"Duck Dynasty"...is our freedom of speech being stifled?
Quote: rxwineI also would prefer FrGamble take your place. As in Beethoven.
Someone must be getting really mad. ;)
Quote: Beethoven9thSomeone must be getting really mad. ;)
Well, that's the kind of reaction trolls try to get. So, you're helping me out.
Quote: TwirdmanSo again why should I trust a priest who is on the lowest end of the hierarchy...Quote: Beethoven9thTwird, just admit you're wrong, brother. With all due respect, I think a Catholic PRIEST knows more about the Catholic Church than you do. *facepalm*
On matters concerning everything asexual, I will defer to you. But regarding the Church, I'll go with FrGamble.
OMG, more dissing of FrGamble. *FACEPALM*
Quote: rxwineWell, that's the kind of reaction trolls try to get. So, you're helping me out.
Yep, someone just admitted that he's getting really mad. ;)
Quote: Beethoven9thYep, someone just admitted that he's getting really mad. ;)
I'm actually happy you just proved my point with some evidence that you're a troll. Right off the bat.
Quote: rxwineI'm actually happy you just proved my point with some evidence that you're a troll. Right off the bat.
The only time you've chimed in over the past day or so is to call someone names, yet I'M the troll?!? *facepalm*
Quote: Beethoven9thOMG, more dissing of FrGamble. *FACEPALM*
No its a statement of fact there is an established hierarchy of the Catholic church. It goes Priest, bishop, archbishop, cardinal, and at the highest is the pope. There are a few others like primates or Metropolitan but the main is definately priest, bishop, archbishop, cardinal, and then pope. It is meant as no offense its just how the hierarchy works. Look at it like the military a general is ranked as higher than a lieutenant it is not an insult to say a lieutenant is outranked and as such can't overturn an order.
I mean do you actually no anything about the interworkings of the Catholic church because it shows profound ignorance to say I'm insulting a priest by saying he is lower on the hierarchy then the pope. Everyone is lower on the hierarchy then the pope except for God.
Quote: Beethoven9thThe only time you've chimed in over the past day or so is to attack another member, yet I'M the troll?!? *facepalm*
Oh, I would never quibble with you that everyone gets snarky. But that's just, "everyone poops" compared to an excuse to crap everywhere and often because everyone poops.
Sure. Its a bit like changing the speed limit on one section of the highway from 40 to 35. You prattle on and on about the supremacy of the law but pretty much nothing has changed, its just as arbitrary and irrational before as it is now.Quote: FrGambleTwirdman was equating changing rules as changing doctrine. Let me try to be perfectly clear - the doctrine or teaching of the Catholic Church in regards to the sanctity of human life has never and will never change, no pope or cardinal or council could do so. How that doctrine is lived out such as the case of abortion does change. As modern science continues to demonstrate and make it clear that life begins at conception the Church changes the rules that were in place before anyone knew this. It really is quite simple and I guess you could say you are both right. The Catholic Church cannot change its doctrine as revealed by Christ and in the deposit of faith but how that doctrine is lived out in moral rules and guidelines do indeed change over time.
I don't know how a political discussion about Ducks and Queers has morphed into some discussion of religion and abortion. Sanctity of live is a slogan defined by the sloganizers. Recently a airplane passenger in transit was told she was in a Catholic country and would be given no treatment that would harm her fetus until the fetus had died. Once that took place she would likely be about to die also but those were "The Rules" ie, The Pope is Infalllible. Meanwhile you have an airplane passenger who found herself in an uncivilized world defined by a well organized institution established to restrain individualism.
The problem with gays is that the organizations are diffuse but often volatile, so institutions kowtow in a variety of manners. When aids arrived the hypersensitive group wielded power all beyond their numbers to change "Filthy Infected Fags" into "People Living With Aids" and to change "Gay Related Immune Disorder" to "AIDS" since research dollars and donations would be more if it the homo part was toned down.
In reality its just an organized view versus a disorganized view.
Quote: FleaStiffI don't know how a political discussion about Ducks and Queers has morphed into some discussion of religion and abortion.
That's how some people are. Instead of admitting they're wrong, they will shift their argument to something else hoping that they'll win that way. Fortunately, it didn't work this time.
