Say the rosary (http://www.rosary-center.org/howto.htm). It's appropriate here.

What a waste of time!

The rosary is appropriate at a time of uncertainty. It calms and consoles the mind of a dedicated roman catholic.

Hah, apparently God too has a sense of humour on April Fools Day. And behold the tomb was empty...the reports of his death were false, although he is on his deathbed. I'm pulling for the man, he has done an admirable job in his position, restored the honour to his office that was defiled by Pius XII, and brought a message of hope and peace to over a billion Catholics. Though I am not myself a Catholic, I have said a prayer that he go peacefully and without pain and I reccomend the rosary to all of my Catholic friends. It is a great time of irony in the wake of this Schiavo affair, shortly after Easter, and a strange sign of uncertainty and change in the world that so great a man should pass amidst such trouble in the world. End times'a comin'...according to the prophecy of an Irish Saint, there are but two Popes left till judgement day.

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

Hah, apparently God too has a sense of humour on April Fools Day. And behold the tomb was empty...the reports of his death were false, although he is on his deathbed. I'm pulling for the man, he has done an admirable job in his position, restored the honour to his office that was defiled by Pius XII, and brought a message of hope and peace to over a billion Catholics. Though I am not myself a Catholic, I have said a prayer that he go peacefully and without pain and I reccomend the rosary to all of my Catholic friends. It is a great time of irony in the wake of this Schiavo affair, shortly after Easter, and a strange sign of uncertainty and change in the world that so great a man should pass amidst such trouble in the world. End times'a comin'...according to the prophecy of an Irish Saint, there are but two Popes left till judgement day.

Gloria olivae. Two more then all hell breaks loose and I go out fallout style. Plasma Rifle and Power armorte w00t. http://www.catholic-pages.com/grabbag/malachy.asp

My parents are catholic, I go to church once or twice a month, but I cant find myself praying for this man. Ive had uncles die without me feeling anything for them, so I find nothing special in this man. I do not beleive he had special contacts with god or was any closer to jesus than the rest of us. I see him as just another political leader. I dont hate him or anything, hes just history now, thats all. Now if say on the day he dies some catastrophe happens I might change my mind http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

So who won the pool?

april fools!

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

And you Rust, this was a Pope who met with Castro and tried to end the embargo on Cuba by the United States, what is your beef with him, other than his being one of the biggest dealers of 'the opiate of the people'?



Well, quite frankly, I do not consider these so-called "missions", which amounted to ridiculously weak "reprimands", and where in essence publicity stunts for the Catholic Church, as adequate representations of what should be, according to Catholic dogma, the infallible ex-cathedra position of the closest representation of god on earth.

The very title of his position should be considered as an attack to the whole notion of Christianity, not to mention the out right offence to humanity itself it is to posses such position of power, and waste it on these pathetic "missions", and the inherent hypocrisy of him holding his position, and professing a religion that contradicts it.

Add to this the slowing down of Science, the needless lives that could have been saved had he supported a realistic and scientific position on birth-control and STD's and what Kikey was arguing, and I see absolutely no reason not to have a 'beef' with him.

Oh, and lest I forget, the whole 'opiate of the masses' thing you so gracefuly added.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-02-2005).]

i think that this person should have died alot sooner. the things that he did to increase the spread of aids, slow down basic human rights, assist bigotory and prevent women having the right to choose abortions have caused much pain, suffering and death.

intrestingly enough, he was struck by this last illness shortly after saying that abortion was as bad as the holocaust. maybe god was trying to say something?

anyway, this man was evil and in my opinion the world is better off without him.

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

anyway, this man was evil and in my opinion the world is better off without him.

Evil? I wouldn't go so far to say that. He was a bigot and never embraced modernity, but he wasn't evil.

What is with these people praying for him?

I mean, hes gonna die sooner or later.

They can´t make him immortal or save him by praying. WTF.....

Hope is for fools...

quote:Originally posted by bodomised:

Evil? I wouldn't go so far to say that. He was a bigot and never embraced modernity, but he wasn't evil.

this man caused countles deaths because of his claims that condoms do not prevent aids tranmission.

i don't need another argument, that in itself is excuse enough for him to die.

although he did alot worse during his reign.

fuck him, he is dead now and good riddance. he has more blood on his hands than most people could imagine.

Ok, now he has died.

i think marlylin manson should be pope or snoop dog

Ding-Dong, the wicked pope is dead.

-rage

quote:Originally posted by RagingPussy:

Ding-Dong, the wicked pope is dead.

