Question:
Pied Piper… Who was/is Jesus Christ? Jesus of Nazareth is the only founder of a religion I don’t recall Christ founding any religions. — Halah – Worship, heathen — http://pray.at/halah "Im just wondering now if they actually allow the likes of you to visit the nurseing homes. I mean if how you act in here is any indication WOW heheh." – Ed, 9/10/99
Nope. Me neithor. Must have missed that, can you give us some scripture to back up that claim?
Response:
Re: Papal Sin + Question for Catholics Reply to: [1] yowie In alt.flame.jesus.christ, Pied Piper says… [biblical defence of crypto-paganism] Mary, Mother of God And lover of god. Heathen.
*** which means "of the Hearth" and also of the "Heath" as in "heather" in other words people who follow the old ways. Just different faith. Same Creator. Pasty Brenda
Response:
Pied Piper… Who was/is Jesus Christ? Jesus of Nazareth is the only founder of a religion I don’t recall Christ founding any religions.
You don’t recall the day your momma said to you… …"Halah, you little puke, go and fetch me an iced tea while I finish who I think is yo’ daddy off."… …either, so what’s your point? Alan
Response:
In alt.flame.jesus.christ, Pied Piper says… [biblical defence of crypto-paganism] Mary, Mother of God
And lover of god. Heathen. — "No everyone else plase choice us in heaven." -Ray Tod Stevens
Response:
In alt.flame.jesus.christ, Brenda G. Tataryn says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Re: Papal Sin + Question for Catholics Reply to: [1] yowie In alt.flame.jesus.christ, Pied Piper says… [biblical defence of crypto-paganism] Mary, Mother of God And lover of god. Heathen. *** which means "of the Hearth" and also of the "Heath" as in "heather" in other words people who follow the old ways.
See sig. Just different faith. Same Creator.
Most of alt.religion.roman-catholic just went out to look for brushwood and a good, dry stake. — "uhhhhh duhhhh" – MK ULTRA in top form "uhhhhhhh duhhhhhhh" – but the gold goes to Domineaux "maybe it would be more blubbery if you slapped the side of your mouth as your said uhhhhhhh duhhhhhhh" – Domineaux offers some hints on technique
Response:
So, either Jesus was divine, as he said clearly enough that the Jews accused him of blasphemy, or he was crazy, totally deranged. ‘
I wouldn’t say totally deranged. Fucking nuts, but not totally deranged. There is a subtle difference. — Rob D Swann aa# 1552 ICQ # 26667824
Response:
Pied Piper… Who was/is Jesus Christ? Jesus of Nazareth is the only founder of a religion
I don’t recall Christ founding any religions. — Halah – Worship, heathen — http://pray.at/halah "Im just wondering now if they actually allow the likes of you to visit the nurseing homes. I mean if how you act in here is any indication WOW heheh." – Ed, 9/10/99
Response:
Gary Wills seems to have a personal vendetta against the Church.
Interesting that he’s always described as a "Catholic scholar." In reality, Papal infallibility has been in force ever since Peter the Apostle.
Nice to know that all those Medici and Borgia popes were infallible. Especially that murderous, incestuous Leo. If the pope is infallible, then murder of Cardinals (for example) and confiscation of their wealth right into the Pope’s pockets must be part of church doctrine? This makes the church MUCH more interesting! Then there was the whole anti-Semitic stand taken by the church for centuries, and Innocent III’s wholesale murder of heretics (well, murdering "heretics" was a universally-accepted Catholic pastime). Not to mention Clement IV, the puppet of King Phillip of France. (My favorite — Clement who kept Cecile de Commingues as a mistress and had her wear rouge on her labia. These two holed up in Avignon during the plague and stayed perfectly healthy. Clement was the model for Poe’s "Masque of the Red Death.") "Papal infallibility," according to the dogmatic definition in Vatican I, only applies only in very specific circumstances. (1) The Pope must be acting as Universal Pastor (not, say, speaking personally as a theologian). (2) It must be a matter of faith or morals (e.g., predictions about the stock market don’t qualify). (3) He must make it clear that he is defining something that must be held by divine faith by all Christians.
See above, especially concerning moral matters. I don’t think Mr. Wills’s book is very serious, as he misunderstands pretty basic facts about the Church. I would discount it.
