NationStates Jolt Archive

I heard that they still exist, even in our modern era. Does anyone know who they are?

I heard that they still exist, even in our modern era. Does anyone know who they are?
George Bush is a pretty safe bet.

George Bush is a pretty safe bet.
You don't know what one is, do you?

Antipope is a song by the Damned.

You don't know what one is, do you?
Ooops. Sorry. I thought you were talking about Anti Christs.

Ooops. Sorry. I thought you were talking about Anti Christs.
An antipope is another guy who claims to be pope, even though he was not elected by the College of Cardinals.

An antipope is another guy who claims to be pope, even though he was not elected by the College of Cardinals.
Yeah. I know.

ANTIPOPE

[Lat.,=against the pope], person elected pope whose election was declared uncanonical and in opposition to a canonically chosen pontiff. Important antipopes were Novatian ; Clement III (see Guibert of Ravenna ); Nicholas V (see Rainalducci, Pietro ); Clement VII (see Robert of Geneva ); Benedict XIII (see Luna, Pedro de ); John XXIII (or by a different count, John XXII; see Cossa, Baldassarre ); and Felix V (see Amadeus VIII ), who was the last antipope.



Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, Copyright (c) 2004.

Yeah. I know.
Good. I just wanted to make sure.

ANTIPOPE

[Lat.,=against the pope], person elected pope whose election was declared uncanonical and in opposition to a canonically chosen pontiff. Important antipopes were Novatian ; Clement III (see Guibert of Ravenna ); Nicholas V (see Rainalducci, Pietro ); Clement VII (see Robert of Geneva ); Benedict XIII (see Luna, Pedro de ); John XXIII (or by a different count, John XXII; see Cossa, Baldassarre ); and Felix V (see Amadeus VIII ), who was the last antipope.



Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, Copyright (c) 2004.
The thing is, however, is that I heard that two are in operation today. They have extremely small followings, and pose no threat to the real pope in Rome. However, the fact that they exist in this day and age is troubling. Even more troubling is that they spawned from separatist movements after Vatican II.

An antipope is another guy who claims to be pope, even though he was not elected by the College of Cardinals.
Hmm, that's pretty boring :D I was hoping for something much more sinister..

bump

One is Anti Pope Pius the 13, head of the "true" catholic church.
The REAL pope is JOHN PAUL II.

One is Anti Pope Pius the 13, head of the "true" catholic church.
The REAL pope is JOHN PAUL II.
I know who the real one is. But that is one of the modern ones that I'm speaking of. Thanks.

John XXIV, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II

John XXIV, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II
So who is the pope?

If the pope and anti-pope accidentally meet, the universe spontaneously explodes, and since they are from Italy, naturally all that is left is pasta and, of course, antipasto.

This reminds me of Pope Eil, who created the pocket fisherman. http://www.ronco.com/products/pocketFisherman.di4?productID=10

So who is the pope?
Sede vacante...

St. Athanasius encountered a similiar situation in the fourth century.

Sede vacante...

St. Athanasius encountered a similiar situation in the fourth century.
This guy claims to be the pope as well.
http://www.truecatholic.org/pope/

Here is a list of them.....


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01582a.htm

Here is a list of them.....


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01582a.htm
As valid as this is, they are antipopes from the Middle Ages. There are some that have risen in response to Vatican II.

As valid as this is, they are antipopes from the Middle Ages. There are some that have risen in response to Vatican II.

Pius XIII comes to mind. I don't know of any others, but I'm sure someone here will enlighten us.

Pius XIII comes to mind. I don't know of any others, but I'm sure someone here will enlighten us.
http://www.truecatholic.org/pope/
I found his website. He appears to be the major antipope, but as I said, he poses absolutely no threat to the Catholic Church. This guy sure isn't Martin Luther.

http://www.truecatholic.org/pope/
I found his website. He appears to be the major antipope, but as I said, he poses absolutely no threat to the Catholic Church. This guy sure isn't Martin Luther.
He is actually more orthodox than Antipope John Paul II...

He is actually more orthodox than Antipope John Paul II...
So are you gonna accept this guy? Or are you waiting around for a pope wannabe that suits your tastes exactly?

So are you gonna accept this guy? Or are you waiting around for a pope wannabe that suits your tastes exactly?
No, I'm waiting for the return of the Holy Papal Tiara upon the Chair of Saint Peter.

http://www.truecatholic.org/pope/
I found his website. He appears to be the major antipope, but as I said, he poses absolutely no threat to the Catholic Church. This guy sure isn't Martin Luther.

Hmmm he seems like a rather nasty bugger!

No, I'm waiting for the return of the Holy Papal Tiara upon the Chair of Saint Peter.

Why?

No, I'm waiting for the return of the Holy Papal Tiara upon the Chair of Saint Peter.
And how will that be determined?

My best friend's cousin was an anti-Pope. She also knew a man with a golden arm...

And how will that be determined?
A valid election by the valid College of Cardinals.

Fidei is waiting for one of those old fashioned popes who is has hardcore as he is, none of these sissy ass ones will do for him, I mean, the Jews control, so they must be anti popes, right?

A valid election by the valid College of Cardinals.
Now you'll probably say that the College of Cardinals chosen by Rome is invalid. Who are the valid ones?

Now you'll probably say that the College of Cardinals chosen by Rome is invalid. Who are the valid ones?
They have been infiltrated since the death of the essentially exiled Pope Gregory XVII.

Fidei is waiting for one of those old fashioned popes who is has hardcore as he is, none of these sissy ass ones will do for him, I mean, the Jews control, so they must be anti popes, right?

He will probably wait a looooong time. People have changed are more educated. They don't go for the hardasses anymore. They found that a hardass in charged makes enrollment drop and thus donations.....

A fundi pope would probably make the Americans form their own Chruch just like the Brits....

They have been infiltrated since the death of the essentially exiled Pope Gregory XVII.
So no valid College exists?

They have been infiltrated since the death of the essentially exiled Pope Gregory XVII.


Sounds like you're longing for a past catholic church.

He will probably wait a looooong time. People have changed are more educated. They don't go for the hardasses anymore. They found that a hardass in charged makes enrollment drop and thus donations.....

A fundi pope would probably make the Americans form their own Chruch just like the Brits....
When the True Papacy is restored, the Church as a whole shall be restored to its Divine Glory.

Sounds like you're longing for a past catholic church.
Semper eadem....

When the True Papacy is restored, the Church as a whole shall be restored to its Divine Glory.



Not if its fundamentalist, people don't buy much into that any more and especially if they make us believe the earth is the centre of the universe, again.

Not if its fundamentalist, people don't buy much into that any more and especially if they make us believe the earth is the centre of the universe, again.
Umm... the earth is the center of the universe.

Umm... the earth is the center of the universe.



You have no scientific evidence to back that up.

You have no scientific evidence to back that up.
"Scientific evidence?" :rolleyes:

"Scientific evidence?" :rolleyes:

Well then prove it!

"Scientific evidence?" :rolleyes:



Yes, something that proves it true, that is legitimate.

So no valid College exists?
Defensor Fidei, could you please answer me?

Yes, something that proves it true, that is legitimate.
Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon.
--Josue xXII

Les Claypool is the Anti-Pop :D

Defensor Fidei, could you please answer me?
No, the Holy Pontificate is exiled.

Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon.
--Josue xXII



Ok, the church used to think the world was flat, so that is not legitimate. And otherwise, no such thing as age would exist.

No, the Holy Pontificate is exiled.
So, the Papal throne is vacant, and the College of Cardinals does not exist. How do you plan on knowing when the Pope ascends to the throne?

So, the Papal throne is vacant, and the College of Cardinals does not exist. How do you plan on knowing when the Pope ascends to the throne?
When the papal tiara is again upon the Vicar and Mass is again said on the altar at St. Peter's.

Ok, the church used to think the world was flat, so that is not legitimate.

No it didn't: the idea of a flat earth was never either widespread or official in the church.

No it didn't: the idea of a flat earth was never either widespread or official in the church.



