The Lies and Prejudices of ANTI-Catholics

[irangejuice]

---

The Father, the Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.
Actually, one of the the three in the trinity was a creature last time i checked. Else what was the whole point of making his son a man if not to become one of the creatures of His Earth?

[keyser_soze]

But the creature is the Creator.. They one in the same... Using the argument that Christ was a creature negates itself because as all Christians should believe its not that simply "God" incarnate in Christ but The Creator, The Jews' Jahweh who desended to become man. With all these 3 persons thing going on, we sometimes forget that they are ONE.

The second person of God was made man beacuse of the original sin. Thats the whole point of God becoming man, to redeem us. Not simply to become one of us, this was not part of his plan. God gave us freewill and we all know what Adam and Eve did..

[Desert Father]

When he writes about the definition of papal infallibility, Boettner says that a pope speaks infallibly only "when he is speaking ex cathedra, that is, seated in the papal chair." He then points out that what is venerated as Peter’s chair in St. Peter’s Basilica may be only a thousand years old, implying that since Peter’s actual chair is not present, there is no place for the pope to sit, and thus, by the Church’s own principles, the pope cannot make any infallible pronouncements.

Boettner entirely misunderstands the meaning of the Latin term ex cathedra. It does translate as "from the chair," but it does not mean that the pope has to be sitting in the literal chair Peter owned for his decree to be infallible and to qualify as an ex cathedra pronouncement. To speak "from the chair of Peter" is what the pope does when he speaks with the fullness of his authority as the successor of Peter. It is a metaphor that refers to the pope’s authority to teach, not to where he sits when he teaches.

Notice, too, that the term ex cathedra, as a reference to teaching authority, was not invented by the Catholic Church. Jesus used it. In Matthew 23:2–3 Jesus said, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat (Greek: kathedras, Latin: cathedra); so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice." Even though these rabbis did not live according to the norms they taught, Jesus points out that they did have authority to teach and to make rules binding on the Jewish community.

Ha ha ha ha ha This is the funniest thing I got from this Boetnner. Ex Cathedra? From the chair? Yes! But not literal chair! Ha ha ha ha ha. Oh my God, I never thought would interpret Ex Cathedra that way.

[weedmeister2]

Manny, do indulge me once more...

This hilarious hoax was published around 1960, and the alleged "discovery" was supposed to have taken place in 1953. Well, later archeological findings have conclusively DISPROVEN this hoax. The new discoveries are detailed John Evangelist Wash's book, The Bones of St. Peter (1982). No serious historian believes in the peter-jerusalem hoax and even protestant scholars have long admitted that Peter went to Rome and died there.

Point taken... And still there are questions... Like why do Peter's highly venerated bones lie beside those of goats, sheep, cows, swine, and a chicken...? As for the 29 alleged pieces of Peter's skull found in the Graffiti wall, how are they related to Peter's whole skull in the Cathedral of St. John Lateran? And what bones of Peter and Paul were shipped by Vitalian, bishop of Rome, to Oswy, king of the Saxons in 665 A.D. (which were eventually lost)? How come the Graffiti Wall bones of Peter and Peter's other skull are not the only true relics of the "Prince of the Apostles" found in and around the Vatican (They discovered another of Peter's skeletons in the Red Wall, yards away from the place where the plastic boxes of Peter's bones are worshipped today)?


"In 1956, the Vatican hired anthropologist Venerando Correnti to study the bones that Pius XII had certified had been found in the genuine tomb of Peter. It must be remembered that, when speaking ex cathedra in matters touching on faith and morals involving the whole church, the popes are infallible. And, certainly, the identification of the tomb and relics of Peter, of whom Pius XII was one of an unbroken line of successors, must touch on the faith of all the Catholic church. Wouldn't you think?

Anyway, Correnti and his team began their detailed study of the bones taken from the papal-certified "authentic tomb of St. Peter." It is pretty well accepted, at least in medical circles I should think, that human beings each have two fibula, one in each leg. Imagine Correnti's shock when he discovered a third fibula among the bones he was examining. How his consternation must have increased when he identified five tibias (Again, the normal human allotment is two tibias per person). What is more, one of the tibias was definitely that of a woman. Hmmmmm. Could there have been some things about Peter we have not been told?