Quote: Beethoven9thStop rxwhining...you need a thicker skin. ;)
I've taken plenty of shots from people here. Do you notice me complaining about anyone else? No, you just want to continue your trolliness. (Your Holiness, Your Trolliness, pun). But it's also faux debate. I'd rather warn people how much time they will be wasting. Ironically, you will demand straight up answers while rarely conceding anything no matter how wrong you are. Twirdman did a good analysis summary a few pages back in several posts. No need for me to repeat it. Then you continually announce personal wins, whether you win or not. Who needs to continually announce personal wins? Probably cause you don't actually have many, and smart people will figure it out anyway.
Quote: Beethoven9thThat's how some people are. Instead of admitting they're wrong, they will shift their argument to something else hoping that they'll win that way. Fortunately, it didn't work this time.
I love how you talk about changing the argument when the first thing you did when you came into this thread was attack liberals for being hypocrites even though no one had expressed any hypocrisy in the thread.
Oh also lets not forget the numerous times you felt the need to ask me about my sexuality even after I said I'd prefer not to answer.
Quote: TwirdmanI love how you talk about changing the argument when the first thing you did when you came into this thread was attack liberals for being hypocrites even though no one had expressed any hypocrisy in the thread.
Well, if you weren't being a hypocrite, then that comment obviously wasn't aimed at you. Sounds like you were just itching to jump in though & needed an excuse.
Quote: rxwineI've taken plenty of shots from people here. Do you notice me complaining about anyone else? No, you just want to continue your trolliness. (Your Holiness, Your Trolliness, pun). But it's also faux debate. I'd rather warn people how much time they will be wasting.
You really should add an 'h' in your name. Because that's what your last few posts have sounded like.
Quote: Beethoven9thWell, if you weren't being a hypocrite, then that comment obviously wasn't aimed at you. Sounds like you were just itching to jump in though & needed an excuse.
You lobbed the attack about me being a hypocrite multiple times. First you quoted me and said I was a hypocrite for thinking A&E had a right to fire Robertson but not a liberal even though I think yeah it goes both ways a private company gets to choose who they put on air. Martin Bashir was fired for saying something stupid and offensive and had no problem with MSNBC doing that. Then you claimed I was a hypocrite because I said you shouldn't label all gays as child molesters and you said I was conspiculously absent in saying priest shouldn't be labelled as child molesters even though I do think it is wrong to paint everyone with such a broad brush. A teacher, coach or anyone else commits a sexual assault that just means that person did it not everyone in the group. So yeah you specifically called me a hypocrite definately with the priest one. Was I just supposed to roll over and play dead because you supposedly got me. Also you wanted to call me a hypocrite about polygamy and tried to make me say polygamist are born that way but I don't accept their marriage. Yet the question of them being born that way is nonsensical and I do believe they should have to right to get married. So lets try again how many times did you say or try to imply I was a hypocrite. Not just liberals but me specifically and it was at least twice in this thread and I'm going to say 3 times.
But right those comments weren't directed at me even though they all had my name on them right?
Quote: FrGambleThe reason you guys were dancing around the abortion issue as it regards the Catholic Church was you were obviously using different words to define the same thing. Twirdman was equating changing rules as changing doctrine. Let me try to be perfectly clear - the doctrine or teaching of the Catholic Church in regards to the sanctity of human life has never and will never change, no pope or cardinal or council could do so. How that doctrine is lived out such as the case of abortion does change. As modern science continues to demonstrate and make it clear that life begins at conception the Church changes the rules that were in place before anyone knew this. It really is quite simple and I guess you could say you are both right. The Catholic Church cannot change its doctrine as revealed by Christ and in the deposit of faith but how that doctrine is lived out in moral rules and guidelines do indeed change over time.
There are three issues with this:
1. The distinction seems to be retrospective - it's a doctrine until it seems likely to change, at which time it never was. To follow an argument like this, I would need to see a clear distinction between eternal doctrine and ephemeral teaching that holds up in the face of not only Vatican II, but every other point of divergence from Peter to Francis and all in between. boymimbo's article seems a decent attempt, but since it's written by a layman, I'm very wary - and I suspect that the ban on ordination of women, if it is a doctrine, will not ever have been one, if not in a hundred years, at some point in the far-off future. You may say "that will never happen" - but can you honestly say that no well-educated priest from any point in the last two thousand years, if he were to see the Church today, would see anything he had considered eternal doctrine abandoned? At the very least, the Greeks would disagree.
