Pope praises Galileo's astronomy

[Galileo Galilei]

Pope praises Galileo's astronomy


Pope Benedict had been accused of condoning the heresy charge



Pope Benedict XVI has paid tribute to 17th-Century astronomer Galileo Galilei, whose scientific theories once drew the wrath of the Catholic Church.



The Pope was speaking at events marking the 400th anniversary of Galileo's earliest observations with a telescope.



He said an understanding of the laws of nature could stimulate appreciation of God's work.



In 1992, Pope John Paul said the church's denunciation of Galileo's work had been a tragic error.




Galileo used his scientific methods to demonstrate that the Earth revolved around the Sun and not the other way around.



His view directly challenged the church's view at the time - that the Earth was static and at the centre of the universe.



Galileo was accused of heresy in 1633 and forced to publically recant his theories.



He lived the rest of his life under house arrest at his villa in the hills outside Florence.



Pope Benedict had been criticised in the past for appearing to condone the heresy verdict against Galileo.





http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7794668.stm



After 400 years, the Truth is finally coming out!

[Madison]

"After 400 years, the Truth is finally coming out!"

The truth has been out for a while...the vatican certainly doesn't hold a monopoly on it. What's sad is how many people still care about what the pope says.

[RonPaulMania]

I find it preposterous that what Galileo was charged with he was justly charged with and now the revisionists are changing the argument. The argument has shifted from theology to heliocentrism. Galileo wasn't the first heliocentrist, before him was Copernicus who was given honors by the Catholic Church for his works on heliocentrism.

Galileo was punished for imposing his views on heliocentrism against miracles in the Bible saying the Bible was wrong. Galileo later admitted he was wrong.

The media in public schooling are gravely in error about the facts of what happened. Galileo's punishment was actually humorous at best as he had to walk around the bishop's yard and say the Penitential Psalms for 15 minutes a day.

People should care what the Pope says, but not everything the Pope says is infallible or necessarily good.

[Truth Warrior]

"After 400 years, the Truth is finally coming out!"

The truth has been out for a while...the vatican certainly doesn't hold a monopoly on it. What's sad is how many people still care about what the pope says. How many of the world's "Christians" are devout Roman Catholics? ;)

[UK4Paul]

Well, it's an honour to see the famous astronomer posting on the Ron Paul Forums :)

As for the Pope, the time you should pay attention to what he says is when the word "Crusade" comes out of his mouth. That's when people tend to get killed.

Mind you, I don't think they've had a formal one for several hundred years.

[heavenlyboy34]

I find it preposterous that what Galileo was charged with he was justly charged with and now the revisionists are changing the argument. The argument has shifted from theology to heliocentrism. Galileo wasn't the first heliocentrist, before him was Copernicus who was given honors by the Catholic Church for his works on heliocentrism.

Galileo was punished for imposing his views on heliocentrism against miracles in the Bible saying the Bible was wrong. Galileo later admitted he was wrong.

The media in public schooling are gravely in error about the facts of what happened. Galileo's punishment was actually humorous at best as he had to walk around the bishop's yard and say the Penitential Psalms for 15 minutes a day.

People should care what the Pope says, but not everything the Pope says is infallible or necessarily good.

Did he "admit" this under duress? (I haven't studied Gallileo in several years.)

[heavenlyboy34]

How many of the world's "Christians" are devout Roman Catholics? ;)

Just enough. :eek:;)

[Kludge]

Why would the pope want to do this...?

Sounds like a bad thing to give the press when centralized religion is being globally suffocated.

[Truth Warrior]

Just enough. :eek:;) I wonder how many more are born each day around the world. :rolleyes: Hmmm?

[Galileo Galilei]

Did he "admit" this under duress? (I haven't studied Gallileo in several years.)

Galileo did not admit to doing anything "wrong", until he was threatened with torture.

[torchbearer]

I think the pope's words were "a tragic mutual miscomprehension", when he apologized for the face raping the man got from the previous "infallible" pope.

[SigurdVolsung]

You can't have these crazy wackjobs running around upsetting the status quo with their facts and their reason and their satanic scientific method, its just not proper.

[Monolithic]

now they just need to change their position on stem cell research, abortion, birth control, gay marriage, genetic engineering and cloning and they'd be alright!

[torchbearer]

now they just need to change their position on stem cell research, abortion, birth control, gay marriage, genetic engineering and cloning and they'd be alright!

If they can't make it fit in with their scriptures, good luck.
Thank god (yeah i know), Jesus didn't say the earth is the center of the universe.
Though when he said "my father, who art in heaven" did he mean "sky" or "space" or some other planar place?

[RonPaulMania]

now they just need to change their position on stem cell research, abortion, birth control, gay marriage, genetic engineering and cloning and they'd be alright!

The Church has never changed it's position on morality on issues that relate to right and wrong. Those things will not change unless you think the Church should be the new bastion for child murder and illogical moral positions.

Only the institute of evil and stupidity would want what you advocate.

[RonPaulMania]

If they can't make it fit in with their scriptures, good luck.
Thank god (yeah i know), Jesus didn't say the earth is the center of the universe.
Though when he said "my father, who art in heaven" did he mean "sky" or "space" or some other planar place?

And when He said the Truth shall set you free did you mean you are a slave to ridiculous arguments?

[torchbearer]

And when He said the Truth shall set you free did you mean you are a slave to ridiculous arguments?

If the pope says so and he has an army of goons ready to torture you... sure.

[ihsv]

The anti-Catholic bigotry on these forums appears to be increasing.

One thing non-Catholics simply can't understand about Catholicism is that the Pope and all the bishops in the world don't have the authority to change the Catholic position on moral issues such as abortion, contraception, homosexuality, etc. These things are not matters of Church Law, and are outside the realm of the Papacy or Episcopacy to alter.

