Vatican Billions

[OLAM Dad]

[quote name='curtins' post='1047651' date='Aug 21 2006, 06:21 PM']
Thats not an ad hominem attack- just pointing out how he comes across on this board. I would think alot of people would agree.
[/quote]
I agree.

Eutychus, I, like you , am an 'old guy' (I'm in my 40s). I've been through all the troubles and tribulations that life has to offer. I went to high school overseas and have seen all the poor and suffering that the world has to offer. I spent 10 years in the Army in the combat arms and I now work for a company that did everything it could do to look just like Enron looked in the '90s. We almost went bankrupt as a result. And yes, I also owned my own company (notice the past tense, it failed). Today I spend my days making sure that companies adhere to the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002. I know all about cooking books and not taking things for granted.

Please don't try and lay the root of your skepticism on our generation. I know that we baby boomers can be an angry and disillusioned bunch. However, by the grace of God we have the ability to look at the world as through the eyes of a child and see the good and the Truth that He has given us in the Catholic church. It's a fabulous gift that you should open your heart and mind to and honestly explore.

[Eutychus]

[quote]...and yes the cardinals in Rome are selling off panels of the Cistine Chapel cieling to finance their excessive partying and Roman night life. [/quote]

I would hope that you ARE aware, that has been done many, many times in the past?

The Tiara's have been hocked, sold, and auctioned.

Along with everything else.

[img]http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/184223000X.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg[/img]

[quote]For the most part the author lets the deeds (or rather, misdeeds) of the Bishops of Rome speak for themselves, although his own dim view of his subject is abundantly clear throughout. He is himself a former priest (educated at the Gregorian University in Rome) who unfolds the theologial groundlessness of the office of Pope itself, the ethical depravity of a depressingly high percentage of its occupants, the religious zealotry of many Popes, and the laughable absurdity of so many Roman Catholic doctrines such as Papal Infallibility. The overall effect of this is devastating for the Papacy, which emerges from the pages of this book as one fo the most hypocritical, malevolent and unjustifiable institutions in human history--which is saying a great deal. The book is the perfect antidote to the awe in which the office of Pope is held today, and a very welcome reminder of the dark history of a powerful institution built on a mountain of absurdities and atrocities that we all-too-easily forget. De Rosa has done his readers a great service in putting that history into a single volume without mincing his words of pulling his punches. Read it and weep.[/quote]

[Aloysius]

[quote]De Rosa ( Prayers for Pagans and Hypocrites ) is an angry Catholic. In the worst proselytizing tradition, this devil's advocate overstates familiar arguments, bludgeoning the reader with his dossier against the Church. Among De Rosa's tamer charges: Jesus renounced possessions, but his vicars celebrate high mass garbed in cloth of gold; the Church has never lifted strictures against usury, yet the Vatican operates a bank. De Rosa sweeps through Church history to parade popes who begat children, popes who fornicated on a grand scale, popes who married. Then in the second half of this polemic, he addresses Church teaching, conjoining the "immaculate conception" doctrine to decrees governing birth control, abortion, celibacy. The doctrine of papal infallibility is dealt with, as is Church anti-Semitism through the ages leading to the Holocaust silence of Pius XII, the "one man in the world whose witness Hitler feared." And in wrapping up his catalog of "the sins of the papacy," De Rosa virtually dismisses internal reform: "It is not Catholics but other Christians who chiefly can make the papacy what it ought to be."[/quote]
Copyright 1988 Reed Business Information, Inc.

[quote]In his history of the papacy, former Jesuit De Rosa aims to undermine belief in papal infallibility. Although he claims to be a friend of the Catholic Church, and does at times express admiration for the holiness of many of the Popes, his book is so heavily weighted with information on the corruption of the Papacy that it would be hard for any reader to see any good in the office. The book cannot be faulted historically or stylistically, though most of the informationincluding the most sordidcan be found in the standard Roman Catholic sources. Patrick Grainfeld's The Limits of the Papacy (Crossroad, 1987) offers a more balanced view of the expansion of papal power. Augustine J. Curley, Newark Abbey, N.J.[/quote]
Copyright 1988 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Now stop peddling this book and stay on task. Many people see the sins of bad popes as a testament to how the teaching can be preserved even when bad men sit in a seat of authority over it. Name one fornicating pope to ever teach that fornication was okay... he could have done it, right? if the pope said something in those days people listened to him. Name one pope who committed simony who taught that it was okay to commit simony. Go on and on with the most sinful popes; none of them ever justified their sins by changing Church teaching to make them alright even though they sat in the position of power to do so. That is the best testament to the work of the Holy Ghost I can think of.

