Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the Protestants will not be told they can be saved by faith alone;
The Catholic Church has never told Protestants any such thing, because the Catholic Church has never taught that. Again, here you have a group who wants to Pope to bring the hammer down and antagonize Protestants over finer points of doctrine on which we do not agree. Again: Ain’t gonna happen. The Pope will continue to affirm the true faith and doctrine of the Catholic Church (as his predecessors did), but he isn’t going to go out of his way to thrust it in the faces of Protestants who do not agree with him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoMark
the pagans of the world will not be told they have direct access to God in their own religions;
Again, no Pope has ever done any such thing. That’s just nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoMark
no apologies will be given for hard-line Catholic doctrines of the past.
Such as…? If this is in reference to Galileo, then that apology (by Pope John Paul II) was deserved. I applauded him for doing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoMark
As for liturgy, if the requiem Mass for John Paul II is any indication of the sentiments of Pope Benedict XVI, ...the Latin Mass will be resurrected to a status unseen since Vatican II and the abuses of the Novus Ordo will be minimized.
And flying monkeys will seize all Lutherans!!! Seriously, that ain’t gonna happen. The Latin Mass was never banned, never killed, and thus doesn’t need to be resurrected. Catholic parishes are free to have as many Latin Masses as they want. They are simply no longer REQUIRED to be in Latin, which is what fringe groups like this want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoMark
Limbo: "The Catholic Church is preparing to abandon the idea of limbo, the theological belief that children who die before being baptised are suspended in a space between heaven and hell". The concept of limbo was introduced in the 13th Century.
But never -- and I mean NEVER -- recognized and affirmed as formal doctrine. There are lots of things that Catholics around the world believe in which the church takes a hands-off-maybe-maybe-not approach. For years, limbo was one. The Church neither affirmed nor condemned it. The Pope’s remarks last year were the Pope’s own thoughts on the subject, not “official” condemnation. Again, I have to say I think he was right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoMark
You're right that purgatory and limbo aren't the same thing, but tell me and show me where I said they were please? I mentioned them together as two concepts being disputed now that arose in Catholic theology in the "Middle Ages"...
And again I tell you that Purgatory precedes the Middle Ages by many hundreds of years, and the doctrine of Purgatory is NOT being disputed. Not by Catholics anyway. Most Protestant sects (though not all) threw it out ages ago, but the Orthodox Churches still teach it and will go on doing so. You’re getting bad information from somewhere.
Purgatory: There are Christian writers going back to 200 who had varying concepts of a "Soul for schools" (Origin 3rd Century), but it wasn't there and was no official mention of purgatory in the Catholic Church before the 11th century and opposition to the concept was strong that doctrinal clarification was used in 1254 by decree. Pope Gregory in the 7th century (cleary after Christ...) mentioned "purgatorial fire" before judgement. The church said: "We, since they say a place of purgation of this kind has not been indicated to them with a certain and proper name by their teachers, we indeed, calling it purgatory according to the traditions and authority of the Holy Fathers, wish that in the future it be called by that name..." (Denzinger).
The 11th century...and the year 1254 for that matter, fall clearly within the "Middle Ages"...
Here again, you’ve just got some big misconceptions about how Catholic doctrine works. We aren’t like many Protestant churches who have to ratify new rules and new doctrines over pianos in church. Official doctrinal clarification is only issued when things begin to come into dispute. So yes, many of the teachings of Purgatory were clarified in 1254, but the church had taught these doctrines since her beginning. It was only when confusion began to set in that the Holy See stepped in to clarify things.
The same thing happened with many of the doctrines of Mary in the 20th century. The Church did not invent new teachings in the 20th century. The church had taught these things for almost 2,000 years, but in the 20th century confusion began to arise on exactly what the Church taught, so the Holy See stepped in and clarified the teaching.
That’s just how the Roman Catholic Church works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoMark
Ratzinger apparently is rethinking doctrine: "Cosmological representations of hell, purgatory and heaven need to be revisited and relativized according to modern image of the world and to Vatican II’s Cristocentric theological perspective."
Read those things you quoted again and this becomes clear. The Pope is NOT considering tossing out the doctrine of Purgatory. I promise you: That ain’t gonna happen. What is going on is a clarification of the doctrine. Many churches (in fact some bishops) don’t seem entirely clear on the issue, so the Holy See is considering clarifying things. That happens. They aren’t tossing anything out. They are trying to clear up confusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoMark
I won't do it again with you. I have better ways to spend my time!
