This doesnt even LOOK real

[rkwright]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1057070' date='Sep 5 2006, 11:51 AM']
Really there is no need to now. Luther and the Reformers did that already, 1/2 the Catholic Church left then.

Today, the Europeans, the ones that KNOW this stuff is superstitions wrapped in ignorance have left the Catholic Church in the dust. Even such stalwart Catholic Church nations such as Spain, Italy, Ireland now see Mass attendence between 5-15% of those that SAY they are Roman Catholics.

They KNOW, they have been the closest to these hoaxes for hundreds of years, scammed by the flimflam men wearing frocks, and resplendent in luxury silks and lace, paid for, naturally, by the rubes that USED TO believe this nonesense. But NOW, with prosperity, money, education and the internet, they are deeply embarrassed over the flying house, bones, twenty tons of "the true cross" fragments,and all the other garbage the Catholic Church shoveled their way over the centuries.

So they just left, vamoosed, skeedaddled and have given to the Catholic Church what SHE gave to them forever...just as prophetically forcast.
[/quote]

1/3 of Europe is still Catholic, and that only amounts to 1/4 of the Catholic Population worldwide.

About 15% of Europe is protestant, and that is 20% of all protestants worldwide.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_in_Europe"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_in_Europe[/url]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant#Number_of_Protestants"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant#Nu..._of_Protestants[/url]

So if the reformers saved the day, what happened to the Church for 1500 years? After Christ died did the Church become evil and lose its way untill the 16th Century when the Reformers fixed it all? Surely you wouldn't assume that, after all the Gospels and Epistles were written after Christ. So there must be a point in time when it all went sour, when the Catholic Church parted ways with what Christ intended. What date\time period was that?

[Eutychus]

Lest you think I'm a fan of Luther, Calvin, Knox, et al...forget it.

They were HERO's { even for the Catholic Church is you truly take the time to understand how corrupt the church was by 1500 and where that would have gone without the need to clean up a tad with the reformers gutting out entire nations } for what they DID accomplish. However, they too wanted state religions, just with another more honest church replacing the Catholic Church. All forgot, that the apostolic church had ZERO to NEGATIVE interaction with goverment, and the church grows fastest when it is actually under oppression BY government.

I believe in local churches, some will do well and prosper, others will fall into some forms of heresy and will wither out and die. However, many choices locally will instill opportunity to leave a bad church and go to a better one. State sponsored or universal churches with a one size fits all, means that when the church goes bad, it goes bad everywhere all at once.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1057250' date='Sep 5 2006, 06:08 PM']
Lest you think I'm a fan of Luther, Calvin, Knox, et al...forget it.

They were HERO's { even for the Catholic Church is you truly take the time to understand how corrupt the church was by 1500 and where that would have gone without the need to clean up a tad with the reformers gutting out entire nations } for what they DID accomplish. However, they too wanted state religions, just with another more honest church replacing the Catholic Church. All forgot, that the apostolic church had ZERO to NEGATIVE interaction with goverment, and the church grows fastest when it is actually under oppression BY government.

I believe in local churches, some will do well and prosper, others will fall into some forms of heresy and will wither out and die. However, many choices locally will instill opportunity to leave a bad church and go to a better one. State sponsored or universal churches with a one size fits all, means that when the church goes bad, it goes bad everywhere all at once.
[/quote]

Who is to determine which local church has fallen into heresy? And when two local churches teach opposing views? Does this not lead to religion becoming nothing more than politics, with each church representing one set of beliefs?

How are we to understand St. Paul's writings if each local church is meant to be taken seperately? How can St. Paul's writings to the Romans be applicable to the Church in Cornith, the Ephesians, or even us today? When St. Paul speaks of being one body, surely he does not mean that each local church is one body for then we would have not one but many bodies. How are we to reconcile your idea of many local churches yet one body?

Is there any proof that Christ indeed wanted the Church to look the way you have stated? How about the early Christians?

Edited September 5, 2006 by rkwright

[Guest JackM]

Well, Budge, I guess you don't believe the Bible either. Many historically inaccurate accounts have been found within along within some scientifically false statements. Is the Bible itself an act of evil? No, because these are not dogmatic truths we are talking about. It is not the place of the Church to mandate any position on these issues because the belief is up to the beholder. The Church simply has not been able to prove this veil false. Your fairy tale like scenario simply does not add up here. The Church doesn't give in to liars, in fact, it strongly encourages its members to use their God-given reason to make a decision.

[Budge]

[quote] The Church simply has not been able to prove this veil false.[/quote]

This is the actual face of Jesus placed on a veil that Veronica wiped his face with?

You seriously believe that?

One look and I can tell its fake, with NO DOUBTS.

[img]http://www.alleanzacattolica.org/immagini/voltosanto_manoppello.jpg[/img]

Its not even in the right proportions.



The Bible is based on truth, this is based on phony legends.

[CatholicCid]

I point back to my original post.


I also have a painting supposedly by DaVinci... Mind telling me if it's real?

[rkwright]

[quote name='Budge' post='1057304' date='Sep 5 2006, 07:58 PM']
This is the actual face of Jesus placed on a veil that Veronica wiped his face with?

You seriously believe that?

One look and I can tell its fake, with NO DOUBTS.

[img]http://www.alleanzacattolica.org/immagini/voltosanto_manoppello.jpg[/img]

Its not even in the right proportions.
The Bible is based on truth, this is based on phony legends.
[/quote]

Please Budge, are you some scientist in this field? Look at what you've said in this thread.. Its not real b\c it doesn't look real to me, and since the Pope was there it must mean that the Catholic Church teaches it is real and thus teaches a lie.

This is terrible logic, and probably not even worth the time to respond. But I'll do it anyways.

