Jan Hus

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='06 October 2009 - 12:43 AM' timestamp='1254807802' post='1978971']
OraProMe said:
[/quote]

Bob Dole?

[Winchester]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='06 October 2009 - 01:04 AM' timestamp='1254805463' post='1978935']
Selah dearest, stop trying to read my mind. But thought you'd want to know that I agree with the person who thinks this thread is getting off topic, so I'm sure someone will shut it down soon for our saintly infractions to the rules. But I must say, it's not that I don't like YOU, but I DO dislike the misinformation you dish out so casually. Your previous post, erroneously stating that "the church never burnt anyone" is so outrageously false, all the martyrs in heaven who were in fact, BURNT under the tryannical rule of the Catholic Church would probably foam at the mouth at such a ludicrous statement if they could hear you. It was made as usual, to whitewash the guilt of those responsible and NO history book in the universe would agree with your flat out LIE. A losing battle if I ever heard of one. So get it straight: The Council of Constance TURNED HUS OVER TO THE MAGISTRATES TO BE BURNT AND IT DOESN'T MATTER ONE BIT IF THEY THEMSELVES DIDN'T HOLD THE MATCH! IN 1999 THE POPE APOLOGIZED FOR IT, and THAT, as they say, IS THAT.
[/quote]
Yeah, I better not.

Edited October 6, 2009 by Winchester

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='06 October 2009 - 12:16 AM' timestamp='1254806169' post='1978947']
As I have stated in the past, the Pope did not apologize in his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians. His statement was not doctrinally authoritative nor is it part of the teachings of the Catholic Church.
[/quote]


But your church teaches at that "famous" council, that you are to adhere to the Pope's teaching,
QUOTE, [i]"even if he does not speak ex-cathedra".

So you are morally bound to agree with him. If not, PM with your evidence where the church has made an exception to the rule above---as this will be my last comment on this thread.

[/i]Catholicism dies a thousand deaths every day, integrity-wise, by her never-ending qualifications, whether it's to escape guilt for the sins of the church, or to personally disagree with the pope, there's always a caveat somewhere so the "cafeteria catholic" can pick and choose whatever he wants to believe. Furthermore, you're not fooling persons such as myself who UNDERSTAND, thank you, the doctrines of your church. The fact of the matter is, since it is an established fact that you can't be certain just exactly how many times the pope has indeed spoken authoritatively in union with his "infallibility", then you have no right to insinuate as you do above, that you have the magic key in unlocking just exactly when and where he has done this in the past. I have 5 quotes from all the big-shot catholic apologists, all giving different answers. So certainly if THEY don't know when the pope has spoken authoritatively, neither do you, and neither does the magisterium, who have never released a list we could all examine and have the question answered once and for all.

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='Winchester' date='06 October 2009 - 12:37 AM' timestamp='1254807428' post='1978967']
Because everyone but the Catholic Church can infallibly understand the Bible.
[/quote]


Winchester,

I am writing this to ask you to stop sending me personal messages. I have deleted all 10 of them.

While I am here, I will debunk you by reminding you that your church has only "infallibly" defined the amount of Scripture verses that can be counted on one hand (and still, no one knows just exactly how many) so CEASE and DESIST from saying that only SHE can understand the Bible when she herself doesn't even know how many she has infallibly defined!!!

