LittleLes Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 Yes indeed. I've concluded that clattel slavery is immoral despite former Church approval. There is no sin in charging reasonable interest on money loaned, despite former Church condemnation. The earth really does move, despite the former Church teaching. Contributing to the spread of AIDs by prohibiting the use of condoms is morally wrong. Torturing and killing heretics is not the will of God, despite Exsurge's claim. Silencing theologians wo don't entirely support the party line is morally wrong. Jesus really didn't ride two animals when entering Jerusalem. Matthew got it wrong. In short, I'm not a gullible Catholic. But I know a lot of Catholics who are. LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 How about a "LittleLes" carp and a "LittleMore" honesty. You've been proven wrong in all of your attempts to discredit the Church. Your pride appartently cannot admit that you are misinterpreting Scripture and Church tecahing rather than the Church being wrong. Why do you even call yourself Christian, much less Catholic? You apparently don't beleive that Jesus was God (or if He was, that He didn't know what He was talking about), or that He founded a Church. If Christ did not found the Catholic Church, why belong to it? Why call oneself Catholic? Why not just be honest and call oneself atheist or agnostic or whatever, rather than playing this silly charade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 30 2005, 12:42 PM'] Yes indeed. I've concluded that clattel slavery is immoral despite former Church approval. There is no sin in charging reasonable interest on money loaned, despite former Church condemnation. The earth really does move, despite the former Church teaching. Contributing to the spread of AIDs by prohibiting the use of condoms is morally wrong. Torturing and killing heretics is not the will of God, despite Exsurge's claim. Silencing theologians wo don't entirely support the party line is morally wrong. Jesus really didn't ride two animals when entering Jerusalem. Matthew got it wrong. In short, I'm not a gullible Catholic. But I know a lot of Catholics who are. LittleLes [/quote] Once again we see you sidestepping the question about your faith by a retort in disciplenes. I thought that this was on matters of faith? Man what a slight of hand. Congratulations. Those are disciplenes, some of which (slavery) that I agree that the Church may of been wrong on. What does that have to do with the creed? Answer my question Littleles. You do not have to agree with every little thing that the Church has done throughout the centuries. Those disciplenes may be party lines. I recall your attention to the mentioning of Virginal Birth, Transubstantation, Ressurection, etc... Those are not party lines. Refer to your creed Littleless. Quit confusing faith and your party line discipline. They are in the creed, they are matters of faith, faith that is essential to being Catholic. Do you believe in Vigirnal Birth? Inspiration of the Scripture (mind you He spoke through the prophets)? Ressurection? Answer them, yes or no. That is all Littleless. Quit changing this to a discussion about disciplines, that is a different topic. These scholars were denying essentials to Catholic Faith. Do you believe in them? They are not party lines for the last time. Do you believe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Any response Littleless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Hi Socrates, No. I haven't been proven wrong. That's just a little more of the apologist's "lets pretend" when, because of their belief system, they have to stick to the party line. Like pretending that the Church never supported the institution of slavery LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoketos Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 30 2005, 10:34 PM'] Hi Socrates, No. I haven't been proven wrong. That's just a little more of the apologist's "lets pretend" when, because of their belief system, they have to stick to the party line. Like pretending that the Church never supported the institution of slavery LittleLes [/quote] Actually Little Les, the Church did support Slavery! Slavery can be Just (in a certain manner of speaking)! But "Just Slavery" is never based on race. And the Church has always condemned unjust slavery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Since you have posted in other threads and neglected to respond to my question in this one, would it be ok to assume from your silence that you do not believe in the Ressurection, Vigrin Conception, Transubstantiation? Littleless if you do not believe in those three, among others, then you are not a Catholic. I am operating from your silence that you do not believe in them and therefore have not faith. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong and you do belive in the Real Presence, Immaculate Conception, etc... I would recommend that you pray for the theological virtues of faith, haope, and charity. They would do you some good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Slavery is never "just." Read "Veritatis splendor, p80," CCC 2414, Rerum Novrum, and Gaudium et Spes #27 (Vatican II). Moreover, the form of slavery the Church approved is "chattel" or perpetual slavery, in which the person remained a slave until his death and all his children and their children remained slaves. See Leviticus 25: 40 et seq., which was cited as the approving biblical passage. The "just slavery" explanation made by some apologists may work on gullible Catholics, but not on those who research the subject for themselves. Littleles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 I already debunked that brother Littleles. Look to my post on Infallible......Mar 27 2005, 08:30 AM. Take that discussion back to the proper thread. Cam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 (edited) Hi Paphnutius, I don't confuse mythology with history, nor fact with fiction. And I don't respond to Inquisitions by posters who have lost their original arguments. But I particularly enjoy reading the claims of posters who have clearly lost their arguments, but pretend that they have won them. LittleLes Edited March 31, 2005 by LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 [quote]I don't confuse mythology with history, nor fact with fiction[/quote] Then stop createing your own, on all parts. [quote]But I particularly enjoy reading the claims of posters who have clearly lost their arguments, but pretend that they have won them.