Posted on 06/26/2010 10:46:26 AM PDT by Natural Law
The nerve hit must be yours. We're not the ones desparately trying to change the subject.
Multiple replies to my little ol' effort?
Heavy on the little, heavier still on the old. We've heard it all before.
You wrote:
“How can you even say that???”
I think it can be said by any rational person here - because it is true.
“It sure BETTER have everything to do with it, else, what ensures the proclaimations made by “anointed” successors are true?”
It has nothing to do with it and since it doesn’t it in no way endangers defintions or declarations from the pope.
“You claim to have this “unbroken” line of ordained apostles. This line, at some self-admitted points, has been broken when the wrong guys get voted into the post.”
Untrue. Even if some “wrong guy” was elected, he was elected. That in no way means a “broken” line.
“I would like to hear how this discrepency is explained.”
What you presented is not a discrepency. When you present one, let me know.
” It doesn’t sound to me like your religion can truthfully make this claim.”
We can. We have. And it is true.
I’m not a Seahawks fan.
Yes, over many decades. But the selective memory of the Calvinists would have you believe it all just happened on St. Bartholomew's Day.
And I suppose those obedient little 'bots who didn't separate themselves from the abject corruption and sin that was the Roman hierarchy in the 16th century could always be said to be just following orders.
That excuse didn't cut it at Nuremberg, IIRC.
What orders are you imagining now?
That excuse didn't cut it at Nuremberg, IIRC.
Exactly. That's why Calvin is guilty - not because he learned it, but because he did it.
I don't think it's limited to one brand of protestantism. There were fights going on in Scotland as late as the mid-18th century now that I think about it. We won't get into Ireland.
Yes, you are absolutely correct.
Oddly, it seems you believe this to be a Protestant invention, though the chronology does not bear such a contention out.
If you or anyone else wants to try to score points by condemning the few Protestant instances of such barbarity, in the decades immediately following their separation from Rome, then it's only intellectually honest to own up to the very obvious fact that your own church behaved much in the same manner, on one occasion directed at an actual pope.
The behavior is, in fact, barbarous. Who led western Christendom out of that barbarity? Protestants. Why is it barbarous? Because it's disgusting and just plain creepy to dig people up and desecrate their remains. It's also unclean and Biblically wrong.
If you can't see the very obvious relation between, on the one hand attempting to condemn a dead person by trial and destroying their remains, and on the other hand, sawing up dead people you like for keepsakes and souvenirs, in the apparent and quite pagan belief that parts of sawed up dead people that you like are like some sort of lucky rabbit's foot, then I can't help you.
The thought process behind both stems from the same magical thinking, and it's the flip side of the same coin.
OK, let's extend that to every example of the behavior and the leadership that was responsible.
How many popes are guilty, then? Excluding the one that was dug up, put on trial, declared a posthumous heretic and dumped in the Tiber by the abject nutbag that succeeded him as pope, of course.
Is Pope Formosus now regarded as legitimate, or an "anti-Pope," by the way? How about his successor? What does that do to claims of Apostolic succession? Chucks it in the Tiber, just like Formosus, that's what it does.
“ALL Christians who have valid Apostolic Succession claim it, not just Catholics.”
What Christians are those?
Sure, veneration really has something to do with the topic of this thread..
a tradition that goes back to at least the tenth century.
A tradition the Protestants readily embraced.
the few Protestant instances of such barbarity
Now they're being revised to just a few instances? How convenient.
then it's only intellectually honest to own up to the very obvious fact that your own church behaved much in the same manner
I wasn't the one making the lopsided comment about St. Bart's Day. It was a Calvinist, most likely in an effort to divert the thread.
Who led western Christendom out of that barbarity? Protestants.
Yes, I'm sure you all want us to believe that.
are like some sort of lucky rabbit's foot, then I can't help you
No you can't, with that kind of thinking. So you may as well stop. I know some of you would love for this discussion to get sucked into this drain hole and get away from talking about Calvin. If you want to discuss it, make your own thread. This one is about Calvin.
The thought process behind both stems from the same magical thinking, and it's the flip side of the same coin.
No it's not.
The Romanists are stooping to levels yet unseen here.
The not-right father's hypocrisy in this small diatribe makes one wonder if his degeneracy includes what is common among the regular Roman priesthood.
No, that was you.
Anything to get away from talking about Calvin. Start your own thread.
Calvins principles of government gave us a nation with freedom of religion and capitalism ...only now as the nation turns from those principles does it face destruction from within
That is slanderous
Are your thoughts on the matter just completely scattered, or are you getting rattled like some old fingerbone relic, lol?
Feel free to participate in whatever delusion suits you best.
It is only slanderous if false. So prove it false or retract your accusation. But had someone said it about a pope you would be pinging and high fiving your posse without ever checking its voracity.
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.