As respectfully as possible:
I don’t get why there’s a thread for atheists and non-Catholics to gripe about the Catholics having a new pope. It would be weird if our selection reflected other people’s views. And Stellar, what you’re saying is interesting but you may as well just start a new “Eastern Orthodox Polemic Against Catholics” thread as you clearly have a bigger ax to grind than the former Cardinal Ratzinger. (Whom I’m happy with.)
Let my don (pun much?) my asbestos suit.
No need don
As I stated in several past post.
Why the need for anti-Catholic/Christian people to post here. Why are they so offended what I believe in? Why do they think I care what they think?
Never could figure out their passion for hating the Catholic view. Like I said before, if this was the tattoo thread and someone came on bashing tattoos there would be a huge outcry to shut up and start your own thread.
As far as proving, we all know that is how faith is based. Nothing in this world can be PROVED 100% true. So why am I, or we, expected to do so.
Catholics unite! God bless His Holiness!
To the Orthodox fellows: I’ve seen you mention filioque (transmittal of the Holy Spirit from the Son as well as the Father, correct?) several times. Is this merely a common example of ‘heretical’ Catholic doctrine, or is this particular issue more important than I’m giving it credit for?
[quote]dond1esel wrote:
As respectfully as possible:
I don’t get why there’s a thread for atheists and non-Catholics to gripe about the Catholics having a new pope. It would be weird if our selection reflected other people’s views. And Stellar, what you’re saying is interesting but you may as well just start a new “Eastern Orthodox Polemic Against Catholics” thread as you clearly have a bigger ax to grind than the former Cardinal Ratzinger. (Whom I’m happy with.)
Let my don (pun much?) my asbestos suit.[/quote]
I actually wonder the same thing (though I’m not Catholic). Namely, why do atheists and such care what the pope thinks? Thus, why do they care who is elected? I am interested because while not a Catholic, I am a serious Christian, and feel that the Pope is the most visible, powerful, and influential single Christian in the world. He is also head of the Roman Catholic Church, the most visible and powerful Christian denomination in the world. Thus, I feel justified in taking a strong interest in the papacy :). I also recognize the tremendous power for good the papacy can be. It is for these reasons I feel qualified to “weigh in.” I also feel compelled to weigh in because of the virulent nonsense the liberal media has been spouting about this man from the first minute of his election.
For the record, if its not obvious, I think Ratzinger was an excellent choice and feel that Benedict XVI will be a top notch pope!
[quote]dond1esel wrote:
And Stellar, what you’re saying is interesting but you may as well just start a new “Eastern Orthodox Polemic Against Catholics” thread as you clearly have a bigger ax to grind than the former Cardinal Ratzinger.[/quote]
If you read my initial post you’d realize that I congratulated Ratzinger’s conservative views and gave a thumbs up to the Vatican for not selling out in this new age of heresy.
Also, the primary reason I embarked on what you classify as a “polemic” against the Roman Catholic church was to reach out to jaranda who completely abandoned the Christian faith after being scandalized by the flagrant violations which the Roman Catholic church committed numerous times in history. If I was Roman Catholic, I’d be disappointed too.
Jaranda isn’t blind to such tragedies as neither were millions of Roman Catholics who rebelled against their church during the Protestant Reformation. The Orthodox Christian East neither faced a reformation nor committed any atrocities worthy of revolt. I wanted to alert ex-Christians that (a) the Roman Catholic church is NOT the original church of Christ and (b) just because they may have issues with the Roman Catholic church does NOT justify their sudden lack of faith in Christ. Give Christianity another glance from the perspective of Eastern Orthodoxy.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
To the Orthodox fellows: I’ve seen you mention filioque (transmittal of the Holy Spirit from the Son as well as the Father, correct?) several times. Is this merely a common example of ‘heretical’ Catholic doctrine, or is this particular issue more important than I’m giving it credit for?[/quote]
Filioque is Latin for “and the Son”. This was a heretical teaching referring to the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father “and the Son” which the Roman Catholics embraced and added into the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed ~500 years after it was developed by Orthodox Christian bishops. This was the first of many new innovations which the patriarchate of Rome assimilated into her belief system, thus distancing herself from Orthodox Christianity.