[/quote] Been rereading your own posts again, huh, brother Littleles. Cam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 31 2005, 12:10 PM'] Hi Paphnutius, I don't confuse mythology with history, nor fact with fiction. And I don't respond to Inquisitions by posters who have lost their original arguments. But I particularly enjoy reading the claims of posters who have clearly lost their arguments, but pretend that they have won them. LittleLes [/quote] Lost an arguement? Lets review shall we? 1) We said that Fr. Brown was unorthodox because he comes closer than a hair's breadth of denying such things as the Virginal Birth, Immaculate Conception, etc... 2) You retorted by mocking us for following the "party line," and used sarcasm to degrade us for not facing up to the facts of modern theologians. 3) I came back and pointed out that it is not a party line to believe in those things but essential to being Catholic a la the Creeds. One must believe in them to be Catholic. I then questioned your faith. 4) You replied by pointing out disciplenes that you disgaree with. 5) I noticed they were disciplenes and called you on that, pressed the question about your faith, and said dont confuse faith with party lines. This was not about whether the faith is true, but whether or not Fr. Brown is an orthodox Catholic scholar. We have shown that he all but denies essentials of the faith as laid down in the creed. You cannot accept that he goes against the faith on such issues but instead support him by pointing out disciplenes which you call party lines? We have lost? I think not. You have continously side stepped question after question about matters pretaining to faith by pointing out disciplenes that the Church may of been wrong on. So my question for you is? Is that your fancy way of saying, "No Paphnutius, I do not believe in Catholicism even though I claim to be one. No, I do not believe in the creedal statements, but isntead wish to make my own, thus making me a cafeteria Catholic. No, I do not believe in the real presence, or Ressurection, thus making what faith I do have in vain." That is what I am hearing. The arguement was never about their accuracy, but whether they were orthodox. We have shown they disgree with articles of faith putting them against orthodoxy (right belief). Thank you Littleless for admiting that you are not a Catholic. I am glad that you finally came to terms with it. Now you may begin to pray that God may help you with your struggles of doubt and faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 (edited) Hi Paphnutius, Lets sum up your argument. "We have shown that he (Fr. Ray Brown) all but denies the essentials of faith laid down in the creed." Apparently, since his books all contain the nihil obstat and imprimatur which attest that the contents are not contrary to Catholic faith and morals, the reviewers do not agree with you. And being twice appointed by the pope to the Pontifical Biblical Commission indicates that the pope did not dispute what Brown held as true. Could it be that your interpretation of the "creed" is in error then? Or perhaps the Church is backing away from a strict interpretation of what is in the creed. At least the pope, his book reviewers, and little me. LittleLes Edited April 1, 2005 by LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Apr 1 2005, 09:03 AM'] "We have shown that he (Fr. Ray Brown) all but denies the essentials of faith laid down in the creed." Apparently, since his books all contain the nihil obstat and imprimatur which attest that the contents are not contrary to Catholic faith and morals, the reviewers do not agree with you. [/quote] I have told you that the nihil obstat shows that there is nothing directly offensive to doctrine etc... I may of over emphasized how close they came. For that I apologize. Try it sometime Littleles. The nihil obstat does not mean, which I think you are asserting, that they are in complete accordance with Church teaching. Those that give the nihil or imprimatur detach themselves from supporting any opinions and the like in the book for a good reason. [quote]And being twice appointed by the pope to the Pontifical Biblical Commission indicates that the pope did not dispute what Brown held as true.[/quote] I already gave you my thoughts on that. You asked me if I thought that they could misjudge him. I replied yes, it has happened before. I also said that simply becasue someone serves two terms in an office does not make him correct. [quote]Could it be that your interpretation of the "creed" is in error then? Or perhaps the Church is backing away from a strict interpretation of what is in the creed. [/quote] If you mean that me thinking when we say "was born of the Virgin Mary" actually means that we believe he was born of the Virgin Mary then perhpas I am wrong in my interpretation. Or "on the third day He rose from the dead" means He rose from the dead on the third day, I could be wrong in thinking that, but then again your not Catholic so of course we will disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 Yes Paphnutius, You might want to update your thinking on those last two points by reading: "The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus" by Fr. Raymond E. Brown. I believe this book carries the Imprimatur. LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now