Roman Emporers made sure everyone thought their pedophilia was okay, and they weren't even in office as moral teachers. Then popes, who are in office as moral teachers, for some reason do not follow suit with the rest of very powerful men; they don't use their power to justify their sins. Why? They are powerless to bind Christ's Church in error. Almighty God would sooner strike them dead. Almighty God would sooner impose upon their free will (something He never does because He chose to make us with free will and not to interfere with it) to stop them from doing such a thing.

[Akalyte]

ok eutychus, lets say the catholic church is false (which i will never believe) but lets just say its false, which of the 40,000 personal interpretation churches do you suggest we join? Jesus built a church already, in 33 A.D. History shows it was the Catholic Church.

[curtins]

[quote name='Akalyte' post='1047762' date='Aug 22 2006, 05:10 AM']
ok eutychus, lets say the catholic church is false (which i will never believe) but lets just say its false, which of the 40,000 personal interpretation churches do you suggest we join? Jesus built a church already, in 33 A.D. History shows it was the Catholic Church.
[/quote]


I second that- Which one do you suggest we join? And before you answer- how do I know thats the right church?

[Eutychus]

[quote] Name one fornicating pope to ever teach that fornication was okay... he could have done it, right?[/quote]

OK, let me get your Catholic "logic" right here....

I am a bankrobber. However I put on paper that bank robbing is wrong, YET I continue to rob banks, do that publically, and everyone knows....but because I have a sheet of paper that says bank robbing is wrong....I'm still a good guy, and the robbing didn't happen. Is that how this paperwork game is played?

[quote]ok eutychus, lets say the catholic church is false (which i will never believe) but lets just say its false, which of the 40,000 personal interpretation churches do you suggest we join? [/quote]

Up to 40,000 now?

Sheesh, only last year, the Catholics were using 34,000. Man, we must REALLY be growing to get from 34-40,000 so quickly! I better buy some stock in those outfits, who knows...in five more months, the Roman Catholics might be swearing that there are 76,000 seperate denominations!
[i]
{ YOU MIGHT want to actually READ your own site for information.....if you are going to toss out GARBAGE, at least try to make it orignal garbage, ok?.}[/i]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=5128"]THE BIG LIE CATHOLICS KNOWINGLY TELL ABOUT OTHER CHURCHES[/url]

[CatholicCid]

-swish-

"And he evades that question Chuck"

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1047863' date='Aug 22 2006, 10:35 AM']
OK, let me get your Catholic "logic" right here....

I am a bankrobber. However I put on paper that bank robbing is wrong, YET I continue to rob banks, do that publically, and everyone knows....but because I have a sheet of paper that says bank robbing is wrong....I'm still a good guy, and the robbing didn't happen. Is that how this paperwork game is played?
[/quote]Maybe another example is in order.

It is recorded that St. Peter actually denied Our Lord during the Passion. Despite this great sin--which is much greater than bank robbing--professing Christians accept that he was a key figure (if you'll pardon the pun) in the nascent Church. Not only was he an episcopal leader, we also trust some of his writings to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

All of the Apostles, including St. Paul, come across as imperfect men, to put it mildly. Yet God works through these men to provide us with both a visible Church and an inerrant New Testament.

[Budge]

Jesus Himself said this..

Mar 9:38 ¶ And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
[size=5]
Mar 9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

Mar 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.[/size]

So all the bemoaning the thousands of churches out there is based on your own churches false teachings instead of listening to Jesus. For instance I attend an indep Baptist church but know there are OTHER good churches out there doing the Lords work, not infested with liberalism or sacramentalism.