Mark, no disrespect intended. Honestly. And, I continue to appreciate the tone of your posts!
But may I say that if you read the first of your two-part posting, you'll see that you've determined what are acceptable sources and which aren't!! YOU have determined that. Therefore it's your opinion, not necessarily truth.
I don't accept that for my own sourcing of information I should give credence to your judgement as it's clear you have chosen which sources you feel are accurate and which you feel are from "discontented" sources and are "full of inaccuracies"!!!
I actually sourced several areas that supported each other...perhaps a few groups of what you label as the "discontented"!
Clearly there are other streams of thought within the current debates on Catholic theology.
As for popes and orthodoxy since Vatican II....
You say: "No. All of the Popes since Vatican II have been quite orthodox"
Really?
Let's just go over one pope John Paul II and don't confuse his anti-abortion stance with orthodoxy! He was completely Unorthodox:
-1983, removed excommunication against Freemasons in the New Code of Canon Law and allowed hererics and schismatics to receive Holy Communion without returning to the church.
-1984, bowed to the Buddhist patriarch of Thailand who was seated on a throne.
-1985, Africa. Attended animist religious rites and participated in them.
-1986, Madras, India, allowed a female Hindu Priestess to anoint his forehead with Hindu sacred ashes.
-1986, gathered all religions and faiths, pagan, protestant, Muslim, animists, voodoo witch doctors,etc. to Assisi to pray together for world peace.
Pope Pius XI had said: "“They presuppose the erroneous view that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy, inasmuch as all give expression, under various forms, to that innate sense which leads to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule.”
(The Betrayal of the Catholic Church).
Your statement about the popes since Vatican II being "Orthodox" simply isn't true. Pope John Paul II was the best example of that.
But may I say that if you read the first of your two-part posting, you'll see that you've determined what are acceptable sources and which aren't!!
If you are going to discuss what the Catholic Church teaches, then your best source is the Catholic Church, not fringe groups with an axe to grind.
Imagine if your sole source on race relations in the US was David Duke. Or what if you ran across a biography of George Bush written by Saddam Hussein? Would you take that seriously? That's about as serious as I take many of the sources you are citing. They are articles from malcontents with their own agenda. Doesn't mean they don't have a right to speak their piece. It does mean you have to keep in mind where they're coming form. All of those instances of Pope John Paul II you cited are either inaccurate or taken so out of context that true meaning is lost. You also forgot the time he kissed the Koran. But again, you need to know the context to know what was happening.
If you are going to discuss what the Catholic Church teaches, then your best source is the Catholic Church, not fringe groups with an axe to grind.
Imagine if your sole source on race relations in the US was David Duke. Or what if you ran across a biography of George Bush written by Saddam Hussein? Would you take that seriously? That's about as serious as I take many of the sources you are citing. They are articles from malcontents with their own agenda. Doesn't mean they don't have a right to speak their piece. It does mean you have to keep in mind where they're coming form. All of those instances of Pope John Paul II you cited are either inaccurate or taken so out of context that true meaning is lost. You also forgot the time he kissed the Koran. But again, you need to know the context to know what was happening.
Let me start by saying that I need no one, not even you, to tell me how to assess a source. I'm absolutely capable of reading for myself and coming to my own conclusions taking into account the particular conditions that source is operating in. I'm also quite clear on what sources are opinion pieces and which draw on facts. Something I don't think is clear to you in your citations. It seems anyone who doesn't take your "opinion" is "fringe" and any opinion not matching yours is "axe-grinding"... That, again, stands only on your opinion, not on verifiable facts.
Let me repeat. You are deciding which sources are valid and which are not. From my perspective, you are blindly defending an indefensible view. But that's neither here nor there.
You may have noticed I haven't attempted to invalidate your 'sources' (though you don't make reference to many sources I've noticed), simply shown where you've made misstatements and claims that upon checking, are untrue.
The examples cited (verifiable fyi) regarding John Paul do show that pope was unorthodox. There isn't much "context" to those examples to debate as he was participating in ecumenical religious services. That is obvious, not obscure.
Feel free to address each cited example I noted and show where the inaccuracy lies, or where they're taken out of context. I don't mean a cursory rebuttal, I mean each citation and explain in detail where the inaccuracy/noncontextual error lies. I look forward to that.
That, again, stands only on your opinion, not on verifiable facts
But if he were to make some wild accusation or provide a link to some “fringe†group that actually supports your belief or statements, you would “applaud†it as being supportive of your view. But anything opposite, well then that’s an invalid source or completely false and then you have to make some long winded statement deriding their “abilities†since you have all the answers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoMark
Let me repeat. You are deciding which sources are valid and which are not..
Much like you decide which source you prefer to use and claim it as valid. However when someone rebuts your statement, no matter what information or source they provide, you continue to claim it as false with your own sources. So somehow your sources are 100% accurate and infalliable but others are completely wrong, well only the ones that don’t support your view.
But if he were to make some wild accusation or provide a link to some “fringe” group that actually supports your belief or statements, you would “applaud” it as being supportive of your view. But anything opposite, well then that’s an invalid source or completely false and then you have to make some long winded statement deriding their “abilities” since you have all the answers.
Much like you decide which source you prefer to use and claim it as valid. However when someone rebuts your statement, no matter what information or source they provide, you continue to claim it as false with your own sources. So somehow your sources are 100% accurate and infalliable but others are completely wrong, well only the ones that don’t support your view.
Madicarus. I'll remind you; You were arguing that the Muslim god and Jehovah were the same in post after post and specifically didn't answer my repeated requests that you refute the glaring problem of how Allah could be Jehovah if one calls the other a pervert for saying he's the Father and has a Son, and Jehovah says any who deny that Jesus is Christ is a liar!!!! You never took it on.
Instead,
You pulled a rabbit out of the hat and said what no one disputed: That Muslims profess Allah is the same god as the God of the Bible. A point that is obvious and no one disputed and a point that wasn't even in the debate to begin with!!!
I could have held you to the fire and responded to your post asking me to agree or not agree to that with a referral back to the topic before you took a diversionary exit.
I could have asked you to explain that Allah and Jehovah are the same 'despite' their clear contradictions and the clear facts that they do not share the same characteristics at all, and asked you yes and no questions as well, but I didn't at that point. It was clear you weren't in a position to argue the case and preferred to duck out on a point that had never been disputed.
For you to make the above comments is ludicrous as you ducked out of the debate!
If you wanted to actually explain how Allah can be Jehovah even though Jehovah is a Trinity of Father, Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit who says anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ is a liar, and Allah, who says that anyone who says God is a Father or has a Son is a pervert, I'd be happy to read your explanation! You can argue that from a secular point of view if you'd like. But remember if you do take on what you've evaded so far, you'll need to explain why God doesn't have multiple personality disorder being one thing to Christians and one thing to Muslims and why God would call himself a liar and a pervert depending on which face he shows. Make it make sense please Madicarus...
My guess is that you'll do what you've done in the past and ignore the problem entirely.
For someone who says that another rejects his argument despite whatever information or source is provided, I'll remind you that you provided none.
Are you really in a position to make this criticism? I don't think so.
FYI/PS...and this goes back to why your college papers would be repeatedly rejected if your arguments here are a reflection of your debating skills...
In answer to your criticism regarding sources, you build an argument to support your claims, and you look for supporting documentation. It's blatantly obvious that anyone making a claim is choosing and rejecting which sources to use to support his or her topic. That's called building a proof. Mark S. has been doing that, clearly choosing sources and dismissing others. I never said Mark S. wasn't making a case, I simply stated that it is that person's opinion only as to which sources are "fringe" or from "discontents" and I don't happen to agree with those judgements. The fact is there is judgement involved and that needs to be acknowledged. The reason the sources are cited (which I do) is so that others can go to them and evaluate them for themselves, it doesn't mean they have to agree with that stance. ( and I agree that the fyi/ps I just wrote would be extremely condescending to most people. However, most people argue within the same framework and understand the need to do so to build their arguments. You apparently don't...).
Your problem in debate is that you don't cite sources to support your statements, you avoid addressing the issues head on that contradict your statements...and you don't stay on topic.
Now you've got another chance to give it a go. I'd be amazed if you do it, but one never knows.
Madicarus. I'll remind you; You were arguing that the Muslim god and Jehovah were the same in post after post and specifically didn't answer my repeated requests that you refute the glaring problem of how Allah could be Jehovah if one calls the other a pervert for saying he's the Father and has a Son, and Jehovah says any who deny that Jesus is Christ is a liar!!!!.
\
There you go pontificating again with your long winded statements that don’t really go anywhere. It was clear that I was saying that the God of the Quran is the same God of the Bible. However both have different sets of beliefs based on the message they chose to accept. All your ranting states is that the concept of God for Christians is different than Muslims so they cannot be the same, but you contradict yourself and say that Jews and Christians have vast differences in the concept of God but they are the same. Yeah, real logical statement from you.
All your posts support each and every bit of my statement that they have a different message from the same God, so thank you for that. When trying to rebut my statements, you just like to use the bible to rebut the Quran. That’s like me claiming that Jesus of the bible wasn’t the son of God because the Quran says so? But apparently all you like to do is get on your soapbox and claim everyone else is wrong because you have the definitive and 100% wholly accurate information because you possess the ability to validate sources. Oh wise and mighty sage, please show us the way down the path of tunnel vision.
No use trying to argue with you because you only see it from your Christian perspective, as you have explicitly stated before, and only use “sources” that support your belief and quote from “sources” that support your “sources” That’s like saying, David Duke is right because the grand wizard said so.
MoMark, I don't want to keep going round and round with you. I can tell you're starting to get a bit hot under the collar.
A bit of parting advice:
If you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, then finding out from the Catholic Church is probably the best place to start. If you want to take that info and see what the Church's critics say, that's all well and good. But your approach seems very one-sided in all this.
If you want to know what a Muslim believes, ask a Muslim, not websites and journalists whose purpose is to criticize Islam. Seeking out the critics is always a good thing, but if you don't have the firsthand information to begin with, you are going to get a very one-sided (and more ofthen than not: incorrect) viewpoint.
If you want to know what Baptists believe, the best place to start is by asking the Baptists, not the anti-Baptist groups.
MoMark, I don't want to keep going round and round with you. I can tell you're starting to get a bit hot under the collar.
A bit of parting advice:
If you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, then finding out from the Catholic Church is probably the best place to start. If you want to take that info and see what the Church's critics say, that's all well and good. But your approach seems very one-sided in all this.
If you want to know what a Muslim believes, ask a Muslim, not websites and journalists whose purpose is to criticize Islam. Seeking out the critics is always a good thing, but if you don't have the firsthand information to begin with, you are going to get a very one-sided (and more ofthen than not: incorrect) viewpoint.
If you want to know what Baptists believe, the best place to start is by asking the Baptists, not the anti-Baptist groups.
See what I mean?
I'm sorry you perceive my responses as "getting hot under the collar". I did mean what I said though about judging sources for what they are....I'm capable of doing that on my own and I'm very clear which are opinion and which are clear undisputable facts.
I did challenge you to back up your statement for example about JPII's ecumenical examples being inaccurate and out of context. Your response was typical of your previous responses. You say it's inaccurate and out of context...and offer no reason or support why. That's lazy to me.
Also, only asking what a Catholic person believes to establish truth about Catholicism can only be part of the picture. You clearly are a strong Catholic, yet many of your statements aren't supported by fact that I've double-checked from Catholic sources. When I cited the Catholic sources, you've invalidated them as "fringe" or "discontented". An offered opinion, not indisputable fact.
I understand you think it's one-sided. And a couple of discussions are going on simultaneously with completely different people with completely different ideas of what constitutes authority. But I honestly see your arguments in the same light for the most part Mark S. If you had taken a source I mentioned and stated why it's "fringe" or from "discontents", explained why it's not valid in your opinion, then we'd have something to work with wouldn't we? In effect, you've differentiated between good and bad Catholics according to your views without explaining where they've gone off the track.
As parting advice:
I'd just make a suggestion that you actually go further with your posts and state your logic and views the first time with supporting documentation instead of putting comments out that must be refuted by more researching of sources. I think you've tended to originate posts with statements that are unsupported, and then attempt to prove them only upon rebuttal by attempting to discredit the sources cited by the person you disagree with. An example is the doctrine and origin of purgatory where you were patently wrong.
I think you debate well for the most part actually, but I think you rely on statements you make too much and don't anticipate they may be challenged -or refuted, and prepare for that to begin with.
Last edited by MoMark; 02-16-2007 at 05:03 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