Interesting to note, Pope Leo III around 816 (also revered as a Saint in the Orthodox Church) was the last Roman patriarch/pope who remained steadfast in the Orthodox Christian Faith. He fiercely proclaimed the filioque as heresy and refused to install this clause into the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The next pope however, Steven V, proved liberal and submit to external political factions. Eventually, the filioque was assimilated into Roman Catholic theology, despite the admonition of western theologians.
For those who possess any academic interest on the filioque clause, dissect this excellent article:
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.03.htm
If only I could remark that this was/is Rome’s only heresy… Unfortunately, there are countless more.
[quote]Sniper99 wrote:
To all those saying there is no evidence God exists - there is no good evidence he DOESN’T exist either.
While agnosticism is easy, there is a saying that true ATHEISM takes far more faith than any religion. To say you know, for certain, that God does not exist is a bold statement indeed. It takes a lot to believe everything on earth is the product of scientific chance.
As for the power of prayer, there have been studies and whatnot, usually in medical situations. Unfortunately I don’t have the cites here, but poke around, you can probably find them.
In general though, for those who have convinced themselves not to believe and have hardened themselves, there could be proof that could show up tomorrow and they’d still find a way to dismiss it. Thats the nature of things.
As for ignorance though, I think it is those who completely dismiss people of faith that are the ignorant ones. Even if you don’t believe, being so dismissive indicates a zealotry of a different sort.[/quote]
Why does it take faith that all of this has happened through chance. The lengths of times, and scales of missed oppotunities are so increadibly huge that it is hard to comprehend, but to think hat some supernatural being had something to do with it… thats more likely is it?
I know for a fact that there has been no substantiated retestable evidence for any supernatural or paranormal occurance. all those who have agreed to b tested properly failed to show significance in the outcome.
And this “hoping that something will turn up tommorrow to prove you right, me wrong”. Thats gap goddist. the gap god is the worst one. i would rather someone argue the toss that he is as religion dictates, than the gap god. that is doomed to fall down.
Also, it is not ignorance to dissagree. it might be ignorance for me to tell you that you are a fool for thinking otherwise, but that would be water off a ducks back, i am sure as ones faith would metal the receiver against such ills.
mini
What’s your issues here? I read his poast and nowhere does he mention you, and yet you feel the need to chime in on this and most every other post on this thread.
You don’t believe. WE ALL GET IT! Why try to convince those of us who do that we just can’t possibly be right because we have no proof of such an ocurrance? You have offered no proof that it hasn’t just your opinion that there is no proof that it has.
Your passion to convert all of us Christians is admirable. If you put this much mental effort into your workouts you must be HUGE.
Now move along, you’re beginning to get old with the same old non arguments. Or better yet, start a new thread on why the new Pope was such a bad choice, and how religion–specifically Catholicism–is the devils workshop and how ridiculously stupid and naive we must be to believe.
I thank GOD everyday that he chose to split our continents with that big ocean.
It was surely only directed at me, and even so, i can quote and make a reply.
I am not attempting to convert anyone. I leave that to missionarues in deepest darkest south america.
not quite huge, but fairly productive over a range of aspects in my life. moderately successful…leaves me room for development.
Might be on your side of the pond soon. GF is a physio, and as such an in demand sklll.
Watch out…the unholy limeys are on their way.
shame you dont pray for aircraft to dissapear.
[quote]miniross wrote:
It was surely only directed at me, and even so, i can quote and make a reply.
I am not attempting to convert anyone. I leave that to missionarues in deepest darkest south america.
not quite huge, but fairly productive over a range of aspects in my life. moderately successful…leaves me room for development.
Might be on your side of the pond soon. GF is a physio, and as such an in demand sklll.
Watch out…the unholy limeys are on their way.
shame you dont pray for aircraft to dissapear.[/quote]
I’m praying now.
Said in jest mini-
Always willing to meet a T-Nationer.
If you ever find yourself in the great Badger state, let me know
stella,
You write some good stuff. Most of what the true Church believes agress with what your Church believes.
I really don’t understand your diatribe about St. Peter being the greatest of equals (kinda doesn’t make sense. And its not really pertinent to the modern faith. If I’m not mistaken, however, the patriarch of Constantinople was raised above the other patriarchs in your Church.
