Posted on 05/15/2010 7:50:29 AM PDT by markomalley
You wrote:
“If you believe that the Church is infallible, as you certainly have said you believe, and if you believe that the Council of Trent is inerrant Church teaching, then you must also believe that Pope Pius really meant it when he said that nobody but the Pope should be interpreting Trent under punishment of excommunication.”
Sorry, but this rabbit trail of yours just will not work. Protestantism is heresy. I am amazed at the lengths you will go to deny the truth. You seem so desperate to paint me as a heretic, an excommunicant, etc. And none of it will work. Protestantism is heresy.
“He was wise and meant what he said.”
So was he wise when he condemned Protestantism as heresy? You can’t have it both ways. I have it all right and have from the beginning. You have nothing but one failed attempt after another.
“You have been most vigorous in your statements - I have warned you not to speak for the Church - you even bragged that “If I only knew” how involved you were in the Church.”
And it’s true. And in any case, Protestantism is heresy.
“By the same 16th century standards that you’ve been most vigorous in quoting, despite warnings against speaking for the Church - you should be excommunicated. You knew better, yet you did it anyway.”
No, actually I don’t know better because nothing I’ve done in any way violates anything from Trent. The Catholci teaching is that Protestantism is heresy. To say that truth in no way violates Trent. Many millions of Catholics have said it over the centuries and not a single one was ever excommunicated by anyone in the Church. Your rabbit trail is yet another failure.
“If we follow Trent, we have something in common - Neither of us is Catholic.”
No, I am Catholic and as a catholic who knows Trent, I can say without endangering my good standing as a Catholic in the slightest: Protestantism is heresy.
Go ahead with your next rabbit trail attempt. It’s all you apparently have. You sure haven’t posted an argument yet.
“No, I am Catholic and as a catholic who knows Trent, I can say without endangering my good standing as a Catholic in the slightest: Protestantism is heresy.”
You forgot Pope Pius IV papal bull at the conclusion of Trent:
“Furthermore, in order to avoid the perversion and confusion which might arise, if each one were allowed, as he might think fit, to publish his own commentaries and interpretations on the decrees of the Council ; We, by apostolic authority, forbid all men, as well ecclesiastics, of whatsoever order, condition, and rank they may be, as also laymen, with whatsoever honor and power invested ; prelates, to wit, under pain of being interdicted from entering the church, and all others whomsoever they be, under pain of excommunication incurred by the fact, to presume, without our authority to publish, in any form, any commentaries, glosses, annotations, scholia, or any kind of interpretation whatsoever of the decrees of the said Council ; or to settle anything in regard thereof, under any plea whatsoever, even under pretext of greater corroboration of the decrees, or the more perfect execution thereof, or under any other colour whatsoever.”
You did not know Trent. You have a better understanding now. Please stop, for your own sake, your ceaseless rambling about it.
Pius was clear. Even a heretic can understand what he meant. You, not so much.
Perhaps you have Papal authority you haven’t shared with us here on this thread?
The matter is settled. I tried to help you find a graceful way out of the trouble you created for yourself, but you were too proud to listen to anyone but yourself. You have, and never had any standing. At least admit that, and then let the thread die.
You wrote:
“You forgot Pope Pius IV papal bull at the conclusion of Trent:”
No, I haven’t. Not only did I not violate it but I am clearly upholding it by teaching what Trent taught. You have failed again. Yet another rabbit trail of yours has failed. Protestantism is heresy.
“You did not know Trent.”
I most certainly did know Trent.
“You have a better understanding now. Please stop, for your own sake, your ceaseless rambling about it.”
I have never rambled in my life. Perhaps you should stop your apparently desperate attempts at rabbit trails. Protestantism is heresy. That’s Church teaching and always will be.
“Pius was clear. Even a heretic can understand what he meant. You, not so much.”
Protestantism is heresy. Pius taught that. The Council taught that. Your attempts to overturn that truth have utterly failed.