Finally, if the Council ITSELF did not condemn Hus, he would not have been put to death, regardless of what the penalties were civily. Catholics just have no shame, doing whatever they can to escape blame and disagree with the Pope on demand. Papa John XXIII, who opened the council of Constance with great pomp, was condemned by IT (IT, and not the civil authorities) to prison. And he was treated far more lightly than he deserved, the original 54 charges against him being reduced to a mere 5---he was "only" found guilty of piracy, murder, rape and incest! Whereas, on the other hand, Hus who was a saint who taught the Scriptures to children as only one of his virtues, pleaded for church reform---but was fried on an open grill. And Johnny Boy gets only a 3 year prison sentence for HIS atrotious crimes! In the end, you should wake up and smell the coffee because Constance concluded that "Every lawfully convoked ecumenical council representing the church derives its authority immediately from Christ, and EVERYONE, THE POPE INCLUDED, is subject to IT (again, IT) in matters of faith, in the healing of schism, and the reformation of the church." Thus, it is resolved: No council ever admitted to papal supremacy in the first 1000 years of Christianity. So the proclamation in 1870 was certainly no "development of doctrine", but remains to this day, RANK HERESY.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='06 October 2009 - 01:26 AM' timestamp='1254813963' post='1979002']
Finally, if the Council ITSELF did not condemn Hus, he would not have been put to death, regardless of what the penalties were civily. Catholics just have no shame, doing whatever they can to escape blame and disagree with the Pope on demand. Papa John XXIII, who opened the council of Constance with great pomp, was condemned by IT (IT, and not the civil authorities) to prison. And he was treated far more lightly than he deserved, the original 54 charges against him being reduced to a mere 5---he was "only" found guilty of piracy, murder, rape and incest!
[/quote]
Pope John XXIII (b. 1881 - d. 1963) was not even alive during the celebration of the Council of Constance. I do not know why you keep referring to anti-pope John XXIII as if he were the legitimate pope. You may think that he is legitimate, but Roman Catholics do not agree, and so they have no vested interest in defending him or his false claims to authority.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='05 October 2009 - 11:16 PM' timestamp='1254806169' post='1978947']
As I have stated in the past, the Pope did not apologize in his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians. His statement was not doctrinally authoritative nor is it part of the teachings of the Catholic Church.
[/quote]
Resurrexi,

I do not know why you keep bringing this up. The fact that Pope John Paul II apologized for the sins of individual Christians throughout history is nothing to be ashamed of, because the Church, although holy and blameless as the Body of Christ, remains ever in need of purification in her individual members. This is a theological truth that has always been affirmed by Catholics.

Edited October 6, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Laudate_Dominum]

[i]And they'll know we are Christians by our love, by our love.
They will know we are Christians by our love.[/i]


Consider yourselves judged by one who is holier than thou.

[Jesus_lol]

just because something is lawful does not mean it is morally correct. such as you guys are so fond of pointing out, in this day and age, fornication is lawful but you dont think morally correct.

just because heresy was deemed a crime doesnt mean it was morally correct to kill him for it.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='06 October 2009 - 02:01 AM' timestamp='1254812490' post='1979000']
But your church teaches at that "famous" council, that you are to adhere to the Pope's teaching,
QUOTE, "even if he does not speak ex-cathedra".

So you are morally bound to agree with him. If not, PM with your evidence where the church has made an exception to the rule above---as this will be my last comment on this thread.

[/quote]

I cannot believe this. You know absolutely nothing about Catholicism. Ex Cathedra refers to the Pope defining a doctrine as Catholic dogma. For example this formula would be an example of an ex cathedra statement:

[i]
By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory[/i] - Pius XII 1950

The teachings which we must adhere to "even if he does not speak ex-cathedra" is what we call the ordinary magisterium. The Holy Father's encyclicals and doctrinal clarifications coming from the offices of the Curia (Dominus Iesus for example) fall under this category. The council you are quoting is making a distinction between the extraordinary magisterium and the ordinary magisterium, not between the Magisterium as a whole and the Pope's personal opinion as you seem to think

Edited October 6, 2009 by OraProMe

[Winchester]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='06 October 2009 - 03:26 AM' timestamp='1254813963' post='1979002']
Winchester,

I am writing this to ask you to stop sending me personal messages. I have deleted all 10 of them.[/quote]
I have never sent you personal messages. I have left comments on your profile page. Yet again, you fail to specify properly, but I'll stop because you asked so nicely. Although it won't give you any cover in the future when you just can't help but respond to me.

Also note, folks, that 95+ can't take even a resemblance of his own medicine.

