It beats the old tradition of pulling off various body parts and>>>>> sending them to different cathedrals as relics.>>>>>
don't be so sure that tradition is really over, especially if the >>>> Poles get their way.>>>>
I love the smell of anti-Catholicism in the morning. It smells.>>
I am Catholic.>>
It still smells.
Speaking of which, did they embalm the pope's body? If so when? Between the private and public showings? Or before the public showing? I can't quite see the interval there where the embalming would have been performed. It gets pretty warm in Rome this time of year, y'know.
Joel K. 'Jay' Furr 6 April 2005 19:31:12 [ permanent link ]
xyzzy <invalid@addr.net> wrote in news:42540275_3@news1.prserv.net:
Speaking of which, did they embalm the pope's body? If so when? > Between the private and public showings? Or before the public showing? > I can't quite see the interval there where the embalming would have been > performed. It gets pretty warm in Rome this time of year, y'know.
The Vatican specifically stated that the corpse was *not* embalmed. It was "prepared" in some sense, but not "embalmed".
It beats the old tradition of pulling off various body parts and>>>>>> sending them to different cathedrals as relics.>>>>>>
don't be so sure that tradition is really over, especially if the >>>>> Poles get their way.>>>>>
I love the smell of anti-Catholicism in the morning. It smells.>>>
I am Catholic.>>>
It still smells.>
Speaking of which, did they embalm the pope's body?
No.
If so when? Between the private and public showings? Or before the > public showing? I can't quite see the interval there where the > embalming would have been performed. It gets pretty warm in Rome > this time of year, y'know.
Yeah, xyzzy <invalid@addr.net>, well... that's just like... your opinion man.
Jeffrey Davis wrote:>> xyzzy wrote:>>
deemsbill@aol.com wrote:>>>
Charles Beauchamp wrote:>>>>
that is just disgusting.>>>>>
-- >>>>> v/r Beau>>>>>
It beats the old tradition of pulling off various body parts and>>>> sending them to different cathedrals as relics.>>>>
don't be so sure that tradition is really over, especially if the >>> Poles get their way.>>>
I love the smell of anti-Catholicism in the morning. It smells.>
I am Catholic.
Some of the most virulent anti-Catholics I've ever met were/are "Catholic" (like Father Charles Curran).
John Rogers AU Class of 1985 The Al Del Greco of Atlanta
"Subordination is the natural order: there is subordination in Heaven - Thrones and Dominions take precendence over Powers and Principalities, Archangels and ordinary foremast angels; and so it is in the Navy. You have come to the wrong shop for anarchy, brother."
John Rogers wrote:> Yeah, xyzzy <invalid@addr.net>, well... that's just like... your> opinion man.>
Jeffrey Davis wrote:>>
xyzzy wrote:>>>
deemsbill@aol.com wrote:>>>>
Charles Beauchamp wrote:>>>>>
that is just disgusting.>>>>>>
-- >>>>>>v/r Beau>>>>>>
It beats the old tradition of pulling off various body parts and>>>>>sending them to different cathedrals as relics.>>>>>
don't be so sure that tradition is really over, especially if the >>>>Poles get their way.>>>>
I love the smell of anti-Catholicism in the morning. It smells.>>
I am Catholic.>
Some of the most virulent anti-Catholics I've ever met were/are> "Catholic" (like Father Charles Curran).>
You misplet "I am fond of calling anyone who doesn't agree with me on anything related to the Catholic church anti-Catholic, even if they are also Catholic"
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 15:31:12 +0000, Joel K. 'Jay' Furr wrote:
xyzzy <invalid@addr.net> wrote in news:42540275_3@news1.prserv.net:>
Speaking of which, did they embalm the pope's body? If so when? >> Between the private and public showings? Or before the public showing? >> I can't quite see the interval there where the embalming would have been >> performed. It gets pretty warm in Rome this time of year, y'know.>
The Vatican specifically stated that the corpse was *not* embalmed. It was > "prepared" in some sense, but not "embalmed".
I'd imagine they were able to have some sort of refrigeration contraption that they laid him on. Otherwise, he'd have turned into a big, rotting mess.
Yeah, GregoryD <hagar@hotmail.com>, well... that's just like... your> opinion man.>
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:15:56 -0400, John Rogers wrote:>>
I have a helluva lot of respect for (for example) OrangeDood and his>>> hellbound (heh) beliefs. Because he's HONEST about them. Catholics that>>> don't believe in what the Church preaches and would rather the universal>>> Church change to fit THEIR beliefs instead of versy-vicey are some of>>> the most dishonest people in the world.>>
The fact that there's more than one church with history that goes back as >> far as Paul's church in Rome should give you a clue that they aren't>> universal.>
Oh joy... more hate and delusion. Nothing unusual, seen it before.