2. The original point of Beethoven9th's statement was, essentially, that no matter what came down from on high, the Church's position on abortion would never change. You seem to be saying almost the opposite of that, that whether abortion is considered to go against the fundamental doctrine in the future could change (but probably won't).
3. The way the statement was phrased, essentially, "if the Church said doctrine had changed, it would not have changed" - maybe from the perspective of on high, but from here, it would be indistinguishable from the Church's teachings having changed, even if they wouldn't call it "doctrine." If the teaching is eternal, then the Church would be corrupt if the first part of the sentence were to happen, and then its doctrine would be expected to be false, so the statement is false. If the Church cannot become corrupt in your view, then the statement is true, but tautological, meaningless.
Quote: 24Bingo
2. The original point of Beethoven9th's statement was, essentially, that no matter what came down from on high, the Church's position on abortion would never change. You seem to be saying almost the opposite of that, that whether abortion is considered to go against the fundamental doctrine in the future could change (but probably won't).
Even if he wasn't saying it could change I pointed out over 5 instances of it having changed in the past and no statement can change matters of historical record.
Quote: TwirdmanBut right those comments weren't directed at me even though they all had my name on them right?
First off, in your last post, you specifically talked about your first comment. I did reference it in my first post, but I also referenced someone else's comment as well. But you don't see him whining now, do you? That's because it wasn't directed at either of you. It was a general comment. You just took it personally and got all huffy puffy. Like you're doing now. You really can't let this one go, can you?
Quote: Beethoven9thFirst off, in your last post, you specifically talked about your first comment. I did reference it in my first post, but I also referenced someone else's comment as well. But you don't see him whining now, do you? That's because it wasn't directed at either of you. It was a general comment. You just took it personally and got all huffy puffy. Like you're doing now. You really can't let this one go, can you?
OK thats why I said at least 2 I didn't originally count that 1. You notice I listed 3 things and said you either stated or implied I was a hypocrite at least twice so 2+1=3. The one about me not supporting polygamy was only me you referenced and you know you wanted to imply I was a hypocrite there. The other was you saying I don't condemn those who say priest are child molesters so calling me a hypocrite for saying gays aren't child molesters but allowing people to say priest are child molesters again though I don't think priest should be called child molesters. So again 2 instances of you trying to paint me specifically a hypocrite. Which what a crazy random happenstance is the number of time I said you definately called me a hypocrite amazing how that works.
OMG...you're doing it again! First you claimed:
I responded by saying that when I "first came into this thread" I was neither attacking you nor all liberals. BUT instead of saying, "OK, that's cool. I misunderstood," and letting the subject die, you're now trying to shift your argument to include everything else I ever said instead of "the first thing you did when you came into this thread" (which you initially claimed)! Unbelievable! (Plus, the first time I ever used the word "hypocrite" was to say that you are NOT a hypocrite...geez!) You are a piece of work, bro!Quote: Twirdmanthe first thing you did when you came into this thread was attack liberals for being hypocrites
For those of you reading, this is how Twird has gone from Phil Robertson.....TO gay marriage.....TO interracial marriage.....TO Brigham Young.....TO Mormon doctrine.....TO Catholic doctrine.....TO abortion... (Who the hell knows what's next?!?)
Also, let me repeat what FrGamble said:
Quote: FrGambleLet me try to be perfectly clear - the doctrine or teaching of the Catholic Church in regards to the sanctity of human life has never and will never change, no pope or cardinal or council could do so. How that doctrine is lived out such as the case of abortion does change. As modern science continues to demonstrate and make it clear that life begins at conception the Church changes the rules that were in place before anyone knew this. It really is quite simple and I guess you could say you are both right. The Catholic Church cannot change its doctrine as revealed by Christ and in the deposit of faith but how that doctrine is lived out in moral rules and guidelines do indeed change over time.
Please answer Yes or No: Do you honestly believe that you know more about Catholic doctrine than a Catholic priest?????
