dairygirl4u2c Posted May 25, 2007 Author Share Posted May 25, 2007 i couldn't have given rez the hardball better myself, thes. (seriously) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RezaMikhaeil Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1281111' date='May 24 2007, 11:57 PM']i couldn't have given rez the hardball better myself, thes. (seriously)[/quote] If that's what you call a "hardball" It was simply attacking me, because I wasn't as active in this thread, because I have a job and a life, while he himself has literally backed out of several conversations that weren't going "his way", but think what you wish. I wouldn't expect much more from "dairy girl", since she falsely accused me of having no reason to not believe in the supremacy of Rome, when she didn't even read my priest posts that had numerous quotes that outlined this in close detail, which she failed to read, while going on bashing me with no purpose, in which I ended up providing her with that evidence, despite her immaturity and disrespect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 (edited) Attack? Common. If you can't handle someone challenging you to do some research and follow up then why are you on a debate board with people who strongly disagree with you? Seems your pretty good at attack yourself. I am not complaining about whether or not you have answered my posts. But you did a hit and run on this thread. I did a search and saw the quotes as well. If you will look at those quotes the vast majority of them had the same source. You can tell because the words around them are the same. So these people did as little checking as you did. If you would have gone as far as the Catechism you were supposed to find it in, there should be plenty of reason to questoin it. But rarely do people even go that far when parroting the same old loaf of fruitcake anti-catholicism Christmass after Christmass. "Somebody said it so it must be true". Blessings Edited May 25, 2007 by thessalonian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted May 25, 2007 Author Share Posted May 25, 2007 (edited) [quote]in which I ended up providing her with that evidence, despite her immaturity and disrespect.[/quote] you proved that there's more to the orthodox stance than what a catholic might think. that the non-roman bishop had a lot of respect. basically, all the stuff you posted could be interpreted in the catholic position. of course, i agree the early catholic texts could be interpreted either way too. that's why i posted this thread. i think there should be a contradiction that exists if the CC is not true. that's all i'm asking from you and you are nto providing it, or at least saying that you don't think a contradiction needs to exist. i don't think i'm being immature and disrespectful by questioning your motives and playing hardball, this is a debate table, and to me anyway, i see no point dancing around things. feel free to play hard ball back, i insist. if i am hurting your feelings though, i will subside a little bit. just let me know. Edited May 25, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted May 25, 2007 Author Share Posted May 25, 2007 i think the argument could be made, and i don't think it's that weak. maybe there's some things that might have been contradictions but we don't know. the main issue brought up in this thread by rez might be that sort, but it don't look like it. the "no salvation outside the CC" thing is the best example i can think of. if that's all i got though, that's pretty weak. i need at least more circumstantial evidence for a contradiction to make the "maybe" argument better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 Dairy, Evidently your having trouble coming up with ONE error. Let's say you find one that you think is an error. That would be an incredible record in itself. What do you think is the likelyhood if you only find one that it is your misunderstanding rather than an actual error? Now if you get 5-10 that's a bit different balgame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted May 25, 2007 Author Share Posted May 25, 2007 yes i would have to agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1276370' date='May 18 2007, 02:09 AM']anyone who says it, please state how the pope has contradicted himself or other popes in faith and morals to the church. if you think there are other errors, i'm interested in those too but not as much as a contradiction.[/quote] you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Moderators, could you close this thread before dairy scandalizes anyone by her horribly evil agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 this is what the debate tabel's for, Anthony. anyone is welcome to post what they believe to be a proof against papal infallibility, and it will be discussed and hopefully refuted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 [quote name='Anthony' post='1281295' date='May 25 2007, 02:38 PM']you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Moderators, could you close this thread before dairy scandalizes anyone by her horribly evil agenda.[/quote] Why should we be afraid of such a question Anthony? By the way if your paying attention and reading her posts here agenda is not evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RezaMikhaeil Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 [quote name='thessalonian' post='1281183' date='May 25 2007, 08:39 AM']Common. If you can't handle someone challenging you to do some research and follow up then why are you on a debate board with people who strongly disagree with you? Seems your pretty good at attack yourself.[/quote] It wasn't you "challenging me", it was you saying that I had fabricated what was written because I didn't continue this dialog with you, when in reality there are lots of conversations in which you'd made proposterous claims that many disagreed with, but refused to continue the conversation but nobody scrutinized you because of it. [quote]I am not complaining about whether or not you have answered my posts. But you did a hit and run on this thread. [/quote]I didn't hit and run, hitting and running is making a claim with no particular method to proving the claim. I made the claim and provided several media sources that made the same claim. If you'd like to dig through the many phrases your pope made and find the exact quote, be my guest but don't expect me to do it for you. [quote]I did a search and saw the quotes as well. If you will look at those quotes the vast majority of them had the same source. You can tell because the words around them are the same. So these people did as little checking as you did. If you would have gone as far as the Catechism you were supposed to find it in, there should be plenty of reason to questoin it. But rarely do people even go that far when parroting the same old loaf of fruitcake anti-catholicism Christmass after Christmass. "Somebody said it so it must be true".[/quote] These were from neutral sources, not anti-catholic sources my friend, get it right. Also if my memory serves correctly, you've made some very bold claims against orthodoxy that have been unsupported, but again nobody scrutinized you for it [and you had no sources to support your claims, not even media ones]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RezaMikhaeil Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1281197' date='May 25 2007, 09:13 AM']you proved that there's more to the orthodox stance than what a catholic might think.[/quote] No what I proved was that your initial claim, that I had no evidence to support my beliefs, was wrong. That you pre-judged me, based upon what you didn't know and didn't bother to read the threads that came before it, proving my stance. [quote]that the non-roman bishop had a lot of respect.[/quote] It wasn't "alot of respect", St. Athanasius was trusted throughout Christendom in the whole world. Now of course you could provide a "loop hole" of your own, that's fine but it's not based upon what was originally written. To say that there is no evidence that suggests a different view then your own, is foolish. I provided you with quotes, more then enough factual evidence to my position, you have yet to answer back in response to a single one of those quotes that were from very respected sources, so don't talk to me about "playing hardball" and having a good discussion. Reza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCid Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 [quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1281434' date='May 25 2007, 07:54 PM']I didn't hit and run, hitting and running is making a claim with no particular method to proving the claim. I made the claim and provided several media sources that made the same claim. If you'd like to dig through the many phrases your pope made and find the exact quote, be my guest but don't expect me to do it for you.[/quote] Well, just on this issue of the claim, since it has been getting discussed in here, your claim was that this was said: [quote]Pius X also confirmed the existence of Limbo in Roman Catholic theology in his 1905 Catechism, saying that the unbaptized "do not have the joy of God but neither do they suffer... they do not deserve Paradise, but neither do they deserve Hell or Purgatory."[/quote]However, as I believe several people have said, we cannot find this in the Catechism of St. Pius X. As we have searched for it and made efforts to find it, I think it would be proper for you to point it out for us as we cannot seem to find it. And yes, you did provide a few media sources. The first one, however, seems to disagree with your entering the statement as an actual "error" made by the Pope. [quote]1905: Pope Pius X made a definitive declaration confirming the existence of Limbo. However, [b]this was not an infallible statement by the pope[/b][/quote] [url="http://www.religioustolerance.org/limbo2.htm"]http://www.religioustolerance.org/limbo2.htm[/url] The second link just restates the statement, but excludes the claim of it being found in the Catechism of St. Pius X, leaving no clue as to where it can be found. The third link also disagrees with it as being an actual "error" made by the Pope, nor does it cite as to where in the Catechism this can be found. [quote]The 1905 Catechism of St Pius X teaches that children who die without being baptized are destined to limbo. However, the Catechism, which Pius X wrote before his elevation to the papacy, was never directed to the universal Church. It is not an authoritative papal definition.[/quote] [url="http://www.catholic.net/the_road_to_heaven/template_article.phtml?channel_id=16&article_id=3678"]http://www.catholic.net/the_road_to_heaven...article_id=3678[/url] I don't think this statement has been proven to be an "error" of the Pope, as in accordance with the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RezaMikhaeil Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 Each of these media sources might disagree on weather it was an error, etc. but each of them quotes the same sentence. To each his own opinion, that's not what I'm saying. I don't nessessarily take their stance, I simply take the same quote [and there were actually four sources, but one was edited out of my post]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCid Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 (edited) What about 2 of the 3 sources and your self mistaking where the quote is from? It is said to be from the Catechism of St. Pius X, but several people have been unable to find it in the Catechism. Would that not put doubt on the accuracy of the quote? Would you agree that the statement is not what this thread is looking for as an 'error of the Pope'? Edited May 26, 2007 by CatholicCid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now