All about Roman Catholicism here.

[weedmeister2]

---

Your prejudice is showing. You first have to REFUTE the contents of a Catholic history document before you can disregard it. But you're doing it backwards. That is PREJUDICE: you are PRE-JUDGING the source without even considering and refuting its copntents. Not an intelligent move at all.

Do you really expect me to be that stupid manny? For me to think that the Catholic history books have not been washed over by their belief and their desire to cover up all their fornication, robbery, murder, incest, etc? Come on man! You don't even take the Bible as law when the church says otherwise... This is as useless as reasoning with a wall.

And anyway, you dind't answer the question.

He said it to the first Pope (Peter) and to the Apostles, to whom ALL Catholic priests can trace an unbroken line of passing on of authoroty. That's something the false pastors of your false church can't do.

How can you trace this? Please show us.

You're misisng the point! I have successfully discredited your SOURCE IN GENERAL.

Hmmmm, last time I checked, I discredited at least 5 of your popes. Does this mean I should Discredit your WHOLE RELIGION? That's called Poisoning the Well, my friend.

Still pretending to know Catholic doctrine and what I believe? All your MISREPRESENTATIONS of it can't change the fact that you are engaging in a straw man argument. The other term for that is LYING. You do it often and quite badly too.

Undoubtedly a personal attack. Great argument! :mrgreen:

Kinldy show me any Catholic dogma or doctrine that states Mary is above God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. None, eh? You should really take your foot out of your mouth.

It means she is above all CREATURES. Tell me, is the Father, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit a creature? Who created them? Ah... noiw you're beginning to see that you weren't thinking at all!

Mary is above all creatures, but since the Persons of the Holy Trinity are NOT creatures, she cannot be above them. Simple logic.

I showed you your papal doctrine already, and you still refute it? Fine, VERY SIMPLE LOGIC:

CREATURE = MAN

MAN = JESUS

JESUS = HOLY TRINITY

CREATURE = HOLY TRINITY

Now, logically, that proves that we are all creatures, along with Jesus.

Creature = a living organism characterized by voluntary movement. So, which one of the Holy Trinity is not living eh?

And you obviously did NOT understand it. Now YOU are putting words in my mouth, but you're doing it in such a ridiculously incompetent manner that we can see right through it.

Again, an eloquent attack without any substance or information. In it's most basic form = "Dumbass!"

Since when does transubstantiation defined as above mean we kill Jesus over and over again? Now you're really acting silly! Non sequitur. Your offbeat conclusion does not follow from the premisses.

transubstantiation = "the doctrine holding that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus"

So, did Jesus give your priests an endless supply of his flesh and blood? Logically, how do your priests do it without taking it from Jesus each and every time?

He uses the same UNSCRIPTURAL practice: personal interpretation of scripture. Your wacky pastor does the same and as a result has wacky errors too.

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

Hehehe, funny that you call my pastor wacky... Just because he isn't as proficient in fornication, theivery, murder, incest, etc. as your popes... hehehe, good word, that "Wacky"... I'll be sure to tell him... he should get a good laugh out of that.

I guess your popes' errors could not be labeled "wacky"... Fornication, Robbery, Lying, Murder, Incest, etc. cannot be called wacky at all. Great to know that they have an unbroken link to Christ, seeing as they do so many holy and good works... :mrgreen:

Not in the sense that we use it in defining papal infallibility. Error here means wrong doctrine, not personal sin. You are imposing YOUR definition of words on Catholic doctrine. That is very dishonest. You should take the terms as the user uses it, not impose your own. This is a common fundamentalist deceptive tactic. And it fails all the time.

I got that definition from a dictionary. Maybe we should have a dictionary burning to teach all the heathen that dictionaries are inaccurate.

So, none of the popes ever made a wrong doctrine? Does not personal sin lead to wrong doctrines...?

What UTTER IGNORANCE! In ALL the instances mentioned above, NONE of the Popes were making ex cathedra statements.

Since you have shown that you are totally unwilling to conduct even halfway-decent histricqal research, I'll help you out. There were EXACTLY TWO (and ONLY TWO) instances where Popes made ex acathedra statements prior to John Paul II. These were in December, 1854 (Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX), and in November, 1950 (Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII). The ones your nutty source cited above did not inviolve ex cathedra statements. In fact, in the Galileo case, it did not even involve Catholic doctrine at all!

Oh my gosh! In my UTTER IGNORANCE, I have cited such a NUTTY SOURCE as the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA!

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm


Ouch!


Only TWO Ex Cathedra? Hmmmmm.....


Roman Catholic apologist Scott Hahn says : 2 ex cathedra

Roman Catholic apologist Tim Staples says: at least 4 ex cathedra

Fr. Leslie Rumble in his book, That Catholic Church states: 18 ex cathedra

Which is it?

[digitalsuperman]

this is fun..LOL..

[Desert Father]

Since when does transubstantiation defined as above mean we kill Jesus over and over again? Now you're really acting silly! Non sequitur. Your offbeat conclusion does not follow from the premisses.

transubstantiation = "the doctrine holding that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus"

So, did Jesus give your priests an endless supply of his flesh and blood? Logically, how do your priests do it without taking it from Jesus each and every time?