“Perhaps you have Papal authority you haven’t shared with us here on this thread?”
Perhaps you have an actual argument you haven’t shared with us here in this thread? No, apparently not. What you have are apparently desperate rabbit trails and evasions. Protestantism is heresy.
“The matter is settled.”
Yes, it is: Protestantism is heresy. The Council taught that. Pius taught that. You apparently can’t make a single argument against it.
“I tried to help you find a graceful way out of the trouble you created for yourself, but you were too proud to listen to anyone but yourself.”
I don’t need any exit at all, graceful or otherwise. Unlike you, I have not ignored any truth. You have. Protestantism is heresy. Perhaps it is your pride which has prompted you to post outrageous untruths, rabbit trails and insults. Perhaps your pride couldn’t handle the fact that you never had an argument in the entire thread.
“You have, and never had any standing.”
Yes I do - I stand on the truth. The truth is that Protestantism is heresy.
“At least admit that, and then let the thread die.”
No, I stand on the truth. The truth is that Protestantism is heresy. If you want to leave the thread do so. No one is stopping you. It’s FreeRepublic. You’re free to come and go as you please.
“No, I stand on the truth.”
Your argument is with Pope Pius IV, not me.
Let me know how that works out.
You wrote:
“Your argument is with Pope Pius IV, not me.”
No, Pius in no way prevented me from posting the truth. Your argument is with God and His Church - and you already lost. Protestanism is heresy.
“Let me know how that works out.”
It will work out as it only could. I am vindicated. You lost and Protestantism is heresy just as the Church taught.
“I am vindicated.”
You might want to ask for a second opinion on that.
You wrote:
“You might want to ask for a second opinion on that.”
Protestantism is heresy. Thus, I am vindicated. You have failed again. Dozens of posts and you didn’t make an argument in any of them.
“Thus, I am vindicated.”
Whatever you say. Pius IV obviously didn’t mean you when he admonished those looking at the work at Trent in the future to look to the Pope for guidance.
How could he know you’d show up nearly 500 years later to correct his understanding of how Trent should be viewed?
Vindicated, indeed.....
You wrote:
“Whatever you say. Pius IV obviously didn’t mean you when he admonished those looking at the work at Trent in the future to look to the Pope for guidance.”
Nothing I have said goes against Trent. Protestantism is heresy.
“How could he know you’d show up nearly 500 years later to correct his understanding of how Trent should be viewed?”
Pius taught that Protestantism is heresy. So did the Council. Protestantism is heresy.
“Vindicated, indeed.....”
Protestantism is heresy.
“Protestantism is heresy.”
Your Molotov Cocktail is filled only with bitterness. It burns in your mind and shatters your soul only. I hope one day you find peace.
I’m with Pius IV - you should take the question to a more authoritative source, that is if you will even accept there is a more authoritative source than yourself.
Good night, my friend, I’ve enjoyed our sparring on this thread, but I’m handing off the discussion to the spirit of Pius IV. I’m sure he knew better how to get an errant Catholic back onto the right path, if only you learn more about why he wrote what he wrote.
Good Luck, and all is forgiven.
You wrote:
“Your Molotov Cocktail is filled only with bitterness. It burns in your mind and shatters your soul only. I hope one day you find peace.”
I am at peace now because I have the truth. You have resorted to distortions, apparent attempts at deception, outrageous falsehoods and plenty of rabbit trails. It would appear that you are not at peace.
“I’m with Pius IV - you should take the question to a more authoritative source, that is if you will even accept there is a more authoritative source than yourself.”
Protestantism is heresy. That’s what Pius taught. That’s what Trent taught.
“Good night, my friend, I’ve enjoyed our sparring on this thread, but I’m handing off the discussion to the spirit of Pius IV. I’m sure he knew better how to get an errant Catholic back onto the right path, if only you learn more about why he wrote what he wrote.”