Yes and thats why when explorers went out, they feared if they went too far, they'd fall off the edge of the world.

When the papal tiara is again upon the Vicar and Mass is again said on the altar at St. Peter's.
So, does that mean you'll find a like-minded priest, go to Rome with a militia, and take over the Vatican? Using your logic, you should just declare yourself pope.

Yes and thats why when explorers went out, they feared if they went too far, they'd fall off the edge of the world.
That was more of the European peasantry, which happened to comprise of sailors at the time. Most educated people knew that the earth was round, even those in the church.

So, does that mean you'll find a like-minded priest, go to Rome with a militia, and take over the Vatican? Using your logic, you should just declare yourself pope.
A "pope" who does not say Mass is perfectly okay with you, I assume.

Yes and thats why when explorers went out, they feared if they went too far, they'd fall off the edge of the world.

Those same explorers who could plainly see the effects of the curvature of the Earth every time they climbed the mast and another ship was in sight?

A "pope" who does not say Mass is perfectly okay with you, I assume.
You know, John Paul II uses Latin, if that's what you mean.

You know, John Paul II uses Latin, if that's what you mean.
Novus Ordo in Latin is still... the Novus Ordo.

That was more of the European peasantry, which happened to comprise of sailors at the time. Most educated people knew that the earth was round, even those in the church.



Well, do you believe the earth is the centre of the universe? I'm sure you don't but I want to make a point that isn't a legitimate view.

Those same explorers who could plainly see the effects of the curvature of the Earth every time they climbed the mast and another ship was in sight?


Funny, they saw that and still believed it was flat.

Well, do you believe the earth is the centre of the universe? I'm sure you don't but I want to make a point that isn't a legitimate view.
It is a legitimate view. It is the view of the Roman Catholic Church.

Novus Ordo in Latin is still... the Novus Ordo.
Well, I believe in the moral authority of the Holy Father, and accept this so-called "Novus Ordo". If you don't, go out and find your own religion. You'd fit in perfectly well with some Protestant sects. Either that, or declare yourself pope.

Well, I believe in the moral authority of the Holy Father, and accept this so-called "Novus Ordo". If you don't, go out and find your own religion. You'd fit in perfectly well with some Protestant sects. Either that, or declare yourself pope.
ME? It is you who attends a protestantized "mass." Do you even know what the Novus Ordo is?

Funny, they saw that and still believed it was flat.

You really should go and do some research on this matter.

Let me ask you this: at what point in history do you think this supposedly widespread belief in a flat Earth was discredited?

Well, do you believe the earth is the centre of the universe? I'm sure you don't but I want to make a point that isn't a legitimate view.
To be honest, we can't objectively tell. Sure, the earth revolves around the sun, but what if the sun's orbit shifts to keep earth constantly at the center of the universe? Nevertheless, I doubt it is true.

It is a legitimate view. It is the view of the Roman Catholic Church.




Not the current one and that all I'm concerned about. Not your old fashioned ones, that are hundreds of years old. This is the 21st century and John Paul II is pope.

ME? It is you who attends a protestantized "mass." Do you even know what the Novus Ordo is?
Yes, I do. And I don't mind it. What should you care if I go to Hell?
And what about you becomming pope? Why can't you?

You really should go and do some research on this matter.

Let me ask you this: at what point in history do you think this supposedly widespread belief in a flat Earth was discredited?



It truly began to die out in the 1st century but between the Roman Empire and renaissance, some began to question the sphere earth theory again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth_theory

Yes, I do. And I don't mind it. What should you care if I go to Hell?
And what about you becomming pope? Why can't you?
You have no problem attending a "mass" completely fabricated by protestants and freemasons?

"I saw many pastors cherishing dangerous ideas against the Church. . . . They built a large, singular, extravagant church which was to embrace all creeds with equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics, and all denominations, a true communion of the unholy with one shepherd and one flock. There was to be a Pope, a salaried Pope, without possessions. All was made ready, many things finished; but, in place of an altar, were only abomination and desolation. Such was the new church to be, and it was for it that he had set fire to the old one; but God designed otherwise."
--Anne Catherine Emmerich (That's Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich to you)

Hmm.. The Novus Ordo has led to the destruction of many Catholic altars being destroyed to make room for the New Order.... Some prophecy...

Funny, they saw that and still believed it was flat.

Hey: I've just noticed that the debate has changed from the question of the antipopes to the question of the antipodes. Now that is what I call a stylish thread hijack.

To be honest, we can't objectively tell. Sure, the earth revolves around the sun, but what if the sun's orbit shifts to keep earth constantly at the center of the universe? Nevertheless, I doubt it is true.



Fair enough, at least you leave room either way (open mind).

You have no problem attending a "mass" completely fabricated by protestants and freemasons?

"I saw many pastors cherishing dangerous ideas against the Church. . . . They built a large, singular, extravagant church which was to embrace all creeds with equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics, and all denominations, a true communion of the unholy with one shepherd and one flock. There was to be a Pope, a salaried Pope, without possessions. All was made ready, many things finished; but, in place of an altar, were only abomination and desolation. Such was the new church to be, and it was for it that he had set fire to the old one; but God designed otherwise."
--Anne Catherine Emmerich (That's Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich to you)

Hmm.. The Novus Ordo has led to the destruction of many Catholic altars being destroyed to make room for the New Order.... Some prophecy...



yes, because Protestants are evil and twisted :rolleyes:.

It truly began to die out in the 1st century but between the Roman Empire and renaissance, some began to question the sphere earth theory again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth_theory

So, you acknowledge that it was neither widespread nor official doctrine of the church?

yes, because Protestants are evil and twisted :rolleyes:.
Indeed...

Indeed...



I'm a Protestant, so thats sarcasm. Oh and btw, are you part of The Flat Earth Society by any chance?

You have no problem attending a "mass" completely fabricated by protestants and freemasons?

"I saw many pastors cherishing dangerous ideas against the Church. . . . They built a large, singular, extravagant church which was to embrace all creeds with equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics, and all denominations, a true communion of the unholy with one shepherd and one flock. There was to be a Pope, a salaried Pope, without possessions. All was made ready, many things finished; but, in place of an altar, were only abomination and desolation. Such was the new church to be, and it was for it that he had set fire to the old one; but God designed otherwise."
--Anne Catherine Emmerich (That's Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich to you)

Hmm.. The Novus Ordo has led to the destruction of many Catholic altars being destroyed to make room for the New Order.... Some prophecy...
I see no relation between her prophecy and the Church today. The Church is not an organization that is inherently wrong. As I said, you, my friend, need to form your own sect.
And btw, what's wrong with Protestantism? Or Eastern Orthodox?

I see no relation between her prophecy and the Church today. The Church is not an organization that is inherently wrong. As I said, you, my friend, need to form your own sect.
And btw, what's wrong with Protestantism? Or Eastern Orthodox?
Protestants are HERETICS and are DAMNED. Eastern "Orthodox" are SCHISMATICS and DAMNED. Why are you so ignorant of Catholic doctrine?

That prophecy fits the current crisis quite well.... anyway...

And tell me, then why the altare Dei has been removed in Novus Ordo churches?

Protestants are HERETICS and are DAMNED. Eastern "Orthodox" are SCHISMATICS and DAMNED. Why are you so ignorant of Catholic doctrine?

I'm not. You just don't want to change with everyone else. But this does raise another question. WHY DOES MY SOUL CONCERN YOU?

Edit
As for the alters, they weren't removed, but simply altered (no pun intened). They were rearranged to face the congregation.

Protestants are HERETICS and are DAMNED. Eastern "Orthodox" are SCHISMATICS and DAMNED. Why are you so ignorant of Catholic doctrine?

That prophecy fits the current crisis quite well.... anyway...

And tell me, then why the altare Dei has been removed in Novus Ordo churches?