Well, let’s just discount that pesky Pulitzer Prize. I mean, what value does THAT hold? – Clarice
Response:
In alt.flame.jesus.christ, taxdude says… Does papal infallibility apply only to Pius IX and his successors, or did the Vatican council of 1870 declare preceding popes infallible also? You can read the Decrees of the First Vatican Council: http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm
Thank you. — "No everyone else plase choice us in heaven." -Ray Tod Stevens
Response:
Clarice Starling says… Catholic historian Garry Wills’ new book, PAPAL SIN: THE STRUCTURE OF DECEIT, seems to have an interesting premise: that the church lies in order to protect the myth of papal infallibilty. Hmmm…. Question for Catholics: Does papal infallibility apply only to Pius IX and his successors, or did the Vatican council of 1870 declare preceding popes infallible also?
Simple answer — yes. Papal Infallibility is a Catholic Dogma. Dogma does not arise when it is declared, nor due to its declaration. Rather, dogmatic pronouncements elucidate what is already part of the Deposit of Faith.
Response:
Does papal infallibility apply only to Pius IX and his successors, or did the Vatican council of 1870 declare preceding popes infallible also? Simple answer — yes.
Even simpler answer — you’re a thick monkey-fuck who’ll believe any or incredible slop dished up just as long as it’s served up by a guy in a funny shaped hat. Archbishop Mike – Prophet ‘Also, remember in Star Trek 1 when Spock learned that there was something beyond pure logic? Well there ya go.’ – Adam J proves ‘god’ exists 25/4/2000
Response:
In alt.flame.jesus.christ, Joseph Geloso says… Does papal infallibility apply only to Pius IX and his successors, or did the Vatican council of 1870 declare preceding popes infallible also? Simple answer — yes. Papal Infallibility is a Catholic Dogma. Dogma does not arise when it is declared, nor due to its declaration. Rather, dogmatic pronouncements elucidate what is already part of the Deposit of Faith.
No prize for guessing which end of the Dogma that ‘Deposit’ came out of. Thanks for answering my question though. — "No everyone else plase choice us in heaven." -Ray Tod Stevens
Response:
In alt.flame.jesus.christ, Joseph Geloso says… Does papal infallibility apply only to Pius IX and his successors, or did the Vatican council of 1870 declare preceding popes infallible also? Simple answer — yes. Papal Infallibility is a Catholic Dogma. Dogma does not arise when it is declared, nor due to its declaration. Rather, dogmatic pronouncements elucidate what is already part of the Deposit of Faith. No prize for guessing which end of the Dogma that ‘Deposit’ came out of.
Does that Dogma Deposit come with a pooper scooper? ~Rynn * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!
Response:
Who was/is Jesus Christ? Jesus of Nazareth is the only founder of a religion who was pre-announced hundreds of years before his birth. In Isaiah 53, written several centuries before Christ, we read: (v5)…he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins, Upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole, by his stripes we were healed. (v12)…Therefore I will give him his portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoils with the mighty, Because he surrendered himself to death and was counted among the wicked; And he shall take away the sins of many, and win pardon for their offenses. Also, see Isaiah 49:1-7; 50:4-11; and the rest of Isaiah 53. In Psalm 22, written as early as 980 BC, we find what could pass for an eye-witness account of the crucifixion of Jesus (the opening words of which he quotes in Matthew 27:46). My God, my God, why have you forsaken me… All who see me scoff at me… "He relied on the Lord; let him deliver him…" They have pierced my hands and my feet; I can count all my bones… They divide my garments among them; for my clothing they cast lots… Also, Jesus is the only person ever to predict and carry out his own rising from the dead. But, could the apostles have fabricated the resurrection? Not likely. The apostles, who were clearly hard-nosed skeptics would hardly have endured martyrdom one by one – all but John died as martyrs – for a religion founded on a hoax. So, clearly, Jesus was sent by God. But, was there more to him than that? Infinitely more. He said in the clearest Semitic way (i.e., indirectly) that he was God. In Mark 2:5 he forgave sins on his own authority. The Jews knew well what he was saying by this and responded, "He commits blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" In John 8:58 Jesus said, "Before Abraham came to be I AM." This "I AM" is the same name God used for himself when he sent Moses to the Israelites to say: "I AM sent me to you" (Exodus 3:14). So Jesus was not only saying he pre-existed, even before Abraham who lived almost 2,000 years prior to him; he was also saying by a play on words that he, Jesus, was "I AM," or God. Again, the Jews knew well what Jesus was saying; they picked up rocks to throw at him (John 8:59). Stoning (Leviticus 