The situation continued to deteriorate as Correnti's collaborator, Luigi Cardini positively identifed some half a hundred of the bones and fragments to have originally been used to hold up the skin of hogs, sheep, goats and a few chickens.

The bones found by the Red Wall, and certified by one of those "infallible" popes as having been found in the "true tomb of the Prince of the Apostles," were quietly stored away in some secret location. Unlike the bones found in the Graffiti Wall, they are not venerated.

You can read all about these bones and their story in Venerando Correnti's own words in \"Relazione dello studio compiuto su tre gruppi di resti scheletrici umani gia rinvenuti sotto la Confessione della basilica vaticana, in Le Reliquie di Pietro Sotto La Confessione della Basilica Vaticana, by Margherita Guarducci, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Rome, 1965, pp. 83-160."


Could this be another one of those relics like these:


The Holy Cross of Jesus



Crown of Thorns



Jesus' Manger



Hmmm, reeks of material adoration.... anyway, back to the topic... Could this pile of Peter's bones, with all its inconsistencies, just be another hoax, as the following were:

Pope Gregory (590-604) promised Queen Brunhilda remission of her sins. "The most blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles.. will cause thee to appear pure of all stain before the judge everlasting" as long as she granted him, Gregory, what he asked of her, that, money, real estates, and investitures which yielded abundant revenues to the Church: a practice which became a tradition during the oncoming centuries.

Gregory sent the nobleman Dynamius a cross containing "fillings" from St. Peter's chains, telling him to wear the cross at his throat "which is like as if he were wearing the chains of St. Peter himself.," and adding "these chains, which have lain across and around the neck of the most Blessed Apostle Peter, shall unloose thee for ever from thy sins". The gift, of course, was not a free one. It cost money and gold.

Not content with this, Gregory began to send out "the keys of St. Peter, wherein are found the precious filings and which by the same token also remit sins" - provided the recipients paid in cash or with costly presents.


Once it became known that the relics of St. Peter, when combined with the spiritual power of his successors, could remit sins, it was natural that most of the Christians throughout Christiandom longed to go to the tomb and thus partake of Peter's and the pope's spiritual treasures. The latter invariably involved earthly treasures of money, silver and gold, or deeds of real estate. And that is how the pilgrimage to Rome, called the Pardon of St. Peter, was initiated - curiously enough, mostly by Anglo-Saxons.


Hehehe, or this short course on history:


In the eighth century, when the papacy had so much that it did not even know how much, the semi-converted Slavs started to despoil St. Peter's Patrimony. This had been bad enough. But then, even worse, robbers appeared on the horizon. They sprang from distant Arabia. And the Arabs, to make things worse, also started to despoil St. Peter's Patrimony, claiming that they were doing it in the name of God. They called Him Allah. In addition, they had the bad habit of pinpricking the pope's subjects with their scimitars, telling them, while taking away all their possessions (or rather the possessions of their papal master) that in addition to having changed landlords they had better change also their religion - which the vast majority promptly did.

In this manner, whole papal dominions were lost. These included Dalmatia, Istria, Spain, the South of France, and the whole of North Africa. To all this, Providence, or rather human greed, added insult to injury when the successors of Constantine, the most Christian emperor of Constantinople, followed suit and deprived Peter's Patrimony of its vast estates in Sicily, Sardinia, Calabria and Corsica. Within a few decades, St. Peter had been robbed of such immense estates that his former boundless dominion was eventually reduced to central Italy, not far away, relatively speaking, from Rome.

Notwithstanding such a shrinking of their possessions, the worst devils of all, the Lombards of North Italy, set out to rob the Blessed Peter of this last estate as well. This they were about to do when the pope invoked the help of none other than the Prince of the Apostles, the Blessed Peter himself. He asked him to mobilize the most powerful potentate of the times, Pepin, King of the Franks. Pepin, said the pope, must preserve intact the Church's earthly possessions. Indeed, it might even be of spiritual benefit to him to add some of his own to them.