Why are we "DAMNED"? Is it because we question you and broke off and now you are ticked at us. We broke off for reasons. He are not heretics, what makes you think you are so right, Fidei? I'm glad to see that Anthrus stuck up for us, he's actually in the moment, unlike you who is a thousand years in the past.

Why are we "DAMNED"? Is it because we question you and broke off and now you are ticked at us. We broke off for reasons. He are not heretics, what makes you think you are so right, Fidei? I'm glad to see that Anthrus stuck up for us, he's actually in the moment, unlike you who is several hundred years in the past.
Actually, he's at least a thousand years in the past, with regards to the church.

I'm not. You just don't want to change with everyone else. But this does raise another question. WHY DOES MY SOUL CONCERN YOU?
The dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus has been infallibly defined throughout the centuries. Not even if John Paul were valid could he destroy an infallible dogma.

Edit
As for the alters, they weren't removed, but simply altered (no pun intened). They were rearranged to face the congregation.
No, they were ripped out and replaced with tables.

The dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus has been infallibly defined throughout the centuries. Not even if John Paul were valid could he destroy an infallible dogma.

Out of [Eccelesiam, god I presume] there is no health?

No, they were ripped out and replaced with tables.
First off, the tables are altars, and are used as such.
Secondly, where is this new-found altruism? You want the Vatican seriously reformed, and made into a superselective club, where members are systematically denied entry. I'm sure that if it were up to you, Confession wouldn't even be allowed. But oh, you are now seeking to convert me. You are worried for me. How is this so?
You really should consider forming your own religion. You stuff words into Jesus's mouth.

Out of [Eccelesiam, god I presume] there is no health?
Outside the Church, there is NO SALVATION

Outside the Church, there is NO SALVATION

Why does that concern you, in regards to me?

Outside the Church, there is NO SALVATION

And what proof is there for this?

Protestants are HERETICS and are DAMNED. Eastern "Orthodox" are SCHISMATICS and DAMNED. Why are you so ignorant of Catholic doctrine?

Let me drag out my New Testament for this one:
And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My names sake, will recieve many times as much, and will inherit eternal life.
I'm gonna go with Jesus on this one. Scripture and tradition, not just tradition. Why are you so ignorant of Catholic doctrine?

First off, the tables are altars, and are used as such.
Secondly, where is this new-found altruism? You want the Vatican seriously reformed, and made into a superselective club, where members are systematically denied entry. I'm sure that if it were up to you, Confession wouldn't even be allowed. But oh, you are now seeking to convert me. You are worried for me. How is this so?
You really should consider forming your own religion. You stuff words into Jesus's mouth.
I admit I cried before the obstructed high altar after trying Novus Ordo "reconciliation." The "priest" forcefully interrupted the traditional Sign of the Cross and Confession prayer with a "handshake". (Perhaps he hates to hear the name of the Trinity?) Of course, we were standing up right outside the Holy Confessional, which is now used to store condoms in...
The filthy Jewsuits that destoyed that Church...

Thanks for ignoring the infallible dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus too.

And what proof is there for this?
CSW, you don't mind standing down a bit, do you? Your comments are a little provocative to more than this guy. Never use a wrecking ball when a small charge of explosives will do.

Let me drag out my New Testament for this one:

I'm gonna go with Jesus on this one. Scripture and tradition, not just tradition. Why are you so ignorant of Catholic doctrine?
That does not contradict the Holy Church's dogma, which is INFALLIBLE!

And what proof is there for this?
The infallible proclamations and doctrines of the Holy Mother Church.

I admit I cried before the obstructed high altar after trying Novus Ordo "reconciliation." The "priest" forcefully interrupted the traditional Sign of the Cross and Confession prayer with a "handshake". (Perhaps he hates to hear the name of the Trinity?) Of course, we were standing up right outside the Holy Confessional, which is now used to store condoms in...
The filthy Jewsuits that destoyed that Church...

Thanks for ignoring the infallible dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus too.
Form your own religion. Or is that heresy as well? Oh well. If you fear in being a heretic, at least you now know that Hell will have plenty of company.

CSW, you don't mind standing down a bit, do you? Your comments are a little provocative to more than this guy. Never use a wrecking ball when a small charge of explosives will do.
*bows head*

Your thread.

*bows head*

Your thread.
Thank you.

Thank you.



Want me to leave too?

Want me to leave too?
No, of course not. I was just making sure that CSW didn't try to say anything that would affend anyone else. I didn't even necessarily wanted him to leave. I guess that request was a bit cryptic.

That does not contradict the Holy Church's dogma, which is INFALLIBLE!
Actually, it does. Let me post that again, and see if your seperatist brain can fill in the blanks:
And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My names sake, will recieve many times as much, and will inherit eternal life.
Seriously - yes it does. The Church can revise it's own doctrine, you know, and still be infallible.

I may be an "false Catholic", but I can read between the lines. You, apparently, cannot.

Form your own religion. Or is that heresy as well? Oh well. If you fear in being a heretic, at least you now know that Hell will have plenty of company.
Anthrus, stop trying to ignore the point-
the Church has infallibly defined the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
All Catholics are required to accept infallible dogmas. Why do you reject the infallible dogma?

Form your own religion. Or is that heresy as well? Oh well. If you fear in being a heretic, at least you now know that Hell will have plenty of company.

They did form their own religion - they kind of had to when their leaders were excommunicated for heresy. Then, of course, the line became that Mother Church was overrun by Satan and they were the only true Church, so they couldn't be excommunicated, of course.

I just find this sect a riot. They'll cite infallible church doctrine up and down, yet their existence springs from heresy.

All Popes, be they "anti-Popes" or not, are still the Antichrist. Consider what the word "anti" means. We generally assume it refers to opposition, and it certainly has that connotation; however, consider the New Testament's usage of it: "But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room (anti) of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee." (Matthew 2:22) In fact, every time the Greek word "anti" is used (number 473 in James Strong's Greek Concordance), it describes something in place of something else (often translated "for"). Noah Webster listed "in place of" as one of the definitions of "anti". In fact, consider the definition of "antipope"- one in place of the perceived "true" Pope, masquerading as the real Pontiff. Isn't that precisely the definition of a "vicar", from the Latin word "vicarius".

Unfortunately, I don't have time to continue this at the moment; however, if you wish to speak to me on messenger services, I am avaliable later on. For MSN, my address is more_days_of_wine_and_roses@hotmail.com, and my Yahoo address is protestant_witness@yahoo.com.

Speak to you soon, hopefully.

-Brett

All Catholics are required to accept infallible dogmas. Why do you reject the infallible dogma?
Because dogma can be revised and reinterpreted. As much as I may disdain the thing, take the United States Constitution for an example. Portions are made null by later additions, revising things that are later considered to be false. The Church works in the same way.

All Popes, be they "anti-Popes" or not, are still the Antichrist. Consider what the word "anti" means. We generally assume it refers to opposition, and it certainly has that connotation; however, consider the New Testament's usage of it: "But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room (anti) of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee." (Matthew 2:22) In fact, every time the Greek word "anti" is used (number 473 in James Strong's Greek Concordance), it describes something in place of something else (often translated "for"). Noah Webster listed "in place of" as one of the definitions of "anti". In fact, consider the definition of "antipope"- one in place of the perceived "true" Pope, masquerading as the real Pontiff. Isn't that precisely the definition of a "vicar", from the Latin word "vicarius".

Unfortunately, I don't have time to continue this at the moment; however, if you wish to speak to me on messenger services, I am avaliable later on. For MSN, my address is more_days_of_wine_and_roses@hotmail.com, and my Yahoo address is protestant_witness@yahoo.com.

Speak to you soon, hopefully.

-Brett




Wow, I thought you'd just ask him for his email address but Brett, yet again, you've found a way to surprise me.

Anthrus, stop trying to ignore the point-
the Church has infallibly defined the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
All Catholics are required to accept infallible dogmas. Why do you reject the infallible dogma?
We don't. We just see the church as being broader than what you are saying.

They did form their own religion - they kind of had to when their leaders were excommunicated for heresy. Then, of course, the line became that Mother Church was overrun by Satan and they were the only true Church, so they couldn't be excommunicated, of course.

