Pope's Anti-Protestant Diatribe Signed for Pope by Sex Molestation Advocate, Cardinal Levada!

Bloggers & Personal ^ | 12 Jul 07 | Xzins

[Petronski]

I disagree with him in the strongest possible terms. I believe this thread should be required reading for Religion Forum posters, so that they might learn about how low the critics of the Catholic Church are willing to stoop.

I ask you again: are your posts 822 or 831 an attempt to repress Catholic speech?

[wmfights]

lol. I wonder how many times the Jews have been called "paranoid?" It's always easy for the slayer to marginalize and trivialize the resistence of those who are slain.

It's not paranoia if there's a basis for it. In that case it's called caution. I don't recall all the details, but a couple years ago didn't the RCC support a law in France banning evangelizing? I may be wrong and if so apologize, but I'm pretty sure it happened.

[Petronski]

I may be wrong and if so apologize, but I'm pretty sure it happened.

It seems that, on this thread, it completely sufficient merely to allege it with no support whatsoever.

[P-Marlowe]

I disagree with him in the strongest possible terms.

Tell him.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I'm also still looking for your proof that the "VAST majority of Jews find Ratzinger's ascension to be pathetic and threatening."

How many of your close personal Jewish friends have you asked their opinions concerning the church in Rome elevating an ex-Hitler youth to the office of pope?

[Petronski]

Read 839.

[wmfights]

As to these extraordinary statements you’ve made on this thread, do you intend to substantiate them, or will you leave them unsubstantiated?

ROFLOL!

Dr.E. provides more links and quotes from Scripture than anybody on these threads.

[Petronski]

How many of your close personal Jewish friends have you asked their opinions concerning the church in Rome elevating an ex-Hitler youth to the office of pope?

That would not constitute proof of your fantastic claim that "VAST majority of Jews find Ratzinger's ascension to be pathetic and threatening."

Can you prove it or not?

[Petronski]

And yet these issues remain unanswered.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

ME: And that is the difference -- [Bonhoeffer] died for his belief in Christianity and his rebuke of the Nazis and the other didn't. [Ratzinger] was complicit and was rewarded.

YOU: I'm also still waiting for you to provide some kind of explanation for this calumny.

Martyrs die. Appeasers don't.

[wmfights]

No FRiend, the message was that Jesus was Lord because those two prophets appeared with him. Big guys to the Jews that the message was being given to.

What exactly did they say?

Did they ask people to pray to God through them?

Did they ask for temples to be built to them?

The point remains humans are not sent to give us messages from God, until the final tribulation.

[Petronski]

See, you made a very specific claim, in three parts:

(a) Ratzinger was complicit and was rewarded; i.e.

(b) compensated

(c) for it (quid pro quo).

Yet you have not proved this. It’s a fantastic claim, deeply slanderous/libelous, and yet you do not present your proof. Truth is an absolute defense, you know.

[P-Marlowe]

Thank you for your concern.

Just trying to be helpful.

[wmfights]

It seems that, on this thread, it completely sufficient merely to allege it with no support whatsoever.

Usually you can raise a question on these threads because there are a lot of posters and someone can clarify it. I think I was pretty clear that I wasn't certain about this issue.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I do not need links to any RC websites to understand RC theology. I know it very well. In fact, I referenced and directly quoted from the catechism of the RCC.

You, OTOH, have not referenced any Scripture to support your beliefs.

Thus, we see those beliefs in the assumption, immaculate conception and co-redeeming of Mary are not found in Scripture, but are instead fables, lies and folly.

"He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?" -- Isaiah 44:20

[Dr. Eckleburg]

It seems that, on this thread, it completely sufficient merely to allege it with no support whatsoever.

This must explain the lack of Scriptural support for the RCC's errors regarding Mary.

[Petronski]

This must explain the lack of Scriptural support for the RCC's errors regarding Mary.

Whom did you expect to provide "Scriptural support for the RCC's errors regarding Mary?"

[Petronski]

The term in the title “Sex Molestation Advocate” is libel.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

That would not constitute proof of your fantastic claim that "VAST majority of Jews find Ratzinger's ascension to be pathetic and threatening."

But it would give you some sense of what Jewish people are really thinking. I urge you to ask some of your Jewish friends for their opinion.

Or don't you care what Jewish people think about your church elevating an ex-Hitler youth to the office of pope?