Guest Knight of Darkness Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 LunaC, thank you, this was a most intriguing article. I had no idea there is a Pope Pius XIII. It reminded me this hasn't been the first time the Catholic Church had more than one Pope, the Antipope Clement III being perhaps the most well-known example. The article is enlightening as to AFC's love for the Council of Trent, given its harsh condemnation of Protestantism. It also makes me wonder as to what AFC really thinks of this country and its decree of religious freedom. The bottom line though is either AFC isn't as knowledgeable as he claims, or he is an outright liar. Either way, this article shows he is full of the yucky brown stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Faithful Catholic Posted February 13, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 LunaC, thank you, this was a most intriguing article. I had no idea there is a Pope Pius XIII. It reminded me this hasn't been the first time the Catholic Church had more than one Pope, the Antipope Clement III being perhaps the most well-known example. The article is enlightening as to AFC's love for the Council of Trent, given its harsh condemnation of Protestantism. It also makes me wonder as to what AFC really thinks of this country and its decree of religious freedom. The bottom line though is either AFC isn't as knowledgeable as he claims, or he is an outright liar. Either way, this article shows he is full of the yucky brown stuff. I can back up EVERYTHING I say. People are given the gift of FREE WILL and therefore can choose heaven or hell by their own actions. The article is enlightening as to AFC's love for the Council of Trent, given its harsh condemnation of Protestantism Those heretics where preaching a FALSE gospel! I am starting to question your identity.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knight of Darkness Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 I can back up EVERYTHING I say. People are given the gift of FREE WILL and therefore can choose heaven or hell by their own actions. All you can do is run your mouth like a toilet that won't stop flushing. I have heard Catholic clergy argue their viewpoint quite nicely, and they don't do it with a quote-alanche, rather, quotes are the threads and reason is the technique by which the cloth is woven from the threads. You've yet to demonstrate that ability here. I know of course you'll assert that you as a layman are not entitled to use reason, only the Magisterium may do so. Fine, let's say for the sake of argument that is true. Then what you are doing here representing the Catholic Church? If you are not allowed to use a fundamental tool like reason, then you only have at best half the tools you need to argue for the Church. I.e., you lack the technique necessary for weaving the cloth. As such, you are ill-equipped to make such arguments, and should not be here running your mouth as if you were the Pope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knight of Darkness Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 I am starting to question your identity.... This is so ludicrous as to merit an answer on its own. You think you know who I am? It appears to me there is a veiled threat in that statement, so go ahead, make good on your threat. This should be hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 This is so ludicrous as to merit an answer on its own. You think you know who I am? It appears to me there is a veiled threat in that statement, so go ahead, make good on your threat. This should be hilarious. Soooooooooo.........the faith Nazi has discovered your true identity. HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BC Voice of Reason Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 I can't prove? You are funny! She is just a FAKE. <long winded, verbose, copy and pasted article about nothing snipped> Julie writes at Happy Catholic. <-- Nothing in that "Happy Catholic" article disproved any of the points about infallibility that were brought out in the article LunaC posted. Actual contradictions in the so called papal infallibility were cited. No doubt they would call her a heretic and try to discredit her. After all, the catholic hierarchy uses the guise of papal infallibility to control their flocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knight of Darkness Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 Soooooooooo.........the faith Nazi has discovered your true identity. HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!! Yep, now the cornered rat is baring his yellowed, broken teeth at me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 QUOTE (Jon @ Feb 13 2008, 03:37 AM) * 1. A Faithful Catholic, you have not factored into your comical overreaction my normal competence in handling punctuation. You alone have put my words in quotation marks as if to suggest that I was quoting you directly, or that I was claiming to do so. I was not. I merely used my own words to describe the nature of your references to Protestants. I was not quoting your exact words. If I had been quoting you verbatim, then you know perfectly well I would have taken great pleasure in presenting that passage as a quote unmistakably. I have never omitted to do so before, nor now. 2. By falsely dressing up my statement as a direct 'quote' of you, you award yourself an artificial excuse to call me a 'liar'. That is another childish ploy of yours which we can add to your others. I guess it is you who are 'getting desperate'. In all the time we have been communicating I have never given you the slightest excuse to call me a liar. You have been itching to apply that label to me so much that in desperation you've finally thrown caution to the winds and manufactured a pretext to do so. I'm willing to bet that there's not another poster here who hasn't seen straight through your mendacity in this, and factored it into their opinion of you. I now turn to the truthfulness of my reference to your contempt for Protestants as people: From: "The Pope gets dis-invited". page #4 Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 That doesn't do it for me. I use it on other boards. Prots are not equivalent to Catholics by any shot.... So you now admit to using a cheap slur, even though with no better typing skills than yours I always show the common courtesy to name your Catholic Church respectfully? As I expected: "Linguistic engineering precedes Social engineering". So much for your earlier excuses about limited typing abilities. Just so we all know. That was one of your kinder sneers at Protestants. There are worse. Would you like me to go on? Protestant DOCTRINES are what is wrong with them, not themselves. If they got rid of their erroneous doctrines, what would I have? I am still trying to figure out how they can justify homosexual acts and abortion. I just can't figure out how some of them do it. A Faithful Catholic, it should be obvious to you that in this post I am not in the slightest bit interested in what you think of Protestant DOCTRINES!!. I am addressing what you think of PROTESTANTS!! You had just finished calling me a LIAR, with shrill emphasis, for reminding you of your abusive references to Protestants. In the post above I exposed your misrepresentation of my words, and then provided evidence of your abusive reference to Protestants: Prots are not equivalent to Catholics by any shot.... You have been soundly rebutted on both those counts! So what do you do? Totally ignore that as if it had never happened and scuttle sideways into some distraction about 'doctrine'. How pathetic of you! What is it that you lack to enable you to admit to error with some dignity? Is it courage? Is it humility? Is it integrity? You have made the mistake of calling me a LIAR falsely, and you been proven WRONG! This is not going to go away. Kindly address the substance of my rebuttal so we can then move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 What, no long-winded retort? Or are you going to just gloss over the post like you do whenever anyone else has a point you can't prove with your so called "perfect doctrine"? hey dumbdolt, not everyone can be on the BC Voice all day long like you waiting for a response. This guy is a waste of space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Faithful Catholic Posted February 13, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 Nothing in that "Happy Catholic" article disproved any of the points about infallibility that were brought out in the article LunaC posted. Actual contradictions in the so called papal infallibility were cited. No doubt they would call her a heretic and try to discredit her. After all, the catholic hierarchy uses the guise of papal infallibility to control their flocks. "She" the "heretic nun" kind of discredits herself. Example 1, for starters: "The doctrine of the Assumption of Mary was officially declared to be a dogma of the Roman Catholic faith on November 1, 1950. This means that every Roman Catholic is required to believe this doctrine without questioning it. However, as we will see, the teaching of the Assumption of Mary originated with heretical writings which were officially condemned by the early Church. In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. Here we have "infallible" popes declaring a doctrine to be a heresy. Then on November 1, 1950, we have Pope Pius XII (another "infallible" pope) declaring the same doctrine to be official Roman Catholic doctrine, which all Catholics are required to believe. [Note 3]" ----------------------------------------------- "In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree" What decree????? Which Pope Gelasius? It was Gelasius NUMBER 1. Here is what he suppressed: Suppression of pagan rites and heretics Closer to home, Gelasius finally suppressed the ancient Roman festival of the Lupercalia after a long contest. Gelasius' letter to Andromachus, the senator, covers the main lines of the controversy and incidentally offers some details of this festival combining fertility and purification that might have been lost otherwise. Significantly, this festival of purification, which had given its name— dies februatus, from februare, "to purify"— to the month of February, was replaced with a Christian festival celebrating the purification of the Virgin Mary instead: Candlemas, observed forty days after Christmas, on 2 February. Gelasius smoked out the closeted Manichaeans, the heretical dualists who considered themselves Christians and certainly passed for such and were suspected to be present in Rome in large numbers. Gelasius decreed that the Eucharist had to be received "under both kinds", with wine as well as bread. As the Manichaeans held wine to be impure and essentially sinful, they would refuse the chalice and thus be recognized. Later, with the Manichaeans suppressed, the old method of receiving communion under one kind - the bread - was restored. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Gelasius_I ________________________ "Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary." Proof? Hormisdas is known for his Libellus Hormisidae, a formula of faith sent to a synod at Constantinople which was attempting to resolve the Monophysite heresy. This formula re-affirmed the teachings of the Council of Calcedon (451) that Christ had both a Divine and a Human Nature, "hypostatically" united in one person: "The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church," (Matthew 16:18), should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated and, following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare anathema all heresies, and, especially, the heretic Nestorius, former bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, by Blessed Celestine, bishop of Rome, and by the venerable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. We likewise condemn and declare to be anathema Eutyches and Dioscoros of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy Council of Chalcedon, which we follow and endorse. This Council followed the holy Council of Nicaea and preached the apostolic faith. And we condemn the assassin Timothy, surnamed Aelurus and also Peter of Alexandria, his disciple and follower in everything. We also declare anathema their helper and follower, Acacius of Constantinople, a bishop once condemned by the Apostolic See, and all those who remain in contact and company with them. Because this Acacius joined himself to their communion, he deserved to receive a judgment of condemnation similar to theirs. Furthermore, we condemn Peter of Antioch with all his followers together together with the followers of all those mentioned above. Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome." __________________________ Read this: http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc3c.htm http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc3b.htm Not one single Pope declared the dogma a heresy. The dogma is BIBLICALLY sound. Nothing but cheap LIES in that article. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LunaC Posted February 14, 2008 Report Share Posted February 14, 2008 'LunaC', that is a substantial account! Thank you! Do you also have a link to its source? Of course, Jon: http://www.catholicconcerns.com/Infallibility.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LunaC Posted February 14, 2008 Report Share Posted February 14, 2008 From a former, heretic, nun. The source matters not. You have failed to adequately address the points raised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted February 14, 2008 Report Share Posted February 14, 2008 Of course, Jon: http://www.catholicconcerns.com/Infallibility.html Thanks for that. Saved it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted February 14, 2008 Report Share Posted February 14, 2008 "In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree" What decree????? Which Pope Gelasius? There were only two Pope Gelasiuses, one in the 5th century, and one in the 12th century. Now, for the enthralling prize of an all expenses paid One-week Tour for two of the Vatican Broom Closet ... waaaait for it! .... WHICH Pope Gelasius would have served in 495 A.D. ?? (Nooo cheating, now!) (LOL) It was Gelasius NUMBER 1. BINGO! You've done it again! I can tell nothing gets past you, AFC! Bon Voyage! (LOL) Closer to home, Gelasius finally suppressed the ancient Roman festival of the Lupercalia after a long contest. .... [...] ... Is this meant to be a rebuttal? This relates only to Gelasius's support for Purification of Mary. It is unclear from this whether or not Gelasius opposed or endorsed the Assumption of Mary. "Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary." Proof? "Hormisdas is known for his Libellus Hormisidae, a formula of faith sent to a synod at Constantinople ...[...] ... Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome." AFC, it is unclear how this is a 'rebuttal' of: "Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics ....." Read this: " .... the belief in the Assumption of our Blessed Mother exemplifies the dynamism of revelation and the Church's ongoing understanding of it as guided by the Holy Spirit." http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc3c.htm Is this a euphemism for ongoing change? We firmly believe that from the first moment of her conception Mary was free of all sin, including Original Sin, by a special favor of almighty God. The Archangel Gabriel recognized her as "full of grace," "blessed among women" and "one with the Lord." Mary had been chosen to be the Mother of our savior. By the power of the Holy Spirit, she conceived our Lord Jesus Christ, and through her, true God became also man, "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc3c.htm Is "firm BELIEF" proof? 'Original Sin' is at risk of misunderstanding. At first glance it seems a cruel trick for a loving God to play on the Newborn. However, in some scholarly writings it is revealed that 'Sin' is a mistranslation in some of its Scriptural occurrences, and would translate better as 'error'. ie: 'Original Sin' refers to human prone-ness to errors, misjudgments ... not necessarily wantonly or evil. In short: human fallibility. We are all familiar with human fallibility in that sense, and in that sense 'Original Sin' takes on a less damning character. The passage above also becomes a little more believable in this sense of Sin, in that some of us are lucky to be less prone to errors than others and Mary may indeed have been so endowed. As for her conception being 'immaculate' literally, how else could early Church leaders explain the Divinity of her offspring? They really couldn't say anything else. And as for Mary being a lifelong virgin, it is now known from intense research that Mary not only had several children, but that Josuah ('Jesus') was not even her youngest. Historical accounts gradually phased out Jesus' brothers and sisters to focus attention of the Faithful on the central characters. Some of the Disciples were indeed Jesus' siblings. His was a close and influential family, traceable as it was back to David. None of this need necessarily undermine the Gospel. In fact for many it can actually have the opposite effect, revitalizing their faith in parts of it. * the Apocryphal Books were testimony of a certain christian sense of the abhorency felt that the body of the