Hey Chris, you know you have to pay me royalties in order to use that avatar, right?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Hey Chris, you know you have to pay me royalties in order to use that avatar, right?
[/quote]
You know you have to pay me royalties for using my grandmotherās maiden name donāt you?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Hey Chris, you know you have to pay me royalties in order to use that avatar, right?
[/quote]
You know you have to pay me royalties for using my grandmotherās maiden name donāt you? ;)[/quote]
If it is true he is one of your ancestors Iām sincerely jealous.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Hey Chris, you know you have to pay me royalties in order to use that avatar, right?
[/quote]
You know you have to pay me royalties for using my grandmotherās maiden name donāt you? ;)[/quote]
If it is true he is one of your ancestors Iām sincerely jealous. [/quote]
Well, none of my family cares about our heritage, so I am the first one to look this up.
Iām learning most of this stuff after 20 years, with the help of my grandma and her sister (one lives in Spain and doesnāt speak English and the other one has amnesia, but has a full family tree memorized when sheās not having problems remembering her name). But the name is legit, and so far weāre in the early to middle 1600ās.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:<<< I am not attacking you, I am attacking Calvinism. >>>[/quote]Is that so?
[/quote]
Yup 
Watch out, itās the tree that always falls in the cartoons.[/quote]This was a right smart retort there Patty, (lol, seriously) but this aināt a cartoon. Are you saying then that you can love me while hating my Calvinism? I know that a good Catholic boy aināt gonna go round hatin folks right?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:<<< I am not attacking you, I am attacking Calvinism. >>>[/quote]Is that so?
[/quote]
Yup
Watch out, itās the tree that always falls in the cartoons.[/quote]This was a right smart retort there Patty, (lol, seriously) but this aināt a cartoon. Are you saying then that you can love me while hating my Calvinism? I know that a good Catholic boy aināt gonna go round hatin folks right?
[/quote]
In all fairness my brother, you claim to hate Catholicism yet love Catholics.
[quote]forbes wrote:<<< In all fairness my brother, you claim to hate Catholicism yet love Catholics. :)[/quote]AW GEEEEZ!!! Now ya had ta go n ruin the whole thing LOL!!! That was my point. He denies me that very thing outta one side of his mouth while slipping this outta the other.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:<<< In all fairness my brother, you claim to hate Catholicism yet love Catholics. :)[/quote]AW GEEEEZ!!! Now ya had ta go n ruin the whole thing LOL!!! That was my point. He denies me that very thing outta one side of his mouth while slipping this outta the other.
[/quote]
I know. And he has been wrong on numerous occasions also.
CANāT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG!!! 
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:<<< In all fairness my brother, you claim to hate Catholicism yet love Catholics. :)[/quote]AW GEEEEZ!!! Now ya had ta go n ruin the whole thing LOL!!! That was my point. He denies me that very thing outta one side of his mouth while slipping this outta the other.
[/quote]
I know. And he has been wrong on numerous occasions also.
CANāT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG!!! :p[/quote]
Yes, but then Tirib yells about yucky kissy smoochy ecumenism.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes, but then Tirib yells about yucky kissy smoochy ecumenism. [/quote]Yes indeed I do. Itās a con, a trap, and just plain biblically revolting. Not on Patās part directly. Heās only an unwitting foot soldier in the cause of illicitly prying Godās gate far wider than His Word allows, but then heās not alone. WojtyĆ ?a came a hairās breadth from outright universalism himself.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
WojtyĆ??a came a hairās breadth from outright universalism himself.
[/quote]
How so?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes, but then Tirib yells about yucky kissy smoochy ecumenism. [/quote]Yes indeed I do. Itās a con, a trap, and just plain biblically revolting. Not on Patās part directly. Heās only an unwitting foot soldier in the cause of illicitly prying Godās gate far wider than His Word allows, but then heās not alone. WojtyĆ??a came a hairās breadth from outright universalism himself.
[/quote]
ā¦how can you say this when you donāt understand what we believe. True Catholic Ecumenism is very simple, which Pope John Paul the Great (not Karol Wojtyla) was very good at preaching, repent and be baptized.
Hisā¦system was a bit more complex than that, but not much more than that. Very much the ambassadors method. He would first compliment, then insult (but instruct). First show common understanding, then show how they are wrong.
Sorry, the man called Buddhism āreligious atheismā conning themselves in their own delusions. He also told Muslims they were basically irrational, lacking in reality, and their denial of Jesusā divinity was a huge mistake. Iāll see if I can find the letter, but he pretty much wrote every large religion complimenting them and telling them they were idiots for not being Catholics and why they were idiots. That is my crude assessment of the manās preaching.
The guy was so far away from universal-ism he made modernism his bitch (bitch as in female dog, not in the derogatory term for a woman).
Itās been a while, but I read some stuff of His (lots actually) that REALLY appeared to push it close. The discussion is well known actually.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Itās been a while, but I read some stuff of His (lots actually) that REALLY appeared to push it close. The discussion is well known actually.[/quote]
Like what?
The discussion is not well known to me.
;]
I have an audio file somewhere where the guy did a pretty fair job with extensive quotes from documented firsthand sources of showing that the beloved pontiff had VERY wide view of the gate that Jesus Himself said was narrow.