This is the first time I've ever seen a historical fact referred to as "hate and delusion".
-- Daniel Seriff
Please pardon my sudden interruption. I am the voice of Hanage's heart.
You want an explanation, Daniel Seriff? Here's your explanation. God is Pissed.
And has thou slain the Jabberwock, John Rogers?>
Yeah, GregoryD <hagar@hotmail.com>, well... that's just like...>> your opinion man.>>
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:15:56 -0400, John Rogers wrote:>>>
I have a helluva lot of respect for (for example) OrangeDood>>>> and his hellbound (heh) beliefs. Because he's HONEST about>>>> them. Catholics that don't believe in what the Church>>>> preaches and would rather the universal Church change to fit>>>> THEIR beliefs instead of versy-vicey are some of the most>>>> dishonest people in the world. >>>
The fact that there's more than one church with history that>>> goes back as far as Paul's church in Rome should give you a>>> clue that they aren't universal.>>
Oh joy... more hate and delusion. Nothing unusual, seen it>> before. >
This is the first time I've ever seen a historical fact referred> to as "hate and delusion".>
It's a catholic thing. They aren't happy unless they're feeling guilty or oppressed.
James Schrumpf 10 April 2005 09:29:46 [ permanent link ]
How do you prefer your martini, Mr. Bill Lang <wjlmutt@bitememindspring.com>? Shaken, or stirred?
You want an explanation, Daniel Seriff? Here's your explanation. > God is Pissed. >
And has thou slain the Jabberwock, John Rogers?>>
Yeah, GregoryD <hagar@hotmail.com>, well... that's just like...>>> your opinion man.>>>
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:15:56 -0400, John Rogers wrote:>>>>
I have a helluva lot of respect for (for example) OrangeDood>>>>> and his hellbound (heh) beliefs. Because he's HONEST about>>>>> them. Catholics that don't believe in what the Church>>>>> preaches and would rather the universal Church change to fit>>>>> THEIR beliefs instead of versy-vicey are some of the most>>>>> dishonest people in the world. >>>>
The fact that there's more than one church with history that>>>> goes back as far as Paul's church in Rome should give you a>>>> clue that they aren't universal.>>>
Oh joy... more hate and delusion. Nothing unusual, seen it>>> before. >>
This is the first time I've ever seen a historical fact referred>> to as "hate and delusion".>>
It's a catholic thing. They aren't happy unless they're feeling > guilty or oppressed.>
To which Christian sect are you referring? If it's any of the Orthodox churches, please demonstrate how their beliefs differ from that of the Roman version.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net
Well, look. I mean, is he gonna be able to chase us? Cause if I woke up lookin' like that, I would just run towards the nearest living thing and kill it. -- Master Shake
And has thou slain the Jabberwock, James Schrumpf?
How do you prefer your martini, Mr. Bill Lang > <wjlmutt@bitememindspring.com>? Shaken, or stirred?>
You want an explanation, Daniel Seriff? Here's your explanation. >> God is Pissed. >>
And has thou slain the Jabberwock, John Rogers?>>>
Yeah, GregoryD <hagar@hotmail.com>, well... that's just like...>>>> your opinion man.>>>>
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:15:56 -0400, John Rogers wrote:>>>>>
I have a helluva lot of respect for (for example) OrangeDood>>>>>> and his hellbound (heh) beliefs. Because he's HONEST about>>>>>> them. Catholics that don't believe in what the Church>>>>>> preaches and would rather the universal Church change to fit>>>>>> THEIR beliefs instead of versy-vicey are some of the most>>>>>> dishonest people in the world. >>>>>
The fact that there's more than one church with history that>>>>> goes back as far as Paul's church in Rome should give you a>>>>> clue that they aren't universal.>>>>
Oh joy... more hate and delusion. Nothing unusual, seen it>>>> before. >>>
This is the first time I've ever seen a historical fact referred>>> to as "hate and delusion".>>
It's a catholic thing. They aren't happy unless they're feeling >> guilty or oppressed.>
To which Christian sect are you referring? If it's any of the Orthodox > churches, please demonstrate how their beliefs differ from that of the > Roman version.
For starters, they don't believe that the Pope is infalliable.
Minä suojelen sinua kaikelta, mitä ikinä keksitkin sanoa, James Schrumpf:
To which Christian sect are you referring? If it's any of the Orthodox > churches, please demonstrate how their beliefs differ from that of the > Roman version.
The main practical difference, of course, is that the Bishop of Rome appointed kings and emperors, and the Patriarch of Constantinople served at the whim of emperors. This made a huge difference in the development of the two communities after the schism.
One major belief difference, of course, is in the belief of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
A quick web search would show many differences, if you were really interested. I didn't realize, I have to admit, that the western Church had modified the Nicene Creed. They also treat Mary differently--I find the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception to be one of the most sophomoric pieces of philosophizing in all of religion, especially since the Maryolatry leads people to ridiculous conclusions such as denying that Mary had any other children AFTER Jesus. I couldn't find the Orthodox position on that issue.