Quote: Beethoven9th^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
OMG...you're doing it again! First you claimed:
I responded by saying that when I "first came into this thread" I was neither attacking you nor all liberals. BUT instead of saying, "OK, that's cool. I misunderstood," and letting the subject die, you're now trying to shift your argument to include everything else I ever said instead of "the first thing you did when you came into this thread" (which you initially claimed)! Unbelievable! (Plus, the first time I ever used the word "hypocrite" was to say that you are NOT a hypocrite...geez!) You are a piece of work, bro!
For those of you reading, this is how Twird has gone from Phil Robertson.....TO gay marriage.....TO interracial marriage.....TO Brigham Young.....TO Mormon doctrine.....TO Catholic doctrine.....TO abortion... (Who the hell knows what's next?!?)
Also, let me repeat what FrGamble said:Quote: FrGambleLet me try to be perfectly clear - the doctrine or teaching of the Catholic Church in regards to the sanctity of human life has never and will never change, no pope or cardinal or council could do so. How that doctrine is lived out such as the case of abortion does change. As modern science continues to demonstrate and make it clear that life begins at conception the Church changes the rules that were in place before anyone knew this. It really is quite simple and I guess you could say you are both right. The Catholic Church cannot change its doctrine as revealed by Christ and in the deposit of faith but how that doctrine is lived out in moral rules and guidelines do indeed change over time.
Please answer Yes or No: Do you honestly believe that you know more about Catholic doctrine than a Catholic priest?????
OK do you read my whole post because I specifically said that you also attacked me multiple times. Also you attacked all liberals when you came into the thread saying
For example, if Robertson had gotten suspended for expressing a PRO-gay viewpoint, does anybody honestly believe that liberals would be using the "A&E doesn't have to give him a show!!" argument???
So given I am a liberal yeah you attacked me. You didn't say would hypocrites being saying this you said liberals.
Also answer my question do you think a priest knows more about catholic doctrine then pope Pius IX and vatican I along with Vatican II which contained a current pope and 4 future popes. That is a whopping 6 popes on my side and you have a priest agreeing with you
Quote: Robertson in GQ in response to What, in your mind, is sinful?“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says.
Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”Read More GQ
Quote: 1 Corinthians 6:9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Quote: Robertson in 2010" Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions. They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."
When You Defend Phil Robertson, Here's What You're Really Defending
Business Insider
By Josh Barro
The first episode of the show aired Mar. 21, 2012. As the 2010 statements is considerably stronger than the 2013 statement, it can be argued that A&E should not have entered into a contract with someone who was so far out of their corporate culture.
Knowingly entering into such a contract means that A&E can't pull out now for a much less controversial comment.
Are you seriously trying to keep this argument going after you've been proven wrong??? Your statement "I specifically said that you also attacked me multiple times" came AFTER a previous post in which you said "the first thing you did when you came into this thread was attack liberals for being hypocrites". I can't believe you're going to such great lengths just to keep a silly argument going instead of simply saying, "OK cool, I misunderstood what you had said." SMHQuote: TwirdmanOK do you read my whole post because I specifically said that you also attacked me multiple times.
You're serious?? It honestly didn't occur to you that I was speaking about liberals in general, not every single liberal who lives under the sun??? LOL *facepalm*Quote: TwirdmanAlso you attacked all liberals when you came into the thread saying
For example, if Robertson had gotten suspended for expressing a PRO-gay viewpoint, does anybody honestly believe that liberals would be using the "A&E doesn't have to give him a show!!" argument???
Now answer my question: Who knows more about Catholic doctrine, you or FrGamble? (It's OK if you think that YOU do; I just want to hear you say it)
Don't tell that to Twird. lolQuote: pacomartinsuch a contract means that A&E can't pull out now for a much less controversial comment.
Quote: Beethoven9thAre you seriously trying to keep this argument going after you've been proven wrong??? Your statement "I specifically said that you also attacked me multiple times" came AFTER a previous post in which you said "the first thing you did when you came into this thread was attack liberals for being hypocrites". I can't believe you're going to such great lengths just to keep a silly argument going.
