Posted on 05/09/2013 9:01:41 AM PDT by Dr. Thorne
Former policeman turned state parliamentarian, Troy Grant, told the special commission of inquiry into the handling of child sexual abuse in the Maitland-Newcastle diocese that members of the Catholic Church had interferred in his investigation into sexual abuse.
(Excerpt) Read more at abc.net.au ...
You wrote:
““People in the Catholic Church”? You call a priest who diddles young boys then serves you what you consider to be the “body of Christ” to be just “people in the Catholic Church”? Seriously?”:
Is he not a person? Is he not in the Catholic Church?
“Denying that the rituals, beliefs, garments, symbols etc. of the RCC are from pagan origin doesn’t change the fact that they are.”
Except when they aren’t. It would help if you actually could make an argument.
That is so pathetic.
>> It would help if you actually could make an argument.<<
It’s not my responsibility to show you each pagan origin of RCC ritual, symbol, garment, etc. From the “fish hat” worn by the RCC which is identical to the hat worn by the priests of the fish god dagon to the solar wheel dating back to the time of the Chaldeans Catholicism is nearly entirely pagan.
You wrote:
“That is so pathetic.”
What I said was absolutely correct.
“It’s not my responsibility to show you each pagan origin of RCC ritual, symbol, garment, etc.”
You could at least make an argument.
“From the “fish hat” worn by the RCC which is identical to the hat worn by the priests of the fish god dagon to the solar wheel dating back to the time of the Chaldeans Catholicism is nearly entirely pagan.”
I asked for an actual argument, not recycled, already disproved claims from Hislop. Seriously, the saddest thing about anti-Catholic retreads is their own lack of actual knowledge. Sciolism is not only unbecoming it is emblematic of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of anti-Catholicism. And, for your information, mitres have changed in style over time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mitre_evolution.gif No scholar believes that there is any connection to any ancient false god, Dagon, or any other.
The missionary history of the [Catholic] Church clearly shows her adaptability to all races, all continents, all nations. In her liturgy and her art, in her tradition and the forming of her doctrine, naturally enough she includes Jewish elements, but also elements that are of pagan origin. In certain respects, she has copied her organization from that of the Roman Empire, has preserved and made fruitful the philosophical intuitions of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, borrowed from both Barbarians and the Byzantine Roman Empire—but always remains herself, thoroughly digesting all elements drawn from external sources...In her laws, her ceremonies, her festivals and her devotions, she makes use of local customs after purifying them and "baptizing" them.”
“Sciolism ey? Tell me, where does the following statement come from?”
A series of anti-Catholic websites. Now, those websites claim the quote is from a work from the 1950s called The Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism (specifically it would be Section 8: The Organization of the Church; volume 88, written by Andre Retif). As always with anti-Catholic websites, I see no reason to automatically believe they have quoted anything correctly.
Also, and this must be emphasized, the quote doesn’t prove your claim: “Most of the rituals, beliefs, garments, symbols etc. of the RCC are from pagan origin.” Your claim is still false. Note, the quote you cited, did not say a thing the Church used any of her “beliefs” are “from pagan origin”. The quote says in forming her doctrine elements are borrowed from paganism - that would be philosophy because philosophy is necessary for clear thinking. Anti-Catholics often stink at thinking clearly. That’s being demonstrated now.
And, once again, you have still failed to make an argument. You will continue to do so too. Prove me wrong. Make an actual argument. Try.
Well, lets start with this. In your original comment to me you claimed I stay in the U.S. Please tell me when I told you I live in the U.S. Or was that just speculation on your part? And if it was but you based your “argument” on that how is that based on fact? Do I really live in the U.S.?
Anti-Catholic websites hosting the quote you posted:
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception_end-time_paganism_Catholic_Mithraism
http://rekindlingthereformation.com/S-deception_end-time_paganism_Catholic_Mithraism.html
http://bwydeman.wordpress.com/2013/03/25/paganism-and-catholicism/
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=124515777721688&id=121166118056654
http://www.biblestudyspace.com/forum/topics/paganism-and-catholicism-you-be-the-judge-1
Now, all of those websites seem to have the EXACT same article posted over-and-over again. Essentially what you see is the uncritical gullibility of anti-Catholics. Stupid people are like that.
You wrote:
“Well, lets start with this. In your original comment to me you claimed I stay in the U.S. Please tell me when I told you I live in the U.S.”
No. 1) Where you live is not the issue and is not what you need to make an argument for. Defend your claims. 2) Are you saying you do not live in the U.S.?
“Or was that just speculation on your part?”
It’s irrelevant in any case. Are you saying you do not live in the U.S.? If you are saying that would that bolster or weaken your claims? Neither.
“And if it was but you based your “argument” on that how is that based on fact?”
I made no argument. Neither have you. The difference is that I can easily make one and I don’t think you can. Defend your claims. Can you? Also, if you do not live in the U.S. go ahead and say so. Then explain how that helps or hurts your claims. Can you?
“Do I really live in the U.S.?”
How does that matter in regard to your claims? Can you defend your claim or not?
So are you denying that it’s in the Encyclopedia of Catholicism? Are you saying they didn’t get it from there?
The fact is that you based your statement on “assumption” not fact. And you continue to try to avoid facts. Not much sense in continuing to debate you. Now if you could find the biblical basis for the assumption of Mary or even the teaching from scripture of God’s sanctioning of the concept of the “queen of heaven” we may have something to start with. But alas, you started off with assumption not fact.
You wrote:
“So are you denying that it’s in the Encyclopedia of Catholicism?”
Get the supposed book right. It is claimed it is in The Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism (vol. 88). It is not claimed to be in the Encyclopedia of Catholicism. That would be two different books.
“Are you saying they didn’t get it from there?”
I have no idea where HE (not they) got it from. I only know what they HE claims. Remember, one guy found this quote (supposedly) and others simply re-post HIS claim. I have no idea where the quote is from. It might be from the source claimed. It might not. I don’t know. it doesn’t really matter in any case since the supposed author doesn’t actually speak for the Church nor does the quote actually show what you claimed.
Therein lays your problem. And you accuse me of Sciolism. Go figure. I think we are done here. It’s obvious you “don’t know”.
you wrote:
“The fact is that you based your statement on “assumption” not fact.”
So you’re claiming you don’t live in the U.S.?
“And you continue to try to avoid facts.”
Exactly what fact? Please state the exact (supposed) fact that I am (supposedly) avoiding.
“Not much sense in continuing to debate you.”
Oh, that sort of “taking my ball home” whine was expected.
“Now if you could find the biblical basis for the assumption of Mary or even the teaching from scripture of God’s sanctioning of the concept of the “queen of heaven” we may have something to start with.”
The Assumption of Mary was seen by many Christians to be reflected by Revelation 12, but I think your very challenge is based upon an unscriptural assumption (no pun intended). Where in scripture does it say “You must have a scripture verse before something is true”? I think you also have a larger problem: take this as an example: How do you know the following:
1) That the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew.
2) That the Gospel of Matthew is inspired.
3) That the Gospel of Matthew belongs in the Bible.
Can you provide verse from scripture that proves any of those three things? The answer of course is no, but I’ll enjoy watching you flounder nonetheless.
Also, about Mary being the queen of heaven. Is Mary’s Son a king? Does He reign in heaven? If you answer those questions honestly, then you know that Mary is the queen of heaven.
“But alas, you started off with assumption not fact.”
Again, are you claiming you do not live in the U.S.? It’s a simple question. One way or another you’re proving me right on one thing or another.
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.
