LittleLes Posted June 22, 2005 Author Share Posted June 22, 2005 [quote name='jezic' date='Jun 22 2005, 10:20 AM']define fact [right][snapback]618981[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: "FACT" "An actual occurrence:event" pg 298, Webster's Sventh New Collegiate Dictionary. (Yes, I'm one edition behind). And to save you writing another post, FICTION, op cit., pg 310 "An invented story." LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted June 22, 2005 Author Share Posted June 22, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 22 2005, 10:34 AM']that is a relative term :rotfl: [right][snapback]618985[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: No. Actually it's pretty specific. One happened; one didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jezic Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 (edited) How YOU do define fact? Edited June 22, 2005 by jezic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 22 2005, 10:12 AM']RESPONSE: The following can be found at a number of different websites. This is pasted from the Fordham University's history department website: Modern History Sourcebook: Council of Trent: Rules on Prohibited Books -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TEN RULES CONCERNING PROHIBITED BOOKS DRAWN UP BY THE FATHERS CHOSEN BY THE COUNCIL OF TRENT AND APPROVED BY POPE PIUS[1] IV "Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them." The document being quoted is Trent XXV, decree concerning the index of books. Your apology is accepted. [right][snapback]618973[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Here is the whole of the [url="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/trent-booksrules.html"]issue[/url]. As is normally the case with LittleLes, he didn't provide the whole of the matter. What does Chapter III state? Hmmmm..... [quote]The translations of writers, also ecclesiastical, which have till now been edited by condemned authors, are permitted provided they contain nothing contrary to sound doctrine. Translations of the books of the Old Testament may in the judgment of the bishop be permitted to learned and pious men only, provided such translations are used only as elucidations of the Vulgate Edition for the understanding of the Holy Scriptures and not as the sound text. Translations of the New Testament made by authors of the first class of this list shall be permitted to no one, since great danger and little usefulness usually results to readers from their perusal. But if with such translations as are permitted or with the Vulgate Edition some annotations are circulated, these may also, after the suspected passages have been expunged by the theological faculty of some Catholic university or by the general inquisition, be permitted to those to whom the translations are permitted. Under these circumstances the entire volume of the Sacred Books, which is commonly called the <biblia Vatabli,> or parts of it, may be permitted to pious and learned men. From the Bibles of Isidore Clarius of Brescia, however, the preface and introduction are to be removed, and no one shall regard its text as the text of the Vulgate Edition.[/quote] What does Chapter V say? Hmmm...... [quote]Those books which sometimes produce the works of heretical authors, in which these add little or nothing of their own but rather collect therein the sayings of others, as lexicons, concordances, apothegms, parables, tables of contents and such like, are permitted if whatever needs to be eliminated in the additions is removed and corrected in accordance with the suggestions of the bishop, the inquisitor and Catholic theologians.[/quote] And finally, what does Chapter VI say? Telling..... [quote]Books which deal in the vernacular with the controversies between Catholics and heretics of our time may not be permitted indiscriminately, but the same is to be observed with regard to them what has been decreed concerning Bibles written in the vernacular. [b][u]There is no reason, however, why those should be prohibited which have been written in the vernacular for the purpose of pointing out the right way to live, to contemplate, to confess, and similar purposes, if they contain sound doctrine, just as popular sermons in the vernacular are not prohibited.[/u][/b] But if hitherto in some kingdom or province certain books have been prohibited because they contained matter the reading of which would be of no benefit to all indiscriminately, these may, if their authors are Catholic, be permitted by the bishop and inquisitor after they have been corrected.[/quote] Amazing but true. The Church isn't wrong, but only LittleLes, as ususal. Oh, LittleLes, I used your source to prove you wrong. Thanks for the lead. You're a peach. Who is apologzing to whom? We deserve one from you LittleLes. Thanks in advance for your prompt attention to this very important matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted June 22, 2005 Author Share Posted June 22, 2005 [quote name='Didacus' date='Jun 22 2005, 10:37 AM']Again, from the text of Ratzinger: "But what one exegete takes as definite can only be called into question by other exegetes. This is a practical rule which is presupposed as plainly and self-evidently valid" LittleLes... are you an exegate? I don't htink I need to ask the question to Cam... [right][snapback]618990[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: No. Ratzinger is wrong here, but apparently wants to limit non-exegete's questioning. For example, in Luke 24 it is claimed that Jesus ascended into heaven on the same day as the Ressurection and the Acension took place at Bethany. Acts 1 claims that the Ascension took place 40 days after the Resurrection and took place at Mt. Olivet. One doesn't have to be an exegaste to recognize that these are conflicting reports, unless there were really two Ascensions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jezic Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 