[ihsv]

If the pope says so and he has an army of goons ready to torture you... sure.

Knock it off. Your hatred of Catholicism is well established.

There are a lot of Catholics in the Liberty movement, and this kind of behavior is divisive and un-called for.

[nobody's_hero]

Religion without science is blind, and science without religion is lame.

– Albert Einstein

[Galileo Galilei]

International Year of Astronomy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
....



For other uses, see IYA.



The International Year of Astronomy is a year-long celebration of astronomy, taking place in 2009 to coincide with the 400th anniversary of the first recorded astronomical observations with a telescope by Galileo Galilei and the publication of Johannes Kepler's Astronomia nova in the 17th Century. The Year was declared by the 62nd General Assembly of the UN. A global scheme, laid out by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), has also been endorsed by UNESCO - the UN body responsible for Educational, Scientific and Cultural matters.



The International Astronomical Union and UNESCO are coordinating the International Year of Astronomy in 2009. This initiative is an opportunity for the citizens of Earth to gain a deeper insight into astronomy’s role in enriching all human cultures. Moreover, it will serve as a platform for informing the public about the latest astronomical discoveries while emphasizing the essential role of astronomy in science education.



....

Contents
1 Significance of 1609


....



7.2 The Galileoscope



....



7.8 Galileo Teacher Training Program



....



Significance of 1609



In 1609, Galileo Galilei first turned one of his telescopes to the night sky and made astounding discoveries that changed mankind’s conception of the world forever: mountains and craters on the Moon, a plethora of stars invisible to the naked eye and moons around Jupiter. Astronomical observatories around the world promise to reveal how planets and stars are formed, how galaxies assemble and evolve, and what the structure and shape of our Universe actually are. In the same year, Johannes Kepler published his work Astronomia nova in which he described the fundamental laws of planetary motions.



On 25th September 1608, Hans Lippershey, a young man from Middleburg, travelled to the Hague, the then capital of the Netherlands, to demonstrate one of his inventions to the Dutch government - the telescope. Although Hans was not awarded the patent, Galileo heard of this story and decided to use the "Dutch perspective glass" and point it towards the heavens.



....



Aims of IYA2009



Astronomy, the oldest science in history, has played an important role in most, if not all, cultures over the ages. The International Year of Astronomy 2009 (IYA2009) is intended to be a global celebration of astronomy and its contributions to society and culture, stimulating worldwide interest not only in astronomy, but in science in general, with a particular slant towards young people.



The IYA2009 is intended to mark the monumental leap forward that followed Galileo’s first use of the telescope for astronomical observations, and portray astronomy as a peaceful global scientific endeavour that unites amateur and professional astronomers in an international and multicultural family that works together to find answers to some of the most fundamental questions that humankind has ever asked. The aim of the Year is to stimulate worldwide interest, especially among young people, in astronomy and science under the central theme “The Universe, Yours to Discover”.



....



100 Hours of Astronomy



100 Hours of Astronomy (100HA) is a worldwide astronomy event scheduled for April 2-5, 2009 and is part of the scheduled global activities of the International Year of Astronomy 2009. The main goals of 100HA is to have as many people throughout the world look through a telescope just as Galileo did for the first time 400 years ago. Plans include special webcasts, students and teachers activities, a schedule of events at science centers, planetariums and science museums as well as 24 hours of sidewalk astronomy, which will allow the opportunity for public observing sessions to as many people as possible.[1]


The Galileoscope
This IYA2009 program wants to share a personal experience of practical astronomical observation with as many people as possible across the world. It is collaborating with the US IYA2009 National Node to develop a simple, accessible, easy-to-assemble and easy-to-use telescope that can be distributed by the millions. In theory, every participant in an IYA2009 event should be able to take home one of these little telescopes, enabling them to observe with an instrument similar to Galileo's.



....



Galileo Teacher Training Program
The International Year of Astronomy 2009 (IYA2009) provides an excellent opportunity to engage the formal education community in the excitement of astronomical discovery as a vehicle for improving the teaching of science in classrooms around the world. To help train teachers in effective astronomy communication and to sustain the legacy of IYA2009, the IAU — in collaboration with the National Nodes and leaders in the field such as the Global Hands-On Universe project, the US National Optical Astronomy Observatory and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific — is embarking on a unique global effort to empower teachers by developing the Galileo Teacher Training Program (GTTP). The GTTP goal is to create a worldwide network of certified "Galileo Ambassadors" by 2012. These Ambassadors will train "Galileo Master Teachers" in the effective use and transfer of astronomy education tools and resources into classroom science curricula. The Galileo Teachers will be equipped to train other teachers in these methodologies, leveraging the work begun during IYA2009 in classrooms everywhere.



Through workshops, online training tools and basic education kits, the products and techniques developed by this program can be adapted to reach locations with few resources of their own, as well as computer-connected areas that can take advantage of access to robotic optical and radio telescopes, webcams, astronomy exercises, cross-disciplinary resources, image processing and digital universes (web and desktop planetariums).



....



See also

World Year of Physics 2005
Galileo
Telescope
Astronomy


External links

International Year of Astronomy 2009 main web site
International Astronomical Union


....



The Galileoscope: millions looking at the sky astronomy2009.org
You are Galileo! Low price 10 Dollar Galileoscope for children; National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
100 Hours of Astronomy
The Galileoscope


....



Galileo Teacher Training Program


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Year_of_Astronomy

[Galileo Galilei]

now they just need to change their position on stem cell research, abortion, birth control, gay marriage, genetic engineering and cloning and they'd be alright!

I don't agree with the Pope on these issues either. However, joining the Catholic Church is a personal choice.

The fact remains that the Pope is now promoting Galileo, and that is a great thing. Galileo is the most revolutionary figure in all of human history, who started revolutions in thought in astronomy, physics, politics, and religion.

Galileo represents many things. One of them is to learn the truth for yourself, don't blindly follow authority.

2009 is a big deal for the freedom movement!

[torchbearer]

Knock it off. Your hatred of Catholicism is well established.

There are a lot of Catholics in the Liberty movement, and this kind of behavior is divisive and un-called for.

I know the catechism better than you do.

[ihsv]

I know the catechism better than you do.

Irrelevant. The anti-Catholic bigotry is uncalled for.

[torchbearer]

Irrelevant. The anti-Catholic bigotry is uncalled for.

The truth hurts. Don't you wish history could be forgotten?

[torchbearer]

Its like calling someone who is dissing hitler a bigot.

[ihsv]

The truth hurts. Don't you wish history could be forgotten?


Its like calling someone who is dissing hitler a bigot.

More like Hitler dissing the Jews.

[torchbearer]

More like Hitler dissing the Jews.

Maybe you forgot that the catholic church was responsible for the whole sale slaughter of "heretics" during the inquisition?
Hitler would be jealous.

[torchbearer]

And then there were the crusades "for god".

[torchbearer]

I'm a long time student of catholicism.
I have many friends who are still catholic.
I don't dislike them, but they don't pretend like these things didn't happen.

[SigurdVolsung]

I'm a long time student of catholicism.
I have many friends who are still catholic.
I don't dislike them, but they don't pretend like these things didn't happen.

America is responsible for genocide against Indians and slavery and plenty of other nasty things. You ready to renounce your citizenship and leave?

[torchbearer]

America is responsible for genocide against Indians and slavery and plenty of other nasty things. You ready to renounce your citizenship and leave?

I'm not a U.S. citizen, I'm a Louisiana citizen.

I never said catholic followers were evil, by the way...
I was stating the facts.
The Pope claims to be "infallible" which is false. History has proven it so.

[ihsv]

Maybe you forgot that the catholic church was responsible for the whole sale slaughter of "heretics" during the inquisition?
Hitler would be jealous.


And then there were the crusades "for god".

The inquisition and crusades are a very interesting topics, and you and I should discuss it some time.

However, it has nothing to do with my original point of the bigotry towards and hatred of Catholicism that are displayed in these forums.


I'm a long time student of catholicism.
I have many friends who are still catholic.
I don't dislike them, but they don't pretend like these things didn't happen.

That's nice that you're a student of Catholicism, and perhaps some time you and I can compare notes on the Summa Theologica, the nuances of the Hypostatic Union, and other points of Catholic doctrine and morality.

[ihsv]

I'm not a U.S. citizen, I'm a Louisiana citizen.

I never said catholic followers were evil, by the way...
I was stating the facts.
The Pope claims to be "infallible" which is false. History has proven it so.

Define "infallible"

[torchbearer]

Define "infallible"

It is not my word to define.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
Papal infallibility is the dogma in Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error[1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics.

Catholic dogma once stated that the earth was the center of the universe. That's an easy one.
Then you have indulgences, "war for god" crusades, silence during hitler's butchery, inquisitions, etc.
All based on church dogma.

[torchbearer]

and then I wonder, why don't catholic push for the city of God?
Was not St. Augustine inspired by the holy spirit in his great works?

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1201.htm

[torchbearer]

And you think I'm anti-catholic, but I have on many occasions corrected the protestants on this board who have mischaracterized catholicism.
Reminding them that my mother was catholic, my father baptist.. so i'd attend Mass at 9am, baptist bible school at 10:30 and baptist sermon at 11am, where the preacher would get up there and say all catholics were going to hell.
It was really easy to start sifting through the bullshit at an early age...

Then my grandmother... hard core pentacostal. Her preacher used to visit her at her home at the beginning of each month after she got her social security check... she'd give it all to them... that is what "god" wanted...
But when she ended up in the nursing home.. and the nursing home got her check... they never showed up.
So yeah, I got to see the bullshit for what it was early on...
It has nothing to do with god, and that is exactly my point.

If you are giving your money to some jerk off on sunday, and you have to confess to some jerk-off your sins to get forgiveness... something is wrong....
God doesn't need your money, and he don't need a mediator.

Christmas is a continuation of mithraism, instituted by a newly converted pagan emperor who want to consolidate his power through one "god". He didn't convert to Jesus, he took over his religion for his own political power.
And it was continued through "divine" right. remember that one?
God declares our ruler through the infallible pope?

[ihsv]

It is not my word to define.

It is if you use it.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
Papal infallibility is the dogma in Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error[1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics.


Wikipedia is not an authoritative source for the Catholic position on anything, and consequently your definition suffers greatly.


Catholic dogma once stated that the earth was the center of the universe.

That has never been held as a Catholic "dogma". And your usage of the term "dogma" in this context further betrays your ignorance of Catholic theological definitions.

If it was "Catholic Dogma" that the earth was once the center of the universe, please provide the papal declaration defining that position as being part of the deposit of faith.



That's an easy one.
Then you have indulgences, "war for god" crusades, silence during hitler's butchery, inquisitions, etc.
All based on church dogma.


The application of Indulgences has nothing whatsoever to do with Catholic "dogma" or doctrine, further betraying your lack of knowledge of Catholic theology.

[Monolithic]

The Church has never changed it's position on morality on issues that relate to right and wrong. Those things will not change unless you think the Church should be the new bastion for child murder and illogical moral positions.

Only the institute of evil and stupidity would want what you advocate.

i'm not getting into another abortion debate, but how are those other moral positions illogical?

[torchbearer]

It is if you use it.



Wikipedia is not an authoritative source for the Catholic position on anything, and consequently your definition suffers greatly.



That has never been held as a Catholic "dogma". And your usage of the term "dogma" in this context further betrays your ignorance of Catholic theological definitions.

If it was "Catholic Dogma" that the earth was once the center of the universe, please provide the papal declaration defining that position as being part of the deposit of faith.



The application of Indulgences has nothing whatsoever to do with Catholic "dogma" or doctrine, further betraying your lack of knowledge of Catholic theology.

OH really. Please, enlighten me with your vast knowledge.
I wasn't quoting wiki as an authority... but their definition is correct.
And your deflection of the facts is rather pathetic.
Like I said, At least my catholic friends don't live in denial.
They admit it is wrong... but it doesn't affect their belief in god, and they are comfortable with their catholic traditions.
I can at least respect them... can't say the same for you.


I've seen this before.

"oh yeah.. define it"


(defined)

Well that isn't authority and thus everything you said isn't fact"

(but offers no return of knowledge).

your method is old, and your return in value is zero.

[ihsv]

If you are giving your money to some jerk off on sunday, and you have to confess to some jerk-off your sins to get forgiveness... something is wrong....
God doesn't need your money, and he don't need a mediator.

Your anger, bigotry and hatred shows through.


Christmas is a continuation of mithraism, instituted by a newly converted pagan emperor who want to consolidate his power through one "god". He didn't convert to Jesus, he took over his religion for his own political power.

Name of the emperor and (historical) source documents?


And it was continued through "divine" right. remember that one?

Do you even know what "divine right" means?


God declares our ruler through the infallible pope?

Says who?

[mmink15]

I've seen this before.

"oh yeah.. define it"


(defined)

Well that isn't authority and thus everything you said isn't fact"

(but offers no return of knowledge).

your method is old, and your return in value is zero.

very well said

[torchbearer]

Your anger, bigotry and hatred shows through.



Name of the emperor and (historical) source documents?



Do you even know what "divine right" means?



Says who?

NO, let's turn this little game around, and i'll show you how YOU operate.

Define divine right.

Give me the name of the emperor with your source.

Says who...


And i'll show you exactly what your response would be.

I'd give you that info if I thought you wanted the education. You don't, its a method.


As in this scenario.

"Do you believe god can do everything?"

"Well Yeah"

"Well, if God can do everything... can he create something so big he can't carry it?"



Fail.

[ihsv]

OH really. Please, enlighten me with your vast knowledge.

Ok, simply put: the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility means that when the Pope, when speaking from his position as head of the Catholic Church, on matters of faith and morals, defines an article of faith, to be believed by all Catholics throughout the world, is incapable of error in his pronouncement.

The conditions for such an infallible statement are as follows:

1) The issue in question MUST be a matter of faith or morals
2) it must be universally binding on all Catholics
3) It must always have been held as a doctrine of the Church. In other words, the doctrine in question MUST be traced as being held by the Church from apostolic times. The doctrine in question can not be a "new" doctrine, but is restricted to the preservation of doctrine.

Papal infallibility is restrictive, in that it is used very rarely (the last time was in 1950), and it is used to clear up doctrinal disputes and controversy within the Church.


I wasn't quoting wiki as an authority... but their definition is correct.

Their definition is lacking in scope.


And your deflection of the facts is rather pathetic.

I didn't "define" anything. I was challenging your assertions.


Like I said, At least my catholic friends don't live in denial.

I didn't "deny" anything regarding your assertions of Catholic history. I also didn't accept anything.


They admit it is wrong... but it doesn't effect their belief in god, and they are comfortable with their catholic traditions.
I can at least respect them... can't say the same for you.

What I don't respect is the bigotry and hatred displayed toward Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.


I've seen this before.

"oh yeah.. define it"


(defined)

Well that isn't authority and thus everything you said isn't fact"


You're putting words in my mouth


(but offers no return of knowledge).

You didn't ask for any.

[ihsv]

NO, let's turn this little game around, and i'll show you how YOU operate.

Define divine right.

Give me the name of the emperor with your source.

Says who...


And i'll show you exactly what your response would be.

I'd give you that info if I thought you wanted the education. You don't, its a method.


As in this scenario.

"Do you believe god can do everything?"

"Well Yeah"

"Well, if God can do everything... can he create something so big he can't carry it?"



Fail.

Torchbearer, the problem I have is you tossing out historical accusations willy nilly, without anything to back them up. If I hated an organization or institution, I could do that all day, and make everyone scurry around from point to point trying to deflect all the mud that's tossed.

If you want to discuss this, I'd be happy to do so, so long as we deal with one point at a time, work through it, and then move on to the next. How does that sound?

[torchbearer]

What I don't respect is the bigotry and hatred displayed toward Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.

What part of facts is hatred and bigotry.
My mother is catholic, do I hate my mother?

I hate people who deny the truth. And you deny and twist facts to fit your world view.
It is heavily studied in social psychology that most people cannot deal with information that is contrary to the bricks in their world wall.
You are making excuses for these various things so that you can feel good about your world view.
You really need to stop doing that... stop defending people who are using you.
It really has nothing to do with god.


I used to do that same thing.... I was taught all the deflection you use.. it was apart of catholic school religion classes.
They would teach us the facts, and then the excuses.
But when you take a step away from it.. it sounds like a 3 year old making up a story to go along with their invisible friend.
It is ignorance i hate. Not religion.
It just happens to be a lot of denial and ignorance in religious people.
You don't have to renounce your religion to come to terms with the truth around you.

[torchbearer]

Torchbearer, the problem I have is you tossing out historical accusations willy nilly, without anything to back them up. If I hated an organization or institution, I could do that all day, and make everyone scurry around from point to point trying to deflect all the mud that's tossed.

If you want to discuss this, I'd be happy to do so, so long as we deal with one point at a time, work through it, and then move on to the next. How does that sound?

I would give you the fact if you didn't give the typical bullshit response.

I don't have to ask for a factual rebuttal if you say this isn't true and use the fact it comes from wiki as your stance.

Your definition of papal infallibility is the same as mine just add in the taught response.
Its the same, yet you claimed it bunk.

Why would I waste my time putting this info up for someone who is looking to put up straw men?

You don't want the education.

[torchbearer]

Easy facts without internet links.

Constantine, the first converted pagan emperor to catholicism.

What festival was held on Dec. 25th prior to the first christmas?

Saturnalia.

Why were these festivals held on Dec. 25th?
The birth of the sun after its slow decay into the horizon....
Why celebrate at easter?
The birth of spring... the resurrection of life.

What are the days of the week?
Is this the roman calender?

Where do your traditions come from??? How much of it really has to do with Christ?

[ihsv]

Torchbearer, going back to the original objection I had, I was angered by the bigoted responses to the item by posted by the OP. The hatred toward Catholicism was very evident.

I am a Catholic, and have studied Catholic theology, morality and history for the past 25 years. It is a serious topic for me, and when dealing with it it is impossible to touch on the inquisition, the crusades, indulgences, papal infallibility, geocentrism vs. heliocentrism, Roman emperors, the origin of Christmas, etc., all on the same thread.

Tossing all those topics out at once and expecting me to pick up all the pieces while the conversation is moving along is an unfair request by any standard.

I am more than willing to discuss any of the above topics so long as it is dealt with before we move onto to the next.

[ihsv]

Easy facts without internet links.

Constantine, the first converted pagan emperor to catholicism.

Constantine was the first pagan emperor who converted to Catholicism, however he did not convert until he was on his deathbed.

The Edict of Milan of 312 gave all religions the right to coexist and ended the 300 year persecution of Catholics, allowing them to come out of the catacombs and practice their religion in public.

There are no historical records at all suggesting he "took over" the Church, and no historian has ever been able to produce evidence of it.


What festival was held on Dec. 25th prior to the first christmas?

Saturnalia.Simply because a pagan festival was held on the same day that Christ was born does not in any way mean that Christmas came from that pagan festival.

Having studied the writings of the Church fathers from the first century up till the 6th century, it is clear that the 25th of December was always held by Christians to be the birth date of Christ, and the historical lineage between the pagan festival and the Christian observance does not exist.


Why were these festivals held on Dec. 25th?

The birth of the sun after its slow decay into the horizon....If that's why the pagans celebrated December 25th, that's fine.


Why celebrate at easter?
The birth of spring... the resurrection of life.The date of Easter is contingent upon the date of the Jewish Passover, and is calculated in the same manner (moon phases).


What are the days of the week?
Is this the roman calender?The days of the week retain their Roman origin, as does the calendar.


Where do your traditions come from??? How much of it really has to do with Christ?Please pick a tradition and I'd be glad to discuss its origin

[torchbearer]

Constantine was the first pagan emperor who converted to Catholicism, however he did not convert until he was on his deathbed.

The Edict of Milan of 312 gave all religions the right to coexist and ended the 300 year persecution of Catholics, allowing them to come out of the catacombs and practice their religion in public.

There are no historical records at all suggesting he "took over" the Church, and no historian has ever been able to produce evidence of it.

Simply because a pagan festival was held on the same day that Christ was born does not in any way mean that Christmas came from that pagan festival.

Having studied the writings of the Church fathers from the first century up till the 6th century, it is clear that the 25th of December was always held by Christians to be the birth date of Christ, and the historical lineage between the pagan festival and the Christian observance does not exist.

If that's why the pagans celebrated December 25th, that's fine.

The date of Easter is contingent upon the date of the Jewish Passover, and is calculated in the same manner.
The days of the week retain their Roman origin, as does the calendar.

Please pick a tradition and I'd be glad to discuss its origin



Are you suggesting christ was born on dec 25th?
Scholars would differ with you based on the details of the story.

[torchbearer]

Catholic schools were instructed to teach that the emperors placed the catholic holidays on the pagan holidays because people were used to celebrating their pagan holidays on those days and would easily adopt the new religion if the meaning and not the date were changed.

So the yule tide of the north and saturnalia of the romans became the feast of jesus' birth (though by description, he was born in the spring). The gift giving, and trees and such came from pagan traditions.
His resurection would be celebrated on the pagan holiday of life renewal (and for obvious reasons)
Ever wondered why we have "sunrise" services?

To deny these things would illustrate an earlier point I made about human psychosis.

[ihsv]

Are you suggesting christ was born on dec 25th?
Scholars would differ with you based on the details of the story.

Scholars may indeed differ on the details of the story, but the fact of the matter is that for me, a Catholic, the Church has designated December 25th as the date on which we celebrate the birth of Christ, and that is the primary reason why I do so on that date.

The secondary reason is based upon the historical fact that Catholics have always celebrated the birth of Christ on that day from the first century onward, just as Catholics have always celebrated the birth of the Blessed Virgin on September 8.

[torchbearer]

Scholars may indeed differ on the details of the story, but the fact of the matter is that for me, a Catholic, the Church has designated December 25th as the date on which we celebrate the birth of Christ, and that is the primary reason why I do so on that date.

The secondary reason is based upon the historical fact that Catholics have always celebrated the birth of Christ on that day from the first century onward, just as Catholics have always celebrated the birth of the Blessed Virgin on September 8.

faith alone is a protestant thing.
You really need to question more. Ask your priest.

The reason the scholars believe it was spring because of the description of the shepards activities.
The catholics have been celebrating dec. 25th since the first century because that was the feast of saturnalia since before then, not because it was chirst birthday.

That is silly. I'm sorry.

[ihsv]

Catholic schools were instructed to teach that the emperors placed the catholic holidays on the pagan holidays because people were used to celebrating their pagan holidays on those days and would easily adopt the new religion if the meaning and not the date were changed.