24:16) was the penalty for such blasphemy. Finally, in John 10:30 Jesus said, "The Father and I are one." Again, upon hearing this the Jews reached for rocks to stone him saying, "You who are only a man are making yourself out to be God." In none of these three cases did Jesus avoid trouble by telling them he did not mean to say he was God. He knew very well what he was saying, and so did the Jews. But, you might ask, what about passages such as "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28), and regarding the end time, no one, not even the son knows the day and the hour, "but only the Father" (Mark 13:32), and in Gethsemane, praying to the Father, "not my will but yours be done" (Luke 22:42)? All of these quotes merely point to the human nature of Christ which was united to his divine nature. Had he not said these things, his human nature might have been doubted by the references to his divinity. (All of this was debated and sorted out by the early Church: Christ’s divinity was defined in 325, his two natures, in 451 AD.) So, either Jesus was divine, as he said clearly enough that the Jews accused him of blasphemy, or he was crazy, totally deranged. Either he was all he said he was, or he was nothing. Now, what about the Catholic Church? Is it true to Christ and His Sacred Scriptures? The Real Presence in the Eucharist First, consider the Eucharist. Christ said: I myself am the living bread come down from heaven. If anyone eats this bread he shall live forever; the bread I will give is my flesh for the life of the world (John 6:51). When the Jews balked at this he went on (v53): Let me solemnly assure you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you… for my flesh is real food, and my blood real drink (6:55). This really set them off, since drinking blood was unthinkable to a Jew. To even touch blood required ritual purification. All Jesus had to say here to eliminate their fears was, "No, no, no. This is merely a symbol!" but he didn’t. He said: Does it shake your faith? …What then if you were to see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before…? (John 6:61,62) What was the result of all this? Many of his disciples left him (John 6:66). But, what about John 6:63?: It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words I spoke to you are spirit and life. Doesn’t this imply merely a symbol? Not at all. It simply means that Jesus was speaking of something which would not be visible by the physical eyes of the flesh (thus allaying any accusation of cannibalism ). but only spiritually, by faith. So, the Catholic Church is being faithful to the Scriptures in believing in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It’s radical, but fully biblical. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass Consider next the Mass. Catholics (and the Orthodox) hold the Mass to be, "above all else a sacrifice " (Pope John Paul II, 2/24/80). In Matthew 26:26-28 Jesus said of the bread at the Last Supper, "Take this and eat… This is my body…" and of the cup, "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, to be shed for many for the forgiveness of sins." Giving one’s body and shedding one’s blood for the forgiveness of sins are biblical expressions which speak of a true sacrifice. It is this divine, timeless sacrifice of Jesus’ death which we "re-present" in the Mass: "his body and blood are both really present; the species under which he is present symbolize the actual separation of his body and blood… on Calvary" (Pius XII, Mediator Dei, 11/20/47). Also, in Psalm 110, clearly referring to the Messiah, Christ is called a priest according to the order of Melchizedek (see Hebrews 5:5-10 as well). Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18) offered bread and wine as a sacrifice to God for a victory celebration. Christ offers his body and blood under the appearance of bread and wine as a sacrifice to God. Finally, in Malachi 1:10,11 the prophet predicts that everywhere the Gentiles will bring incense and a pure "food-offering" for God. The only "pure" offering sacrificed "everywhere" in this, the "Messianic Age," is the body and blood of Christ at Mass. Confession Jesus said to his disciples whom he sent forth in John 20:23, "Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven; whose sins you shall retain they are retained." The Catholic Church fulfills this by both forgiving and retaining sins (depending on the case) in the sacrament of Penance. It would be impossible to "retain" sins if the penitent’s disposition were not known to the priest, acting in the name of Christ. The Pope In Matthew 16:18-19 Jesus said to Peter, "You are ‘Rock,’ and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of Hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven. " Catholics believe that Jesus gave these powers not personally, to end with Peter’s death (hardly worth mentioning if he did) but in his office as leader of his church. Peter’s church leadership was also established in John 21:15-17. Did Christ intend the Church to be leaderless, and without a