Mother of God should lie in a sepulchre; http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc3b.htm The concept of Mary rising to Heaven intact would seem to have more to do with sentiment among believers than with physically possible fact. Not one single Pope declared the dogma a heresy. The dogma is BIBLICALLY sound. Only inclusion of the word 'Biblically' saved that assertion. Nothing but cheap LIES in that article. Period. AFC, name one instance ever when you have not stridently attempted to discredit whatever you simply don't want to know. The Fox and the Grapes again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knight of Darkness Posted February 14, 2008 Report Share Posted February 14, 2008 There were only two Pope Gelasiuses, one in the 5th century, and one in the 12th century. Now, for the enthralling prize of an all expenses paid One-week Tour for two of the Vatican Broom Closet ... waaaait for it! .... WHICH Pope Gelasius would have served in 495 A.D. ?? (Nooo cheating, now!) (LOL) BINGO! You've done it again! I can tell nothing gets past you, AFC! Bon Voyage! (LOL) A week in the Vatican Broom Closet with the 300 lb. harridan warthog, eeks! Jon, you're feeling evil! Being called a liar must have brought out your dark side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Santas little helper Posted February 14, 2008 Report Share Posted February 14, 2008 Blah blah blah blah blah blah. I've tried reading all this God stuff and yet, when I look at the posts all I see is blah blah blah blah blah blah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Faithful Catholic Posted February 14, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2008 The source matters not. You have failed to adequately address the points raised. I addressed one example. That heretic "nun" has given NO CREDIBLE evidence just on that one point NO PROOF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Faithful Catholic Posted February 14, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2008 Is this meant to be a rebuttal? This relates only to Gelasius's support for Purification of Mary. It is unclear from this whether or not Gelasius opposed or endorsed the Assumption of Mary. That "nun" gave NO PROOF as to the decree nor pronouncement. If that Pope trumps a pagan Holiday with one HONORING Mary, He certainly would not condemn a biblically sound belief. AFC, it is unclear how this is a 'rebuttal' of: "Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics ....." It is certainly clear he never condemned anyone who believed in the Assumption. Again no proof. Is "firm BELIEF" proof? 'Original Sin' is at risk of misunderstanding. At first glance it seems a cruel trick for a loving God to play on the Newborn. However, in some scholarly writings it is revealed that 'Sin' is a mistranslation in some of its Scriptural occurrences, and would translate better as 'error'. ie: 'Original Sin' refers to human prone-ness to errors, misjudgments ... not necessarily wantonly or evil. In short: human fallibility. We are all familiar with human fallibility in that sense, and in that sense 'Original Sin' takes on a less damning character. The passage above also becomes a little more believable in this sense of Sin, in that some of us are lucky to be less prone to errors than others and Mary may indeed have been so endowed. As for her conception being 'immaculate' literally, how else could early Church leaders explain the Divinity of her offspring? They really couldn't say anything else. And as for Mary being a lifelong virgin, it is now known from intense research that Mary not only had several children, but that Josuah ('Jesus') was not even her youngest. Historical accounts gradually phased out Jesus' brothers and sisters to focus attention of the Faithful on the central characters. Some of the Disciples were indeed Jesus' siblings. His was a close and influential family, traceable as it was back to David. None of this need necessarily undermine the Gospel. In fact for many it can actually have the opposite effect, revitalizing their faith in parts of it. It is PERFECTLY clear that St. Paul's understanding of original sin is sufficient: Romans 5:12,19: 12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— and 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. Mary's IMMACULATE CONCEPTION is correct. She was saved BEFORE she was even born since she was chosen, right at the fall of Adam and Eve, to play her part when God promised a Saviour. She is known as the "Ark of the New Covenant" in the Old Testament and Jesus would not come into the world in a FILTHY vassal as said elsewhere. "Brothers and Sisters" in biblical times does not mean the same as it does today. It means just a relation. Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, did not have children, other than Jesus. Various Gospel passages clarify these relationships to the word "brothers". James and Joses were the sons of Mary of Clophas (Mk 15:40). Judas was the son of James (not either of the Apostles) (Lk 6:16). James the Lesser was the son of Alphaeus (Lk 6:15). James the Greater and John were the sons of Zebedee with a mother other than our Blessed Mother Mary (Mt 20:20). On top of all that, we have the CRUCIFIX scene: Before He dies, our Lord says to Mary, “Woman, there is your son,” and then to St. John, who is definitely not a blood brother, “There is your mother.” Some people just DON'T GET IT. The concept of Mary rising to Heaven intact would seem to have more to do with sentiment among believers than with physically possible fact. Jesus certainly did it. Also, since she was sinless and remained sinless ALL her life, she COULD NOT BECOME CORRUPT. Meaning ROTTING AWAY, "From ashes you were made, to ashes you shall return" The very curse God Gad to Adam and to ALL of humanity, due to SIN. Mary was SPARED THIS because she had NO SIN. Only inclusion of the word 'Biblically' saved that assertion. It's all about FAITH. AFC, name one instance ever when you have not stridently attempted to discredit whatever you simply don't want to know. The Fox and the Grapes again? Well, it seems to me I know what I am talking about! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 14, 2008 Report Share Posted February 14, 2008 Do you have a life outside of this board AFC? Seems like you spend your waking hours here trying to "educate" the masses on YOUR religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Faithful Catholic Posted February 14, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2008 Do you have a life outside of this board AFC? I certainly do and enjoy it. Seems like you spend your waking hours here trying to "educate" the masses on YOUR religion. Those in the know, know what I am doing. The Catholic Faith is the Faith taught by Jesus to His Apostles and has been preserved by the Fathers. The CC has been defending the TRUE FAITH since the very beginning from all heresies that have cropped up from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Faithful Catholic Posted February 14, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2008 A Faithful Catholic, it should be obvious to you that in this post I am not in the slightest bit interested in what you think of Protestant DOCTRINES!!. I am addressing what you think of PROTESTANTS!! There is nothing wrong with them PERSONALLY. Their faulty beliefs are a different matter. You had just finished calling me a LIAR, with shrill emphasis, for reminding you of your abusive references to Protestants. Just your opinion. In the post above I exposed your misrepresentation of my words, and then provided evidence of your abusive reference to Protestants: You have been soundly rebutted on both those counts! So what do you do? Totally ignore that as if it had never happened and scuttle sideways into some distraction about 'doctrine'. How pathetic of you! Would I even say anything to them if they DID NOT have those faulty doctrines? Use a little reason, will ya? What is it that you lack to enable you to admit to error with some dignity? Is it courage? Is it humility? Is it integrity? Prot is shorthand. You have made the mistake of calling me a LIAR falsely, and you been proven WRONG! Your assertion of me is FALSE. This is not going to go away. Kindly address the substance of my rebuttal so we can then move on. I have done many times..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 14, 2008 Report Share Posted February 14, 2008 ya know how catholics and gentiles don't like JEWS. just in case they haven't figured it out yet, JEWS DON'T LIKE CATHOLICS & GENTILES EITHER. so now, we are even. it amazes me how the gentiles all of these years have thought they have had a lock on dislike and mistrust. believe me, we dislike you and yours more than you dislike us. so take that AFC and stick it. and yes, i think you all look STUPID with that black crud on your foreheads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Faithful Catholic Posted February 14, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2008 ya know how catholics and gentiles don't like JEWS. Actually, I don't. The Jews were God's first chosen people. just in case they haven't figured it out yet, JEWS DON'T LIKE CATHOLICS & GENTILES EITHER. so now, we are even. I'm quite positive you don't speak for ALL of them. it amazes me how the gentiles all of these years have thought they have had a lock on dislike and mistrust. Catholics don't. We just have a lock on the FULLNESS of the truth. believe me, we dislike you and yours more than you dislike us Where has that hatred of yours, gotten you? so take that AFC and stick it. and yes, i think you all look STUPID with that black crud on your foreheads. We Catholics pray for you Jews on Good Friday: "Let us also pray for the Jews: that our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men." "Almighty and eternal God, who want that all men be saved and come to the recognition of the truth, propitiously grant that even as the fullness of the peoples enters Your Church, all Israel may be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen." We, as Catholics, will continue to pray for all you Jewish people. Do you do the same for us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 14, 2008 Report Share Posted February 14, 2008 NO, i don't like gentiles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted February 14, 2008 Report Share Posted February 14, 2008 You had just finished calling me a LIAR, with shrill emphasis, for reminding you of your abusive references to Protestants. Just your opinion. Yes, silly of me. Why would I think that? Could it have anything to do with this, maybe? ..... YOU ARE A LIAR: I have never said "what dreadful people Protestants are" NEVER. I attack FALSE TEACHINGS and ERRORS, not the people. I had said this a million times. I guess you are getting desperate to have to lie! You're a cheap liar. That is being nice about it. I guess I mis-read that. eh? I am addressing what you think of PROTESTANTS!! There is nothing wrong with them PERSONALLY. Their faulty beliefs are a different matter. And just to prove your good faith, you'd written this: Prots are not equivalent to Catholics by any shot.... Would I even say anything to them if they DID NOT have those faulty doctrines? Use a little reason, will ya? Until you yourself demonstrate ability to string two thoughts together in a row I won't be accepting any instruction from you on Reason. The rest of your post features the obligatory non-sequiturs that make you such a consistent source of inspiration on use of Reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.