The Blessed Peter complied! How? Simply by writing a letter. Direct from Heaven. To Pepin. The celestial letter, of course, was first sent to the pope, Stephen, who had plenty of Peter's chains' "fillings". Stephen sent it to the king by special papal envoy.
The letter, on the finest vellum, was all written in pure gold. It read as follows:

Peter, elected Apostle by Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God. I, Peter, summoned to the apostolate by Christ, Son of the Living God, has received from the Divine Might the mission of enlightening the whole world...

Pepin knelt reverently before the Papal Legate, who went on reading the Blessed Peter's missive:

Wherefore, all those who, having heard my preaching, put it into practice, must believe absolutely that by God's order their sins are cleansed in this world and they shall enter stainless into everlasting life Come ye to the aid of the Roman people, which has been entrusted to me by God. And I, on the day of Judgment, shall prepare for you a splendid dwelling place in the Kingdom of God.

Signed, Peter, Prince of the Apostles.


The Papal Envoy showed the letter to the whole court and solemnly vouched for the authenticity of Peter's signature. Not only that. St. Peter had gone to the length of writing the letter with his very own hand. Something he had never done before.. Or since!


How had the letter ever reached the earth? asked Pepin. The Blessed Peter in person had come down from Heaven and given the letter to his successor, the pope of Rome, explained the Papal Envoy. Thereupon he showed the king how St. Peter had addressed the celestial letter:

Peter, elected Apostle by Jesus Christ, to our favorite Son, the King Pepin, to his whole army, to all the bishops, abbesses, monks, and to the whole people.

Pepin, King of the Franks, had no alternative. How could he ever refuse the urgent request of the Prince of the Apostles? The turnkey of Heaven?

The devout Fleury, in his famous Historia Ecclesiastica, book 43, 17, cannot contain his indignation at the Blessed Peter's celestial letter, which he bluntly declared to have been nothing else than "an unexampled artifice." Artifice or not, whether written by Stephen himself or by some of his advisors, the fact remained that the letter of the Blessed Peter had the desired effect. In the year of our Lord 754, Pepin the Short, King of the Franks, defeated the rapacious Lombards. Since they had originally wished to rob the lands of Peter, Pepin, besides donating to Stephen what he had just preserved and recovered added to it the Duchy of Rome, the Exarchate and the Pentapolis. All of these added up to a considerable amount of territory encompassing thousands of villages, forts, cities, farms, and estates - henceforward to be owned by the representative of St. Peter on earth, the pope.

Consider now the other New Testament citations: “Another angel, a second, followed, saying, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion’� (Rev. 14:8 ). “The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath� (Rev. 16:19). “[A]nd on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations’� (Rev. 17:5). “And he called out with a mighty voice, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great’� (Rev. 18:2). “[T]hey will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, ‘Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come’� (Rev. 18:10). “So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence� (Rev. 18:21).


Babylon is a code-word for Rome.

Agreed. "Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth's abominations" is ROME.

Since when were the Persons in the Holy Trinity considered CREATURES? Mary is above all creatures, but since the Persons of the Holy Trinity are NOT creatures, then Mary is NOT being made higher than God at all! This is so clearly obvious that I wonder if you deliberately pretending not to notice.

Logically:

Creature = Man

Man = Jesus

Jesus = God the Father & Holy Spirit (Hence the term HOLY TRINITY)

CREATURE = HOLY TRINITY

That is, logically speaking. Are we discussing in logical terms?

You quite clearly missed the point! It's NOT okay for the Pope to do it. This is a non-argument.

I did not miss the point. It's not a matter of what's okay or not, it's a matter of DID THE POPE DO IT?

THE POPE DID IT.

Remember, actions speak louder than words my friend...

[Carlo Borromeo]

Hey, weedmeister.

Don't forget the latest find....