source of doctrinal unity, without even an authority to establish which books belong in the New Testament (the Catholic Church did just this from the 4th century onward)? Not likely. Thus, in claiming the successor of Peter as its leader, and central source of doctrinal authority, the Catholic Church is being faithful to Scripture. The Saints Christ said in Matthew 7:17,20 "Every sound tree bears good fruit… Therefore from their fruits you shall know them." The "fruits" of the Catholic faith are the saints. Has any other religion besides our own been able to produce the likes of St. Francis of Assisi, St. Teresa of Avila, St. John Vianney or St. Therese of Lisieux? (Read their stories; they will amaze you!) And, if Jeremiah and Onias were, after having died, able to pray for their people (2 Maccabees 15:11-16), and the saints offered "the prayers of God’s holy people" before God (Revelation 5:8), does it not make sense for us to seek the saints’ intercession? Mary, Mother of God There can be no doubt that Jesus lived perfectly the fourth commandment: Honor your father and mother. If Christ lives in us as he did in Paul (Galatians 2:20) ought not we venerate Christ’s mother as he did, especially since veneration was offered to angels in Joshua 5:14 and Daniel 8:17? How much greater than the angels is Mary! The Catholic Church honors Mary in imitation of her Son. —- Granted, of course, the Catholic Church has had its scandals, as has every church, but these are the wounds in the body of Christ, put there by the sins of mankind. How wondrous, that despite these wounds, the Church has continued on, and has produced saints in every age. So, why embrace Catholicism? Because it was founded by the Son of God, it has the Eucharist, and it is eminently biblical. Don’t let anyone convince you otherwise! —-
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In alt.flame.jesus.christ, Joseph Geloso says… Does papal infallibility apply only to Pius IX and his successors, or did the Vatican council of 1870 declare preceding popes infallible also? Simple answer — yes. Papal Infallibility is a Catholic Dogma. Dogma does not
… read more »
Response:
Catholic historian Garry Wills’ new book, PAPAL SIN: THE STRUCTURE OF DECEIT, seems to have an interesting premise: that the church lies in order to protect the myth of papal infallibilty. He says that the church has lost touch with its parishoners and is unable to recruit new priests because of the willingness of the Papacy to subordinate truth to ecclesiatical tactics. He says,"To maintain an impression that Popes cannot err, Popes deceive." He considers the church’s 1998 document on the Holocaust an example of "the debilitating effect of intellectual dishonesty." He says that the church should return to its standards and catholics be freed from the pressures of deceit that are a modern form of papal sin. Sounds interesting. I just ordered it. Anyone read it yet? -Clarice
Response:
Gary Wills seems to have a personal vendetta against the Church. In reality, Papal infallibility has been in force ever since Peter the Apostle. I challenge any person–Mr. Will’s included–to point to an example in which the Pope has ever violated the charism of infallibility, as defined by the First Vatican Council. "Papal infallibility," according to the dogmatic definition in Vatican I, only applies only in very specific circumstances. (1) The Pope must be acting as Universal Pastor (not, say, speaking personally as a theologian). (2) It must be a matter of faith or morals (e.g., predictions about the stock market don’t qualify). (3) He must make it clear that he is defining something that must be held by divine faith by all Christians. That’s only happened two times in recent history: in 1854 (Pius IX, the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception) and in 1954 (Pius XII, the Dogma of the Assumption). I don’t think Mr. Wills’s book is very serious, as he misunderstands pretty basic facts about the Church. I would discount it. Peace, L.M. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Catholic historian Garry Wills’ new book, PAPAL SIN: THE STRUCTURE OF DECEIT, seems to have an interesting premise: that the church lies in order to protect the myth of papal infallibilty. He says that the church has lost touch with its parishoners and is unable to recruit new priests because of the willingness of the Papacy to subordinate truth to ecclesiatical tactics. He says,"To maintain an impression that Popes cannot err, Popes deceive." He considers the church’s 1998 document on the Holocaust an example of "the debilitating effect of intellectual dishonesty." He says that the church should return to its standards and catholics be freed from the pressures of deceit that are a modern form of papal sin. Sounds interesting. I just ordered it. Anyone read it yet? -Clarice
Response:
Clarice Starling says… Catholic historian Garry Wills’ new book, PAPAL SIN: THE STRUCTURE OF DECEIT, seems to have an interesting premise: that the church lies in order to protect the myth of papal infallibilty.
Hmmm…. Question for Catholics: Does papal infallibility apply only to Pius IX and his successors, or did the Vatican council of 1870 declare preceding popes infallible also? — ‘"prize cows" are analogous to gods children’ – Vogel 27 Jul 1999
Response:
"Papal infallibility," according to the dogmatic definition in Vatican I, only applies only in very specific circumstances. (1) The Pope must be acting as Universal Pastor
Well that’s another theory fucked. I don’t think Mr. Wills’s book is very serious, as he misunderstands pretty basic facts about the Church.
Like the fact that it’s entirely predicated on an ergot-inspired fantasy? Archbishop Mike – Prophet ‘Also, remember in Star Trek 1 when Spock learned that there was something beyond pure logic? Well there ya go.’ – Adam J proves ‘god’ exists 25/4/2000
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Gary Wills seems to have a personal vendetta against the Church. In reality, Papal infallibility has been in force ever since Peter the Apostle. I challenge any person–Mr. Will’s included–to point to an example in which the Pope has ever violated the charism of infallibility, as defined by the First Vatican Council. "Papal infallibility," according to the dogmatic definition in Vatican I, only applies only in very specific circumstances. (1) The Pope must be acting as Universal Pastor (not, say, speaking personally as a theologian). (2) It must be a matter of faith or morals (e.g., predictions about the stock market don’t qualify). (3) He must make it clear that he is defining something that must be held by divine faith by all Christians. That’s only happened two times in recent history: in 1854 (Pius IX, the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception) and in 1954 (Pius XII, the Dogma of the Assumption). I don’t think Mr. Wills’s book is very serious, as he misunderstands pretty basic facts about the Church. I would discount it.
Let’s forget about papal infallibility. Mr. Will’s complaint re the deceitful way the Catholic Church handled the Holocaust pertains not to one individual at the top but to way the issue was handled by a number of Roman Catholic high authorities. They busted a gut to protect the church and cast off the horrendous sin and its guilt onto misguided members of the Church, including maybe Hitler himself. However, its very clear that the Church, including Protestants, were far from clean and righteous in the matter, the Holocaust. Also, the Christ makes it clear that even those who pass by on the other side, be they priest or religious top Honcho, are guilty of a, in this case, heinous sin of ommission. I imagine Dante would put such cowards and traitors very close to the center of Hell with the their Father of all lies. We could talk about nominal Christians and true Christians, the True Church and the phoney. But we live in the real world and have to deal with real institutions that, like an individual, often should bite the bullet, ’fess up and, in many cases, pay up, too. Will’s telling point boils down to this – as regards persecution of the Jews, under Hitler and before, it benefits the Church to confess her sin as institution and as individuals, and maybe nations. Then without further legal nicities and other guilt-avoidance mechanisms simply put it all behind you. The world of the future, including the Church and its Christians will think more highly of you for it. Before you buy.
Response:
In alt.flame.jesus.christ, Pied Piper says… You are quoting a book that is sensationalized, and meant to sell books, not truely informative. Try more scholarly works, they will be far less subjective.
I haven’t read the book and I am not quoting anything. I am asking a simple question. Does papal infallibility apply only to Pius IX and his successors, or did the Vatican council of 1870 declare preceding popes infallible also? — "No everyone else plase choice us in heaven." -Ray Tod Stevens
Response:
You can read the Decrees of the First Vatican Council: http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm
Oooh – I withdraw my request for the 2nd grade version – that version is really beautiful so far….
Response:
You can read the Decrees of the First Vatican Council: http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm
Is there a translated set (into monosyllabic words) for fundies ? Because maybe I’m lazy and I’d like to read the 2nd grade version myself…
Response:
You are quoting a book that is sensationalized, and meant to sell books, not truely informative. Try more scholarly works, they will be far less subjective. Pax
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Clarice Starling says… Catholic historian Garry Wills’ new book, PAPAL SIN: THE STRUCTURE OF DECEIT, seems to have an interesting premise: that the church lies in order to protect the myth of papal infallibilty. Hmmm…. Question for Catholics: Does papal infallibility apply only to Pius IX and his successors, or did the Vatican council of 1870 declare preceding popes infallible also? — ‘"prize cows" are analogous to gods children’ – Vogel 27 Jul 1999
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.