The problem instead of making Jesus Christ the center of your lives, you folks have made your institution.

You need to become born again, and follow Christ, and stop defending every wicked thing that Catholicism is a part of.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1047863' date='Aug 22 2006, 10:44 AM']Sheesh, only last year, the Catholics were using 34,000. Man, we must REALLY be growing to get from 34-40,000 so quickly! I better buy some stock in those outfits, who knows...in five more months, the Roman Catholics might be swearing that there are 76,000 seperate denominations![/quote]I don't cite numbers regarding the anarchy of evangelical teachings, but considering you don't even know (and may not agree) with the doctinal beliefs of your own pastor, you can understand how a Catholic would look at evangelicalism as an extremely fragmented belief system.

If you want to get practical about this question, just open up your local phone book. It tells the story of protestant division and Catholic unity quite well.

[Budge]

Did you even read the scripture I posted?

The apostles protesting to Jesus about others preaching in His name...

and Jesus told them anyone working and preaching the gospel is on their side...

what are you doing but preaching the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of that?

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Budge' post='1047879' date='Aug 22 2006, 11:03 AM']So all the bemoaning the thousands of churches out there is based on your own churches false teachings instead of listening to Jesus. For instance I attend an indep Baptist church but know there are OTHER good churches out there doing the Lords work, not infested with liberalism or sacramentalism.[/quote]Based on protestantism, you have no authority to make a judgment against liberalism or sacramentalism (or even Catholicism). As long as the Liberal, sacramentalist, or Catholic finds Biblical support for his belief, he passes the "Sola Scriptura" test, just as any protestant.

Just a funny thing about your church. You call it independent. I think the devil must love that.

[quote name='Budge' post='1047879' date='Aug 22 2006, 11:03 AM']The problem instead of making Jesus Christ the center of your lives, you folks have made your institution.[/quote]Our Lord is the head of the Church. [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/ephesians/ephesians1.htm#v22"]Eph 1:22-23[/url]:
[quote name='Eph 1:22-23']And he (i.e. Jesus) put all things beneath his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way.[/quote]
[url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/colossians/colossians1.htm#v18"]Col 1:18[/url]:
[quote name='Col 1:18a']He is the head of the body, the church.[/quote]
[quote name='Budge' post='1047879' date='Aug 22 2006, 11:03 AM']You need to become born again, and follow Christ, and stop defending every wicked thing that Catholicism is a part of.[/quote]We Catholics are born again through the Sacrament of Baptism. That is the Scriptural teaching on [i]how [/i] Christians are born again ([url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1peter/1peter3.htm#v21"]see 1 Peter 3:21[/url]).

You need to stop reading Jack Chick comics.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Budge' post='1047894' date='Aug 22 2006, 11:27 AM']Did you even read the scripture I posted?

The apostles protesting to Jesus about others preaching in His name...

and Jesus told them anyone working and preaching the gospel is on their side...

what are you doing but preaching the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of that?[/quote]Your own attacks against Catholicism should be questioned, then, since we Catholics preach in His name. Aside from that, I find that the discussions that involve you and Eutychus here usually involve your attacking Catholics, not the other way around.

As some of us have mentioned before, it's difficult to criticize what evangelicals believe, because they have no real solid foundation of belief. In addition, you're a bit stealthy about your beliefs. In contrast, we Catholics have always kept our creed exposed to the light, for all to see ([url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew5.htm#v14"]Matt 4:14-16[/url]).

[Eutychus]

[quote] We Catholics are born again through the Sacrament of Baptism. That is the Scriptural teaching on how Christians are born again (see 1 Peter 3:21).[/quote]

Oh goodie. One passage that "seems" to back you up, allowing you to IGNORE the dozen that condemn your practice.

A fellow once asked Jesus that question, and for the life of me, I cannot recall Him mentioning that salvation came about by infant baptism.

All that infant baptism does, is make the toddler wet.

[Budge]

Mateo instead of just burying me in Catholic slogans and complaints about my character, why not tell me what Mark 9:39-40 means in the Catholic Church?

From where Im standing they have basically cut that verse out of their Bibles.