Of course, to assert that there is ONE orthodox community is to deny the reality of its subjugation to local politics--the Russian Church is often independent from the Greek, and various other churches have been separated by other political boundaries. This is mostly because the states did not want a religious leader who was so obviously dependent on a foreign political leader.
But there are other churches which claim equal primacy with Rome and Constantinople.
rich -- -to reply, it's hot not warm +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett / "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world; \ than the pride that divides / when a colorful rag is unfurled."
Yeah, Daniel Seriff <microtonal@nospam.org>, well... that's just like... your opinion man.
And has thou slain the Jabberwock, John Rogers?>
Yeah, GregoryD <hagar@hotmail.com>, well... that's just like... your>> opinion man.>>
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:15:56 -0400, John Rogers wrote:>>>
I have a helluva lot of respect for (for example) OrangeDood and his>>>> hellbound (heh) beliefs. Because he's HONEST about them. Catholics that>>>> don't believe in what the Church preaches and would rather the universal>>>> Church change to fit THEIR beliefs instead of versy-vicey are some of>>>> the most dishonest people in the world.>>>
The fact that there's more than one church with history that goes back as >>> far as Paul's church in Rome should give you a clue that they aren't>>> universal.>>
Oh joy... more hate and delusion. Nothing unusual, seen it before.>
This is the first time I've ever seen a historical fact referred to as "hate >and delusion".
Nice job of snippage. My last line was in response to his entire hateful rant, not just your handy snippage.
John Rogers AU Class of 1985 The Al Del Greco of Atlanta
"Subordination is the natural order: there is subordination in Heaven - Thrones and Dominions take precendence over Powers and Principalities, Archangels and ordinary foremast angels; and so it is in the Navy. You have come to the wrong shop for anarchy, brother."
Minä suojelen sinua kaikelta, mitä ikinä keksitkin sanoa, John Rogers:
Nice job of snippage. My last line was in response to his entire> hateful rant, not just your handy snippage.
Heh. You're the only one to blame if somebody misunderstands your deliberately vague persecution complex. If you were brave enough to address actual points, rather than just whine about an entire post whenever you disagree with something, it wouldn't happen.
But your work is done, here.
rich -- -to reply, it's hot not warm +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett / "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world; \ than the pride that divides / when a colorful rag is unfurled."
Yeah, Daniel Seriff <microtonal@nospam.org>, well... that's just> like... your opinion man.>
And has thou slain the Jabberwock, John Rogers?>>
Yeah, GregoryD <hagar@hotmail.com>, well... that's just like... your>>> opinion man.>>>
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:15:56 -0400, John Rogers wrote:>>>>
I have a helluva lot of respect for (for example) OrangeDood and his>>>>> hellbound (heh) beliefs. Because he's HONEST about them. Catholics that>>>>> don't believe in what the Church preaches and would rather the universal>>>>> Church change to fit THEIR beliefs instead of versy-vicey are some of>>>>> the most dishonest people in the world.>>>>
The fact that there's more than one church with history that goes back as >>>> far as Paul's church in Rome should give you a clue that they aren't>>>> universal.>>>
Oh joy... more hate and delusion. Nothing unusual, seen it before.>>
This is the first time I've ever seen a historical fact referred to as >> "hate and delusion".>
Nice job of snippage. My last line was in response to his entire> hateful rant, not just your handy snippage.
It isn't my fault that you suck at organizing your responses, so don't blame me for it. Lazy writing is a sign of lazy thinking.
Not that it matters, anyway. You won't be able to come up with any better of a response to what I said than you could come up with one to what Gregory said.
James Schrumpf 11 April 2005 05:50:26 [ permanent link ]
How do you prefer your martini, Mr. Daniel Seriff <microtonal@nospam.org>? Shaken, or stirred?
