Pope baptizes prominent Italian Muslim

[A Faithful Catholic]

Again we see A Faithful Catholic crowing over a mere typo. Truly triumph of the intellect.

 

Just like your posts 20 +21???

[A Faithful Catholic]

PS: We don't need prayer in schools, we need education.

 

We have NEITHER and that is a sad fact.

 

[Jon]

1.) Never lied or stretched the truth. NEVER. (of course not! A few 'Porkies' perhaps ... )

2.) I was BANNED for no reason at all. No reason was given when I sent an email. I was simply banned because of anti-Catholic hatred. Not surprised. (illogical. If you were given no reason, then how can you declare one? Do you have the empathy to be a Mind -reader?)

3.) I have NO PROBLEM being controversial (just for the sake of it?)

4.) Don't need to lay low. You ought to know that by now (if you do need to, would you even KNOW? )

[Jon]

Just like your posts 20 +21???

Apparently. You're not coping with them.

 

 

@

[Jon]

Bad logic, Jon ... [...] ...

 

Bad logic again ... [...] ...

 

Terrible, faulty logic ...

A Faithful Catholic, you would have to be the absolute LAST person to lecture ANYONE on Logic! You apparently have no concept of it!

 

For a start, what I outlined regarding Terrorists was not "Logic" per se. It was not meant to be. That's why I declared it up-front as "Analogy". That little distinction evidently got by you.

 

heresy/heretic = "In Christianity, heresy is a "theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the Roman Catholic or Orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church."

No, not in Christianity ... but in Catholicism. Let's be accurate.

 

Many moons ago, it was against CIVIL LAW to be a heretic and you could be punished for it by the GOVERNMENTS of the time. It was treated no different from treason. Heresies ERODED the moral fabric of society in those days.

That's right. Keep burying your head in the sand of Denial. You know perfectly well (or should do) that Governments of the time enshrined At Law that which the CHURCH DECREED! Governments enforced Laws alright ... BUT ON BEHALF OF the CHURCH!! It was the CHURCH pulling the Puppet Strings. You can't shrug off the Church's responsibility that conveniently.

 

Baloney. Our times are COMPLETELY different from their times, considering the laws, beliefs, morality. It was a whole different society.

Guess what! I'm going to share with you a Pearl of Wisdom NEVER HEARD BEFORE! You are PRIVILEGED! This is an authentic 'Jon Original'! Are you ready? Brace yourself! Here it comes ....

 

"Those who ignore History are condemned to repeat it".

 

I think I'll build a fence around that and charge admission. I'll be rich!

 

Look up the definition of a heretic:

 

heresy/heretic = "In Christianity, heresy is a "theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the Roman Catholic or Orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church."

Another A Faithful Catholic Half-truth. 'Heretic' has had a much wider and older meaning than your description. We have been through all this in detail before. You remain fixated on a SPECIAL-CASE definition of 'Heretic' adopted belatedly by the Catholic Church for its own convenience, an 'out-in-the-field' label/pretext to tyrannize those it was peeved with.

 

Heresies are faulty beliefs, not reasons for a beat down.

Like Galileo's beliefs?

 

Jon, that was on the verge of being childish.

I'll leave that to the judgment of those whose opinions are soundly based.

[A Faithful Catholic]

A Faithful Catholic, you would have to be the absolute LAST person to lecture ANYONE on Logic! You apparently have no concept of it!

 

For a start, what I outlined was not "Logic" per se. It was not meant to be. That's why I declared it up-front as "Analogy". That little distinction evidently got by you

 

Whatever YOU like to call it, it was FAULTY.

 

No, not in Christianity ... but in Catholicism. Let's be accurate.

 

Well, let's be accurate then! It was the ONLY Christianity for the first thousand years since Christ! The the Orthodox split off in 1054 AD. So there were only two Churches right up until the "reformation" of the 1500s.

 

Next, prove to me how the protestant doctrines were taught and followed by ANYONE before 1511 AD. You won't find it. That's why they are called heresies and those that follow those heresies are HERETICS.

 

Let's be a little more accurate. I agree.

 

That's right. Keep burying your head in the sand of Denial. You know perfectly well (or should do) that Governments of the time enshrined At Law that which the CHURCH DECREED! Governments enforced Laws alright ... BUT ON BEHALF OF the CHURCH!! It was the CHURCH pulling the Puppet Strings. You can't shrug off the Church's responsibility that conveniently

 

Many Kings and Queens of the time were CATHOLIC and looked down on those that perverted the Faith handed down by the Apostles. Especially Queen Isabella of Spain.

 

Guess what! I'm going to share with you a Pearl of Wisdom NEVER HEARD BEFORE! You are PRIVILEGED! This is an authentic 'Jon Original'! Are you ready? Brace yourself! Here it comes ....