You're serious?? It honestly didn't occur to you that I was speaking about liberals in general, not every single liberal who lives under the sun??? LOL *facepalm*
Now answer my question: Who knows more about Catholic doctrine, you or FrGamble? (It's OK if you think that YOU do; I just want to hear you say it)
Don't tell that to Twird. lol
Also where was my statement wrong you did attack liberals and you may expect liberals to lie down and say oh you're right we're all hypocrites but we won't. Here is the sign of hypocrisy when Martin Bashir said what he said the right wing went in a tizzy and demanded he be fired. He ended up being forced to resign and no liberal said a thing saying he shouldn't be fired. There wasn't a mass of people demanding o put him back on the air. Shortly after Robertson says what he said and is suspended and the right wing have another media tizzy about OMG where is free speech in this country. So who sounds like the hypocrite there.
As for the contract thing it is possible and even probably that he had in his contract he can't make any more inflammatory statements in public. A&E doesn't care his beliefs or what he said when no one was paying attention that didn't affect their bottom line. When he then became a brand ambassador everything he said got tied to dollars and cents for A&E and as such when he said something that A&E thought would cost money he was fired. I mean do you think the government should force a station to keep someone on the air.
Again I am not citing personal beliefs I am citing the view of 6 popes. You can readily read the findings of both Vatican I and Vatican II I have even included them earlier in the thread to make it easier.
Look, you're doing it again! Always trying to make subtle shifts in your argument. I never singled you out nor did I attack every single liberal who's breathing. I was talking about liberals in general.Quote: TwirdmanAlso where was my statement wrong you did attack liberals
What's the problem anyway? Guys like s2dbaker constantly attack conservatives in general, but you don't see any of us acting all hysterical like you. SMH
Answer the question: Who knows more about Catholic doctrine, you or FrGamble?*Quote: TwirdmanAgain I am not citing personal beliefs I am citing the view of 6 popes. You can readily read the findings of both Vatican I and Vatican II I have even included them earlier in the thread to make it easier.
*Why are you so terrified of answering?
You're trying to discuss things reasonably with the facepalm guy (who is totally not gay). You expect reason and intelligence from that? Don't hold your breath.Quote: TwirdmanBut yeah why is every group except liberals allowed to defend itself? You defend conservatives when someone says something bad about them even if it wasn't directly about you. Same with members of different religious groups. But no liberals just have to let people attack them.
Quote: Beethoven9thLook, you're doing it again! Always trying to make subtle shifts in your argument. I never singled you out nor did I attack every single liberal who's breathing. I was talking about liberals in general.
What's the problem anyway? Guys like s2dbaker constantly attack conservatives in general, but you don't see any of us acting all hysterical like you. SMH
Answer the question: Who knows more about Catholic doctrine, you or FrGamble?*
*Why are you so terrified of answering?
And why can't I defend liberals the conservatives constantly defend themselves. Yet a liberal defends his group and you immediately ask oh god why you so defensive I'm not talking about you specifically.
Also I can't say since I don't know the nuances of Fr's position I can say you were wrong about abortion and I can say that doctrine can be added. Now if Fr is talking about doctrine existing outside of the church and being revealed then he is right from his position as a believer in the religion to say doctrine is not changing it is being revealed. As I reject the truth of the religion I view it as a change of doctrine since doctrine does not exist outside of the church. Again though I pointed out the church adding things to their doctrine so where it concerns you I am definately right.
So again when are you going to admit about being wrong about abortion since church has clearly changed position on it multiple times.
Quote: TwirdmanBut yeah why is every group except liberals allowed to defend itself?
More shifts in your argument!Quote: TwirdmanAnd why can't I defend liberals the conservatives constantly defend themselves.
Quote: TwirdmanSo again when are you going to admit about being wrong about abortion since church has clearly changed position on it multiple times.
I repeat yet again from FrGamble:
Quote: FrGambleLet me try to be perfectly clear - the doctrine or teaching of the Catholic Church in regards to the sanctity of human life has never and will never change, no pope or cardinal or council could do so. How that doctrine is lived out such as the case of abortion does change. As modern science continues to demonstrate and make it clear that life begins at conception the Church changes the rules that were in place before anyone knew this. It really is quite simple and I guess you could say you are both right. The Catholic Church cannot change its doctrine as revealed by Christ and in the deposit of faith but how that doctrine is lived out in moral rules and guidelines do indeed change over time.
