Posted on 07/18/2007 1:48:09 PM PDT by topcat54
Thank you for that statement, confirming that I have not slandered nor made any personally derogatory remarks about any FReeper.
I wish I could say the same about you.
You’ve misunderstood my use of the language, so let me be remedial:
“You have not demonstrated that anyone has slandered you.”
You haven’t.
Do you claim that Jesuits take THAT oath? The one that was pulled, that can’t be posted?
Have you run away?
Nothing was "pulled," Petronski.
And since we've been told not to discuss this, why do you keep discussing it?
I missed the place where we were told not to discuss it. Do you have a link?
No, the catchesim very clearly states they worship the same God as Christians but they don't.
What I would like to know is when a position can't be refuted (except in the defenders mind), why does it always turn into personal attacks? And why would someone want to follow that god that drives that? Why do you seem to always want to make it personal?
That's not true. Not even rhetorically.
ping to 147
Entitled to what? What claim are you making now? Entitled to what?
interesting responce...
1) The RCC's embrace of the Muslims is well-documented in both the RCC catechism and in JPII's loving lips smooching the Koran.
Interesting again, however it has little relation to the position you took vis the catechism in regard to the salvation of Muslims. Nice try, but a seeing and a miss!
2) We were asked not to discuss the Jesuit Oath yet you keep bringing it up. You must be awfully familiar with it. Do you deny Jesuits take an oath?
OK, this is just sad, the RM asked that the oath not be posted, there was no prohibition on discussing the fraudulent product of a disturbed mind. Strike two.
3) "Fox's Book of Martyrs" is a Christian classic. It's read by Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Congregationalists, etc.
And the Al Franken's books are read by men, women, Socialists, environmentalists etc, doesn't make the information in the books any less defective now does it? That's three, grab some wood.
Granted, the RCC is made uncomfortable by a retelling of the Vatican's shameful, blood-soaked history. But that's not my problem. It's yours. Thank God.
Truth is nothing to fear, there have been some horrible popes, priests, bishops, laity, sisters, monks, friars and brothers, the Church is full of murderers, rapists, molesters, lier's, cheats and all manner of sinner, some of whom have done terrible things in the name of the Church and in the name of God, to their ruin I wold think. Thank God for the Church it's where we sinners belong, the hospital for sinners. I know the history of the Church, warts and all, and am able to differentiate between the all to human administration and the Divine treasure.
Keep posting Doc, yer doing just fine! If anyone wonders what the fruits of Calvinism are, they need look no further.
“But his retirement is mandatory on his 80th birthday, whether the Pope likes it or not.”
Actually, at 80, he’s just no longer eligible to vote in a papal conclave.
The pope still doesn’t have to accept his resignation.
sitetest
I gotta tell you, I've scoured this thread and found no such prohibition. Why won't you provide a link?
Let me state this as emphatically as possible: I want this thread to remain. I do not want it to be pulled.
I want it to stand as yet another monument to your horrible behavior.
That's not true. Not even rhetorically.
Technically, Petronski may be right. The phrase goes "where the bishop is, there is the Church." Mahony is a Cardinal, and depending on the function performed, Cardinals can be bishops, too.
So depending on Mahony's actual job description, technically, Dr E may be righter. And since His Eminence Roger Cardinal Mahony is listed among the "U.S. Bishops" on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops member page, I think the point goes to Dr. E.
Of course you do. But you're wrong. The Roman Catholic Church is not any one man.
I don't see how pointing out obvious and demonstrable pathology that is invested in not a small number of a particular posters posts in "making it personal".
If your dishwasher has a problem and Sears sends a repairman to fix it and during the service call he creates a leak under the sink, who do you hold responsible. The repairman or Sears? If they refuse to repair it, or send out the same guy to fix your stove, who do you blame? Who is the repairman representing? What if you find out that he breaks more things than he fixes but Sears won't let him go? Who do you blame? Why? (Because he represents Sears) Would you buy another maintenance agreement from them?
What about a cab company that has a driver they employ that does not have a clue on how to get around your city and has a record of going many miles out of the way, charging the customer, yet the company does nothing about it?
Or what about a line worker at a car manufacturing plant on model X car who deliberatly does not fully tighten down the gas line which ends up causing many model X cars to catch on fire, which scars many people for life? When the company realizes this, they do not fire the worker, his manager just simply move him over to Model Y car. The same things happens and he is moved now to work on the gas line on Model Z car. Then, it happens again and they put him in a office somewhere. Upper management finds out what the mid manager did which he knew caused more people lifelong scarring. Does the line worker represent the car company? Does the manager who keeps moving him?
I did not expect that you would.
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.