Pat has said outright that everybody not directly and violently denying the faith will find their way to heaven (in essence). I always thought he was just following his pope. Seriously. That hasnāt been historic Catholic teaching, but who can decipher what is or isnāt exactly the en vogue expression of Roman dogma from one century to the next? Notice I said expression. The recorded material doesnāt change, but what itās taken to mean sure has and does. Rome is the slickest of the slick. Vat.II changed nothing while changing everything. (yes a bit hyperbolic) and that is not a sarcastic statement.
There are entire segments of Romanism who disavow anything post Vatican II because they quite rightly recognize how drastically things changed toward liberalism. Then I read other peopleās long diatribes and come away with the nebulous āsensationā that nothing actually did change. Then I go to the Word of almighty God and all makes sense again.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=John+Paul+2nd+universalist%3F&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
;]
I have an audio file somewhere where the guy did a pretty fair job with extensive quotes from documented firsthand sources of showing that the beloved pontiff had VERY wide view of the gate that Jesus Himself said was narrow.
Pat has said outright that everybody not directly and violently denying the faith will find their way to heaven (in essence). I always thought he was just following his pope. Seriously. That hasnāt been historic Catholic teaching, but who can decipher what is or isnāt exactly the en vogue expression of Roman dogma from one century to the next? Notice I said expression. The recorded material doesnāt change, but what itās taken to mean sure has and does. Rome is the slickest of the slick. Vat.II changed nothing while changing everything. (yes a bit hyperbolic) and that is not a sarcastic statement.
There are entire segments of Romanism who disavow anything post Vatican II because they quite rightly recognize how drastically things changed toward liberalism. Then I read other peopleās long diatribes and come away with the nebulous āsensationā that nothing actually did change. Then I go to the Word of almighty God and all makes sense again.[/quote]
Most of the quotes I found after looking through those links appeared to refer to invincible ignorance, not universalism. And a lot of them seemed to have been pounced upon by detractors and ripped and maimed out of context.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Pat has said outright that everybody not directly and violently denying the faith will find their way to heaven (in essence).
[/quote]
Baloney. Flat horsecrap. I never, ever, ever, ever said anything remotely resembling thatā¦If so, show me whereā¦
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=John+Paul+2nd+universalist%3F&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
;]
I have an audio file somewhere where the guy did a pretty fair job with extensive quotes from documented firsthand sources of showing that the beloved pontiff had VERY wide view of the gate that Jesus Himself said was narrow.
Pat has said outright that everybody not directly and violently denying the faith will find their way to heaven (in essence). I always thought he was just following his pope. Seriously. That hasnāt been historic Catholic teaching, but who can decipher what is or isnāt exactly the en vogue expression of Roman dogma from one century to the next? Notice I said expression. The recorded material doesnāt change, but what itās taken to mean sure has and does. Rome is the slickest of the slick. Vat.II changed nothing while changing everything. (yes a bit hyperbolic) and that is not a sarcastic statement.
There are entire segments of Romanism who disavow anything post Vatican II because they quite rightly recognize how drastically things changed toward liberalism. Then I read other peopleās long diatribes and come away with the nebulous āsensationā that nothing actually did change. Then I go to the Word of almighty God and all makes sense again.[/quote]
Further proof you know nothing about Catholicism.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=John+Paul+2nd+universalist%3F&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
;]
I have an audio file somewhere where the guy did a pretty fair job with extensive quotes from documented firsthand sources of showing that the beloved pontiff had VERY wide view of the gate that Jesus Himself said was narrow.
Pat has said outright that everybody not directly and violently denying the faith will find their way to heaven (in essence). I always thought he was just following his pope. Seriously. That hasnāt been historic Catholic teaching, but who can decipher what is or isnāt exactly the en vogue expression of Roman dogma from one century to the next? Notice I said expression. The recorded material doesnāt change, but what itās taken to mean sure has and does. Rome is the slickest of the slick. Vat.II changed nothing while changing everything. (yes a bit hyperbolic) and that is not a sarcastic statement.
There are entire segments of Romanism who disavow anything post Vatican II because they quite rightly recognize how drastically things changed toward liberalism. Then I read other peopleās long diatribes and come away with the nebulous āsensationā that nothing actually did change. Then I go to the Word of almighty God and all makes sense again.[/quote]
Even if a Pope believes in something heretical such as Universalism, it doesnāt matter as long as he doesnāt make it an official Church teaching. Popeās are not perfect and there are some who are burning in hell as we speak.
Oh and I will respond to your PM later today brother Tirib. I am kinda busy trying to contact a stupid supplement company that messed up an order (not Biotest).
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Vat.II changed nothing while changing everything. (yes a bit hyperbolic) and that is not a sarcastic statement.[/quote]
Actually, after reading Vatican II documents and understanding the Magisteriumās role in understanding the council (because of its language) the council didnāt do much (laxity in obligatory stuff like meatless Fridays and Mass in the sacred language happened, but were still highly encouraged). What did happen was the wave of modernism that hit the Church a few decades before, finally slipped through with the ā[fake] spirit of Vatican II.ā It is the Rule for Radicals coming to blossom.
The council itself is not heretical, although those groups are usually heretical or at least schismatic. But, yes there were abuses post VII, but VII itself did not allow those abuses. The fact that there were also abuses before (that is why we created the Office of Inquisition after all) seems to allude some of these schismatic groups.