I just find this sect a riot. They'll cite infallible church doctrine up and down, yet their existence springs from heresy.
He's actually not a part of this sect. He must be in another one, as he sees the Papal Throne as vacant. The "true Catholic Church", as they call themselves, has appointed a "pope".

"This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God's commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Catholic Church."
--Pope Leo XIII, Annum Ingressi Sumus

"This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God's commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Catholic Church."
--Pope Leo XIII, Annum Ingressi Sumus



Given that was the only church then.......

Given that was the only church then.......
Yeah, way back when in A.D. 1903.... :rolleyes:

I meant to say he's the pope, so of course he'll believe that. I was thinking of someone else the first time.

I meant to say he's the pope, so of course he'll believe that. I was thinking of someone else the first time.
Lots of rhetoric from you... but perhaps you are coming around to see that the popes and the Holy Church are against your syncretistic religion.

Lots of rhetoric from you... but perhaps you are coming around to see that the popes and the Holy Church are against your syncretistic religion.



What do you mean "rhetoric"? I don't care if the old catholic church thinks I'm evil, if they do, they do. And given Protestants worship God and Jesus, I don't think we're different religions.

What do you mean "rhetoric"? I don't care if the old catholic church thinks I'm evil, if they do, they do. And given Protestants worship God and Jesus, I don't think we're different religions.

"No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church."
--St. Augustine of Hippo, Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesia plebem

"No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church."
--St. Augustine of Hippo, Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesia plebem





If you found people who weren't so bias, I might try to see your point of view but because you find quotes saying the Catholic Church is the only way to salvation, I simply don't believe that. If it is the only way, then a hell of a lot of good, decent people are going to hell.

He's actually not a part of this sect. He must be in another one, as he sees the Papal Throne as vacant. The "true Catholic Church", as they call themselves, has appointed a "pope".

I guess there are actually a few of these groups: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Catholic

Most traditional Catholics believe the pre-Vatican II Mass, Catechism, and Code of Canon Law are necessary to keep the Catholic faith. Some adhere to the old forms simply out of personal preference; the more extreme ones claim the Popes since the Second Vatican Council are heretics and have no authority and have even elected their own Popes.

Yeah, that's plural, so I'd guess that means that there must be a few of these people who have done just what you suggest, NA - declared themselves (or someone like themselves) Pope.

So that begs the question again - just how many Antipopes really are out there?

If you found people who weren't so bias, I might try to see your point of view but because you find quotes saying the Catholic Church is the only way to salvation, I simply don't believe that. If it is the only way, then a hell of a lot of good, decent people are going to hell.
The syncretists say "all nice people will go to heaven."
A major doctrinal point that has been (and must continue to be) preserved is regarding the fewness of the saved.

The syncretists say "all nice people will go to heaven."
A major doctrinal point that has been (and must continue to be) preserved is regarding the fewness of the saved.



I never said all nice people go to heaven, I said that if only Catholics that think like you go to heaven, then hell is going to be overflowing.

I never said all nice people go to heaven, I said that if only Catholics that think like you go to heaven, then hell is going to be overflowing.

Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat.
--St. Matthew viiXIII

Honestly, if God is as narrow minded as you make him sound, then I don't want any part of him. He sounds more like a human than a God with that "My way or the highway" attitude.

Honestly, if God is as narrow minded as you make him sound, then I don't want any part of him. He sounds more like a human than a God with that "My way or the highway" attitude.
That was Scripture now, the words of the Lord Iesus Christ Himself. Even if He is biased towards the Catholic Church...

That was Scripture now, the words of the Lord Iesus Christ Himself. Even if He is biased towards the Catholic Church...



The Catholic Church didn't exist when Christ was around, Peter and the disciples created it. If God wanted us to all think a certain way, things would obviously be different then they are, if you believe he is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.

The Catholic Church didn't exist when Christ was around, Peter and the disciples created it. If God wanted us to all think a certain way, things would obviously be different then they are, if you believe he is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.
If the Gospels are just a fabrication by the Church, then where does your "Christ " come from? The Da Vinci Code?

That was Scripture now, the words of the Lord Iesus Christ Himself. Even if He is biased towards the Catholic Church...

And just where did Christ mention the Catholic Church in that passage?

And just where did Christ mention the Catholic Church in that passage?
Do you have problems organzing your thoughts? Incapable of distinguishing between one topic and the next?

If the Gospels are just a fabrication by the Church, then where does your "Christ " come from? The Da Vinci Code?



Jesus was crucified and rose but it wasn't until after his death tha the chruch began to form whne he disciples went around, spreading the Gospel. The people that folllowed him around and listened to him speak could not be called an organized church.

Do you have problems organzing your thoughts? Incapable of distinguishing between one topic and the next?

Ooh, biggotted and condescending, how fun.

Let's see, you said this:
Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat.
--St. Matthew viiXIII

La Terra di Liberta said this:
Honestly, if God is as narrow minded as you make him sound, then I don't want any part of him. He sounds more like a human than a God with that "My way or the highway" attitude.

To which you responded:
That was Scripture now, the words of the Lord Iesus Christ Himself. Even if He is biased towards the Catholic Church...

To which I asked where in the quote in question does Christ mention the Catholic faith specifically. Let's disregard how little sense that last response of yours makes in terms of tense agreement...that's just too easy. I want to know just where Christ's apparently obvious bias towards the Cathlic Church shows up in that little passage you quoted.

Ooh, biggotted and condescending, how fun.

Let's see, you said this:
Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat.
--St. Matthew viiXIII

La Terra di Liberta said this:
Honestly, if God is as narrow minded as you make him sound, then I don't want any part of him. He sounds more like a human than a God with that "My way or the highway" attitude.

To which you responded:
That was Scripture now, the words of the Lord Iesus Christ Himself. Even if He is biased towards the Catholic Church...

To which I asked where in the quote in question does Christ mention the Catholic faith specifically. Let's disregard how little sense that last response of yours makes in terms of tense agreement...that's just too easy. I want to know just where Christ's apparently obvious bias towards the Cathlic Church shows up in that little passage you quoted.

That Scriptural passage refers to the fewness of the saved.

Jesus was crucified and rose but it wasn't until after his death tha the chruch began to form whne he disciples went around, spreading the Gospel. The people that folllowed him around and listened to him speak could not be called an organized church.
Do you accept the canonical Gospels as the inerrant Dei Verbum?

That Scriptural passage refers to the fewness of the saved.

How convenient that you interpret that to mean your heretical Catholic group...of course, it's still pretty obvious that there is no specificity there. Thusly, it's just as likely as not that you're going to Hell with the rest of the excommunicated and non Catholics.

That Scriptural passage refers to the fewness of the saved.
No. It makes reference to what is required to be saved before Christ came along.

No. It makes reference to what is required to be saved before Christ came along.
Those are the very words of Christ on earth....

I'm a Pope of the Church of Eris, which I suppose makes me an AntiPope of the Catholic Church.

Those are the very words of Christ on earth....
Of course. But you drag iit out of context. Shakespeare once said that there is a verse in the Bible to justify every cause. While the Bible justifies nothing other than what it was meant to justify, it can be misconstrued by anyone, as the Bible is so incredibally big. You have done something similar with it.

Of course. But you drag iit out of context. Shakespeare once said that there is a verse in the Bible to justify every cause. While the Bible justifies nothing other than what it was meant to justify, it can be misconstrued by anyone, as the Bible is so incredibally big. You have done something similar with it.
Shakespeare is your pope now?

There are more verses on the fewness of the saved. Must you receive them too?

It is truly incredible how the Catholic Church can claim to speak for Jesus while saying things so contradictory to Jesus' preaching while he was alive.

Shakespeare is your pope now?
Oh sorry. I didn't know he was part of the Zionist Operational Government.
There are more verses on the fewness of the saved. Must you receive them too?
And the funny thing is that they never appear past the Gospels without a reference on how to be saved. Paul specifically tells us how (he was a Jew, btw).