And has thou slain the Jabberwock, James Schrumpf?>
How do you prefer your martini, Mr. Bill Lang >> <wjlmutt@bitememindspring.com>? Shaken, or stirred?>>
You want an explanation, Daniel Seriff? Here's your explanation. >>> God is Pissed. >>>
And has thou slain the Jabberwock, John Rogers?>>>>
Yeah, GregoryD <hagar@hotmail.com>, well... that's just like...>>>>> your opinion man.>>>>>
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:15:56 -0400, John Rogers wrote:>>>>>>
I have a helluva lot of respect for (for example) OrangeDood>>>>>>> and his hellbound (heh) beliefs. Because he's HONEST about>>>>>>> them. Catholics that don't believe in what the Church>>>>>>> preaches and would rather the universal Church change to fit>>>>>>> THEIR beliefs instead of versy-vicey are some of the most>>>>>>> dishonest people in the world. >>>>>>
The fact that there's more than one church with history that>>>>>> goes back as far as Paul's church in Rome should give you a>>>>>> clue that they aren't universal.>>>>>
Oh joy... more hate and delusion. Nothing unusual, seen it>>>>> before. >>>>
This is the first time I've ever seen a historical fact referred>>>> to as "hate and delusion".>>>
It's a catholic thing. They aren't happy unless they're feeling >>> guilty or oppressed.>>
To which Christian sect are you referring? If it's any of the Orthodox >> churches, please demonstrate how their beliefs differ from that of the >> Roman version.>
For starters, they don't believe that the Pope is infalliable.>
That only started in the 1880's. Hardly an original tenet of the church.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net
Well, look. I mean, is he gonna be able to chase us? Cause if I woke up lookin' like that, I would just run towards the nearest living thing and kill it. -- Master Shake
Yeah, Daniel Seriff <microtonal@nospam.org>, well... that's just like... your opinion man.
And has thou slain the Jabberwock, John Rogers?>
Yeah, Daniel Seriff <microtonal@nospam.org>, well... that's just>> like... your opinion man.>>
And has thou slain the Jabberwock, John Rogers?>>>
Yeah, GregoryD <hagar@hotmail.com>, well... that's just like... your>>>> opinion man.>>>>
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:15:56 -0400, John Rogers wrote:>>>>>
I have a helluva lot of respect for (for example) OrangeDood and his>>>>>> hellbound (heh) beliefs. Because he's HONEST about them. Catholics that>>>>>> don't believe in what the Church preaches and would rather the universal>>>>>> Church change to fit THEIR beliefs instead of versy-vicey are some of>>>>>> the most dishonest people in the world.>>>>>
The fact that there's more than one church with history that goes back as >>>>> far as Paul's church in Rome should give you a clue that they aren't>>>>> universal.>>>>
Oh joy... more hate and delusion. Nothing unusual, seen it before.>>>
This is the first time I've ever seen a historical fact referred to as >>> "hate and delusion".>>
Nice job of snippage. My last line was in response to his entire>> hateful rant, not just your handy snippage.>
It isn't my fault that you suck at organizing your responses, so don't blame >me for it. Lazy writing is a sign of lazy thinking.>
Not that it matters, anyway. You won't be able to come up with any better of >a response to what I said than you could come up with one to what Gregory >said.
Well, of course. You and your buddy Gregory are just too damb smart for me.
John Rogers AU Class of 1985 The Al Del Greco of Atlanta
"Subordination is the natural order: there is subordination in Heaven - Thrones and Dominions take precendence over Powers and Principalities, Archangels and ordinary foremast angels; and so it is in the Navy. You have come to the wrong shop for anarchy, brother."
And has thou slain the Jabberwock, James Schrumpf?
How do you prefer your martini, Mr. Daniel Seriff> <microtonal@nospam.org>? Shaken, or stirred?>
And has thou slain the Jabberwock, James Schrumpf?>>
How do you prefer your martini, Mr. Bill Lang>>> <wjlmutt@bitememindspring.com>? Shaken, or stirred?>>>
You want an explanation, Daniel Seriff? Here's your explanation.>>>> God is Pissed.>>>>
And has thou slain the Jabberwock, John Rogers?>>>>>
Yeah, GregoryD <hagar@hotmail.com>, well... that's just like...>>>>>> your opinion man.>>>>>>
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:15:56 -0400, John Rogers wrote:>>>>>>>
I have a helluva lot of respect for (for example) OrangeDood>>>>>>>> and his hellbound (heh) beliefs. Because he's HONEST about>>>>>>>> them. Catholics that don't believe in what the Church>>>>>>>> preaches and would rather the universal Church change to fit>>>>>>>> THEIR beliefs instead of versy-vicey are some of the most>>>>>>>> dishonest people in the world.>>>>>>>
The fact that there's more than one church with history that>>>>>>> goes back as far as Paul's church in Rome should give you a>>>>>>> clue that they aren't universal.>>>>>>
Oh joy... more hate and delusion. Nothing unusual, seen it>>>>>> before.>>>>>
This is the first time I've ever seen a historical fact referred>>>>> to as "hate and delusion".>>>>
It's a catholic thing. They aren't happy unless they're feeling>>>> guilty or oppressed.>>>
To which Christian sect are you referring? If it's any of the Orthodox>>> churches, please demonstrate how their beliefs differ from that of the>>> Roman version.>>
For starters, they don't believe that the Pope is infalliable.>
That only started in the 1880's. Hardly an original tenet of the church.
It was 1870, actually, and that was only when the concept was dogmatically defined, not when it originated. It's not that big a step from "primacy of the bishop of Rome", which has rather explicit Biblical support, to "infallibility of the bishop of Rome".
