Humanity, Doomed to Extinction. And ABOUT DAMNED TIME.

It is clear that we are an utterly failed species. Left to our own devices, all we do is embrace the profane, the untrue, and outright evil.

In only a few decades, I have seen America START as a world leader in industry; a world policy maker; and a world instructor in how to be free and a functional representative republic. I have seen America FINISH as a second-rate financial has-beenl a country ridiculed on the international stage; and a nearly-complete Police State where SWAT kills with impunity and political 'crimes' abound.

Russia, too, attempted to throw off the chains of Communism, only to be immediately taken over by a crime syndicate. So, even when the failed policies of Communism are overthrown, all humanity seems to want to do is destroy itself anyways.

Communism appears to be on the march again, though it is very obvious by now to even the casual observer that it does not, has not, will never work.

Islam, a religion dominated by fanatics who willingly kill themselves to advance their cause of chaos and hate, is on the rise and is marked for ascendancy. This religion, dictated by a epileptic sun-mad pedophile, subjegates women, holds lying as acceptable, and insists death be the result of trying to leave Islam.

We are a failed species. The only possible solution is the complete extermination of the entire human race. We have utterly no chance of redemption, and we only spread evil. It is time to remove this cancerous growth known as 'mankind' from the universe.

IMHO this is a wonderful example of how difficult it can be for us to see one another.

(I)
RCC's stated position is that all those who are not a part of the Church of Rome are going to hell?

I can see how this opinion arises, despite a wad of clarifying statements over the centuries. "Church of Rome" is an unfortunately misleading turn of phrase, because it over identifies "the Church" with "Those in communion with the Holy See".

The key to understanding here is that we think that anyone, ANYONE, baptized with water, a trinitarian formula, and the intent to baptize is a member of the Church -- though not necessarily in communion with the See of Rome.

Both sides agree that there is one church. But we work it out in different ways. Your side tends to go with the "invisible" line of thought, and ours goes with something a little different. But what we share is the confidence that there are more members of the Church than those who are on our rolls.

(II)
Sometimes it's little things that make a big difference. We wouldn't say we broke FROM the Orthodox. We'd say we broke WITH each other -- to our shame. If we stipulate for the sake of argument that Peter and Paul both died at Rome and all that, then it's not like the Orthodox sees were superior to the see of Rome.

(III)
I think the way to understand how Catholics can give filial assent, with what amounts to degrees of commitment, to various dicta from here and there would be to observe the phenomenon as it happens (or fails to happen!)

It's not like we're given a long list of propositions and we have to check each one off and then sign at the bottom.In all the (few) cases with which I am familiar, things have been discussed and explored sometimes for centuries (though clearly in the early days the discussions were briefer). Those who care have followed or entered the discussion. They know the language or jargon. They have understood the implications of the array of arguments "Pro" and the array "Con". And, I'd guess, in many cases they understand that there is a kind of an impasse. So,in that case, what the "Magisterium" exercises is more the role of a court of last resort, or even an umpire, than a legislature.

And, as an amateur theologian, my reaction when the "Magisterium" gives a determination, when "Roma locuta, causa finita" (Rome has spoken, case closed) is not, "daggum" but, like a dog, "Okay, that rabbit's been caught. Cool! Lets go look for more!"

And my experience as a lay Dominican who is blessed with the friendship of some pretty high octane theologians is not that I go to them with hat in hand and ask to be told what to think. I go for information about the "terms of art" and about the high points of the dispute up to now. And I am as likely to tangle with them as to acquiesce to their response. And they welcome my tangling.

A couple of weeks ago I got into it with one of the Friars in his office at church. Then we went upstairs to Mass. Then I was driving from church and passed him as he was walking with another friar to their residence.

So, naturally, I rolled down my car window and yelled, "I'm RIGHT!" And he laughed and said, "Yes, you are," while the other Friar cracked up.

If that's "gullible", then I'll cop to gullible.

As Cronos stated earlier, while there are going to be other areas that we disagree upon, at least we have a common starting point upon which we can turn too.

MD is a saint. Quite frankly paladin, I can't be as nice as he is, or anywhere as learned

I try -- on a thread, if there are two posters who may be from the same beliefs, right down to the core beliefs, but one argues sensibly (i.e. says what he/she believes, points out what he thinks my beliefs mistakes are sanely instead of saying "you believe in jellied monkeys :-)" and doesn't use slurs "papist, unChristian, you're not saved, you're not Christian etc. etc.") I will have a different tone, in fact, a listening tone.

A poster on the other hand who just takes every point to attack my beliefs with no basis (as on other threads) - just a blind "you are..." with no reasoning or even when shown he is wrong, jumping to another point. With that poster, unfortunately I see no other way but the attack. It's not terribly Christian, I agree, but I've tried over the years to sanely "play defense", but it did not work. Years on years we had the same cast of characters repeating the same format:

Make a false statement and say "tell me why you believe this"
Then, if pointed out we don't, the thing is "proof it, the onus is on you, not on us the accusers"
Then,when proven wrong, they jump to another topic, not saying yes or no
Then, a few hundred posts later, voila, the same is repeated by the same poster or another

it's just a little game of "bait the Caflick"

As you pointed out, the entire thing of saying all fundamentalists are in some illogical way having the SAME beliefs as Camping in the world coming to an end on th 21st is frustrating.

So too, it had been quite frustrating for years on end.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.