Oh sorry. I didn't know he was part of the Zionist Operational Government.

And the funny thing is that they never appear past the Gospels without a reference on how to be saved. Paul specifically tells us how (he was a Jew, btw).
Please clarify. Something doesn't appear past the Gospels? What are you trying to say?

Please clarify. Something doesn't appear past the Gospels? What are you trying to say?
I'm trying to say that there is little reference to the fewness saved that appears past the Gospels. This is no accident. Jesus was crucified, and past that point, Jews were not just the only ones elligible to be saved. Everyone was. Jesus made this clear repeatedly, and in all four Gospels, stressed how everyone can be saved after his ressurrection. Otherwise, the Great Commission that appeared in all four Gospels would be little more than an error on the part of either Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, who were undeniably writing things down for Jesus.

I'm trying to say that there is little reference to the fewness saved that appears past the Gospels. This is no accident. Jesus was crucified, and past that point, Jews were not just the only ones elligible to be saved. Everyone was. Jesus made this clear repeatedly, and in all four Gospels, stressed how everyone can be saved after his ressurrection. Otherwise, the Great Commission that appeared in all four Gospels would be little more than an error on the part of either Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, who were undeniably writing things down for Jesus.
Everyone can. Few will.

Everyone can. Few will.
That was not specifically reference. You're drawing that from your own view on human nature. Of course, there may also be a problem in the fact that you don't define the Church as broader than the Roman Catholic Church, and find that to be nonexistent. In a way, you are like a Catholic version of John Calvin.

He will probably wait a looooong time. People have changed are more educated. They don't go for the hardasses anymore. They found that a hardass in charged makes enrollment drop and thus donations.....

A fundi pope would probably make the Americans form their own Chruch just like the Brits....
Bah humbug what we need in Easern Church back and Crusade against the Unbelievers but with Honour.
Education is the problem!!!!

That was not specifically reference. You're drawing that from your own view on human nature. Of course, there may also be a problem in the fact that you don't define the Church as broader than the Roman Catholic Church, and find that to be nonexistent. In a way, you are like a Catholic version of John Calvin.
The Catholic Church is the Church of Iesus Christ.

And John Cauvin was an evil Jew. Your Novus Ordo "mass" is very Calvinist in nature, denying Catholic doctrines.

thewre were 3 popes in relative succesion
Alexander Gregory and Julian- all from poor memory
1 was a warmonger 1 bastard children and 1 who said god gave us the papacy let us enjoy it- this stuff dosent/didnt help.
im personally fond of warmongers though :p

The Catholic Church is the Church of Iesus Christ.
Even though Jesus did nothing to create it. Sure, he appointed Peter to be his successor, but did he say he wanted a successor after that?
And John Cauvin was an evil Jew. Your Novus Ordo "mass" is very Calvinist in nature, denying Catholic doctrines.
Not exactly. First of all, not everyone you dislike is a Jew, and Calvin was not one of them. Secondly, John Calvin had an extremely strict code of conduct. Even you'd acknowledge today that the Vatican has a code that is comparatively loose.

Even though Jesus did nothing to create it. Sure, he appointed Peter to be his successor, but did he say he wanted a successor after that?
He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep. Amen, amen I say to thee, when thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself, and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me. Peter turning about, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also leaned on his breast at supper, and said: Lord, who is he that shall betray thee? --St. John xxiXVI-XX

"Feed my sheep"... Our Lord had promised the spiritual supremacy to St. Peter; St. Matt. 16. 19; and here he fulfils that promise, by charging him with the superintendency of all his sheep, without exception; and consequently of his whole flock, that is, of his own church.

Not exactly. First of all, not everyone you dislike is a Jew, and Calvin was not one of them. Secondly, John Calvin had an extremely strict code of conduct. Even you'd acknowledge today that the Vatican has a code that is comparatively loose.
Cauvin was a Jew and a heretic. The Church follows the Code of God.

He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep. Amen, amen I say to thee, when thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself, and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me. Peter turning about, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also leaned on his breast at supper, and said: Lord, who is he that shall betray thee? --St. John xxiXVI-XX

"Feed my sheep"... Our Lord had promised the spiritual supremacy to St. Peter; St. Matt. 16. 19; and here he fulfils that promise, by charging him with the superintendency of all his sheep, without exception; and consequently of his whole flock, that is, of his own church.
That was Peter. Jesus left it open ended as to whether Peter wanted to continue that. It was actually quite likely that Jesus wanted someone to make sure that the church was united, and wasn't stamped out before it grew. In fact, judging from this interpretation, any pope in history could've dissolved the Catholic Church. Not that any pope would want to, as it is far too much power, but he could.

[quote]Cauvin was a Jew and a heretic. The Church follows the Code of God.[/QoUOTE]
Let me guess: Martin Luther, John Wycliffe, and Billy Graham are also Jews.

That was Peter. Jesus left it open ended as to whether Peter wanted to continue that. It was actually quite likely that Jesus wanted someone to make sure that the church was united, and wasn't stamped out before it grew. In fact, judging from this interpretation, any pope in history could've dissolved the Catholic Church. Not that any pope would want to, as it is far too much power, but he could.
You deny such Catholic doctrines...

Cauvin was a Jew and a heretic. The Church follows the Code of God.[/QoUOTE]
Let me guess: Martin Luther, John Wycliffe, and Billy Graham are also Jews.
Are they? I had only known the most wicked "reformer" Cauvin to be a Jew, but feel free to shed light on others if you believe them so.

You deny such Catholic doctrines...

Not exactly. I just feel they are open to interpretation. As in all laws, they are open-ended, and Church law is no exception. Every new pope has reinterpreted these laws to fit his theology.

Not exactly. I just feel they are open to interpretation. As in all laws, they are open-ended, and Church law is no exception. Every new pope has reinterpreted these laws to fit his theology.
Semper eadem...

Semper eadem...
That only works if every single doctrine came complete with an essay on its application in every situation, which is impossible to provide.

That only works if every single doctrine came complete with an essay on its application in every situation, which is impossible to provide.
Do you consider yourself a Catholic?

Do you consider yourself a Catholic?
I do. I know you don't consider me one. But I'm just saying that these doctrines tend to be open ended. After all, a fair amount of them were written for legal reasons, mostly during the Middle Ages, when the Church played a major political role, as well as religious.

I do. I know you don't consider me one. But I'm just saying that these doctrines tend to be open ended. After all, a fair amount of them were written for legal reasons, mostly during the Middle Ages, when the Church played a major political role, as well as religious.
Such as?

Do you accept the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, as in the case of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus?

The pope has to wear a tiara? Like some sort of prom queen? I knew the catholic priesthood was into cross-dressing with all those lovely gowns and undergarments but a tiara?

Such as?
The rule requiring priests to be celibate. That was to ensure that Church lands were not lost due to inheritence by children of priests with secular jobs.
Do you accept the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, as in the case of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus?
It's hard for me to accept their utter infalliability when they are elected by human beigns. The College of Cardinals also came about due to political reasons, to ensure that the Holy Roman Emperor did not place his puppets on the Papal Throne, as Emperor Otto I repeatedly did.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/upload/thumb/6/6e/200px-Triregno.jpg
The pope's traditional triple-crowned tiara represents
several things:

* The pope's priestly offices and powers: to teach, to rule, and to
sanctify -- as teacher, lawgiver, and judge.

* The pope's authority over the Church Militant, Church Suffering, and
Church Triumphant.

* The pope's threefold sovereign authority: the first crown standing for
the pope's universal episcopate (power of orders); the second, for his
universal jurisdiction (spiritual power); and the third, for his right to
govern the Patrimony of St. Peter and other States of the Church, and his
rights as Vicar of Christ in relation to other sovereigns and states
(temporal power).

* The Holy Trinity

In the Coronation rite of the Pope, which took place by the
imposition of the tiara with three crowns, says: "Receive the tiara adorned
with three crowns and know that thou art the father of princes and kings, to
direct them on earth, the Vicar of our Savior, Jesus Christ, to Whom be
honor and glory for ever and ever."

At the end of the apostate Second Vatican Council, Paul VI descended the steps of the papal throne in St. Peter's Basilica and laid the tiara
on the altar. By that act he rejected the Roman Catholic dogma on the papacy, as defined by the First Vatican Council in favor of some non-Catholic view of an "ecumenical, collegial" primus inter pares.

Paul VI disposed of the crown. By refusing to be crowned, the succeeding "popes" too were implicitly rejecting the traditional dogmatic teaching on the papacy. John Paul II strongly seems to imply so in his 1995 Encyclical "Ut Unum Sint."

During a visit to the United Nations in October 1965, Paul VI
had given Secretary General U Thant, a Buddhist, the papal tiara, a pectoral cross of diamonds and emeralds and a papal ring of diamonds and rubies, valued then at about $150,000, and asked that the proceeds be used to start a United Nations Freedom from Hunger Campaign. These sacred items were purchased at an auction for $6400 and were next seen decking the person of a female performer who appeared on
the "Late Night with Johnny Carson."
http://landru.i-link-2.net/shnyves/tiara1.GIF

The rule requiring priests to be celibate. That was to ensure that Church lands were not lost due to inheritence by children of priests with secular jobs.
Our Lady of Fatima warned about the such offenses against the nature of the priesthood...

It's hard for me to accept their utter infalliability when they are elected by human beigns. The College of Cardinals also came about due to political reasons, to ensure that the Holy Roman Emperor did not place his puppets on the Papal Throne, as Emperor Otto I repeatedly did.
You, at this point, have denied enough Catholic doctrine that I will cease to even discuss Catholic matters, but rather engage you as the protestant that you are by nature.

That's one wicked tiara...I am sure the guys on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy would think it was fabulous....

http://commons.wikimedia.org/upload/thumb/6/6e/200px-Triregno.jpg
The pope's traditional triple-crowned tiara represents
several things:

* The pope's priestly offices and powers: to teach, to rule, and to
sanctify -- as teacher, lawgiver, and judge.

* The pope's authority over the Church Militant, Church Suffering, and
Church Triumphant.

* The pope's threefold sovereign authority: the first crown standing for
the pope's universal episcopate (power of orders); the second, for his
universal jurisdiction (spiritual power); and the third, for his right to
govern the Patrimony of St. Peter and other States of the Church, and his
rights as Vicar of Christ in relation to other sovereigns and states
(temporal power).

* The Holy Trinity

In the Coronation rite of the Pope, which took place by the
imposition of the tiara with three crowns, says: "Receive the tiara adorned
with three crowns and know that thou art the father of princes and kings, to
direct them on earth, the Vicar of our Savior, Jesus Christ, to Whom be
honor and glory for ever and ever."

At the end of the apostate Second Vatican Council, Paul VI descended the steps of the papal throne in St. Peter's Basilica and laid the tiara
on the altar. By that act he rejected the Roman Catholic dogma on the papacy, as defined by the First Vatican Council in favor of some non-Catholic view of an "ecumenical, collegial" primus inter pares.

Paul VI disposed of the crown. By refusing to be crowned, the succeeding "popes" too were implicitly rejecting the traditional dogmatic teaching on the papacy. John Paul II strongly seems to imply so in his 1995 Encyclical "Ut Unum Sint."

During a visit to the United Nations in October 1965, Paul VI
had given Secretary General U Thant, a Buddhist, the papal tiara, a pectoral cross of diamonds and emeralds and a papal ring of diamonds and rubies, valued then at about $150,000, and asked that the proceeds be used to start a United Nations Freedom from Hunger Campaign. These sacred items were purchased at an auction for $6400 and were next seen decking the person of a female performer who appeared on
the "Late Night with Johnny Carson."
http://landru.i-link-2.net/shnyves/tiara1.GIF
What do you want my response to be?

Hmm, I cringe to see such wonderful, valuable treasures given away, but if there were ever an example of a perfectly Christ-like action, that would be it. Seems like Paul VI was trying to get the Catholic Church back to what Christ intended. Dogma (and hoarding of wealth) versus charity - yup, I think it's pretty obvious which path Christ would have taken. Then we see what DF depicts as a Church founded on Christ's message...

Frankly, I think DF's ideal Church would make Christ weep.

I wanna see that episode of "Late Night...with Johnny Carson". I didnt even know Johnny Carson hosted "Late Night..."

I wanna see that episode of "Late Night...with Johnny Carson". I didnt even know Johnny Carson hosted "Late Night..."
There are more important matters than your idiocies. Whether it be "Late Night" or "Tonight Show," matters not, heretical media productions nonetheless. Stop infiltrating threads with your utter stupidity.

You, at this point, have denied enough Catholic doctrine that I will cease to even discuss Catholic matters, but rather engage you as the protestant that you are by nature.
So you are defending the church as an institution of mideival politics?

Hmm, I cringe to see such wonderful, valuable treasures given away, but if there were ever an example of a perfectly Christ-like action, that would be it. Seems like Paul VI was trying to get the Catholic Church back to what Christ intended. Dogma (and hoarding of wealth) versus charity - yup, I think it's pretty obvious which path Christ would have taken. Then we see what DF depicts as a Church founded on Christ's message...

Frankly, I think DF's ideal Church would make Christ weep.


http://www.youdamnkid.com/d/20041203.html

There are more important matters than your idiocies. Whether it be "Late Night" or "Tonight Show," matters not, heretical media productions nonetheless. Stop infiltrating threads with your utter stupidity.

Your going about saying that the pope has to wear a tiara in order to be considered a real pope and you are calling me stupid?

Galileo
Galileo
Galileo!

So you are defending the church as an institution of mideival politics?
I have defended Roman Catholic doctrines thus far, and you have in response attacked them.

I have defended Roman Catholic doctrines thus far, and you have in response attacked them.
Including those that were made by politicians masquerading as popes? Face it, popes always have, and always will be elected by imperfect men. If St. Peter appointed his successor, and so on, I'd have no problem. But I do, because the process has become too damn political.

Including those that were made by politicians masquerading as popes?
No Catholic doctrines were.

No Catholic doctrines were.
The College of Cardinals certainly was.

The College of Cardinals certainly was.
No, it was an institution of the Ghost.

No, it was an institution of the Ghost.
But it was created in the 13th century. Why? To keep the Holy Roman Emperor out of the process. It worked well against the kings of France, who moved the pope to Avignon.

But it was created in the 13th century. Why? To keep the Holy Roman Emperor out of the process. It worked well against the kings of France, who moved the pope to Avignon.
To preserve the purity of the Doctrine of the Faith.

To preserve the purity of the Doctrine of the Faith.
By moving it from one corruptable man to a whole bunch of them. It turned the papacy into a damn cattle market. Therefore, I can only accept the pope as a moral leader, not an infalliable representative of God.

By moving it from one corruptable man to a whole bunch of them. It turned the papacy into a damn cattle market. Therefore, I can only accept the pope as a moral leader, not an infalliable representative of God.
= Modern Evangelical Protestant

In Catholic terms, a heretic.

Faith in an organized religion is a weakness.

It shows naivety, because the use of reason leads to the only rational stance on the issue: agnosticism.

It also shows a lack of self-confidence, because only insecure people would accept to be blindly lead by others, instead of becoming the masters of their own fate.

Finally, it shows a tendency towards absurdity, because the bible (that is itself, nothing but an interpretational derivative of Jesus Christ's teachings) and the institution that we call the catholic church, are two totally different things. And abiding to one means in most cases the rejection of the other.

As a matter of fact, Jesus Christ himself was against organized religion.

That's it. You can flame away now, since this is what happens to heretics anyway, right? They're immolated. Nevermind that "Thou Shalt Not Kill" thing.

It turned the papacy into a damn cattle market.

With all the stuff about tiaras, you would think it turn it into a beauty pageant...