The Holy Grail

[Nezumix22]

@weedmeister: I find it quite offensive to speak of the Trinity in "logical terms". It's something beyond the logical only Christians can comprehend. We, as Christians should not make logical assumptions or conclusions like that. To say that the Holy Trinity is a creature? I don't know what's your point, but it's a bit blasphemous I should say.. But of course, you already know that..

And anyway you talked about material adoration, you should know that we don't adore or worship materials such as statues, I have to admit only ignorant Catholics do that.. I've learned about that over and over again, if you were Catholic right now you'd probably understand.. I never understood it myself, quickly judging people that they were pagan worshippers and the like.. peace!!

[Gwynhuever]

peace bai....

well, weddings in some churches are 8,000 on weekdays and 25,000 on sundays...

i don't pay for a single thing in my church...Â*

sa Germany bro...automatic deduction jud sa imong suweldo kon Catholic ka...morag parehas ka stricto sa tax...so ayaw na lang reklamo kon maningil kada sakramento ang simbahan sa pinas...at least dili kada buwan he he he

[tolstoi]

HOLY GRAIL = sCUM BAG

aww i never thought that scum bag was that kinda pretty

[digitalsuperman]

@ Carlo: Are you appealing to the Vatican? It's the other way around brother!

You pay to be baptised.

You pay for your Confirmation.

You pay for the Eucharistic Sacrament.

You pay to be Married.

You pay for your extreme unction.

Thats it... you keep paying....


Oh, wait, you gotta pay to get out of Purgatory... How much, and how many times, i dunno... see those ads in the papers with masses for their dearly departed who died in 1925? They still need masses to get to heaven... I guess you live another lifetime in purgatory, then you move to heaven.... hmmm, dunno.... who can say?

Hey manny, can you enlighten us on how long one stays in purgatory?

hmm..siguro mas ok nalang sa catholic kay you pay what your heart desires.
unlike sa uban kay tithes gyud.at least 10%..which is for me, not a good rule for a few reasons.

ako kay i don't consider myself catholic since there are some doctrines in the catholic that i can't comprehend and some of them has no basis but I do go to church, not only that, i listen to other doctrines..and most of all i read the bible..naa man gud usahay words sa bible nga dili ko kasabot thats why i listen to the doctrines of other religion.

in my opinion, i really don't like other religions going at other religions.
kanang kusug kaayo mana-ot sa uban religion. its like you preaching hatred among men man gud. if some religious organizations want to gain more followers, why don't just they preach and let people come to them.
just my opinion though.
_________________________________________________

peace bai....

well, weddings in some churches are 8,000 on weekdays and 25,000 on sundays...

i don't pay for a single thing in my church...

bro, just curious unsa diay religious affiliation nimo diay?

[irangejuice]

But the creature is the Creator.. They one in the same... Using the argument that Christ was a creature negates itself because as all Christians should believe its not that simply "God" incarnate in Christ but The Creator, The Jews' Jahweh who desended to become man. With all these 3 persons thing going on, we sometimes forget that they are ONE.

The second person of God was made man beacuse of the original sin. Thats the whole point of God becoming man, to redeem us. Not simply to become one of us, this was not part of his plan. God gave us freewill and we all know what Adam and Eve did..

You've stated the obvious: They are one, that's the whole idea behind The Holy Trinity. How does anyone manage to forget that? I certianly hope your didn't imply that I did.

Well I don't think I'm out of line when I say you've managed to confuse yourself and hopefully not others with your ambiguous post. You stress on obvious points, and accepted points when merely my previous post only pointed out that God had three "versions", if you will, of the same God and that one of those "versions" was a human being who walked among His creations.

Should you want to concentrate on the fact that He (again, yes, the same God) was born unto this earth , skip through all that happened in His lifetime, and jump right to the part you're so eager to point out, Him dying on the cross and saving us-- it still doesn't change the fact that Jesus Christ was human being..a creature of His own creation.

Don't even talk about negations--to maintain an accepted Holy Trinity, logic must take a hike.