 

"Those who ignore History are condemned to repeat it".

 

I think I'll build a fence around that and charge admission. I'll be rich!

 

Jon, I don't ignore history. That's why I am a Catholic. There was no such thing as protestant beliefs before 1500.

 

Another A Faithful Catholic Half-truth. 'Heretic' has had a much wider and older meaning than your description. We have been through all this in detail before. You remain fixated on a SPECIAL-CASE definition of 'Heretic' adopted belatedly by the Catholic Church for its own convenience, an 'out-in-the-field' label/pretext to tyrannize those it was peeved with.

 

In terms of Christianity, that definition is CORRECT.

 

Like Galileo's beliefs?

 

Even though he couldn't prove his claims at that time, he demanded change.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Guest]

The only thing to possibly make this thread interesting is if the Pope cut off the muslims head after baptism.

[A Faithful Catholic]

The only thing to possibly make this thread interesting is if the Pope cut off the muslims head after baptism.

 

"Radical" Muslims are noted for that.

 

 

@

[Jon]

Jon, I don't ignore history. That's why I am a Catholic. There was no such thing as protestant beliefs before 1500.

My turn to use your favorite word:

 

BALONEY!!

 

You can't be serious! The early 16th Century was merely when dissent came to a head enough to shake the Catholic Church out of its complacency. Before that there had long been dissent.

 

Nor was Martin Luther the first or only one to champion that dissent. Opposition to the excesses of Catholic Church Tradition had been simmering and gathering momentum well before the Reformation.

 

That dissent took the form of beliefs that subsequently were accorded the label "Protestant". Protestantism was by no means the "Johnny-come-lately" that you like to pretend it was.

 

 

@

[Guest Guest]

"Radical" Muslims are noted for that.

 

Is there any other kind of muslim? If so why do I never hear them speaking out against what seems to be the norm for a muslim?

 

 

@

[A Faithful Catholic]

My turn to use your favorite word:

 

BALONEY!!

 

You can't be serious! The early 16th Century was merely when dissent came to a head enough to shake the Catholic Church out of its complacency. Before that there had long been dissent.

 

Nor was Martin Luther the first or only one to champion that dissent. Opposition to the excesses of Catholic Church Tradition had been simmering and gathering momentum well before the Reformation.

 

That dissent took the form of beliefs that subsequently were accorded the label "Protestant". Protestantism was by no means the "Johnny-come-lately" that you like to pretend it was.

 

 

Jon............the heresies born of of the 'reformation' namely the five SOLAS and Once saved, Always saved doctrines were never practiced before the revolt. People might have been mad, but the doctrines were bran new in the 1500s.

 

Baloney back in your court.

 

[A Faithful Catholic]

Is there any other kind of muslim? If so why do I never hear them speaking out against what seems to be the norm for a muslim?

 

 

@

 

 

The only reason why "non violent" Muslims are not violent is because they REFUSE to follow all the commands of the Koran and Hadith. If every single Muslim followed the Koran and Hadith fully, the world would be in BIG TROUBLE.

[Jon]

Jon............the heresies born of of the 'reformation' namely the five SOLAS and Once saved, Always saved doctrines were never practiced before the revolt. People might have been mad, but the doctrines were bran new in the 1500s.

Did I say 'doctrines', or did I say 'beliefs'?

 

The Reformation formalized those sentiments. Among those who had held those sentiments for generations Catholicism was honored as much in the breach as in the observance.

 

The Reformation brought that out into the open like never before.

 

 

@

[A Faithful Catholic]

Did I say 'doctrines', or did I say 'beliefs'?

 

Either or. Doesn't really matter.

 

The Reformation formalized those sentiments. Among those who had held those sentiments for generations Catholicism was honored as much in the breach as in the observance.

 

No, Jon. Luther and his 4 sidekicks made up their doctrines/beliefs.

 

The Reformation brought that out into the open like never before.

 

Initially, it was about the abuses that were in fact CORRECTED. Luther and his buddies attacked the very foundations of the Church that always existed since the very beginning. This is were they went OVER THE LINE. Challenging abuses? Fine. Challenging Apostolic Doctrine? Not a chance. That's were he got spanked. Rightfully so.

 

Luther's version of Christianity NEVER existed before the mess of the 1500s.

 

 

@

[Jon]

Either or. Doesn't really matter.

Only when YOU say it does?

 

First were the beliefs. In due course they became doctrine.

 

No, Jon. Luther and his 4 sidekicks made up their doctrines/beliefs.

First came the beliefs, then came the doctrine. Are you trying to tell me that Luther and Co sat around with a few Budweisers one day and on-the-spot had a contest to dream up the most outlandish beliefs ... all done and dusted before the housemaid had cleared away the dishes?