-rage



I've actually had tears running down my cheek, and I think thats the only possible think that could have, and did make me laugh http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Wow. Hunter S. Thompson got more respect on totse when he killed himself that the pope does when he wastes away and dies. That somehow seems strange.

^whos that now?

quote:Originally posted by Eudaemonistic_SOB:

The rosary is appropriate at a time of uncertainty. It calms and consoles the mind of a dedicated roman catholic.

Matthew 6:7 - "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."

When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.

But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.

This comes from Jesus himself. For those who follow Catholicism, I would urge you to understand the purpose of prayer, and the proper way to do it. It is all in the Bible.

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

Hah, apparently God too has a sense of humour on April Fools Day. And behold the tomb was empty...the reports of his death were false, although he is on his deathbed. I'm pulling for the man, he has done an admirable job in his position, restored the honour to his office that was defiled by Pius XII, and brought a message of hope and peace to over a billion Catholics. Though I am not myself a Catholic, I have said a prayer that he go peacefully and without pain and I reccomend the rosary to all of my Catholic friends. It is a great time of irony in the wake of this Schiavo affair, shortly after Easter, and a strange sign of uncertainty and change in the world that so great a man should pass amidst such trouble in the world. End times'a comin'...according to the prophecy of an Irish Saint, there are but two Popes left till judgement day.

Great men die everyday...

ABC just doesn't report on it.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

(I don't think that admirable men dying is a sign of the end times. There are much more significant things happening on this earth that fulfill the End Times Prophecies.)

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Well, quite frankly, I do not consider these so-called "missions", which amounted to ridiculously weak "reprimands", and where in essence publicity stunts for the Catholic Church, as adequate representations of what should be, according to Catholic dogma, the infallible ex-cathedra position of the closest representation of god on earth.

The very title of his position should be considered as an attack to the whole notion of Christianity, not to mention the out right offence to humanity itself it is to posses such position of power, and waste it on these pathetic "missions", and the inherent hypocrisy of him holding his position, and professing a religion that contradicts it.

Wow, Rust...for once, I couldn't agree with you more.

It is an insult, no matter what way you look at it.

That is a hard pill for those who follow the religion wholeheartedly to swallow, but it is true nonetheless.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 04-03-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

i think that this person should have died alot sooner. the things that he did to increase the spread of aids, slow down basic human rights, assist bigotory and prevent women having the right to choose abortions have caused much pain, suffering and death.

intrestingly enough, he was struck by this last illness shortly after saying that abortion was as bad as the holocaust. maybe god was trying to say something?

anyway, this man was evil and in my opinion the world is better off without him.

You cannot damn a man for seeing the value of LIFE in ways that you CANNOT.

You apparently support genocide and euthanasia, so it is not surprising that you would want another man to die simply because he did not agree with you.

Are you listening to yourself ? Are you congitive enough to even have such a dynamic opinion ?

God doesn't strike people down dead anymore, in case you hadn't noticed. *pfft*

You people are unbelievable.

quote:Originally posted by bodomised:

Evil? I wouldn't go so far to say that. He was a bigot and never embraced modernity, but he wasn't evil.

What kind of modernity would you suggest that this man should embrace ? HE WAS 84 YEARS OLD.

In your lifetime, you couldn't possibly have known what was modern to HIM, since you can't relate to his age.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

What kind of modernity would you suggest that this man should embrace ? HE WAS 84 YEARS OLD.

In your lifetime, you couldn't possibly have known what was modern to HIM, since you can't relate to his age.

That was my point. I hardly expected him to embrace it. But that's gonna be the running problem if they continue to elect from the elderly. Old values are gonna breed true in every Pope.

Let the dead bury the dead.

While I share Rust's "beefs" about the pope, it's worth noting that he's a fuckload more consistant then many American Protestants.

*cough*Texacutioner*cough*

He says he's pro life.

He's Anti abortion, and also, anti death penalty, and anti war.

A bigot refers to someone who was intolerant of other's races, religions etc. John Paul II was certainly none of these. In 2000, he apologised and condemned the Catholic church for its past discrimination against minorities and hand in the Holocaust, the Spanish Inquisition etc. He was also the first Pope to visit a mosque and the first to visit a Synagogue.

He did however remain socially conservative, opposing birth control, women clergy and euthanasia. But the church itself is a relatively conservative organisation and what more can be expected from a relatively elderly leader.

Regardless, he did great things for the Catholic church and even for those not Catholic, he should be remembered as a man who tended to his flock well.

quote:Originally posted by Slurm:

A bigot refers to someone who was intolerant of other's races, religions etc. John Paul II was certainly none of these. In 2000, he apologised and condemned the Catholic church for its past discrimination against minorities and hand in the Holocaust, the Spanish Inquisition etc. He was also the first Pope to visit a mosque and the first to visit a Synagogue.

He did however remain socially conservative, opposing birth control, women clergy and euthanasia. But the church itself is a relatively conservative organisation and what more can be expected from a relatively elderly leader.

Regardless, he did great things for the Catholic church and even for those not Catholic, he should be remembered as a man who tended to his flock well.

I'm pretty sure he condemned homosexuality, though I could be wrong.

[This message has been edited by bodomised (edited 04-03-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by dearestnight_falcon:

While I share Rust's "beefs" about the pope, it's worth noting that he's a fuckload more consistant then many American Protestants.

*cough*Texacutioner*cough*

He says he's pro life.

He's Anti abortion, and also, anti death penalty, and anti war.





I agree. Catholics are atleast consistent in their beliefs.

How many other world leaders came out so strongly against the war in Iraq?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Well, quite frankly, I do not consider these so-called "missions", which amounted to ridiculously weak "reprimands", and where in essence publicity stunts for the Catholic Church, as adequate representations of what should be, according to Catholic dogma, the infallible ex-cathedra position of the closest representation of god on earth.

I thought his missions were sincere. I think he was trying to see the world, see the people. I think he was trying to show the catholic church in a different light through his missions. I wouldn't call them "publicity stunts". The pope did what he could do. He opposed what he thought was wrong. He agreed with what he thought was right, just like you and I do.

Also, "closest representation of God on earth".....

quote:The very title of his position should be considered as an attack to the whole notion of Christianity, not to mention the out right offence to humanity itself it is to posses such position of power, and waste it on these pathetic "missions", and the inherent hypocrisy of him holding his position, and professing a religion that contradicts it.

Think you may be overexaggerating a bit?

He was far far from perfect because he is human and he is fallable. He makes mistakes and errors in judgement. I don't think his position attacks the notion of christianity, but I'll hear you out if you would like to explain further.

quote:Add to this the slowing down of Science, the needless lives that could have been saved had he supported a realistic and scientific position on birth-control and STD's and what Kikey was arguing, and I see absolutely no reason not to have a 'beef' with him.

Again, he did what he thought was right. It's great that you disagree with him, but to blame him for all these deaths is absurd.

I do agree with you on this, and hopefully the new pope will too.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:That is a hard pill for those who follow the religion wholeheartedly to swallow, but it is true nonetheless.

When will you realize that you are not necessarily right.

You are no more right than a catholic when it comes to God. As long as their primary goal is to follow god and lead a good life, why does their manner of faith matter to you?

Your anti-catholic rhetoric is realy becoming tired so I would suggest that you stop, lest you make yourself look more stupid.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Wow, Rust...for once, I couldn't agree with you more.

It is an insult, no matter what way you look at it.

That is a hard pill for those who follow the religion wholeheartedly to swallow, but it is true nonetheless.





I consider you an insult to Christianity as well.

Less than the Pope of course, but an insult none the less.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

thought his missions were sincere. I think he was trying to see the world, see the people. I think he was trying to show the catholic church in a different light through his missions. I wouldn't call them "publicity stunts". The pope did what he could do. He opposed what he thought was wrong. He agreed with what he thought was right, just like you and I do.

Also, "closest representation of God on earth".....

1. In the same paragraph you say, "I think he was trying to show the catholic church in a different light through his missions".. and then claim they aren't publicity stunts? That's the very definition of the term!

2. He obviously DIDN'T "do what he could do".

You apparently do not know how much power the man holds (or held), and the repercussions there would be had he taken a hard stance against the death penalty, the war in Iraq etc.

3. He is the closes representation of god on earth, since he is infallible in terms of faith. Hence, every action taken by him that are relevant to the Christian faith would be the equivalent actions that Christ would make, since Christ himself would have to be infallible in matters concerning faith.

quote:Think you may be overexaggerating a bit?

He was far far from perfect because he is human and he is fallible. He makes mistakes and errors in judgment. I don't think his position attacks the notion of Christianity, but I'll hear you out if you would like to explain further.

1. He makes no error according the the dogma, in matters of faith, which exactly what I'm talking about.

2. Do you even know what his title is (i.e. the name), what it means, and from where it was derived from? If you did you'd know exactly why it goes against the humility preached by Christ in bible. And that is only the title of the man; if you want we can go into the ostentatious, pompous, and selfish decor of the Church.

quote:Again, he did what he thought was right. It's great that you disagree with him, but to blame him for all these deaths is absurd.

I do agree with you on this, and hopefully the new pope will too.

How the fuck is it absurd to blame him for these deaths? In the face of scientific evidence, and scientific and reliable answers to the problem, he knowingly chose an impractical route that he knew would cost lives. I have no reason not to blame him for that.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

1. In the same paragraph you say, "I think he was trying to show the catholic church in a different light through his missions".. and then claim they aren't publicity stunts? That's the very definition of the term!

Ummmm... No it's not. A publicity stunt would be the pope travelling the world with the sole intention of trying to gain publicity for the church. While he did try to get the church back in the public eye, he did it through good will visits, or speaking tours, or humanitarian visits.

quote:2. He obviously DIDN'T "do what he could do".

You apparently do not know how much power the man holds (or held), and the repercussions there would be had he taken a hard stance against the death penalty, the war in Iraq etc.

Fine then, tell me what power he holds and how he should have used his power.

quote:3. He is the closes representation of god on earth, since he is infallible in terms of faith. Hence, every action taken by him that are relevant to the Christian faith would be the equivalent actions that Christ would make, since Christ himself would have to be infallible in matters concerning faith.

He is infallible in terms of his translation of doctorine, not in terms of faith.

I'd liked to see where you got that information. Books, websites, whatever.

quote: posted 04-03-2005 20:30 Click Here to See the Profile for Rust Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote

Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

thought his missions were sincere. I think he was trying to see the world, see the people. I think he was trying to show the catholic church in a different light through his missions. I wouldn't call them "publicity stunts". The pope did what he could do. He opposed what he thought was wrong. He agreed with what he thought was right, just like you and I do.

Also, "closest representation of God on earth".....

1. In the same paragraph you say, "I think he was trying to show the catholic church in a different light through his missions".. and then claim they aren't publicity stunts? That's the very definition of the term!

2. He obviously DIDN'T "do what he could do".

You apparently do not know how much power the man holds (or held), and the repercussions there would be had he taken a hard stance against the death penalty, the war in Iraq etc.

3. He is the closes representation of god on earth, since he is infallible in terms of faith. Hence, every action taken by him that are relevant to the Christian faith would be the equivalent actions that Christ would make, since Christ himself would have to be infallible in matters concerning faith.

quote:Think you may be overexaggerating a bit?

He was far far from perfect because he is human and he is fallible. He makes mistakes and errors in judgment. I don't think his position attacks the notion of Christianity, but I'll hear you out if you would like to explain further.

1. He makes no error according the the dogma, in matters of faith, which exactly what I'm talking about.

2. Do you even know what his title is (i.e. the name), what it means, and from where it was derived from? If you did you'd know exactly why it goes against the humility preached by Christ in bible. And that is only the title of the man; if you want we can go into the ostentatious, pompous, and selfish decor of the Church.

I already covered the infallibility bit.

The papacy is an interpreted thing. St. Peter started it, and it exists to this day. If it wasn't necessary then I'm sure Peter wouldn't have started it and I'm sure that Jesus would have told Peter to start it. If you think it is pompous and unnecessary, then so be it. I don't. I think that the papacy in it's purest form is necessary. I think that they provide a service for catholics, while not being domineering over catholics. You obviously disagree with me, so we can just drop this point.

quote:How the fuck is it absurd to blame him for these deaths? In the face of scientific evidence, and scientific and reliable answers to the problem, he knowingly chose an impractical route that he knew would cost lives. I have no reason not to blame him for that.

How did he cause the deaths then?

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Ummmm... No it's not. A publicity stunt would be the pope travelling the world with the sole intention of trying to gain publicity for the church. While he did try to get the church back in the public eye, he did it through good will visits, or speaking tours, or humanitarian visits.

Irrelevant. As a company that just exploited child labor in Latin America, might start a charity drive for the victims in Tsunami. Helping people shows "good will" and can be called "humanitarian". So? It still does not refute it being done for the purpose of publicity, which is exactly what I feel the Pope was doing.

quote:Fine then, tell me what power he holds and how he should have used his power.

Being, the closes representation of god on earth, he commands a lot of power, and a lot of respect among Christians.

Couldn't he have gone to Iraq, stayed in a home in the middle of Baghdad, and protests the war in Iraq from there, and thus putting the "Coalition of the Willing" in a world of trouble, if they even dared bomb Baghdad? Yes he could. He didn't.

quote:He is infallible in terms of his translation of doctorine, not in terms of faith.

I'd liked to see where you got that information. Books, websites, whatever.

Dogma is a matter of faith... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

"We mean in other words that the Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals, not that believers are infallible in their subjective interpretation of her teaching. This is obvious in the case of individuals, any one of whom may err in his understanding of the Church's teaching; nor is the general or even unanimous consent of the faithful in believing a distinct and independent organ of infallibility."

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

"

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ")."

http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Want more sources?

quote:I already covered the infallibility bit.

The papacy is an interpreted thing. St. Peter started it, and it exists to this day. If it wasn't necessary then I'm sure Peter wouldn't have started it and I'm sure that Jesus would have told Peter to start it. If you think it is pompous and unnecessary, then so be it. I don't. I think that the papacy in it's purest form is necessary. I think that they provide a service for catholics, while not being domineering over catholics. You obviously disagree with me, so we can just drop this point.

Nice try ignoring my argument.

1. Again, do you know what his title is? What it means? And how it was given to him?

2. I ask you, does the fact that it is protocol for a man to kneel down before the Pope, and kiss his hand or his feet, not show reek of ostentatiousness? Please.

quote:How did he cause the deaths then?

By mandating Catholics to abstain from sex, a practice that is completely unrealistic, and that has been shown, in countries which have tried that, to be a failure.

No shit he's dead. I'm fucking taking over. http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Irrelevant. As a company that just exploited child labor in Latin America, might start a charity drive for the victims in Tsunami. Helping people shows "good will" and can be called "humanitarian". So? It still does not refute it being done for the purpose of publicity, which is exactly what I feel the Pope was doing.

It's nice that you use that analogy with the church. That really shows your bias. And it isn't irrelevant.

quote:Being, the closes representation of god on earth, he commands a lot of power, and a lot of respect among Christians.

Couldn't he have gone to Iraq, stayed in a home in the middle of Baghdad, and protests the war in Iraq from there, and thus putting the "Coalition of the Willing" in a world of trouble, if they even dared bomb Baghdad? Yes he could. He didn't.

Come on now. You are really extending yourself here. He did everything in his power. He talked to world leaders and he voiced his concerns to them. He told the catholics around the world that the war is wrong and that they should not support it. Aside from asking an 80 year old man to live in and actively protest in Iraq, what more do you want him to do?

quote:Dogma is a matter of faith...

It's a facet of faith, but it isn't faith. The pope is not infallible when it comes to faith. The doctorine teaches that if you disagree with the pope when it concerns faith, you do not have to follow him because he is not infallible when it comes to faith.

From the site you provided:"What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position. "

The pope can be wrong. Catholics do not have to follow everything that the pope says.

quote:

1. Again, do you know what his title is? What it means? And how it was given to him?

What do you mean by title? The title of the current pope? What

Pope means father in latin.

It is given to the bishop of Rome, the successor of St.Peter, the man who Jesus told to lead his church on earth.

quote:2. I ask you, does the fact that it is protocol for a man to kneel down before the Pope, and kiss his hand or his feet, not show reek of ostentatiousness? Please.

It seems formal, but what does formality have to do with anything other than provide ammo for your potshots towards the Catholic Church?

quote:By mandating Catholics to abstain from sex, a practice that is completely unrealistic, and that has been shown, in countries which have tried that, to be a failure.

I guess I forgot how often abstinence fails... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

It's nice that you use that analogy with the church. That really shows your bias. And it isn't irrelevant.

In other words, you cannot provide a counter argument. Great.

quote:Come on now. You are really extending yourself here. He did everything in his power. He talked to world leaders and he voiced his concerns to them. He told the catholics around the world that the war is wrong and that they should not support it. Aside from asking an 80 year old man to live in and actively protest in Iraq, what more do you want him to do?

Bullshit. Are you saying it isn't in his powers to travel to Iraq? I don't think so. He therefore didn't do everything in his power to stop the war in Iraq.

Hell, Iraq is simply an example of numerous other conflicts he did nothing about.

quote:It's a facet of faith, but it isn't faith.

I never said it was faith! Geez, follow the fucking argument.

quote:The pope is not infallible when it comes to faith. The doctorine teaches that if you disagree with the pope when it concerns faith, you do not have to follow him because he is not infallible when it comes to faith.

From the site you provided:

"What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position. "

The pope can be wrong. Catholics do not have to follow everything th

For the love of god, read! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Again, "Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

quote:From the site you provided:"What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position. "

The pope can be wrong. Catholics do not have to follow everything that the pope says.

Does the ability to read elude you? Is this some sort of sick, late April Fool's joke that I'm not getting? Read your own fucking quote:

"What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error."

In other words, in matters of faith, morals an doctrine, he cannot be incorrect (i.e. wrong), as he is prevented, by virtue of this infallibility, form stating an error.

quote:What do you mean by title? The title of the current pope? What

Pope means father in latin.

It is given to the bishop of Rome, the successor of St.Peter, the man who Jesus told to lead his church on earth.

Pope isn't his title (i.e. his title in the hierarchy of the Church). In fact, it wasn't applied to Popes in specific until much later.

quote:It seems formal, but what does formality have to do with anything other than provide ammo for your potshots towards the Catholic Church?

It has to do with the bible speaking of humility not pompousness, which is exactly what the Catholic Church represents, and the bible spoke against.

quote:I guess I forgot how often abstinence fails...

It's implementation as a policy HAS failed, which is the point.

Thank you for ignoring this and substituting your stupidity, in place of an argument.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Pope means father in latin.



Isn't that in direct and striking contradiction with Jesus who instructs us to not name ANYONE on earth as "father"?

http://www.randomchaos.com/photo/?id=29 lol.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

In other words, you cannot provide a counter argument. Great.

Provide a decent initial arguement and I might consider countering it. I'm not going to waste my time challenging an analogy that compares the Catholic Church to a company that uses child labor.

quote:Bullshit. Are you saying it isn't in his powers to travel to Iraq? I don't think so. He therefore didn't do everything in his power to stop the war in Iraq.

Hell, Iraq is simply an example of numerous other conflicts he did nothing about.

You act like his presence in Iraq would have stopped it, which is ignorant.

he voiced his opposition to any and all war, which is all he can do.

How can the pope stop countries from waging war?

quote:You infallability arguements(I don't feel like quoting them all)

The pope is not the moral authority. Catholics can disagree with the pope over moral issues. I don't understand how you don't get this. Catholics are not required to agree with the pope. They do not have to follow his teachings if they are morally opposed to them. This would mean that the pope is not morally infallible.

His ex cathedra teachings may be infallible, but all of his other teachings aren't.

The pope is not the moral authority for Catholics.

quote:Pope isn't his title (i.e. his title in the hierarchy of the Church). In fact, it wasn't applied to Popes in specific until much later.

So you want the name that the pope used to be known as? Do you want his official title?

quote:It has to do with the bible speaking of humility not pompousness, which is exactly what the Catholic Church represents, and the bible spoke against.

Well this will only turn into semantics if we go further into it. I think it has to do with reverence and respect. I don't think that the pope requires all of his visitors to kneel and kiss his ring. It is just tradition and a sign of respect.

You will argue otherwise, and I will argue again, and it will get no where, so I'm just going to drop this point.

quote:It's implementation as a policy HAS failed, which is the point.

Thank you for ignoring this and substituting your stupidity, in place of an argument.

I guess I forgot how the pope makes everyone in the world have sex... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Silly me! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Provide a decent initial arguement and I might consider countering it. I'm not going to waste my time challenging an analogy that compares the Catholic Church to a company that uses child labor.

I'm showing you how one could do a charitable act, and still be a "publicity stunt" hence, your claim that Pope wasn't doing a publicity stunt because it was a mission of good will, is refuted. This is not a comparison between the two and had you read what I wrote, and understood it, you would have known this.

quote:You act like his presence in Iraq would have stopped it, which is ignorant.

he voiced his opposition to any and all war, which is all he can do.

How can the pope stop countries from waging war?

Yes. He very well could have. The Pope being in Iraq (or anywhere else where the U.S. or any country is going to bomb any minute now) would have stopped the U.S. from bombing, at the very least for a short period of time. Why? Because the last thing the U.S., or any other country wants, is to have millions and millions of Catholics, and probably non-catholics as well, up in their asses.

Sorry, but if I were to take the bible as true, I would have to conclude that Jesus wouldn't have simply said, "Don't go to war, it is wrong". He would have mobilized.

quote:he pope is not the moral authority. Catholics can disagree with the pope over moral issues. I don't understand how you don't get this. Catholics are not required to agree with the pope. They do not have to follow his teachings if they are morally opposed to them. This would mean that the pope is not morally infallible.

His ex cathedra teachings may be infallible, but all of his other teachings aren't.

The pope is not the moral authority for Catholics.

WHERE THE FUCK DID I EVER SAY THEY COULDN'T DISAGREE WITH THE POPE? SHOW ME WHERE I SAID ALL OF HIS TEACHINGS ARE INFALLIBLE?

I'll be waiting for an eternity... SINCE I NEVER FUCKING SAID IT! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

For the love of god, try to read what I'm saying; it lessens the possibility of you looking like an insurmountable buffoon, as you do now.

Again, I said he was infallible when it comes to matter of the Catholic faith, morals and doctrine, which he is. As such, I was completely correct, and you were completely incorrect; painfully obvious to even the most idiotic person, I know, but I'm taking the liberty of repeating it, since I know the only reason you changed the subject, as if I ever claimed Catholics cannot disagree with him, is that you were completely incorrect in your initial assertion, and the only recourse you saw was a strawman.

quote:So you want the name that the pope used to be known as? Do you want his official title?

His official title.

quote:Well this will only turn into semantics if we go further into it. I think it has to do with reverence and respect. I don't think that the pope requires all of his visitors to kneel and kiss his ring. It is just tradition and a sign of respect.

You will argue otherwise, and I will argue again, and it will get no where, so I'm just going to drop this point.

You're right. It IS tradition. Tradition which he apparently sees absolutely nothing wrong with, since not only does he permit it, but encourages it by extending, in an act easily resembling the Kings of Old, his hand or his feet, order for them to be kissed. This is shows lack of humility, a virtue expounded on the bible.

quote:

I guess I forgot how the pope makes everyone in the world have sex... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Silly me! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)



Because I said that! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Again, substituting your idiocy for these pathetic excuses for arguments.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-04-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by bodomised:

I'm pretty sure he condemned homosexuality, though I could be wrong.



What is wrong with upholding the tenets of his faith ?

That doesn't make him a bigot.

It's not the homosexual the Christian detests, it is the sexual immorality. This applies to straight people, too.

And ALL sin should be detested, not just sexually related sin.

I am not saying that the Catholic Church can't be accused of bigotry, I am simply pointing out that of all the Pope's to hold office, he wasn't among the bigoted (in my opinion).

For those of you who simply hate the Pope, you're being bigoted.

Hypocrisy doesn't make well for people trying to prove a point.

quote:Originally posted by bodomised:

That was my point. I hardly expected him to embrace it. But that's gonna be the running problem if they continue to elect from the elderly. Old values are gonna breed true in every Pope.

And the problem with that is ?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



I consider you an insult to Christianity as well.

Less than the Pope of course, but an insult none the less.

That's fair.

All people are an embarassment to God.

But He loves us anyway.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

And, of course, whenever a tragedy such as this happens, we can all come together and extend our condolences to the church of Rome. On the off chance that they spent too much money on pedophile priest lawyers, and need a cheap replacement (http://www.lordcocentre.com/Stores/lordco/240.html)...

quote: Posted by Napoleon:

[/b]

When will you realize that you are not necessarily right.

You are no more right than a catholic when it comes to God. As long as their primary goal is to follow god and lead a good life, why does their manner of faith matter to you?

Your anti-catholic rhetoric is realy becoming tired so I would suggest that you stop, lest you make yourself look more stupid.[/b]

When will you realize that what I say comes from the Bible, which makes it right ? My saying it doesn't make it right. It's the word of God !

These are not my own opinions. These are the tenets of God, coming out of my "mouth". That is not to say I know everything about the Bible (I never will), but what I do know I will certainly tell others about.

I follow the Bible as closely as I can...though I fail miserably at it everyday, that doesn't mean I don't understand it. That means I am a human, and a sinner.

To say I am wrong is to say the Bible is wrong in almost every case, since I try and stay on track with the word of God as much as possible.

I don't have to be perfect to be a Christian. That was never a requirement, so stop personally judging me, as though you had any right to do so.

I am far from stupid, and could never be honestly seen as such. Not because this is self-professed, but because it is simply not true.

I am sorry if what I say pisses you off, but God promises that to the unbelievers, the TRUTH always will.

I have much respect for the dedication and reverence that Catholics are capable of. And as many atrocities as can be attributed to them, so can MANY MORE benefits to society.

They have done a lot of harm, but equally they have done a lot of good.

I am not hateful towards them, and I do apologize if it has seemed that way. My telling the truth about God was my only intention...they can believe whatever they wish, as long as they accept that Christ is their savior, first and foremost, which they do.

In that respect, they are my brothers and sisters in Christ. I love and respect them for that...

However, I am wary of, and quick to point out when, churches steer people in the wrong direction.

Spiritually, Catholicism could be so much more effective if they would simply follow God's word, instead of their own.

The rituals are useless, and many of their beliefs defy what God has commanded us.

Idolatry is just one example. I point it out frequently, since it is the most obvious sin...everyone can see it.

I am against anything that prevents people from having a truly meaningful relationship with God. God tells us to pray to nothing and worship nothing other than HIMSELF.

Praying to Mary becomes nothing more than a stumbling block (a distraction) to Christians who are truly praying in earnest. They are praying to nothing, essentially...all because their church tells them to. What kind of authority should THEY have over God's church ? God gave it to us in black and white in the Bible, and everything after that is just fluff.

It's bondage, and I abhor it. I will not sit by idly and watch as millions are led astray by the lies of Satan...it is hard enough being a Christian without man complicating it with garbage.

I hope that is a sufficient explanation of my view on the whole thing.

It isn't hatred for Catholicism...it's what it represents that bothers me, and it well should.

My God Can Beat the Shit Out of Your God.... not so much now.

quote: Posted by Napoleon:

The pope is not the moral authority. Catholics can disagree with the pope over moral issues. I don't understand how you don't get this. Catholics are not required to agree with the pope. They do not have to follow his teachings if they are morally opposed to them. This would mean that the pope is not morally infallible.

His ex cathedra teachings may be infallible, but all of his other teachings aren't.



The pope is not the moral authority for Catholics.

Verification http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)#882, p. 254) (from Catechism):

"For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

You can disagree with him all you want to, but if he says it is so, it will be.

If he has that much power over the church, it is reasonable to conclude that he will be making decisions that affect the moral character and judgement of the members.

He can set and reset the moral standards as he sees fit, since that is the entire purpose of the church.

The mistake in this is that the moral standards we as Christians are to live by are already detailed in the Bible, and are not in need of revision or addition.

The Bible says the Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the church:

Ephesians 5:23 - "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as CHRIST IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH..."

Even more, it is believed that the Pope has ultimate power over the human soul.

Verification: (#937, p.267) (from Catechism):

"The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls."

The disciples questioned among themselves who would be the greatest leader and Jesus told them that the greatest are the biggest servants. Jesus and John the Baptist were quite unlike Korol the pope with his big fancy hats and white royal attire and "power which he can ALWAYS exercise UNHINDERED" (one aspect of a cult--a charismatic leader who tells followers what to do.)

But Jesus called them unto him, and said, "Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister,and to give his life as ransom for many." Matthew 20:25-28

Korol Wojtyla allowed himself (as did all Pope's before him) to be called "Holy Father". This term is found ONCE in the entire Bible. It was in the garden of Gethsemane and Jesus was praying to God the Father: "...Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. John 17:11

That is just wrong.

Here is what God says about it:

"I am the LORD: that is my name: and MY GLORY WILL I NOT GIVE TO ANOTHER..." Isaiah 42:8

"And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and He is in heaven." Matthew 23:9

Do you still disagree that the Pope does not set the moral standard, as the "Vicar of Christ" ?



[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 04-04-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

Isn't that in direct and striking contradiction with Jesus who instructs us to not name ANYONE on earth as "father"?

You are precisely correct.

"When will you realize that what I say comes from the Bible, which makes it right ? My saying it doesn't make it right. It's the word of God !"

-DS

Okay, I'm stoned right now, but stick with me...were you just claiming to be speaking the Word of God?

*lol*

Sort of...

Rather, I am relaying it, as it has been revealed to me.

Meaning, a room full of 30 people can read the same Bible, and come to 30 different conclusions.

We have to try and seek GOD when we read it, so that our own human imperfection does not cloud the spiritual perfection of God's text.

What I say here on Totse I believe to be the true word of God.

I am in err for my behavior, but the scriptures and their meanings are not elusive to me.

This is not to say that I am incapable of making a mistake...I have learned much just from being on Totse.

People here challenge me to understand my faith in ways I had never imagined possible.

I am thankful for you guys.

Am I the only one who thought he was a good man then?

No.

I second the motion.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

And the problem with that is ?

I didn't say there was any problem with it.

Fucking oath http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)