But that still has nothing at all to do with the eastern churches.
Minä suojelen sinua kaikelta, mitä ikinä keksitkin sanoa, Daniel Seriff:> And has thou slain the Jabberwock, James Schrumpf?
How do you prefer your martini, Mr. Daniel Seriff >> <microtonal@nospam.org>? Shaken, or stirred?>>
And has thou slain the Jabberwock, James Schrumpf?>>>
How do you prefer your martini, Mr. Bill Lang >>>> <wjlmutt@bitememindspring.com>? Shaken, or stirred?>>>>
You want an explanation, Daniel Seriff? Here's your explanation. >>>>> God is Pissed. >>>>>
And has thou slain the Jabberwock, John Rogers?>>>>>>
Yeah, GregoryD <hagar@hotmail.com>, well... that's just like...>>>>>>> your opinion man.>>>>>>>
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:15:56 -0400, John Rogers wrote:>>>>>>>>
I have a helluva lot of respect for (for example) OrangeDood>>>>>>>>> and his hellbound (heh) beliefs. Because he's HONEST about>>>>>>>>> them. Catholics that don't believe in what the Church>>>>>>>>> preaches and would rather the universal Church change to fit>>>>>>>>> THEIR beliefs instead of versy-vicey are some of the most>>>>>>>>> dishonest people in the world. >>>>>>>>
The fact that there's more than one church with history that>>>>>>>> goes back as far as Paul's church in Rome should give you a>>>>>>>> clue that they aren't universal.>>>>>>>
Oh joy... more hate and delusion. Nothing unusual, seen it>>>>>>> before. >>>>>>
This is the first time I've ever seen a historical fact referred>>>>>> to as "hate and delusion".>>>>>
It's a catholic thing. They aren't happy unless they're feeling >>>>> guilty or oppressed.>>>>
To which Christian sect are you referring? If it's any of the Orthodox >>>> churches, please demonstrate how their beliefs differ from that of the >>>> Roman version.>>>
For starters, they don't believe that the Pope is infalliable.>>
That only started in the 1880's. Hardly an original tenet of the church.
It was 1870, actually, and that was only when the concept was dogmatically > defined, not when it originated. It's not that big a step from "primacy of > the bishop of Rome", which has rather explicit Biblical support,
Do you think so? It certainly has more support than the infallibility claim, but it's not all that explicit.
rich
to > "infallibility of the bishop of Rome".
But that still has nothing at all to do with the eastern churches.
-- -to reply, it's hot not warm +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett / "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world; \ than the pride that divides / when a colorful rag is unfurled."
Minä suojelen sinua kaikelta, mitä ikinä keksitkin sanoa, Daniel Seriff:>> And has thou slain the Jabberwock, James Schrumpf?>
How do you prefer your martini, Mr. Daniel Seriff>>> <microtonal@nospam.org>? Shaken, or stirred?>>>
And has thou slain the Jabberwock, James Schrumpf?>>>>
How do you prefer your martini, Mr. Bill Lang>>>>> <wjlmutt@bitememindspring.com>? Shaken, or stirred?>>>>>
You want an explanation, Daniel Seriff? Here's your explanation.>>>>>> God is Pissed.>>>>>>
And has thou slain the Jabberwock, John Rogers?>>>>>>>
Yeah, GregoryD <hagar@hotmail.com>, well... that's just like...>>>>>>>> your opinion man.>>>>>>>>
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:15:56 -0400, John Rogers wrote:>>>>>>>>>
I have a helluva lot of respect for (for example) OrangeDood>>>>>>>>>> and his hellbound (heh) beliefs. Because he's HONEST about>>>>>>>>>> them. Catholics that don't believe in what the Church>>>>>>>>>> preaches and would rather the universal Church change to fit>>>>>>>>>> THEIR beliefs instead of versy-vicey are some of the most>>>>>>>>>> dishonest people in the world.>>>>>>>>>
The fact that there's more than one church with history that>>>>>>>>> goes back as far as Paul's church in Rome should give you a>>>>>>>>> clue that they aren't universal.>>>>>>>>
Oh joy... more hate and delusion. Nothing unusual, seen it>>>>>>>> before.>>>>>>>
This is the first time I've ever seen a historical fact referred>>>>>>> to as "hate and delusion".>>>>>>
It's a catholic thing. They aren't happy unless they're feeling>>>>>> guilty or oppressed.>>>>>
To which Christian sect are you referring? If it's any of the Orthodox>>>>> churches, please demonstrate how their beliefs differ from that of the>>>>> Roman version.>>>>
For starters, they don't believe that the Pope is infalliable.>>>
That only started in the 1880's. Hardly an original tenet of the church.>
It was 1870, actually, and that was only when the concept was dogmatically>> defined, not when it originated. It's not that big a step from "primacy of>> the bishop of Rome", which has rather explicit Biblical support,>
Do you think so? It certainly has more support than the infallibility> claim, but it's not all that explicit.