He never stopped teaching the truth: Protestantism is heresy.
“Good Luck, and all is forgiven.”
I need no forgiveness from you. Protestantism is heresy. I, however, forgive you for your distortions, apparent attempts at deception and outrageous falsehoods. My forgiveness will be meaningless if you do not repent of these acts. I hope you do, but I doubt you will.
“Protestantism,” used as a general term for the return to the genuine Christian faith, is the basis of American conservatism.
It is the rejection of the Nicolaitan ‘faiths,’ and the leftist, and monarchist politics that emerge from them.
.
Well, and white evangelical Protestants who take their faith seriously voted in even larger numbers for McCain. The Protestant numbers that in post-election polls indicate anything else are inflated by those in the main-stream churches that believe in little else other than social justice.
And it would be great if we all remember who the opposition is, old Mr. Satan himself.
And when the final battle lines are drawn, hopefully the followers of Christ will be so far ahead of pains of the Inquisition ... just totally forgotten.
But till then ;^)
I'd still like Vald's comments concerning whether the Church was wrong to burn Protestants then - or it's wrong to have discontinued the practice? (Now)
Of course there's always the old 'sidestep', (the Church didn't do nothing) but one of the Doctors of the Church did say "he would gather the wood for his own fathers' burning".... (should he turn out to be a Protestant)
You wrote:
“I’d still like Vald’s comments concerning whether the Church was wrong to burn Protestants then - or it’s wrong to have discontinued the practice? (Now)”
The Church never burned anyone.
“Of course there’s always the old ‘sidestep’, (the Church didn’t do nothing) but one of the Doctors of the Church did say “he would gather the wood for his own fathers’ burning”.... (should he turn out to be a Protestant)”
He could gather all the wood he wanted. It still wouldn’t be the Church that burned anyone. The Church never burned anyone. It’s just the truth. Like it or not, it’s irrefutable.
Would you have the Church re-start the Inquisition to root out and hand over to the State for disposal, Prot’s and anyone else who's doctrine conflicted with yours ....
Just axing, so go ahead and tell us...
You wrote:
“Rhetorical Question: (If it were in your and all that)”
First of all, I don’t even understand what you’re trying to say. What does “If it were in your and all that” even mean? Second, and I think I’ve already pointed this out to you: rhetorical questions are not answered. That’s why they are called rhetorical. A rhetorical question is “A question asked merely for effect with no answer expected.” Perhaps you meant a “hypothetical question”. In any case, that wouldn’t help you.
“Would you have the Church re-start the Inquisition to root out and hand over to the State for disposal, Prot’s and anyone else who’s doctrine conflicted with yours ....”
I do not answer hypotheticals. Hypotheticals are meaningless. I deal with real world situations and not hypotheticals. What is clear is that you must have confused rhetorical with hypothetical.
“Just axing, so go ahead and tell us...”
Axing? Wow, public education at its finest. Sorry, I don’t do hypothetical questions because they are meaningless. They are out of time and place, rootless, without context and often ignore relevant facts and history.
So, to the point, were it in your power to do so, would you have the Church re-start the Inquisition Trials?
If so, why?
If not, explain your lack of Faith.
You wrote:
“So, to the point, were it in your power to do so, would you have the Church re-start the Inquisition Trials?”
Your question makes no sense. As I said, hypotheticals often do not take into account history. When, for instance, did inquisition trials end? The answer is they never did. Thus, your entire question is predicated on an a misunderstanding of history and is, therefore, ridiculous.
“If so, why?”
See above.
“If not, explain your lack of Faith.”
I have no lack of faith. You apparently have a lack of understanding of reality.
Do you now know the difference between rhetorical and hypothetical? A public education is a sure ticket to ignorance.
You wrote:
“All questions I put to you are rhetorical, as I know you’ll never answer them”
I think you called them rhetorical because you didn’t know what the difference between rhetorical and hypothetical was.
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.