Please answer Yes or No: Do you honestly believe that you know more about Catholic doctrine than a Catholic priest?????
Quote: Beethoven9thMore shifts in your argument!
I repeat yet again from FrGamble:Quote: FrGambleLet me try to be perfectly clear - the doctrine or teaching of the Catholic Church in regards to the sanctity of human life has never and will never change, no pope or cardinal or council could do so. How that doctrine is lived out such as the case of abortion does change. As modern science continues to demonstrate and make it clear that life begins at conception the Church changes the rules that were in place before anyone knew this. It really is quite simple and I guess you could say you are both right. The Catholic Church cannot change its doctrine as revealed by Christ and in the deposit of faith but how that doctrine is lived out in moral rules and guidelines do indeed change over time.
Please answer Yes or No: Do you honestly believe that you know more about Catholic doctrine than a Catholic priest?????
Fine if I can only go with what I can see of Fr arguement and as such it lacks nuance and is wrong. Since popes have introduced doctrine which is changing doctrine. They have changed rules regarding abortion based on when they left the soul entered the body, which again is not a pure question of science and when life begin. Now I'm actually sure that Fr's position is far more nuanced than a single post lets on so I can't actually answer. But the strawman you've set him up as yeah I know more..
Quote: TwirdmanFr[Gamble] arguement and as such it lacks nuance and is wrong...yeah I know more..
*MAJOR FACEPALM*
Quote: Beethoven9thQuote: TwirdmanFr[Gamble] arguement and as such it lacks nuance and is wrong...yeah I know more..
*MAJOR FACEPALM*
Again the arguement as you presented it lacks the nuance to reconcile why it disagrees with both Vatican I and Vatican II. So it is wrong. I don't care that he's a priest the fact that the pope has introduced doctrine to the church shows that the church can change doctrine. I mean are you arguing that no doctrine has ever been introduced to the catholic church by a pope.
omg...Quote: TwirdmanI don't care that he [FrGamble] is a priest
Quote: Beethoven9thomg...Quote: TwirdmanI don't care that he [FrGamble] is a priest
Fine you answer my question who is more knowledgeable 5 popes or a priest about Catholic doctrine. Since I have 5 popes on my side.
You can keep saying that all you want. It doesn't make it true.Quote: TwirdmanSince I have 5 popes on my side.
I repeat again from FrGamble:
Quote: FrGambleLet me try to be perfectly clear - the doctrine or teaching of the Catholic Church in regards to the sanctity of human life has never and will never change, no pope or cardinal or council could do so. How that doctrine is lived out such as the case of abortion does change. As modern science continues to demonstrate and make it clear that life begins at conception the Church changes the rules that were in place before anyone knew this. It really is quite simple and I guess you could say you are both right. The Catholic Church cannot change its doctrine as revealed by Christ and in the deposit of faith but how that doctrine is lived out in moral rules and guidelines do indeed change over time.
Please read the highlighted sections.
Here is a pope actually declaring doctrine
By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
But keep taking about how I am wrong in the fact that pope have changed doctrine by introducing it or that a pope hasn't said that he has the power to make an infallible statement which will end up defining doctrine.
Quote: Beethoven9thTwird, you just like to hear yourself talk. lol...
So you are actually going to deny that that is an example of a pope defining and hence changing doctrine. Everyone agrees that after the pope said it it was part of church doctrine before it was not official church doctrine. I mean are you being deliberately obtuse.
Quote: Beethoven9thTwird, a random internet dude who claims to know more about Catholic doctrine than a freakin' CATHOLIC PRIEST? That's obtuse.
I quoted a statement by the freaking pope and vatican I. I also quoted Vatican II. I also quoted the add of the assumption of Mary into Catholic doctrine. So yeah with your incredibly misinformed reading of what he wrote it is wrong.
Huh???Quote: TwirdmanSo yeah with your incredibly misinformed reading of what he wrote it is wrong.
From FrGamble:
Quote: FrGambleLet me try to be perfectly clear - the doctrine or teaching of the Catholic Church in regards to the sanctity of human life has never and will never change, no pope or cardinal or council could do so. How that doctrine is lived out such as the case of abortion does change. As modern science continues to demonstrate and make it clear that life begins at conception the Church changes the rules that were in place before anyone knew this. It really is quite simple and I guess you could say you are both right. The Catholic Church cannot change its doctrine as revealed by Christ and in the deposit of faith but how that doctrine is lived out in moral rules and guidelines do indeed change over time.