 

Or could it just be that thinking people had been seriously contemplating, indeed agonizing over, these serious matters for a long time, and that the 'Merry Five' to whom you would like to limit the process had in fact had long and arduous debates/disputes stemming from generations of earnest scholars? Who wrote YOUR history books?

 

It is clear that you are intent on TRIVIALIZING the Non-conformist departure in thinking. But if you overplay your hand you're going to squander what little credibility you might arguably have left.

 

Initially, it was about the abuses that were in fact CORRECTED. Luther and his buddies attacked the very foundations of the Church that always existed since the very beginning. This is were they went OVER THE LINE. Challenging abuses? Fine.

We've been over this before too. When the abuses were uncovered common folk were left in no mood to be too picky about distinguishing the comparative merits of various traditions/doctrines. Many came to mistrust the whole package. Remember ... they were not well-practiced in discerning finer points ... the Church had forbidden that for centuries. So when they realized they were being betrayed and cheated they threw out the lot! That's Human Nature. Whose fault's that?!!

 

Challenging Apostolic Doctrine? Not a chance. That's were he got spanked. Rightfully so.

Why not? Challenge arises from thinking. Was thinking forbidden? (Of course, we do know the answer to that ... thinking WAS forbidden! ).

 

Luther's version of Christianity NEVER existed before the mess of the 1500s.

There you go again!

 

First of all the Catholic Church with all its scams and swindles both materially and spiritually was in a fine 'mess' of its own making long before the Luthers of the world hauled it at least partly back into line.

 

Secondly it was not Luther alone nor even his immediate circle exclusively who rose up. It was a GROUNDSWELL .... something you DON'T LIKE to admit and probably never will. You're too indoctrinated.

[Jon]

The only reason why "non violent" Muslims are not violent is because they REFUSE to follow all the commands of the Koran and Hadith. If every single Muslim followed the Koran and Hadith fully, the world would be in BIG TROUBLE.

At least we can agree on THAT! With emphasis!

 

 

@

[Guest Guest]

So was this person baptized or was water just sprinkled on him?

Good question. Probably just sprinkled with water.

[A Faithful Catholic]

Good question. Probably just sprinkled with water.

 

According to the Apostles, that is still correct.

[Guest Guest]

At least we can agree on THAT! With emphasis!

 

 

@

 

 

 

This Muslim seething shall continue for thousands of years. If it wasn't this, they still have the cartoons to whine about.

 

It's always something.

 

[Guest Guest]

Can’t post – dodging sniper fire in Bosnia.

[A Faithful Catholic]

Only when YOU say it does?First were the beliefs. In due course they became doctrine.

 

First came the beliefs, then came the doctrine. Are you trying to tell me that Luther and Co sat around with a few Budweisers one day and on-the-spot had a contest to dream up the most outlandish beliefs ... all done and dusted before the housemaid had cleared away the dishes?

 

Wrong. Jesus Christ gave the CC the doctrines. Namely the 7 Sacraments and the Mass. They all come from Him. Then the Apostles started ordaining Bishops, Priests, and Deacons -The HIERARCHY- everywhere they went after Jesus gave Peter the Keys to Heaven and put him in charge of the Church Militant with the binding and loosing power.

 

That is EXACTLY what I am saying. None of his beliefs/doctrines were ever followed before his time. They have NO FOUNDATION anywhere. It is completely man made doctrines/beliefs....

 

Or could it just be that thinking people had been seriously contemplating, indeed agonizing over, these serious matters for a long time, and that the 'Merry Five' to whom you would like to limit the process had in fact had long and arduous debates/disputes stemming from generations of earnest scholars? Who wrote YOUR history books?

 

No Jon. Their beliefs/doctrines were never followed by the Apostles, nor Jesus. They decided to carve out 7 books of the bible and toss them, got rid of Sacred Tradition, which gave us scriptures and in fact Christianity, tossed out the Mass that was first celebrated by Christ and then the first century Christians and so on. They simply preached a new Gospel.

 

Here is a good quote for you:

One thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches ... the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this. ... To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant. Cardinal John Henry Newman

 

Protestant beliefs DO NOT reflect what the Apostles and Jesus taught. It is that simple.

 

It is clear that you are intent on TRIVIALIZING the Non-conformist departure in thinking. But if you overplay your hand you're going to squander what little credibility you might arguably have left.

 

I have plenty of credibility when it comes to Ancient Christianity and the Lord's Church.

 

We've been over this before too. When the abuses were uncovered common folk were left in no mood to be too picky about distinguishing the comparative merits of various traditions/doctrines. Many came to mistrust the whole package.