That's how I interpret Matthew 16:18, but the importance of Rome in particular is merely incidental. Had Peter gone to Constantinople or Antioch or anywhere else, the primary bishopric would have been there, rather than in Rome.
-- Daniel Seriff
A stupid system that works the way it's supposed to is still a stupid system.
Daniel Seriff <microtonal@nospam.org> wrote:> And has thou slain the Jabberwock, John Rogers?>
Yeah, GregoryD <hagar@hotmail.com>, well... that's just like... your>> opinion man.>>
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:15:56 -0400, John Rogers wrote:>>>
I have a helluva lot of respect for (for example) OrangeDood and his>>>> hellbound (heh) beliefs. Because he's HONEST about them. Catholics that>>>> don't believe in what the Church preaches and would rather the universal>>>> Church change to fit THEIR beliefs instead of versy-vicey are some of>>>> the most dishonest people in the world.>>>
The fact that there's more than one church with history that goes back as >>> far as Paul's church in Rome should give you a clue that they aren't>>> universal.>>
Oh joy... more hate and delusion. Nothing unusual, seen it before.>
This is the first time I've ever seen a historical fact referred to as "hate > and delusion".
You haven't argued church policy with Catholics much, have you?
You haven't argued church policy with Catholics much, have you?
Where _I_ grew up, the Catholics were the reasonable ones. The Baptists were the ones always coming to school with new fairy tales about Mormons.
rich -- -to reply, it's hot not warm +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett / "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world; \ than the pride that divides / when a colorful rag is unfurled."
Minä suojelen sinua kaikelta, mitä ikinä keksitkin sanoa, Daniel Seriff:> And has thou slain the Jabberwock, rich hammett?
Minä suojelen sinua kaikelta, mitä ikinä keksitkin sanoa, Daniel Seriff:>>> And has thou slain the Jabberwock, James Schrumpf?>>
How do you prefer your martini, Mr. Daniel Seriff >>>> <microtonal@nospam.org>? Shaken, or stirred?>>>>
And has thou slain the Jabberwock, James Schrumpf?>>>>>
How do you prefer your martini, Mr. Bill Lang >>>>>> <wjlmutt@bitememindspring.com>? Shaken, or stirred?>>>>>>
You want an explanation, Daniel Seriff? Here's your explanation. >>>>>>> God is Pissed. >>>>>>>
And has thou slain the Jabberwock, John Rogers?>>>>>>>>
Yeah, GregoryD <hagar@hotmail.com>, well... that's just like...>>>>>>>>> your opinion man.>>>>>>>>>
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:15:56 -0400, John Rogers wrote:>>>>>>>>>>
I have a helluva lot of respect for (for example) OrangeDood>>>>>>>>>>> and his hellbound (heh) beliefs. Because he's HONEST about>>>>>>>>>>> them. Catholics that don't believe in what the Church>>>>>>>>>>> preaches and would rather the universal Church change to fit>>>>>>>>>>> THEIR beliefs instead of versy-vicey are some of the most>>>>>>>>>>> dishonest people in the world. >>>>>>>>>>
The fact that there's more than one church with history that>>>>>>>>>> goes back as far as Paul's church in Rome should give you a>>>>>>>>>> clue that they aren't universal.>>>>>>>>>
Oh joy... more hate and delusion. Nothing unusual, seen it>>>>>>>>> before. >>>>>>>>
This is the first time I've ever seen a historical fact referred>>>>>>>> to as "hate and delusion".>>>>>>>
It's a catholic thing. They aren't happy unless they're feeling >>>>>>> guilty or oppressed.>>>>>>
To which Christian sect are you referring? If it's any of the Orthodox >>>>>> churches, please demonstrate how their beliefs differ from that of the >>>>>> Roman version.>>>>>
For starters, they don't believe that the Pope is infalliable.>>>>
That only started in the 1880's. Hardly an original tenet of the church.>>
It was 1870, actually, and that was only when the concept was dogmatically >>> defined, not when it originated. It's not that big a step from "primacy of >>> the bishop of Rome", which has rather explicit Biblical support,>>
Do you think so? It certainly has more support than the infallibility>> claim, but it's not all that explicit.
That's how I interpret Matthew 16:18, but the importance of Rome in > particular is merely incidental. Had Peter gone to Constantinople or Antioch > or anywhere else, the primary bishopric would have been there, rather than in > Rome.
Well, that's true if you believe the Catholic tradition. History doesn't really back that up too well, and it wasn't until the 5th century that the Church made explicit its claim to authority based on Peter's bishopric. Apparently, there's not even any evidence that there WAS a bishop in rome prior to the 2nd century, the church apparently functioned on a more democratic model.