Of all your blasphemy, I noticed this one.Â* I dont know but it sounds funny to me.Â* There you go again.Â* endless supply of flesh and blood. I thought you Protestants are literal in interpreting the Bible.Â* Jesus said, " This is body. . . This is my blood." If you believe Jesus Christ is God and powerful that He could change the bread to his flesh then you should not make fun of this doctrine.Â*

Pa Bible bible quote and pa personal Saviour yet he is the one who doesnt believe that it is His body and blood. Tsk.

[at8n1981]

hoy mga peeps & mods ayaw na iwarn c mosimos...luoya pud oi!

popcorn mo diha!

[mannyamador]

For me to think that the Catholic history books have not been washed over by their belief and their desire to cover up all their fornication, robbery, murder, incest, etc? Come on man! You don't even take the Bible as law when the church says otherwise...

The same charge can be levelled against your nutty church. Stop pretending. The truth is you CAN'T refute the contents of these documents, so you resort to mindless ad hominems. Anyone with half a brain can see through your non-arguments.

He said it to the first Pope (Peter) and to the Apostles, to whom ALL Catholic priests can trace an unbroken
line of passing on of authoroty. That's something the false pastors of your false church can't do.

How can you trace this? Please show us.

You can find the list of Popes here, all of which were duly appointed with the laying of hands and the formal transfer of authority: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

The bishops elect the Pope, priests are ordained by bishops or Popes. Now kindly show us where YOUR pastor gets his authority. The Bible? When did it bless him?

Hmmmm, last time I checked, I discredited at least 5 of your popes. Does this mean I should Discredit your WHOLE RELIGION? That's called Poisoning the Well, my friend.

Wrong logic. I have successfully shown the following about your source:

• Consistent lack of primary references for Catholic teaching
• Consistent sloppy scholarship
• Consistent misuse of sources and misquotes
• Consistent MISREPRESENTATION of Catholic doigma

All of these consistent errors are made by ONE PERSON. Perhaps you would continue to believe in a persistent liar. We, on the other hand, aren't that dumb.

Still pretending to know Catholic doctrine and what I believe? All your MISREPRESENTATIONS of it
can't change the fact that you are engaging in a straw man argument. The other term for that is LYING.
You do it often and quite badly too.

Undoubtedly a personal attack. Great argument!

But a rather ACCURATE description of what you are doing.

I showed you your papal doctrine already, and you still refute it? Fine, VERY SIMPLE LOGIC:

Creature = a living organism characterized by voluntary movement. So, which one of the Holy Trinity is not living eh?

Wrong definition. Again,. you are substituting YOUR preferred definition over the one used by Catholic doctrine (and by other christian denominations as well).

Here are the definition by Merriam-Webster. Note the FIRST one.

1 : something created either animate or inanimate: as a : a lower animal; especially : a farm animal
b : a human being c : a being of anomalous or uncertain aspect or nature <creatures of fantasy>
2 : one that is the servile dependent or tool of another :

A creature is CREATED. So, who CREATED Jesus? Who CREATED the Trinity?

So, did Jesus give your priests an endless supply of his flesh and blood? Logically, how do your priests do it without taking it from Jesus each and every time?

You mean God CANNOT do it? If he could transform a few fish and loaves so that it could feed 5000 people, I do not see any difficulty for GOD Himself to effect transubstantiation whenever He wishes.

And you still have failed to answer the basic question: since whewn does does transubstantiation mean the repeated killing of Jesus? Non sequitur.

Hehehe, funny that you call my pastor wacky... Just because he isn't as proficient in fornication, theivery, murder, incest, etc. as your popes... hehehe, good word, that "Wacky"... I'll be sure to tell him... he should get a good laugh out of that.

He may just get the shivers since there's a good chance that he is quite capable of fornication, thievery, etc. (if he hasn't done those already), just as many of YOUR protestant forebears were (just look at Martin Luther!).

I got that definition from a dictionary. Maybe we should have a dictionary burning to teach all the heathen that dictionaries are inaccurate.

Just like you got the definition of "creature"? Yeah right! I easily proved you were being biased in selectiing which definition to use.

There are a great many dictionaries with a lot of varying definitions. It is dishonest to choose one which you know does not take the term in context. You should use a dictionary or choose a definition that specifically refers to the doctrine in question, or to religion at the very least. You DIDN'T. Not smart, and we can see through that too.

Here is the definition of "infallible" from Merriam-Webster. It has THREE definitions, and ther THIRD is the one closest to Catholic usage. It's also the definition that you have IGNORED. That is quite dishonest of you.

Main Entry: in·fal·li·ble
Pronunciation: (")in-'fa-l&-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin infallibilis, from Latin in- + Late Latin fallibilis fallible
1 : incapable of error : UNERRING <an infallible memory>
2 : not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : CERTAIN <an infallible remedy>
3 : incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals

So, none of the popes ever made a wrong doctrine? Does not personal sin lead to wrong doctrines...?

No. Kindly show me even ONE instance wherer it led to an erroneous ex cathedra statement.

Can't? I thought so.

Oh my gosh! In my UTTER IGNORANCE, I have cited such a NUTTY SOURCE as the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA![/b]
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

BWAHAHA!!!!! The article is citing the ERRONEOUS examples anti-Catholics use in their attacks! It doesn't state that the abovementioned examples were ex cathedra! Maybe you ought to actually reading and understanding the article. HILARIOUS!!!!!

Just in case you didn't read it (you obviously didn't actually), here is the conclusion from the VERY SAME ARTICLE just under the list of alleged ex cathedra papal statements:

Conclusion. The broad fact, therefore, remains certain that no ex cathedra definition of any pope has
ever been shown to be erroneous.

People really ought to read an entire article befiore misquoting it. They will look less like clowns that way!

Only TWO Ex Cathedra? Hmmmmm.....

List them please, along with the documents and the dates. Let's see if they were really formal ex cathedra statements. Perhaps they are citing ALLEGED ex cathedra statements, just as the Catholic Encyclopedia did. And of course you were prejudiced enough to take them as ex cathedra when in fact they were examples of statements FALSELY ALLEGED as ex cathedra.

By the way, ex cathedra statements must be FORMAL and EXPLICIT. And note the time frame. John Paul II was also supposed to have made one, but that is BEYOND the time frame I cited.

[mannyamador]

Below is the definition of "infallible" from the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Take note there are THREE definitions, and the THIRD one is the one closet to the Catholic usage. Weedmeister, of course, conveniently IGNORED the catholic usage and chose a definition that was useful for his attacks. That is very DISHONEST and DECEPTIVE to say the least.

Main Entry: in·fal·li·ble
Pronunciation: (")in-'fa-l&-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin infallibilis, from Latin in- + Late Latin fallibilis fallible
1 : incapable of error : UNERRING <an infallible memory>
2 : not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : CERTAIN <an infallible remedy>
3 : incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals

I was hoping we could all at least be intellectually honest in our discussions here. As this example shows, however, some anti-Catholics just AREN'T.

[Gwynhuever]

@mannyamador...i have a question...are bishops and cardinals the same? if not who has the "higher" status?

[h00ters]

Who's bashing, judging and name calling in this thread? And your playing bashing,.... games with us? Did you enjoy it?

pages and pages of katolik apologists postings here.Â* they're all judging, bashing, name-calling, etc.Â*

i'm playing your game.Â* peace you say?Â* i sure hope so...

peace and love, i don't see it in your supposedly religion of love.Â* but whatever...

peace to you too.Â*

Anyway, would you mind explaining to me what is the difference between an organized religion and a disorganized one or something like that?

i don't believe in organized religion.

i am for humanism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism)

so, are you going to judge me now? katoliks are famous for that. bigotch!

oops sori , did i push the right buttons?

you're sooo cute though.Â* organized religion simply is an institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship (supernatural, superstition, faith, belief in deity).Â* that's all.Â* there's no such thing as disorganized religion.

[h00ters]

don't deny the obvious.Â* you're all a big joke,Â* you don't honestly believe in your religion.Â* you peepz just love to deceive yourselves and others but none of you are living Christian lives.Â* truly not!

Still being "holier than thou", eh? The stench is overwhelming.

Here we go again, are you lost or are you lost? in translation...

holy, me? holy ravioli! i'm calling on your actions, katoliks. greed, corruption, masinahon, masuya-on, when are you pipol ever going to practice what you preach. those are just couple of obvious examples i stated above of your hypocrisy - premarital *** and thieving gov't officials. and now you're calling me holier than thou? hello, i never claimed i believe in your religion of love? love? more like a religion of fear and punishment, deceit and lies. and all of you fell for it.

if you can at least be true and practice what you believe in, i wouldn't have a problem with your religion. but you're not.

[Desert Father]

@mannyamador...i have a question...are bishops and cardinals the same? if not who has the "higher" status?

Bishops and cardinals are the same.Â* A cardinal is only a designation.Â* All cardinals are bishops. Its like you are a Colonel and yet assigned as Commanding Officer of an Infantry Battalion.Â*

Archbishops and bishops are the same.Â* It doesnt mean that Archbishops have higher position thanÂ* bishops.Â* They are only called Archbishops because they held an archdiocese.Â* An archdiocese is composed of several dioceses which are called suffragan dioceses.Â* In Cebu we have the Archdiocese of Cebu headed by Arch. Ricardo Vidal who is at the same time a Cardinal. The Archdiocese of Cebu has suffragan dioceses of Dumaguete, Maasin, Tagbilaran and Talibon.Â* Yet Cardinal Vida is not more powerful than Bishop Du of Dumaguete, Bishop Noel of Talibon, Bishop Tumulak of Tagbilaran.Â* I forgot the name of bishop of Maasin. Cardinal Vidal is only the presider in their meetings.