= Modern Evangelical Protestant

In Catholic terms, a heretic.
No. Just someone who does not accept the fact that man is incorruptable. If the Pope is chosen from men, how can he himself be free of earthly influence?

Faith in an organized religion is a weakness.

It shows naivety, because the use of reason leads to the only rational stance on the issue: agnosticism.

It also shows a lack of self-confidence, because only insecure people would accept to be blindly lead by others, instead of becoming the masters of their own fate.

Finally, it shows a tendency towards absurdity, because the bible (that is itself, nothing but an interpretational derivative of Jesus Christ's teachings) and the institution that we call the catholic church, are two totally different things. And abiding to one means in most cases the rejection of the other.

As a matter of fact, Jesus Christ himself was against organized religion.

That's it. You can flame away now, since this is what happens to heretics anyway, right? They're immolated. Nevermind that "Thou Shalt Not Kill" thing.

Thank you for spreading the "voice of reason" upon our old medieval ways, O Enlightened One. :rolleyes:

No. Just someone who does not accept the fact that man is incorruptable. If the Pope is chosen from men, how can he himself be free of earthly influence?
While the Church is partly human, it is the only earthly institution that is also Divine, and as such is guarded against such errors.

Just admit that you are not a Catholic already....

Thank you for spreading the "voice of reason" upon our old medieval ways, O Enlightened One. :rolleyes:

You are welcome.

You are welcome.
How original... :rolleyes:

How original... :rolleyes:

He'll be here all week :D

http://www.youdamnkid.com/d/20041203.html

Super-Christ!

How original... :rolleyes:
So basically, after reading your last two responses to my posts, I can tell that your words are the product of your reason. Yet your reason contradicts your catholic limiting believes, thus making you look towards the sky, asking for guidance.

DEFENSOR FIDEI, STOP BEING WEAK ALREADY. The sky is not where guidance comes from. Make use of your superconscious mind, and find the path that your life so desperately needs.

I am sorry, but where you're at, I don't see what else but tough love could open your eyes.

(If you feel ready for evolving beyond your limiting believes in order to become the master of your own fate, acquire a copy of the Psychology of Achievement. Thou Shalt Not Regret It.)

As a matter of fact, Jesus Christ himself was against organized religion.

And just who was it that wanted Jesus killed? Oh yeah, it was the traditionalists of the time, who didn't like him changing things. Seems that they're still trying to kill Christ today, though their flavor has changed now. Right, DF?

Super-Christ!

See, if I were in charge, Jesus would've been a pimp. And there would've been a lot less crucifictions and a lot more bitchslapping.

And just who was it that wanted Jesus killed? Oh yeah, it was the traditionalists of the time, who didn't like him changing things. Seems that they're still trying to kill Christ today, though their flavor has changed now. Right, DF?
No, it was the Jews.

While the Church is partly human, it is the only earthly institution that is also Divine, and as such is guarded against such errors.

Just admit that you are not a Catholic already....
I'm not a Catholic as you define one. In any case, the church is so incredibally human that it has lost credibility to be the uber power you want it to be. Besides, I can't see how men can also be part of a divine institution, when only one such thing ever existed.

No, it was the Jews.

In a word, "duh." I think you missed the point.

I'm not a Catholic as you define one. In any case, the church is so incredibally human that it has lost credibility to be the uber power you want it to be. Besides, I can't see how men can also be part of a divine institution, when only one such thing ever existed.
The Roman Catholic Church focuses on God, especially in Her Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. You religion focuses and ends... with man.

The Roman Catholic Church focuses on God, especially in Her Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. You religion focuses and ends... with man.
You mean denying that man is perfect? Man is unworthy to dictate what Jesus said. We will leave that up to Jesus, and not let wicked men stuff words down his throat.

You mean denying that man is perfect? Man is unworthy to dictate what Jesus said. We will leave that up to Jesus, and not let wicked men stuff words down his throat.
Mine: The Roman Catholic Mass: focused on God
Yours: The Novus Ordo "Mass": focused on Man

Mine: The Roman Catholic Mass: focused on God
Yours: The Novus Ordo "Mass": focused on Man
You know, that's it. Why don't you just learn to make jewlery, reproduce this tiara, and appoint yourself pope. You'll get a following, as every wacko does. Even Tim McVeigh did, and he was Catholic. In my mind, the only difference between you two is that you are not willing to blow up a building full of people.

You know, that's it. Why don't you just learn to make jewlery, reproduce this tiara, and appoint yourself pope. You'll get a following, as every wacko does. Even Tim McVeigh did, and he was Catholic. In my mind, the only difference between you two is that you are not willing to blow up a building full of people.

Yet

Ah well, the use of reason made Defensor Fidei reply with sarcasm, and the use of sarcasm shut him down in a profound state of denial.

For the record, I do believe in some things, and I know that believing is a strong asset to anyone's life. But I just want Defensor Fidei to realize that what he believes in, has been dictated by some other humans. At best, they're humans that descended from humans that founded a religious institution initially based on a book written by humans who were in contact with someone that is, perhaps, God's son. But those are still humans.

You know, that's it. Why don't you just learn to make jewlery, reproduce this tiara, and appoint yourself pope. You'll get a following, as every wacko does. Even Tim McVeigh did, and he was Catholic. In my mind, the only difference between you two is that you are not willing to blow up a building full of people.
Is this what you do at the end of every argument when you start to be exposed for the fraud that you are?

You know, that's it. Why don't you just learn to make jewlery, reproduce this tiara, and appoint yourself pope. You'll get a following, as every wacko does. Even Tim McVeigh did, and he was Catholic. In my mind, the only difference between you two is that you are not willing to blow up a building full of people.

I couldn't believe you were trying to have a rational and intelligent discussion with this DF person in the first place...

Is this what you do at the end of every argument when you start to be exposed for the fraud that you are?
Well, if you want to think I'm a fraud, then you can believe it. I, unlike you, do not prefer telling people what to think.

I couldn't believe you were trying to have a rational and intelligent discussion with this DF person in the first place...
He really is a rational beign, but simply misguided, I feel. So are you, you existentialist scumbag.

Well, if you want to think I'm a fraud, then you can believe it. I, unlike you, do not prefer telling people what to think.
You go around starting debates and then end them with excuses...

You go around starting debates and then end them with excuses...
Only human. That's why I don't trust the Church in the hands of humans.

Protestants are HERETICS and are DAMNED. Eastern "Orthodox" are SCHISMATICS and DAMNED. Why are you so ignorant of Catholic doctrine?

That prophecy fits the current crisis quite well.... anyway...

And tell me, then why the altare Dei has been removed in Novus Ordo churches?

Hmmmmm

What was that thing Jesus said about he who is without sin.....

That does not contradict the Holy Church's dogma, which is INFALLIBLE!

Hmmm I missed the part about pedophillia and Priesthood. Care to explain that?

Hmmm I missed the part about pedophillia and Priesthood. Care to explain that?
Pedophilia and priesthood? :confused:

Hmmmmm

What was that thing Jesus said about he who is without sin.....
What is your point?

What is your point?

If you are with sin, you shouldn't start throwing stones.

In short, shut up, you hypocrite.

Hmmmmm

What was that thing Jesus said about he who is without sin.....

Jesus never said that. I just asked him a minute ago, though he was busy washing my windows. I never understood why they pronounce it "hay-sews". Silly mexicans...

If you are with sin, you shouldn't start throwing stones.

In short, shut up, you hypocrite.
I'm not throwing stones...
I am merely following His commandment to spread His Truth to the people.

I'm not throwing stones...
I am merely following His commandment to spread His Truth to the people.

In claiming that others are damned is hypocritical-it is pointing out their sin, whch Jesus spoke against.

In claiming that others are damned is hypocritical-it is pointing out their sin, whch Jesus spoke against.
It is saving souls, which Christ most certainly spoke for.

It is saving souls, which Christ most certainly spoke for.

First of all, you haven't recruited a single person, so no, it's not saving souls.