Your first claim... The veil isn't real...
1- You have failed to show any reason why it isn't real, other than you say it looks fake.
2- Since you have no evidence, I can equally assert that it is real and now we are at a standoff.
3- There is evidence that it may be real
a- Studies show it was not painted
[quote]Professor Donato Vittori, of the University of Bari, carried out an examination of the veil with ultra-violet rays in 1997, discovering that the fibers have no type of pigmentation.

On observing the relic with a microscope one discovers that it is not painted and that it is not woven with colored fibers. [/quote]
b- The viel matches up with the Shroud of Tourin
[quote]Iconographer Blandine Pascalis Shloemer has demonstrated that the image of the Holy Shroud of Turin is perfectly superimposed on the Holy Face of Manoppello, using more than ten points of reference. [/quote]
Those can both be read at [url="http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94085"]http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94085[/url]

Lets look at your second claim - The Pope visited the veil thus the Catholic Church teaches it is true
1- No evidence on this claim AT ALL
2- The burden of proof is on you to show that papal visits=Catholic Church teaching
3- Again you need to show that the Catholic Church teaches it, not the AP says we teach it, but rather the Catholic Church teaches it
4- You're not going to be able to, the Catholic Church doesn't.

Your conclusion is that the Catholic Church teaches a lie, or allows its people to believe a lie
1- You never showed that the Catholic Church taught a lie, in fact you didn't show at all what the Catholic Church taught
2- You never proved that the veil was a 'lie' you simiply asserted it
3- The Catholic Church does not have a definative position simply because the evidence is in-conclusive


The answer to all this was in OLAM dad's response on page 1. End of story. Next time you start making claims be sure to have the evidence to back it up.

Phatmassers- I suggest we leave Budge on this one, the arguments have been made and many of us have brought forth hard evidence in this case. Budge has failed to bring us any proof of the claims he is making. It has turned into nothing but a shouting match calling the other a 'Liar'! with random Bible verses thrown in. This is no discussion or debate, its more like a fight.

[Budge]

[quote]
Please Budge, are you some scientist in this field? Look at what you've said in this thread.. Its not real b\c it doesn't look real to me, and since the Pope was there it must mean that the Catholic Church teaches it is real and thus teaches a lie.[/quote]

Even a college student with the most rudimentary art history training can tell that thing is a Medieval hoax.

[quote]
1- You have failed to show any reason why it isn't real, other than you say it looks fake.[/quote]

If it was the real veil that wiped Jesus's face, it would picture a real face, that showed accurate physiology, which means the eyes and shape protrayed would match human porportions..the eyes are even too close to the top of the head.

[quote]
2- Since you have no evidence, I can equally assert that it is real and now we are at a standoff.[/quote]

Well you are free to believe what you want.


[quote]3- There is evidence that it may be real
a- Studies show it was not painted[/quote]

I dont consider those studies unbiased.


I have seen the Shroud of Turin and this does not match the face at all. The nose is far more narrow on the Shroud of Turin, which also too shows a Medieval art style of a different period.
[quote]
Lets look at your second claim - The Pope visited the veil thus the Catholic Church teaches it is true[/quote]

Why would your Pope visit a phony artifact?, his very prescense gives it credibility.

[quote]3- The Catholic Church does not have a definative position simply because the evidence is in-conclusive[/quote]

The Vatican releases papers on everything from world usage of Water to Sports, are you trying to tell me they just didnt have the time to figure it out.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Budge' post='1057060' date='Sep 5 2006, 11:36 AM']
Name one un- truth.

People have claimed I came up with PHONY pictures.

I did not.

[img]http://www.catholicpressphoto.com/servizi/2006-09-01-VISITA-MANOPPELLO/images/prevs/2006-09-01-manoppello%20005.jpg[/img]

Is anyone going to apologize?
[/quote]

Who accused you of coming up with phony pictures?

Me?
No. Let's review what I said.
[quote]It's all a political thing. Budge totally supports the Rites of the Catholic Church apart from the Roman Rite, as evidenced in Budge's cute little tirade on a fakey looking thing supposedly called the "Holy Face" in some column from the Associated Press, whom we know to be completely loyal to the truth and not in any way hostile to Chrisitanity.


Alright, Budge!

[/quote]

Does it say "faked pictures?"
No, it says "fakey looking thing." I think the face is fakey looking. I think the guy in it looks a little dopey. You were not on a tirade about pictures, you were on atirade about this face thing. Allow me to show you:

"a fakey looking thing supposedly called the "Holy Face""
Fakey looking modifies thing, thing is the Holy Face, not the photos. There are likely books available that could teach you basic sentence structure and the use of adjectives. They're going to be expensive, so save the money from your paper route, okay?

I do say "supposedly" called the "Holy Face," because I've never heard of it (that's how pervasive it is,) and you had posted merely a tertiary source, ie an AP article. The AP is not known for being unbiased. It's human, after all.

I've explained my intent. I'll try to be more clear for you in the future.

Do with it what you will.

[Winchester]

But heck, while the theme is addressing wrongs....
[quote]No response from the pirate?

When hes PROVEN wrong?

{i love how some go poof at appropriate times}

[/quote]

My my my, that has the tone of an accusation! I recall entering a response. I'm certain you missed it. It explained to you (sarcastically) that although you pay me quite generously to mock you, that my other two jobs and family demands require that I spend some time away from Phatmass occasionally.

Why would I choose to disappear? You had completely misunderstood my post (probably because you jumped before really reading my post.) You hadn't proven anything. You showed pictures of the Pope looking at the face thing. I saw no ceremony or Bull proclaiming it authentic. And I didn't see any quotes from "experts." These have been provided by those who understand the difference between the depth of sources.