[quote]
While I am here, I will debunk you by reminding you that your church has only "infallibly" defined the amount of Scripture verses that can be counted on one hand (and still, no one knows just exactly how many) so CEASE and DESIST from saying that only SHE can understand the Bible when she herself doesn't even know how many she has infallibly defined!!![/quote]
Then you should list them. I can count pretty high on one hand by reusing my fingers. I am counting them right now. [s]I never said only the Church can understand the Bible[/s] I realized I might have, so I'll put this another way, I (should have) said only the Church can infallibly interpret the Bible (in case I was ever careless enough to type otherwise).

And: You're not the boss of me!
[quote]
Finally, if the Council ITSELF did not condemn Hus, he would not have been put to death, regardless of what the penalties were civily. Catholics just have no shame, doing whatever they can to escape blame and disagree with the Pope on demand. [/quote]
Historically, your claim is not supportable. And failure of character on the part of Catholics isn't relevant--it's simply part of the character detraction you like to practice.

[quote] Papa John XXIII, who opened the council of Constance with great pomp, was condemned by IT (IT, and not the civil authorities) to prison. And he was treated far more lightly than he deserved, the original 54 charges against him being reduced to a mere 5---he was "only" found guilty of piracy, murder, rape and incest! Whereas, on the other hand, Hus who was a saint who taught the Scriptures to children as only one of his virtues, pleaded for church reform---but was fried on an open grill. And Johnny Boy gets only a 3 year prison sentence for HIS atrotious crimes! In the end, you should wake up and smell the coffee because Constance concluded that "Every lawfully convoked ecumenical council representing the church derives its authority immediately from Christ, and EVERYONE, THE POPE INCLUDED, is subject to IT (again, IT) in matters of faith, in the healing of schism, and the reformation of the church." Thus, it is resolved: No council ever admitted to papal supremacy in the first 1000 years of Christianity. So the proclamation in 1870 was certainly no "development of doctrine", but remains to this day, RANK HERESY.
[/quote]
Papal behavior: also not infallible. Like Peter, the first Pope, who directly denied Christ.

I've read Church History, I know many things popes did, including inventing the color green and the slinky. Point being, you're not going to shock me with such cheap tactics. But perhaps this misdirection will work on someone else. I'm sure someone on this site will pray for your soul, because man, that's an ugly, ugly thing to carry on your shoulders.

So the Pope has to obey ecumenical councils. Like, he has to believe the Depositum Fidei? You mean he can't just come up with stuff Ex Cathedra all the time? But how do you explain JPII's famous "Count Chocula is superior to Cocoa Pebbles" declaration (CCC, 394858224, sub-paragraph 7)? It's in our Creed, now. He is the head of the Bishops and the Church--he doesn't have authority over the teachings of the Church, as well--he has to obey them. Like a king has to obey the laws, as well. Else, he is a tyrant. I haven't read the council totally, but I'm guessing you left out some important chunks--they're usually not so succinct, anyway. And you like to proof-text. Which is disonest, BTW.

You're welcome.

Edited October 6, 2009 by Winchester

[Winchester]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='06 October 2009 - 03:26 AM' timestamp='1254813963' post='1979002']
Winchester,

I am writing this to ask you to stop sending me [s]personal messages[/s]comments. I have deleted all 10 of them.
[/quote]
Still think you should visit other places on the site. Like I said, Christ ate with prostitutes, you can joke with Catholics.

[Selah]

You deleted his Henry the Eighth comment?

And to think I liked you

[Winchester]

[quote name='Selah' date='06 October 2009 - 09:46 AM' timestamp='1254836787' post='1979069']
You deleted his Henry the Eighth comment?

And to think I liked you


[/quote]
Not yet. He's wrong.

But he's [i]consistently[/i] wrong. There's something to be said for consistency. Considering he can't tell the difference between "comment" and "personal message", I have some hope he's not being intentionally dishonest with his arguments.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Winchester' date='06 October 2009 - 08:29 AM' timestamp='1254835793' post='1979060']
"Count Chocula is superior to Cocoa Pebbles" declaration (CCC, 394858224, sub-paragraph 7)[/quote]

Tea dribbled down my chin. That was the best thing I've read tonight.

[Nihil Obstat]

I've been laughing so hard reading this thread that the guy sitting next to me either thinks I'm choking or having some kind of grand mal seizure.