interesting enough if Jesus is transcendant, isn't it possible He is God after all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jezic Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 note i did not say it "happened" that way, just that it is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted June 22, 2005 Author Share Posted June 22, 2005 Oh, LittleLes, I used your source to prove you wrong. Thanks for the lead. You're a peach. [right][snapback]619001[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: Your claim is baseless because you didn't address the post in question. I was challanged that what I had reported I had fabricated. I hadn't; and I posted accurately. I had quoted Fordham University's reference. And I didn't quote more than was necessary to establish that. And you didn't state what you are attempting to prove in your extended post. But again you claim to have proven something . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted June 22, 2005 Author Share Posted June 22, 2005 [quote name='jezic' date='Jun 22 2005, 10:55 AM']interesting enough if Jesus is transcendant, isn't it possible He is God after all [right][snapback]619014[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: Didn't Elijah and Enoch ascend also? Does this prove that they were God? Did any of these events actually happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 [quote name='jezic' date='Jun 22 2005, 10:47 AM']How YOU do define fact? [right][snapback]618999[/snapback][/right] [/quote] fact (f `akt) n. 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy. 2. a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact. b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts. c. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact. 3. Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact. Copyright © 2005, Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved. www.dictionary.com In case that was aimed at me...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted June 22, 2005 Author Share Posted June 22, 2005 [quote name='jezic' date='Jun 22 2005, 10:58 AM']note i did not say it "happened" that way, just that it is possible. [right][snapback]619021[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: It is better to go with the "actual" rather than the "possible." It's "possible" that St. Peter had a halo and lived in Brooklyn, but I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 [quote]Oh, LittleLes, I used your source to prove you wrong. Thanks for the lead. You're a peach. [right][snapback]619001[/snapback][/right] [/quote] [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 22 2005, 11:01 AM']RESPONSE: Your claim is baseless because you didn't address the post in question. I was challanged that what I had reported I had fabricated. I hadn't; and I posted accurately. I had quoted Fordham University's reference. And I didn't quote more than was necessary to establish that. And you didn't state what you are attempting to prove in your extended post. But again you claim to have proven something . [right][snapback]619026[/snapback][/right] [/quote] But you didn't post the entirety of the matter. You provided a portion that did not give the whole truth. Part of being a "true believer" is providing the whole truth. What am I proving? That you spin the matter at hand to fit your criteria. Is that what someone who really believes does with the truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 22 2005, 11:06 AM']RESPONSE: It is better to go with the "actual" rather than the "possible." It's "possible" that St. Peter had a halo and lived in Brooklyn, but I doubt it. [right][snapback]619038[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Actually, it is not possible.....Brooklyn didn't exist in the time of St. Peter. You really should shore up your philosophical attributes.....you are looking silly again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateo el Feo Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 22 2005, 11:12 AM']RESPONSE: The document being quoted is Trent XXV, decree concerning the index of books.[/quote] Actually, the document quoted is not included in the Council of Trent 25th session document. It simply refers to it. Maybe you're just playing cut-and-paste? [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 22 2005, 11:12 AM']Your apology is accepted. [right][snapback]618973[/snapback][/right] [/quote] The quote shows that bishops may use prudential judgment in their dioceses in [i]permitting [/i]the faithful to read the vernacular. History has shown that prudence was appropriate. Your question is still based on a false assertion. And your apology is accepted. [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 22 2005, 11:16 AM']I believe in fact, not fiction. Although some fiction is amusing! [/quote] You come across as a believer of [i]sola ratio[/i]. Interestingly, you still don't admit your biases. You're a "true believer," with built-in mechanisms to attack contrary arguments, while turning a blind eye to weakness in your own arguments. Until you get out of the trollish "pick a fight" mode, you're not going to see truth and fact as anything other than whatever you currently happen to believe. You need to be de-trollified. Maybe there's a Troll's Anonymous twelve step program in your area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateo el Feo Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 22 2005, 11:37 AM']RESPONSE: Please note that the postings were papal writings, not mine. Popes tend to be wordy. I would never write such long statements. At least I hope not. [right][snapback]618989[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I know. You don't post long posts. You split them up into multiple posts, which is [i]completely different[/i]! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts