Alito

Mioque - never short on jokes!!

And never missing an opportunity at misdirection.

If you are asking whether you should be worried about "any other group" that also murders millions upon millions of Saints for centuries upon centuries in the dark ages (or any other ages) -- my answer is always "yes! Yes"!

But if you are asking if it is ok to EQUIVOCATE between the power that OWNED all of Europe during the dark ages and MASTERMINED its inquisitions -- vs "any old group that Mioque might object to today" -- then the answer is NO "no No"!

Obviously.

Still you don't miss a chance to equivocate, misdirect and obfuscate when taking a break from your revisionist histories and so I can appreciate your need to switch tactics now and then.

But since this thread is about the possible risks of having an RC majority in the supreme court --- back to the issue of moral judgment and "central requirement" within the RCC to adhere to the infallibility claim of the church-state institution that "owned" the dark ages!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Good, like any good baptist I'll continue to be nervous about any religion that earns the status of 'State Church' in my country, or your country, or anybody's country for that matter.

The USA doesn't do the 'State Church' thing so there is no reason for concern for now on that front.

And no the RCC never ruled all of Europe, they did not claim infallibility prior to 1870, that's after the Dark Ages and after that church had lost most of it's power.

As for those millions killed, why don't you produce some figures, organized by the branch of the RCC responsible, you know the Spanish Inquisition killed that many the Roman Inquisition killed etc..
You no doubt have them on file somewhere.

 

That is some good misdirection Mioque -- way go!!

#1. The RCC does Not claim to "have become infallibile in 1870" as you misdirect. Rather the RCC claim in 1870 and ONWARD is that it has ALWAYS been infallible. And this remains CENTRAL to the claim of its true believers -- like the SCJs so "the point remains" misdirection of Mioque not withstanding.

#2. The RCC ITSELF claims that the dark ages were its "golden years" and that it ruled Europe to an even GREATER extent, for a LONGER period of time and over MORE LANDS than did the pagan Roman empire before it. (Ever read Daniel Mioque??)

#3. It is the RC spokesmen (on EWTN Q&A ask the church) that claim that they would gladly have burned Billy Graham at the stake for preaching in the dark ages what he preached in the 20th century.

#4. The US has kinda avoided some of the church state errors of the RCC in Europe (sorta) - Read Madison's bill in Virgina promoting the "punishment of Sabbath breakers" co-authored by Jefferson.

(I guess you would have to take a break from your revisionist history for some of that.)

#5. Your "equivocation" for "the dark ages and inquisition" is "somebdoy earned the status of state church". In your ceaseless efforts to employ the same logical fallacies over and over you are wearing out your ability to be creative Mioque. Try mixing it up a little. Tell the truth now and then.

#6. Having lost all objectivity - you insist that hitler must produce the evidence against himself or the evidence is not valid. Only the "criminal" can be trusted in your model of "ask the perpetrator for the correct measure of his guilt".

Is that the way it works in YOUR country mioque??

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob

Who is Daniel Mioque? And why do you think I'm him?
This first more later.

 

Daniel Mioque!

 

Bob
1 # "Rather the RCC claim in 1870 and ONWARD is that it has ALWAYS been infallible."
"
No the popes claim since 1870 that they can make infallible statements. Doing so exactly once in 1950.

2# Certain members of the RCC may exagerrate it's importance in whatever way they like that doesn't mean it's true.

3# Sorry Bob EWTN is not an official source, no matter what they think of themselves. As for Billy Graham, his style of spreading the Gospel did not exist in the middle ages, making it impossible to say with certainty what would have happened.

4# post a link.

 

Dear Brethren,
If you do believe another member is misdirecting the discussion, address that issue. But do not post remarks toward the character or intent of any other member.

We may all be revisionist enough due to our proximity to the real events. Most of us base our history upon the tertiary sources of historians.

Few of us see any secondary sources and fewer still have access to original sources.

Keep that the issue. The use of these materials, primary, secondary or tertiary sources is irrelevant to the true character of any individual.

Thanks,
Bro. Dallas

Frogman Co-Moderator

 

Thank you brother Frogman.

 

Here is the link to the EWTN site that Mioque says has no right to be considered as an authorotative source for RC positions.

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/Forum3.htm#23

Let the reader decide for themselves.

As for the RC claim of infallibility going all the way back through all papal successors ...

The "point" being to have a discussion about the implications of such a teaching when compared to the historic facts of the group making the claim.

"Again" - the source quoted above is available to all. Let the reader see what it says.

(Just trying to get back on topic)

In Christ,

Bob

 

These substantive posts were called by me “revisionist” –

Frogman has pointed out that I may have been too harsh in my response when I used such a harsh term regarding those posts.

I stand corrected.

In fact – as literal history would have it – Weber was actually just a RC student in seminary who posted on this board a while back and was asked to stop. I was one of those that objected to his being asked to leave.

As for the notion that he may have disproven the Catholic Encyclopedia’s statement on infallibility – there is no substance to that claim either.

Since I have just posted the link to the CE on that point - the proof of it is left as an exercise for the reader.

Enjoy all.

In Christ,

Bob

 

It's good to see that you have returned to a somewhat civilized style of discourse when it comes to me Bob. Let's see if I can manage the same from now on.

As for the RCC, it may project it's opinion of it's own infallibility backwards in time all it wants that doesn't change that they made it up in 1870.

The EWTN is simply a small RC television network in the USA isn't it? Many countries have one. They may have some wellread folks on the payroll, but that doesn't make speculation by one of those authorative.

[ November 22, 2005, 01:21 AM: Message edited by: mioque ]

 

Ok - truce it is.

From what I have seen the EWTN web site gets hits from all over the world and there has never been any RC disclaimer for the site. My argument is not that those guys are "popes" -- I am simply arguing that they represent a very well informed, well respected, Catholic source. They are not in the business of bashing the RCC or of misrepresenting the church and since they are all of PHD status or better in the RCC -- I don't think they are "unninformed".

I also agree that they announced the infallibility error and the sinless Mary ideas in the 1800's "as if" they were true from the start. But the point remains that all RC followers are expected to swallow that line of Bible compromising reason so it is not "unresasonable" to suspect that RC SCJs would be holding to those views. This leads to the question of whether such a compromise in moral judgment about the dark deeds of a massive institution like the RCC in the dark ages is in fact a show of compromised judgment on the part of the SCJ's that are pro-RC.

It would be like one of the SCJs telling us that Joseph Smith being a horse thief was still infallible in morals or claiming that the wild west shootouts that the Mormon's had in Utah were "infallibly correct" -- and so being in such compromised opinion recommend themselves to us as impartial, objective arbitrators.

Hard to believe people would say "yep - that sounds right to me"

In Christ,

Bob

 

"I don't think they are "unninformed"."
"
They aren't. There is however a big difference between simply reproducing information and having to speculate.
Case in point.
Billy Graham.
The closest thing to Billy in say the 13th century were probably certain traveling preachers belonging to the Waldenses. Now the Waldenses were viciously persecuted.
Easy answer would be, so would Graham.
Problem is, there is a big difference between him and those preachers.
He is very a-political and preaches about salvation and your personal relationship with Jezus, the Waldenses on the other hand stressed the virtue of poverty and spend much of their preaching time attacking the opulence of the churchhierarchy.
A hierarchy consisting mostly of guys who saw themselves more as noblemen than as churchleaders. They were persecuting a threat to their standard of living, as much as a competing form of Christianity.
Graham's preaching would have been far less threatening in the eyes of those bishops who saw themselves as barons.

Would Bill still have been persecuted back then? Distinctly possible, but it's not quite so certain as it appears at first sight.

 

"But the point remains that all RC followers are expected to swallow that line of Bible compromising reason"
"
Which why a noticable number of them walked out shortly after Vaticanum I in 1870.
A much larger number simply ignores all sorts of RC stuf they don't like.
The US conference of bishops may think that Alito ought to listen to them when it comes to all sorts of ethical issues and you may think that he ought to walk out of the RCC, but if judge Alito is like a great many of his co-religionists he is going to do neither.

 

It may well be that the RC justices do not actually believe in the foundational tenants of the RCC -- and we are all lucky enough to discover that they do not believe the actions of the church in the dark ages where any more "infallible" than the Catholic sources quoted in the Vatican City documents cited earlier.

In that case we all win and they can certainly continue in that "kind" of RC faith and practice without impugning their own moral clarity and judgment.

It is just that it is a bit gratuitous to suppose that they are not doing what they claim to be doing. (If in fact their faith is held in such a way as to claim something). I would be happy to hear it - but I don't accept it as the "default".

Further (an this is where my response gets to a more "SDA" flavor) if we expect a stringent religious conservative backlash in America that pushes for Sunday Laws - then the "fail safe" in our system for such an event would be the Supreme Court.

However Dies Domini has already come out in favor of such civil penalties imposed on Sabbath breakers - so one wonders how the "fail safe" would function.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob
You look at the followers of a religion that doesn't go for Sola Scriptura with the eyes of a believer that does.
Every year the RCC* produces a pile of paperwork the size of a phonebook that officially is very relevant to the RC faith.
Combine that with the continuing power struggle between several dozen overlapping factions.
After a couple of centuries of that, ignoring most of it is the default among Catholics.

*It's not just the Vatican's own produce, from all over the RCC come texts that eventually become important.

 

Having read quite a number of the threads it is interesting how misunderstood the concept of infallibilty is.

I feel that the concern of having 5 out of 9 (is it?) Catholic judges is being a tad paranoid however, would there be concern if there were 5 Islamic judges, Hindu, Kallathumpian New Age. There should not be because these judges are constrained by a legal system, the co-judges and a extremely critical media.....

 

To say EWTN is representaive of Catholic opinion and teaching is like saying that TBN is representative of evangelical opinion and teaching.