It is most likely that the Church in Rome would have assumed primacy no matter what, since it was at the center of the known world.
It's also amusing when you read Catholic articles about this subject...when discussing the Church at Jerusalem, they refer to its leader, James, as a "relative of Jesus," instead of "brother of Jesus," as he's known in the Bible. This, of course, because poor Mary was damned to a life of celibacy after making Baby Jesus in Catholic beliefs.
But back to the subject, since we're discussing BIBLICAL claims, it's not even clearly stated in the Bible that Peter ever went to Rome, much less that he assumed the lead of the local church. The only hint in the Bible that he was ever in Rome is that the first epistle of Peter is signed from "Babylon," a frequent code term for Rome. And that's it.
So the entire claim for Peter being the first Bishop of Rome and establishing the Primal Church there is completely extrabiblical. There's at least as strong a tradition, with MUCH more biblical support, of Peter establishing and being leader of the congregation at Antioch, but Rome has come up with lots of reasons why Antioch is not as cool as Rome.
rich -- -to reply, it's hot not warm +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett / "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world; \ than the pride that divides / when a colorful rag is unfurled."
You haven't argued church policy with Catholics much, have you?>
Where _I_ grew up, the Catholics were the reasonable ones. The> Baptists were the ones always coming to school with new fairy> tales about Mormons.
Fairy tales about Mormons? That is kind of sad considering how strangely out there the history and theology of mormonism is... who needs to make anything up?
You haven't argued church policy with Catholics much, have you?>>
Where _I_ grew up, the Catholics were the reasonable ones. The>> Baptists were the ones always coming to school with new fairy>> tales about Mormons.
Fairy tales about Mormons? That is kind of sad considering how strangely out> there the history and theology of mormonism is... who needs to make anything> up?
After decades of study, I don't think that mormon theology and history is any stranger than any other Xtian sect or religion, but it's just less common.
I mean, the whole idea of EATING GOD is pretty strange, as is kissing the pope's ring...and don't get me started on JP^2's theology that makes using a condom morally equivalent to murder. (You can google that one up...I didn't believe it, either.)
rich -- -to reply, it's hot not warm +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett / "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world; \ than the pride that divides / when a colorful rag is unfurled."
You haven't argued church policy with Catholics much, have you?>>>
Where _I_ grew up, the Catholics were the reasonable ones. The>>> Baptists were the ones always coming to school with new fairy>>> tales about Mormons.>
Fairy tales about Mormons? That is kind of sad considering how strangely out>> there the history and theology of mormonism is... who needs to make anything>> up?>
After decades of study, I don't think that mormon theology> and history is any stranger than any other Xtian sect> or religion, but it's just less common.
After marrying an ex-mormon I have to say their history is pretty wacky. Maybe the mists of time have hidden the other major religions origins enough to give them a patina of legitimacy but the whole "Joseph Smith gold plates translated with a seeing stone to Martin Harris" saga is very funny. The South Park episode made it look pretty ridiculous, but was actually historically accurate.
Throw in the "if you're a good Mormon you get to be a god of your own planet" thing plus the blatant hypocrisies of Joseph Smith re. polygamy and you're looking at something pretty funny.
Now maybe those same stories would abound for other sects of christianity if they were born in the early part of the information age, maybe not... but the fact that most of the churches claims are provably historically silly doesn't help.
I mean, the whole idea of EATING GOD is pretty strange,> as is kissing the pope's ring...and don't get me started> on JP^2's theology that makes using a condom morally> equivalent to murder. (You can google that one up...I> didn't believe it, either.)
Oh.. I agree its kooky. I think the Mormons are even more kooky though. At least when you want to quit being a catholic you can quit going to church - ex-LDS members often have to sue the church to get removed from their roles.
You haven't argued church policy with Catholics much, have you?>>>>
Where _I_ grew up, the Catholics were the reasonable ones. The>>>> Baptists were the ones always coming to school with new fairy>>>> tales about Mormons.>>
Fairy tales about Mormons? That is kind of sad considering how strangely out>>> there the history and theology of mormonism is... who needs to make anything>>> up?>>
After decades of study, I don't think that mormon theology>> and history is any stranger than any other Xtian sect>> or religion, but it's just less common.
After marrying an ex-mormon I have to say their history is pretty wacky. Maybe> the mists of time have hidden the other major religions origins enough to> give them a patina of legitimacy but the whole "Joseph Smith gold plates> translated with a seeing stone to Martin Harris" saga is very funny. The> South Park episode made it look pretty ridiculous, but was actually> historically accurate.
Throw in the "if you're a good Mormon you get to be a god of your own> planet" thing plus the blatant hypocrisies of Joseph Smith re. polygamy and> you're looking at something pretty funny.
Now maybe those same stories would abound for other sects of christianity if> they were born in the early part of the information age, maybe not... but> the fact that most of the churches claims are provably historically silly> doesn't help.>
I mean, the whole idea of EATING GOD is pretty strange,>> as is kissing the pope's ring...and don't get me started>> on JP^2's theology that makes using a condom morally>> equivalent to murder. (You can google that one up...I>> didn't believe it, either.)
Oh.. I agree its kooky. I think the Mormons are even more kooky though. At> least when you want to quit being a catholic you can quit going to church -> ex-LDS members often have to sue the church to get removed from their roles.
Er, what? I quit going to church years ago, and haven't had to sue anybody.
rich -- -to reply, it's hot not warm +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett / "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world; \ than the pride that divides / when a colorful rag is unfurled."
Well, that's true if you believe the Catholic tradition. History>doesn't really back that up too well, and it wasn't until the>5th century that the Church made explicit its claim to authority>based on Peter's bishopric. Apparently, there's not even any>evidence that there WAS a bishop in rome prior to the 2nd century,>the church apparently functioned on a more democratic model.
Well, that's true if you believe the Catholic tradition. History>>doesn't really back that up too well, and it wasn't until the>>5th century that the Church made explicit its claim to authority>>based on Peter's bishopric. Apparently, there's not even any>>evidence that there WAS a bishop in rome prior to the 2nd century,>>the church apparently functioned on a more democratic model.
Yeah, and the women were in charge, right?
Heh. Not hardly. I don't know where you get YOUR history from.
rich -- -to reply, it's hot not warm +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett / "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world; \ than the pride that divides / when a colorful rag is unfurled."
Well, that's true if you believe the Catholic tradition. History> >>doesn't really back that up too well, and it wasn't until the> >>5th century that the Church made explicit its claim to authority> >>based on Peter's bishopric. Apparently, there's not even any> >>evidence that there WAS a bishop in rome prior to the 2nd century,> >>the church apparently functioned on a more democratic model.>
Yeah, and the women were in charge, right?>
Heh. Not hardly. I don't know where you get YOUR> history from.
I figured you were getting yours from The daVinci Code.
You haven't argued church policy with Catholics much, have you?>>>>>
Where _I_ grew up, the Catholics were the reasonable ones. The>>>>> Baptists were the ones always coming to school with new fairy>>>>> tales about Mormons.>>>
Fairy tales about Mormons? That is kind of sad considering how strangely out>>>> there the history and theology of mormonism is... who needs to make anything>>>> up?>>>
After decades of study, I don't think that mormon theology>>> and history is any stranger than any other Xtian sect>>> or religion, but it's just less common.>
After marrying an ex-mormon I have to say their history is pretty wacky. Maybe>> the mists of time have hidden the other major religions origins enough to>> give them a patina of legitimacy but the whole "Joseph Smith gold plates>> translated with a seeing stone to Martin Harris" saga is very funny. The>> South Park episode made it look pretty ridiculous, but was actually>> historically accurate. >
Throw in the "if you're a good Mormon you get to be a god of your own>> planet" thing plus the blatant hypocrisies of Joseph Smith re. polygamy and>> you're looking at something pretty funny.>
Now maybe those same stories would abound for other sects of christianity if>> they were born in the early part of the information age, maybe not... but>> the fact that most of the churches claims are provably historically silly>> doesn't help.>>
I mean, the whole idea of EATING GOD is pretty strange,>>> as is kissing the pope's ring...and don't get me started>>> on JP^2's theology that makes using a condom morally>>> equivalent to murder. (You can google that one up...I>>> didn't believe it, either.)>
Oh.. I agree its kooky. I think the Mormons are even more kooky though. At>> least when you want to quit being a catholic you can quit going to church ->> ex-LDS members often have to sue the church to get removed from their roles.>
Er, what? I quit going to church years ago, and haven't had> to sue anybody.
Pretty much a guarantee that you are still on the roles, and still considered a member by the church. Recieved any letters/visits from your local "home teacher" lately?
Oh.. I agree its kooky. I think the Mormons are even more kooky> though. At>> >> least when you want to quit being a catholic you can quit going to> church ->> >> ex-LDS members often have to sue the church to get removed from> their roles.>> >
Er, what? I quit going to church years ago, and haven't had>> > to sue anybody.>>
Pretty much a guarantee that you are still on the roles, and still>> considered a member by the church. Recieved any letters/visits from> your>> local "home teacher" lately?>
Maybe he was a "bad" Mormon.
My wife was a pretty bad Mormon - that will keep you out of the temple, but it won't get you tossed.
Remember we're talking about people who use "proxy baptism of the dead" and have baptized Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan. Hell, they have posthumously baptized thousands of Jewish holocaust victims - against the wishes of those Holocaust victims families and the general jewish community.