In theological matters, the filoque clause is the divisive matter between Eastern and Western Churchs. I don’t really understand your view of trinitarianism or how you in particular view it. But if you could give an example of why the Holy Spirit comes from only the Son as opposed to the Father, I’d be impressed. I havn’t seen any cogent arguments or why it shouldn’t be both the Father and Son.
Sniper,
[quote]Sniper99 wrote:
dond1esel wrote:
As respectfully as possible:
…
I actually wonder the same thing (though I’m not Catholic). Namely, why do atheists and such care what the pope thinks? Thus, why do they care who is elected? I am interested because while not a Catholic, I am a serious Christian, and feel that the Pope is the most visible, powerful, and influential single Christian in the world.[/quote]
And this is the exactly the reason - because the pope not only wields religious but also secular power. Decisions the pope makes, do have repercussions on many (not only christian) people. As I have stated earlier, the pope represents the whole church and has to answer for its actions - even to atheists.
So do I and (I hope) other atheists. But as any politician (and the pope plays this role as well), he has to face criticism if warranted. This is not an anti-catholic crusade (no pun intended), just proper pluralism and critical thinking.
Really? He has been criticised massively long before - just because it did not appear on your radar doesn’t mean this is a new phenomenon. But off course, everyone is welcome to “weigh in” - and that includes atheists. 
Although I am dismayed by his election, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt; in my case that means giving him a fair chance to be less of a hardliner then he was before.
Oh yeah, here is for the liberal media:
“Pope ‘obstructed’ sex abuse inquiry”
Confidential letter reveals Ratzinger ordered bishops to keep allegations secret
Jamie Doward, religious affairs correspondent
Sunday April 24, 2005
The Observer
I would really like to read less problematic articles on him - and I hope the allegations are untrue, as they would point out to a lousy choice.
Makkun
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
dond1esel wrote:
And Stellar, what you’re saying is interesting but you may as well just start a new “Eastern Orthodox Polemic Against Catholics” thread as you clearly have a bigger ax to grind than the former Cardinal Ratzinger.
If you read my initial post you’d realize that I congratulated Ratzinger’s conservative views and gave a thumbs up to the Vatican for not selling out in this new age of heresy.
Also, the primary reason I embarked on what you classify as a “polemic” against the Roman Catholic church was to reach out to jaranda who completely abandoned the Christian faith after being scandalized by the flagrant violations which the Roman Catholic church committed numerous times in history. If I was Roman Catholic, I’d be disappointed too.
[/quote]
I saw your approval; you think Ratzinger is a good choice, given that you think we are all heretics anyway. Thanks, I guess.
I appreciate that you are trying to bring jaranda back to the fold, as any denomination is better than none. It’s not my business if someone stops being Christian altogether because they’re displeased with the Catholic Church–I like them just fine. You might have been better off to PM him as instead, a thread about the Catholic Pope (which assumes, or should assume as I’ve been saying, some things about the legitimacy of the Church) has been cluttered with attacks on the entire Church–why comment on the new leader of an organization you already dislike? When something happens in the Orthodox Church, do I junk up your discussion with posts saying every Orthodox Chrisitian since 1054 is utterly wrong? I don’t mean to single you out for this. You’re not the only one, just the least ignorant and most interesting.
Another thing: it is a polemic. I don’t mean for the word to carry negative impact as it usually does, I only use it in the sense of religious scholarship. Everything you’ve said in this post that says we’re wrong, Catholic scholars (not me, unfortunately) have something to say back that says you’re wrong. Obviously. This isn’t the place to duke it out. And wherever is, as a happy Catholic I probably won’t be viewing the thread.
sasquatch
Likewise.
keep well.
mini
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Said in jest mini-
Always willing to meet a T-Nationer.
If you ever find yourself in the great Badger state, let me know[/quote]
why is it called the great badger state…?
[quote]dond1esel wrote:
When something happens in the Orthodox Church, do I junk up your discussion with posts saying every Orthodox Chrisitian since 1054 is utterly wrong? [/quote]
Don, I appreciate your candid remarks, but as weird as it may sound, I INVITE you to critique Orthodox Christianity. The biggest complaint I’ve heard on the Faith is that it’s very disciplined and archaic, thereby making it challenging for modern man to follow (40 days fasts, occasional vigils, devoted prayer life, 3-hour Divine Liturgies, penitence according to the Apostolic canons, etc). To them I simply answer that if the ancient Christians understood the need to abide within this framework to make it to heaven, we have no excuse since we’re no less spiritually equipped or spiritually inferior. Christians are warned to partake in holy tradition and theological doctrines exactly as the early Church instructed, and Orthodox Christianity fulfills this obligation. This claim can NOT be made by Roman Catholicism or ANY other Christian denomination. Anyways, I welcome any input.