So the yule tide of the north and saturnalia of the romans became the feast of jesus' birth (though by description, he was born in the spring). The gift giving, and trees and such came from pagan traditions.
His resurection would be celebrated on the pagan holiday of life renewal (and for obvious reasons)
Ever wondered why we have "sunrise" services?

To deny these things would illustrate an earlier point I made about human psychosis.

There is no doubt that certain practices may have originated among pagan cultures, but December 25th and the celebration of the Birth of Christ on that day is not one of them.

The Christmas tree had it's origin in paganism, but as the pagans became Catholics, rather than tossing out the tree, they kept it and altered its meaning to reflect ther new religion. The same is true of many other practices, such as the use of wedding rings. Peoples and nations were allowed to preserve their cultures rather than forcing them to live like "Romans".

This is why the eastern Rite Catholics (such as the Maronites, the Byzantines, etc.,) have vastly different ways of celebrating the various holy days and sacred rites. They have different ways of celebrating Mass, with different languages and customs. These customs were embraced and permitted because they reflected the culture of the people in question.

The cultures and regional customs are vastly different. The beliefs, however, of the eastern and western Rites, are identical. This is the unifying aspect.

[torchbearer]

There is no doubt that certain practices may have originated among pagan cultures, but December 25th and the celebration of the Birth of Christ on that day is not one of them.

The Christmas tree had it's origin in paganism, but as the pagans became Catholics, rather than tossing out the tree, they kept it and altered its meaning to reflect ther new religion. The same is true of many other practices, such as the use of wedding rings. Peoples and nations were allowed to preserve their cultures rather than forcing them to live like "Romans".

This is why the eastern Rite Catholics (such as the Maronites, the Byzantines, etc.,) have vastly different ways of celebrating the various holy days and sacred rites. They have different ways of celebrating Mass, with different languages and customs. These customs were embraced and permitted because they reflected the culture of the people in question.

The cultures and regional customs are vastly different. The beliefs, however, of the eastern and western Rites, are identical. This is the unifying aspect.



Ask your priest and tell me his response.
December 25th is another pagan holiday that has nothing to do with christ actual birthday.
Sorry. You will be disappointed on this one.
I hope it doesn't tear down any bricks in your wall... but it may.

I am beyond certain on this one. You will be disappointed.

[ihsv]

faith alone is a protestant thing.
You really need to question more. Ask your priest.

The reason the scholars believe it was spring because of the description of the shepards activities.
The catholics have been celebrating dec. 25th since the first century because that was the feast of saturnalia since before then, not because it was chirst birthday.

That is silly. I'm sorry.

Faith alone is indeed a "protestant thing", but when a practice can be traced through the writings of Catholics all the way back to the 1st century, with a complete lack of reference to Saturnalia or other pagan beliefs, that constitutes an historical argument that is quite solid.

If a Catholic writer from the time can be found to uphold your position, I will gladly admit that I was wrong.

[torchbearer]

Faith alone is indeed a "protestant thing", but when a practice can be traced through the writings of Catholics all the way back to the 1st century, with a complete lack of reference to Saturnalia or other pagan beliefs, that constitutes an historical argument that is quite solid.

If a Catholic writer from the time can be found to uphold your position, I will gladly admit that I was wrong.

Do your research. Be diligent...
DOn't ask me to do it for you.
Its not even catholic doctrine that he was born on dec. 25th.
Start with asking your priest... then asking other priest...

Ask them about the scholars who say he was born in the spring....
I seriously want to know their response.
PM me with what they say...

[ihsv]

Ask your priest and tell me his response.
December 25th is another pagan holiday that has nothing to do with christ actual birthday.
Sorry. You will be disappointed on this one.
I hope it doesn't tear down any bricks in your wall... but it may.

I am beyond certain on this one. You will be disappointed.

I will, but I am one of those Catholics that has to look up everything, and not just take a priest's word for anything. Call it "double checking".

[torchbearer]

actually, start by reading articles here: http://www.google.com/search?q=christ+was+born+in+the+spring&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1


and then ask your priest, and other theologians in the catholic church...

[torchbearer]

I will, but I am one of those Catholics that has to look up everything, and not just take a priest's word for anything. Call it "double checking".

ha! yeah, see my post above.

[torchbearer]

its almost a common knowledge among all scholars that it was spring time.

[torchbearer]

though priest should be consistant.
They are taught these things at seminary.

[BlackTerrel]

Knock it off. Your hatred of Catholicism is well established.

There are a lot of Catholics in the Liberty movement, and this kind of behavior is divisive and un-called for.

You would wonder why people who are trying to get people to join their movement would waste their time bashing Catholics for things that happened hundreds of years ago.

If you're trying to win people to your side it's probably not a good idea to offend 25% of the country. Good luck with that :rolleyes:

[NYgs23]

Torchbearer: What difference does it make if we commemorate Christ's birth on December 25th or any other date? I don't always have my birthday party on the actual anniversary of my birth. Usually I have it on the closest Saturday, when people don't have to work.

Certain traditions--like the Christmas tree--were probably co-opted from pre-Christian festivals. So what? There's nothing intrinsically pagan or anti-Christ about keeping a tree in your living room, is there? It's a pleasant tradition. Why discard it because it wasn't directly invented by Christ or Christians? I think the early Christians were right in preserving positive elements from classical culture and apply them to their new worldview. I wish they had preserved more of it, like the Olympics for example (they could have phased out the overtly pagan elements and violence and kept the essential sports celebration). As it is, they threw the whole thing out the window and now the people complain about that too!

[heavenlyboy34]

Torchbearer: What difference does it make if we commemorate Christ's birth on December 25th or any other date? I don't always have my birthday party on the actual anniversary of my birth. Usually I have it on the closest Saturday, when people don't have to work.