This is wrong?!?!?
Quote: Beethoven9thHuh???
From FrGamble:Quote: FrGambleLet me try to be perfectly clear - the doctrine or teaching of the Catholic Church in regards to the sanctity of human life has never and will never change, no pope or cardinal or council could do so. How that doctrine is lived out such as the case of abortion does change. As modern science continues to demonstrate and make it clear that life begins at conception the Church changes the rules that were in place before anyone knew this. It really is quite simple and I guess you could say you are both right. The Catholic Church cannot change its doctrine as revealed by Christ and in the deposit of faith but how that doctrine is lived out in moral rules and guidelines do indeed change over time.
This is wrong?!?!?
Yes again pope changed doctrine. I pointed out where it happened. For me to consider him wrong all I have to do is say either he is fallible or his opinion is more nuanced then came across in a simple forum post. I'm willing to do either one of those. You to say he is totally right has to deny matters of historical record. I think I'm on firmer ground here.
Quote: TwirdmanI think I'm on firmer ground here [than FrGamble].
So on understanding Catholic doctrine, you claim you're on firmer ground than FrGamble.....who is a CATHOLIC PRIEST????
omg...
EDIT: Twird is entering gr8 territory now.
Quote: Beethoven9thQuote: TwirdmanI think I'm on firmer ground here [than FrGamble].
So on understanding Catholic doctrine, you claim you're on firmer ground than FrGamble.....who is a CATHOLIC PRIEST????
omg...
EDIT: Twird is entering gr8 territory now.
The pope is on firmer ground then Fr and I quoted the pope. You realize priest are the lowest end of the Catholic church right they are only above the laity. So if I go side with the pope I am siding with someone who far outranks Fr.
Quote: TwirdmanYou realize priest are the lowest end of the Catholic church right they are only above the laity. So if I go side with the pope I am siding with someone who far outranks Fr.
Catholic priests know far more about Catholic doctrine than internet asexuals do. Just sayin.
Quote: Beethoven9thCatholic priests know far more about Catholic doctrine than internet asexuals do. Just sayin.
And the Pope knows far more about Catholic doctrine then some internet heterosexual. Also why do you keep mentioning my sexuality except for that one slight I have never once mentioned yours. But I'm sure it has nothing to do with trying to use it as an insult right. Just trying to get an accurate description of me.
Quote: Beethoven9th^^^^^^^^^^^^
LOL
No but I'm serious why do you seem so focused on my sexuality. You mentioned it in multiple post calling me an internet asexual. You repeatedly asked me about it after I said I didn't want to answer any questions, and when I did finally answer questions you did what I expected and just ignored it and later talked about how I was unwilling to answer questions which you then used to paint all asexuals as shy. So seriously other than a pathetic insult why would you refer to me as an internet asexual.
The interesting thing is that I think Twirdman danced around the nuance he was looking for a couple of times. In the Catholic understanding the Pope, even when speaxing ex cathedra, is not creating or changing doctrine. Even the good quote you mentioned many times makes it clear that the Pope can infalliably only DEFINE doctrine or clarify teaching on faith and morals. You've alluded that you might not believe this, but I think you will admit that your beliefs are irrelevant to what the Church officially teaches (even though it would be great to have you practicing your faith again). The Church sees itself as the servant to Divine Revelation and can only develop, define, and clarify what she has been given through the Deposit of Faith. This deposit of faith includes the Bible and Sacred Tradition.
So take for example the Immaculate Conception. The Pope declares that officially the dogma of the Church, but it did not come out of the blue. Christians had believed that from the begining, this is the Sacred Tradition. Even though it is not explicit in the Bible it is not contray to Biblical teaching. You are wrong only if you think the Pope woke up one day and said, "Aha, I think I will proclaim the Immaculate Conception today."
The best document to read on this issue is Dei Verbum from Vatican II. It is a quick read and I think you would like it and it would clarify a lot of what I'm trying to say. I hope this helps but I fear you guys are locked in a death spiral that no one, not even the Pope can pull you out of.
