Papal office of any book currently available."

Please provide your quotes written by someone who you don't regard as a fool/idiot/liar/school dropout.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: