bgast1's Official thread on I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Athiest

[GenMarshall]

I don't see what anything of this has to do with Christianity's relation to the Vatican II cult.

Well Vatican II is from Rome and thus is an authorty from the Vatican.

Oh my dear, you really seem to be a lost cause...Catholics don't get their doctrine from Webster's Dictionary or Wikipedia...

I only used the two referances to gather the technical definition for the word "orthodox". Also, I am most certanly not a lost cause. I do get Catholic Dogma from www.ewtn.com as well as www.vatican.va and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Yeah, you see the point of this all is that Vatican II was PASTORAL and NON-DOGMATIC. The old pope quickly lost control over that council. Right in the middle of the council, John XXIII promulgated Veterum Sapientia which re-iterated that Latin should remain the preeminent language of the Church and the Liturgy, but to no avail as it was ignored by the rebellious perverted bishops at V2.

The problem with latin is that anyone who is not familiar with it, such as myself would not understand what the priests and bishops are saying. I never have been exposed to large amounts of Latin (Such as Latin Classes found in High School) so I would be totaly lost in a all Latin language Church. I am quite happy that Vatican II has alowed for masses to be conducted in English (in the United States) as well for Spanish for the Latino/Hispanic community in the US.

No, its not.

You are far off the deap end . Even Jesus himself never judged other people in his time. One of the teachings of Jesus is thou shall not judge others.

 

[ironduck]

How are people supposed to learn about Jesus when they are told in a language that neither they nor He spoke?

But the Romans spoke it, and christianity was a cult until it was embraced by Rome

It's not supposed to make sense. He's part of a cult and cults like to have codes and various 'pure' references such as language.

 

[Inqvisitor]

Well Vatican II is from Rome and thus is an authorty from the Vatican.

Who is Rome? The pope? How is it that the pope could come into conflict with the council if all his authority is behind it?

I only used the two referances to gather the technical definition for the word "orthodox". Also, I am most certanly not a lost cause. I do get Catholic Dogma from www.ewtn.com as well as www.vatican.va and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Television stations don't count either...I recommend getting a hold of Fr. Heinrich Denzinger's The Sources of Catholic Dogma, preferably the 1954 edition...

The problem with latin is that anyone who is not familiar with it, such as myself would not understand what the priests and bishops are saying. I never have been exposed to large amounts of Latin (Such as Latin Classes found in High School) so I would be totaly lost in a all Latin language Church. I am quite happy that Vatican II has alowed for masses to be conducted in English (in the United States) as well for Spanish for the Latino/Hispanic community in the US.

Good to see you are now backtracking on the "but the pope infallibly changed that" argument and now making it clear you are only speaking your own opinion.

You are far off the deap end . Even Jesus himself never judged other people in his time. One of the teachings of Jesus is thou shall not judge others.

Oh yeah, Jesus never judged people. Like when we whipped the moneychangers out of the temple. Or when He called people hypocrites and a "brood of vipers."

 

[Inqvisitor]

But the Romans spoke it, and christianity was a cult until it was embraced by Rome

It's not supposed to make sense. He's part of a cult and cults like to have codes and various 'pure' references such as language.

Back to flamebaiting and name-calling yet again, ironduck...?

 

[GenMarshall]

Who is Rome? The pope? How is it that the pope could come into conflict with the council if all his authority is behind it?

I have no clue, But I am just glad that Vatican II has been passed and accepted. No offense, but Traditional Catholics would need to get a grasp and face the realities of the modern Catholic Church and pull their heads out of other schismatic Catholic Churches such as the True Catholic Church under antipope Pius XIII and other sedevacantist groups.

Television stations don't count either...I recommend getting a hold of Fr. Heinrich Denzinger's The Sources of Catholic Dogma, preferably the 1954 edition...

Ever stop to thought about how EWTN informs and educate people about the Catholic faith, Informs and educate seekers of the Catholic Faith as well as refreser for older Catholics.

I would only perfer to look into editions that are well up to date along with the Catechism of the Catholic Church that has been approved by Pope John Paul II.

Good to see you are now backtracking on the "but the pope infallibly changed that" argument and now making it clear you are only speaking your own opinion.

Its most certanly true that modern popes after Vatican II, their infallibily did indeed changed that. I for one dont need to chuck quotes from old outdated dogmas from Catholicism 2.5 when it does not apply to Catholicism 3.0.

I chose not to verbaly spar by using quotations from dogmas when clearly that many non-Catholics as well as agnostics and athesits (and mainstream Catholics who accepts Vatican II) would find it irrelevent to them and holds no foundation in an argument. Which I can tell from frustrations from ironduck when he constantly asks you for "your opinions" not just from the doctrines of the Church.

Speeking from one's own option as well as using sources to back your opinions is esential to these discussions and debates. This is something that I have learned after I had reverted back into Christianity and eventualy into Catholicism, because I have to deal with non-believers both on and offline, and I know that much of the dogmas and doctrines of the church is irrelivent to any atheist, agnostic, as well as non-Catholics.

Oh yeah, Jesus never judged people. Like when we whipped the moneychangers out of the temple. Or when He called people hypocrites and a "brood of vipers."

I suggest that you look in the bible again and look at the part where Jesus said on the Sermon on the Mount and he says and I quote: "Judge not, lest ye be not judged." (Matthew 7:1)

 

[ironduck]

Back to flamebaiting and name-calling yet again, ironduck...?

Just stating the facts.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Jesus spoke Latin.

But you don't need to even hear the words at Mass to experience what is going on. Latin is the language St. Peter used in offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in Rome, which is where the Roman Mass comes from.

Cite evidence of this please. Given that he never wrote a word and that everyone else around him spoke Aramaic . . .

Also, "orthodox" doesn't mean "what Inqvisitor happens to believe". It means "the view held by the mainstream or majority", pretty much.

 

[GenMarshall]

Just stating the facts.

Just the facts Jack!
Sorry, I could not resist .

Cite evidence of this please. Given that he never wrote a word and that everyone else around him spoke Aramaic . . .

Good point EoA. Jesus mainly spoke in Aramaic since it is of couse Jesus's mother tounge. He also spoke a bit of Hebrew, Greek, and bits and parts of Latin (Much like how we use parts of Latin Words in our English Speeking).

Also, "orthodox" doesn't mean "what Inqvisitor happens to believe". It means "the view held by the mainstream or majority", pretty much.

Orthodox: 1 a : conforming to established doctrine especially in religion b : CONVENTIONAL
2 capitalized : of, relating to, or constituting any of various conservative religious or political groups: as a : EASTERN ORTHODOX b : of or relating to Orthodox Judaism

EoA hits the nail on the head once again and futher proves that "orthodox" is not Inqvisitorism . The key is that if the "o" in orthodox is left in lowercase, then it relates with a main stream. How ever if the "o" in orthodox is uppercase, then it relates to eather the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church or Orthodox Judaism.

 

[Inqvisitor]

I have no clue

Oh, how very true...

Ever stop to thought about how EWTN informs and educate people about the Catholic faith, Informs and educate seekers of the Catholic Faith as well as refreser for older Catholics.

Mother Angelica had a stroke several years ago and since then that network has largely fallen to the Charismatic Protestants.

I would only perfer to look into editions that are well up to date along with the Catechism of the Catholic Church that has been approved by Pope John Paul II.

"Up to date?" Catholicism is an unchanging religion.

Numerous heresies/ heretical personal opinions omitted

Speeking from one's own option as well as using sources to back your opinions is esential to these discussions and debates. This is something that I have learned after I had reverted back into Christianity and eventualy into Catholicism, because I have to deal with non-believers both on and offline, and I know that much of the dogmas and doctrines of the church is irrelivent to any atheist, agnostic, as well as non-Catholics.

The sole purpose is to convince others that these dogmas are relevant. There is no middle ground in the Christian Faith. You either accept it all, or are outside the Church.

I suggest that you look in the bible again and look at the part where Jesus said on the Sermon on the Mount and he says and I quote: "Judge not, lest ye be not judged." (Matthew 7:1)

Do you think I have not heard that quote before? It was one of only a few the liberalists have memorized from the Bible. It is a warning against hypocrisy; if you judge you must also be prepared to be judged yourself. If someone engages in homosexual activity and then goes out without penance and declares that homosexuals are all living in sin, that is the case of hypocritical judgment.

 

[Perfection]

The sole purpose is to convince others that these dogmas are relevant. There is no middle ground in the Christian Faith. You either accept it all, or are outside the Church.

So what are these central dogmas you speak of?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

"Up to date?" Catholicism is an unchanging religion.

Except for all those times that they changed doctrine, or practice, or anything else. Of course, since you don't believe in history (except on the rare occasions that it coincides with your preconceived notions) then that fact is lost on you.

 

[Inqvisitor]

Cite evidence of this please. Given that he never wrote a word and that everyone else around him spoke Aramaic . . .

It is Sacred Tradition that Jesus spoke Latin, Greek, and Aramaic/ Hebrew. Considering the circumstances of Jesus' life under Roman rule, it makes much historical sense as well.

Also, "orthodox" doesn't mean "what Inqvisitor happens to believe". It means "the view held by the mainstream or majority", pretty much.

EoA hits the nail on the head once again and futher proves that "orthodox" is not Inqvisitorism . The key is that if the "o" in orthodox is left in lowercase, then it relates with a main stream. How ever if the "o" in orthodox is uppercase, then it relates to eather the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church or Orthodox Judaism.

According to the Catholic Encylopaedia, it means "right believer" from "orthodoxos." A "right believer" does not necessarily adhere to the mainstream views of the majority.

But I guess you have got Noah Webster and secularism on your side....

 

[Inqvisitor]

Except for all those times that they changed doctrine, or practice, or anything else. Of course, since you don't believe in history (except on the rare occasions that it coincides with your preconceived notions) then that fact is lost on you.

Doctrines and practices have never changed. You are free to provide some fact to back up your claim here.

Better yet, someone please start a new thread about all these Catholic-specific arguments, as this thread has gone off track enough for when the OP returns...

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

It is Sacred Tradition that Jesus spoke Latin, Greek, and Aramaic/ Hebrew. Considering the circumstances of Jesus' life under Roman rule, it makes much historical sense as well.

Sacred tradition . . . so if a pope said it, it becomes true.

According to the Catholic Encylopaedia, it means "right believer" from "orthodoxos." A "right believer" does not necessarily adhere to the mainstream views of the majority.

But I guess you have got Noah Webster and secularism on your side....

I am using the accepted definition, according to a dictionary of the English language, of the word "orthodox". I don't want to squibble about semantics, but the fact is that we use standard English here. If within the Catholic church they use the word differently, that is their prerogative, but you can't expect us to use words that way.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Doctrines and practices have never changed. You are free to provide some fact to back up your claim here.

Better yet, someone please start a new thread about all these Catholic-specific arguments, as this thread has gone off track enough for when the OP returns...

Well, they have changed their views on the selling of indulgences, and their relation to other religions, and the afterlife - heck, the doctrine of the Trinity didn't even appear in any writings until the 2nd Century, and it didn't become the mainstream view until the Nicene Council.

 

[Inqvisitor]

Sacred tradition . . . so if a pope said it, it becomes true.

Sacred Tradition... Starting with Pope Peter in A.D. 33...

I am using the accepted definition, according to a dictionary of the English language, of the word "orthodox". I don't want to squibble about semantics, but the fact is that we use standard English here. If within the Catholic church they use the word differently, that is their prerogative, but you can't expect us to use words that way.

Most words like "orthodox" are only present in English from the Greek via the Christian Church. In its etymological origin, that is its pure meaning- someone who believes in the right way in accordance with Tradition.

 

[Inqvisitor]

Well, they have changed their views on the selling of indulgences, and their relation to other religions, and the afterlife - heck, the doctrine of the Trinity didn't even appear in any writings until the 2nd Century, and it didn't become the mainstream view until the Nicene Council.

Selling of plenary indulgences was always condemned; views were not changed, Rome merely took a much more active role in stamping out such corruption in the Tridentine era.

It doesn't matter whether a doctrine is mainstream or not; typically a council is called to condemned false doctrines and re-iterate the traditional doctrines.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Sacred Tradition... Starting with Pope Peter in A.D. 33...

When did Peter say that Jesus spoke Latin?

Most words like "orthodox" are only present in English from the Greek via the Christian Church. In its etymological origin, that is its pure meaning- someone who believes in the right way in accordance with Tradition.

So what if the word "orthodox" originally came from the Catholic church? Even if it did, that doesn't mean it can't have other meanings.

 

[GenMarshall]

Bumped an old thread for a Catholic specific thread
Move all Catholicism debates in here

Apologies to the OP for having the thread move off track.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Selling of plenary indulgences was always condemned; views were not changed, Rome merely took a much more active role in stamping out such corruption in the Tridentine era.

It doesn't matter whether a doctrine is mainstream or not; typically a council is called to condemned false doctrines and re-iterate the traditional doctrines.

Well, Rome stopped turning a blind eye and profiting from it. It does matter if a doctrine is mainstream, anyways, because then it is followed and put into practice.

At any rate, this isn't the "criticize Catholicism" thread, and I don't want to offend any real Catholics. Let's get back to bgast1's issues. I apologize for getting so off track, but I can contribute to the original questions.