[quote]
Another thing: it is a polemic. I don’t mean for the word to carry negative impact as it usually does, I only use it in the sense of religious scholarship. Everything you’ve said in this post that says we’re wrong, Catholic scholars (not me, unfortunately) have something to say back that says you’re wrong. Obviously. This isn’t the place to duke it out. And wherever is, as a happy Catholic I probably won’t be viewing the thread.[/quote]
Even if you learned that Roman Catholicism is not as conservative as she prides herself to be, or that the Roman Catholic sacraments are invalid and without Christ’s grace? You’d stick to an erroneous path simply because it kept you “happy”? This rationale is similar to what an athiest might argue to support their antichristian views.
Not trying to mock you dude. I respect Roman Catholics and hope that one day, perhaps in the near future, we’ll re-unify and uphold the Faith exactly as the Apsotles preached it.
Peace be with you.
Please end this thread.
Thank you!!!
JeffR
[quote]Garrett W. wrote:
If I’m not mistaken, however, the patriarch of Constantinople was raised above the other patriarchs in your Church.[/quote]
The patriarch of Constantinople lords no special power or authority above ANY other patriarch in the world, so I’m not sure why you perceive he’s been “raised above”. If you can provide an example, I’d be happy to respond.
[quote]Garrett W. wrote:
In theological matters, the filoque clause is the divisive matter between Eastern and Western Churchs. I don’t really understand your view of trinitarianism or how you in particular view it. But if you could give an example of why the Holy Spirit comes from only the Son as opposed to the Father, I’d be impressed. I havn’t seen any cogent arguments or why it shouldn’t be both the Father and Son.[/quote]
Firstly, the Orthodox Church believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father but NOT the Son.
Secondly, being that I am not in a sanctified state, I lack the discernment to dissect any such revelation; After all, revelation is achieved within the noetic faculty of the heart, NOT by rational means. I will, however, refer you to research the theology behind the filioque according to one of the greatest Orthodox Christian Fathers of the West, St. Maximos the Confessor. He, as well as Roman Pope Leo III (and all his predecessors) and EVERY Orthodox Christian Father of the East, denounced as heresy the belief that the Holy Spirit is generated from the Father AND the Son (which the Roman Catholics now claim). The Holy Spirit is not PROCESSED FROM the Son; the Holy Spirit is TRANSMITTED THROUGH the Son and is GENERATED only from the Father.
Thirdly, the filioque is FAR from being the only divisive doctrinal dispute between Orthodox Christian & Roman Catholic theology.
Here’s a list of heresies/innovations which the Roman Catholic Church implemented throughout the ages:
1-filioque
2-papal infallibility
3-purgatory
4-altering the azymes of the Eucharist (from leavened bread to unleavened bread, ie. crackers/wafers)
*their Eucharist has further been adjusted to a Bloodless Host
5-altering the sacrament of baptism (from a full triple immersion to sprinkling on the forehead)
6-altering the sacrament of chrismation (from the seal being set directly after baptism to the separate ritual of confirmation)
7-progressive revelations (belief the church learns more and more about God as time goes on)
8-the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary (the belief the Virgin Mary lacked any human will)
9-dogma on original sin (guilt transmittance)
10-indulgences & certificates
11-heaven/hell as creations of God
12-concept of Actus Purus
13-altering the Paschalion in direct conflict with the First Ecumenical Council so that it no longer corresponds with the Jewish Passover
14-concept of Divine Justice (ie. to appease the devil for all the sins of humanity, God had to pay a ransom to His own creation, the evil one, so that humanity could gain access to heaven)
15-ability for Saints to lose their sanctity AFTER death (ie. St. Christopher who was canonized but later demoted)
the list goes on & on…
I encourage you to check out these 2 sites:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/index.aspx
http://www.fatheralexander.org/page6.htm
If you need any further information or clarification, let me know. Peace be with you!