Secondly, you're STILL going against what Jesus spoke, weither you think it's good or not. That is a sin you're proud of, heretic.

First of all, you haven't recruited a single person, so no, it's not saving souls.
How are you so sure?

Secondly, you're STILL going against what Jesus spoke, weither you think it's good or not. That is a sin you're proud of, heretic.
No I am not. Now cease thy heresy.

How are you so sure?
Because not one person here has spoken of you saving them; rather, they've spoken of you driving them away.


No I am not. Now cease thy heresy.
In pointing out others' sins, you are being a hypocrite-the type of person Jesus spoke out against quite often. I'm not the one who is lying, heretic.

Because not one person here has spoken of you saving them; rather, they've spoken of you driving them away.

They would be corrupt deceivers like yourself then.

I'd love to tell some of these people to shut up, but instead I'm just going to post this to make it known that one more person is reading this drivel.

:upyours:

They would be corrupt deceivers like yourself then.

Nonetheless, not one person has spoke of you saving them.

I'd love to tell some of these people to shut up, but instead I'm just going to post this to make it known that one more person is reading this drivel.

:upyours:

I think its funny...did you read the pope and the tiara stuff?

I think its funny...did you read the pope and the tiara stuff?


not yet. perhaps I should look for that...

not yet. perhaps I should look for that...

You mean you missed Super Jesus?

You mean you missed Super Jesus?


yep, sure did. I decided to blow off some steam in Corrupt A Wish II, and kinda missed it, well at least after being annoyed by the guy with the stick up his arse in the "Anti-Christianism" threads. :rolleyes:

You have no problem attending a "mass" completely fabricated by protestants and freemasons?

"I saw many pastors cherishing dangerous ideas against the Church. . . . They built a large, singular, extravagant church which was to embrace all creeds with equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics, and all denominations, a true communion of the unholy with one shepherd and one flock. There was to be a Pope, a salaried Pope, without possessions. All was made ready, many things finished; but, in place of an altar, were only abomination and desolation. Such was the new church to be, and it was for it that he had set fire to the old one; but God designed otherwise."
--Anne Catherine Emmerich (That's Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich to you)

Hmm.. The Novus Ordo has led to the destruction of many Catholic altars being destroyed to make room for the New Order.... Some prophecy...
ok ok ok i just had to stop here and comment, i hope it wasnt destroyed on the next page......

Anne Catherine Emmerich was beatified on october 2, 2004 by POPE JOHN PAUL 2

the guy you dont recgonize as pope

so can you really say she is blessed?

So... the Catholic Church is infallible... but it currently has the wrong pope...

Colour me confused.

ok ok ok i just had to stop here and comment, i hope it wasnt destroyed on the next page......

Anne Catherine Emmerich was beatified on october 2, 2004 by POPE JOHN PAUL 2

the guy you dont recgonize as pope

so can you really say she is blessed?
:rolleyes: That is specifically why I said:

(That's Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich to you)

She is Blessed according to John Paul II, while he fulfills the dark prophecy she so feared...

Ok, DF, I was hesitant to reply to this thread, but I'll bite. I have a couple questions for you and I'd appreciate it if everyone took them seriously - I'm not trying to bait DF into further fanaticsm, I'm honestly curious.

First: Given that you do not believe in the papacy of the post-Vatican II popes, nor the current most viable alternative antipopes, then how will you know when the "true Pope" has been ordained? Yes, I understand there's something about a tiara, but how will he get picked, if the current bunch of cardinals are all frauds?

Second: What is your take on Church practices during the Middle Ages, particularly the ones that involved killing/torturing other people? From another thread you seem to approve of the Inquisition as well as the Crusades - do you approve of these, not only in *theory* (i.e. what they stood for - ridding the land of the infidels), but in actual *practice* (the brutal killings)? And if so, how do you reconcile this with Christ's teachings? Here I refer specifically to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not anything in the Old Testament, so please respond appropriately.

Third: Further referring to the Middle Ages, particularly the era directly preceding the Protestant schism, what is your belief concerning the selling of indulgences? The way I understand it, these were like "prepaid confessions", almost a "get out of jail free" card. They in no way represented true repenting or the legitimate confession of sin; indeed, they seemed more like a way for the Church to make some extra money and let the guys with money literally get away with murder.

Fourth: I understand that part of the Catholic Church's doctrine is to actively save souls by converting non-Catholics, or evangelizing/proselytizing. Everyone else on this thread is accusing you of doing the opposite: turning people off from Catholicism. Do you honestly think that yours is the best method for saving souls?

Lastly: What is your take on Hell as described in Dante's Inferno? I have no idea if that is actually part of Catholic doctrine (and probably isn't), but I'd just like to know.

Please do not respond in Latin, as I do not know the language and would not recognize the religious texts quoted, or with only Biblical passages. Neither is helpful without extra contextual information. Further, I would like to know what *you* think, not just your Catholic Church.

Cheers,
SG

Ok, DF, I was hesitant to reply to this thread, but I'll bite. I have a couple questions for you and I'd appreciate it if everyone took them seriously - I'm not trying to bait DF into further fanaticsm, I'm honestly curious.

First: Given that you do not believe in the papacy of the post-Vatican II popes, nor the current most viable alternative antipopes, then how will you know when the "true Pope" has been ordained? Yes, I understand there's something about a tiara, but how will he get picked, if the current bunch of cardinals are all frauds?
A number of needs must be met. First and foremost, the requests of Our Lady of Fatima must be heeded, as I described on another thread. When a true pope emerges after being coronated with the Papal Tiara and celebrates the True Mass on the high altar at St. Peter's, we will know the Church has been restored. The Novus Ordo will fall apart at its roots and the Truth will be revealed, and all will then see It.

By the way, there are no "post-Vatican II popes" in the Roman Catholic Church....

Second: What is your take on Church practices during the Middle Ages, particularly the ones that involved killing/torturing other people? From another thread you seem to approve of the Inquisition as well as the Crusades - do you approve of these, not only in *theory* (i.e. what they stood for - ridding the land of the infidels), but in actual *practice* (the brutal killings)? And if so, how do you reconcile this with Christ's teachings? Here I refer specifically to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not anything in the Old Testament, so please respond appropriately.
Simply killing is not prohibited, especially not against a violent and savage people like the Mahometans.

Third: Further referring to the Middle Ages, particularly the era directly preceding the Protestant schism, what is your belief concerning the selling of indulgences? The way I understand it, these were like "prepaid confessions", almost a "get out of jail free" card. They in no way represented true repenting or the legitimate confession of sin; indeed, they seemed more like a way for the Church to make some extra money and let the guys with money literally get away with murder.
While the error of "selling" was dealt with by the Council of Trent, the Church can indeed grant plenary indulgences...

Fourth: I understand that part of the Catholic Church's doctrine is to actively save souls by converting non-Catholics, or evangelizing/proselytizing. Everyone else on this thread is accusing you of doing the opposite: turning people off from Catholicism. Do you honestly think that yours is the best method for saving souls?
The Truth is the only way to gain converts. No "watering-down" of the Truth!

Lastly: What is your take on Hell as described in Dante's Inferno? I have no idea if that is actually part of Catholic doctrine (and probably isn't), but I'd just like to know.
No, it most certainly is not Catholic dogma.

Ok...I think you misunderstood me a bit here. I really did want to know what you think. Have you read the Inferno? What'd you think of it? As for the Inquisition, I am not sure what you consider "simply" killing, but I think burning a person alive, putting their head in a cage of angry rats, sticking them in an iron maiden, or whatever else it was that occurred is not a "simple" murder. It is a great deal more gruesome and undoubtedly painful than, say, getting your head chopped off. Furthermore, I asked you to respond in regard to Christ's teachings, *not* a general statement concerning what is "right." (Not to mention the 10 Commandments.) Again, with the Pope: where will this Pope come from? I understand that once he celebrates the Mass and wears the tiara we'll know he's there, but how does he *get* there?

Thanks, SG

To quote George Carlin:
I have just as much authority as the pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it.