 

They threw out the baby with the bath water? Yep. Ignorant people do the same thing today.

 

Remember ... they were not well-practiced in discerning finer points ... the Church had forbidden that for centuries.

 

The CATHOLIC CHURCH, rightfully so, has the Authority to preserve the Faith handed down by the Apostles and to stop heresies which have continued to crop up since the first century. The "reformation" was treated no different.

 

So when they realized they were being betrayed and cheated they threw out the lot! That's Human Nature. Whose fault's that?!!

 

They were in fact MISLED. Luther's beliefs/doctrines were NEVER followed by the Apostles or Ancient Christianity...The only think people had a right to complain about is the ABUSES that were corrected. They had no business following Luther's doctrines/beliefs. They were led astray due to personal ignorance.

 

Why not? Challenge arises from thinking. Was thinking forbidden? (Of course, we do know the answer to that ... thinking WAS forbidden! wink.gif).

 

If the doctrines do not come from those who were entrusted with preserving the faith and those same doctrines do not have any foundation in Apostolic Teaching, they are WRONG. It is that simple.

There you go again!

 

First of all the Catholic Church with all its scams and swindles both materially and spiritually was in a fine 'mess' of its own making long before the Luthers of the world hauled it at least partly back into line.

 

Nope. It was the selling of indulgences which had been corrected. It's people like you who do not understand the Human element vs. the SUPERNATURAL element of the Catholic Church. The human element is made up of sinners. There will always be people that commit sins that run the Catholic Church. The doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic FAITH are perfect in every shape and form. The people are not and Jesus even warned about wheat and chaff in His Church. Knowing this, I expect scandals all the time. JESUS WARNED ABOUT IT.

 

I'm CATHOLIC because of the foundation of the Church, were it came from, and it's Dogmas and Teachings, not because the the people! I am Catholic irregardless of the people and their sins.

 

Secondly it was not Luther alone nor even his immediate circle exclusively who rose up. It was a GROUNDSWELL .... something you DON'T LIKE to admit and probably never will. You're too indoctrinated.

 

They do not believe in the faith that was handed down by the Apostles. They want Christianity on their TERMS and not what was given to them. That is the bottom line.@

[A Faithful Catholic]

Where did all the "ankle biters" go?

 

Satan?

Knight of Darkness?

Hunter?

 

Where's all your hate?

 

 

@

[Guest xindi1]

It doesn't matter. The Apostles stated it would still be correct:

 

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

 

The Didache. The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations.

 

NOWHERE in the bible do the apostles sprinkle anyone... they probably didn't even bathe regularly... we are talking the Bible and not the apochryphol books or other miscellaneous books

 

 

I would like to know where you got this information from.first lets get one thing correct, the Bible is the Word Of God, the sole authority, it is god breathed. No where in the bible does it tell you how to baptize somebody. Every example of someone being baptized is when they are fully immersed... aka full immersion. This is an undisputable fact. The bible is also VERY CLEAR on the fact that baptizing does not get somebody into heaven just like works does not (another undisputable fact). However... the Bible also does not say anywhere that you cannot sprinkle somebody with water for baptizm. there are alot of rituals that are man made. However if we come to a logical conclusion it will be concluded that since full immersion is the only example of how its done in the Bible (John the Baptist baptizing Jesus, the Unich). Baptism is a symbol of the death burial and ressurection of Jesus Christ (another undisputable fact). So any christian should and will conclude that the only proper way to be baptized is to be fully immersed. We were dead to sin, buried, and brought up as new...

 

The problem with a majority of the Catholic Church and others who practice sprinkling is they believe that gets them into heaven. The Bible also teaches that Baptism is a public statement of account... that we have been saved through the blood of the lamb and cleansed. The Bible is clear on what baptism is for. It is also very clear on how we get to heaven... it isn't by good works, it isn't by baptism, it isn't by anything but being saved by the blood of Jesus Christ.

[Guest xindi1]

so can you baptize by sprinkling? if you didn't have anyother means... I am sure. As long as it was a public testimony of your salvation... sprinkling will not get you into heaven

[Guest xindi1]

Here's something I wanted to say... I noticed a few people who were criticizing someobody abou the Catholic church and other organized religions...

 

I believe it was Christ who walked in front of the woman who was to be stoned by the pharisees, drew a line in the sand and said to them, "Ye who is without sin cast the first stone". What happened then...? they all walked away.

 

So for you to be so angry at "religion" because of corruption then you should be mad at every individual and organization in the world because we are ALL corrupt to a degree... "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"

 

Before you throw your firery darts and angry accusations... remember this... until you are perfect in everyway... be careful who you get mad at and accuse of being corrupt. At least faithful Catholic backs up what he says... just like I do

 

@