Certain traditions--like the Christmas tree--were probably co-opted from pre-Christian festivals. So what? There's nothing intrinsically pagan or anti-Christ about keeping a tree in your living room, is there? It's a pleasant tradition. Why discard it because it wasn't directly invented by Christ or Christians? I think the early Christians were right in preserving positive elements from classical culture and apply them to their new worldview. I wish they had preserved more of it, like the Olympics for example (they could have phased out the overtly pagan elements and violence and kept the essential sports celebration). As it is, they threw the whole thing out the window and now the people complain about that too!

People-can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em. :(:p

[Galileo Galilei]

Galileo's library recreated



Volumes that formed his personal collection on show



(ANSA) - Florence, December 23 - The books that shaped one of the greatest scientific minds in Western history are the focus of a new exhibition in this Tuscan city.

The National Library of Florence is showcasing 70 volumes that were once part of the personal collection of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642).

''The material on display was selected from the Galileo collection stored in our library,'' explained library director Antonia Idea Fontana. ''They were the source of his research and bear witness to his successes but also show the polemics, the legal arguments and the trials linked to his work''.

The renowned Tuscan astronomer, scientist and mathematician had eclectic taste in reading material, the exhibition shows.

His collection not only included scientific treatises but also copies of Dante's Divine Comedy, the romantic epic poem Orlando Furioso and works by Petrarch. In addition, the show features a number of Galileo's scientific sketches, as well as original ideas and notes he jotted down while reading the various volumes.

''While this is not the first time these books have been displayed, the idea of reconstructing Galileo's personal library is completely new,'' added Fontana. The exhibition is part of a series of events this year commemorating 400 years since Galileo produced his first telescope, revolutionising conceptions of the universe and sparking religious uproar.

He created the device in 1608 [1609], initially producing a lens able to magnify objects threefold and soon after 32-fold.

This put him in a nearly unique position, as he was one of the few people at the time with a lens powerful enough to observe the sky.

His discovery of three [four] of Jupiter's moons and his observation of Venus's phases helped him conclude that the sun was at the centre of the universe, rather than the Earth, as was commonly believed at the time.

Church opposition to Galileo's sun-centred model flared up immediately in 1612 and would dog Galileo for the rest of his life.

An exhibition at the Museum of the History of Science in Florence until the end of December explores this discovery, showing the only two surviving telescopes created by Galileo, as well as dozens of original documents and instruments.

The exhibition on Galileo's personal book collection can be visited at the National Library of Florence until February 28.


http://www.ansa.it/site/notizie/awnplus/english/news/2008-12-23_123289609.html

[torchbearer]

Torchbearer: What difference does it make if we commemorate Christ's birth on December 25th or any other date? I don't always have my birthday party on the actual anniversary of my birth. Usually I have it on the closest Saturday, when people don't have to work.

Certain traditions--like the Christmas tree--were probably co-opted from pre-Christian festivals. So what? There's nothing intrinsically pagan or anti-Christ about keeping a tree in your living room, is there? It's a pleasant tradition. Why discard it because it wasn't directly invented by Christ or Christians? I think the early Christians were right in preserving positive elements from classical culture and apply them to their new worldview. I wish they had preserved more of it, like the Olympics for example (they could have phased out the overtly pagan elements and violence and kept the essential sports celebration). As it is, they threw the whole thing out the window and now the people complain about that too!

The date isn't what matters, its the ignorance of people who don't realize where their traditions come from.
Iconoclast are numerous in this movement... you will have to suffer through it.

Christmas, the winter festival of gift giving and over-indulgence in food was never really about christ. Santa is american creation(the guy in the red suit who scares kids at malls). and so on...

You are focusing on dates, and that isn't really the point. It is the why and how that is important....


99.9999999% of the catholics who get ashes smeared on their foreheads on ash wednesday don't have a clue why they do it, and where the tradition came from... (though they continue to do it without knowing why)
And that ignorance is perpetuated by a system that forbids questioning.. and pretends to foster educational growth.

[RonPaulMania]

And that ignorance is perpetuated by a system that forbids questioning.. and pretends to foster educational growth.

The system doesn't forbid questioning, it's your ignorance that forbids you look into scholastic and patristic inquiries of faith, and where the advancement of the world took place, namely in Christendom.

Your baloney sandwich arguments are lame, shallow, and hackneyed.

You probably wonder why this movement will never ever move forward when people like you can't get over themselves. What separates others is greater in your mind than what divides them.

Congrats on helping destroy the movement!

[torchbearer]

The system doesn't forbid questioning, it's your ignorance that forbids you look into scholastic and patristic inquiries of faith, and where the advancement of the world took place, namely in Christendom.

Your baloney sandwich arguments are lame, shallow, and hackneyed.

You probably wonder why this movement will never ever move forward when people like you can't get over themselves. What separates others is greater in your mind than what divides them.

Congrats on helping destroy the movement!

Um, ok... how does my "ignorance" prevent 99% of catholics from knowing why they put ashes on their forehead?

You say my arguments are lame, please list what is incorrect about the information i listed besides the fact that you are insulted because you are the ignorant being talked about?

If I have enough power to destroy the freedom movement, I'm indeed a powerful individual.
Honestly, if you are swayed from freedom by an anonymous jerk on the internet, you need to take a hard look at yourself and not the jerk on the internet.

I hope that wasn't too much information for you to digest.

At least the other guy is going to look into the information I was talking about... I give him credit for that... and if he can prove me wrong, I give him even more credit.
I guess he could have just done as you did and write a post with zero value as it states nothing but a bunch of negative adjectives with no support.

[NYgs23]

The date isn't what matters, its the ignorance of people who don't realize where their traditions come from.
Iconoclast are numerous in this movement... you will have to suffer through it.

Christmas, the winter festival of gift giving and over-indulgence in food was never really about christ. Santa is american creation(the guy in the red suit who scares kids at malls). and so on...

You are focusing on dates, and that isn't really the point. It is the why and how that is important....


99.9999999% of the catholics who get ashes smeared on their foreheads on ash wednesday don't have a clue why they do it, and where the tradition came from... (though they continue to do it without knowing why)
And that ignorance is perpetuated by a system that forbids questioning.. and pretends to foster educational growth.

You are presenting a simplistic caricature of the religion. We know what the ritual of the ashes means to us--a sign to mark the beginning of Lent. What difference does it make whether the matter of the ritual was borrowed from another source? You still haven't explained why this is a problem.

Most people are ignorant of the origins of the words they say. They couldn't tell you that the word "nice" originally had a different meaning than what it means now. They don't realize that "pig" is an Anglo-Saxon word and "pork" is Anglo-Norman. Again, so what? Do you know the history of every cultural convention that you adhere to?

[torchbearer]

You are presenting a simplistic caricature of the religion. We know what the ritual of the ashes means to us--a sign to mark the beginning of Lent. What difference does it make whether the matter of the ritual was borrowed from another source? You still haven't explained why this is a problem.

Most people are ignorant of the origins of the words they say. They couldn't tell you that the word "nice" originally had a different meaning than what it means now. They don't realize that "pig" is an Anglo-Saxon word and "pork" is Anglo-Norman. Again, so what? Do you know the history of every cultural convention that you adhere to?

No, the ashes was originally catholic, but from a different time and place...
There used to be public confessions in the early, early church. Not private confessions, for if you sinned, you sinned against your community.
In preperation for lent, it was your duty to seek absolution from your community.
The ashen cross on your head was to mark yourself a sinner.

But no one I have ever spoken to knows that.... I ask, "then why do you do it?"
Um, "I don't know.. because that is what I was taught you were suppose to do?"

What good is doing the act if you don't know why you are doing it?
The whole purpose is pointless unless people know why... and they don't. That is my point.

[NYgs23]

No, the ashes was originally catholic, but from a different time and place...
There used to be public confessions in the early, early church. Not private confessions, for if you sinned, you sinned against your community.
In preperation for lent, it was your duty to seek absolution from your community.
The ashen cross on your head was to mark yourself a sinner.

But no one I have ever spoken to knows that.... I ask, "then why do you do it?"
Um, "I don't know.. because that is what I was taught you were suppose to do?"

What good is doing the act if you don't know why you are doing it?
The whole purpose is pointless unless people know why... and they don't. That is my point.

But we do know why we do it: to signify the beginning of Lent, which is a season of penance and fasting. If a Catholic doesn't know that, he has been poorly catechized on that subject. I remember the homily the priest gave last Ash Wednesday, regarding how the ashes were not just "a bit of dirt" but a signifier of a season in which we are supposed to improve as Christians during the Lenten season. What more may you ask of us? Admittedly, he didn't explicate that it "marked you as a sinner." Maybe you should become a catechist and teach about Ash Wednesday from that angle. It's true that catechesis has been poor for a long time, and on matters more important then the ashes of Ash Wednesday. I fail to see how this is an indictment of the use of ashes itself.

[torchbearer]

But we do know why we do it: to signify the beginning of Lent, which is a season of penance and fasting. If a Catholic doesn't know that, he has been poorly catechized on that subject. I remember the homily the priest gave last Ash Wednesday, regarding how the ashes were not just "a bit of dirt" but a signifier of a season in which we are supposed to improve as Christians during the Lenten season. What more may you ask of us? Admittedly, he didn't explicate that it "marked you as a sinner." Maybe you should become a catechist and teach about Ash Wednesday from that angle. It's true that catechesis has been poor for a long time, and on matters more important then the ashes of Ash Wednesday. I fail to see how this is an indictment of the use of ashes itself.

it doesn't signify the beginning of lent... :rolleyes: geez, i just told you what it means.
It just so happens that you are suppose to do it to prepare yourself for lent, but you aren't preparing yourself for lent unless you are asking your community to absolve you of your sins.

And this was just a simple example of how an important practice has lost its value and meaning due to ignorance over time.
The ashes themselves really does nothing... it was suppose to be a scarlet letter, but if no one understand that its a scarlet letter its pointless. and in fact, people use it as proof they went to mass like a good catholic and don't feel shame and remorse for the sins it represents. (because they don't know what it means)
It is worthless. Don't even do it.

[NYgs23]

it doesn't signify the beginning of lent... :rolleyes: geez, i just told you what it means.
It just so happens that you are suppose to do it to prepare yourself for lent, but you aren't preparing yourself for lent unless you are asking your community to absolve you of your sins.

The meaning and content of the ritual can't shift over time? It's wrought in stone? If it means what you say it once meant, then it must always mean exactly that in every time, to every person?

What matters is what it means to the Church today, which, for that matter, is much the same as it meant then. The beginning of Lent is a time when you're supposed to recieve absolution of sins, though not communally anymore.


And this was just a simple example of how an important practice has lost its value and meaning due to ignorance over time.

Just because things change doesn't mean that they lose all meaning. The tassel on the mortarboard cap of college graduates originated a means for monks to more easily remove their skullcaps. The name of the New York Knicks once stood for "Knickerbockers," a name associated with New York by Washington Irving due to its Dutch origins. Now all that is lost. Does that mean these things should be discarded?


it was suppose to be a scarlet letter, but if no one understand that its a scarlet letter its pointless. and in fact, people use it as proof they went to mass like a good catholic and don't feel shame and remorse for the sins it represents.

If you feel that way, become a catechist and teach people about it. Don't just mock it and dismiss it. You're wasting your own time then, just as much as a Catholics who you assume to be "going through the empty motions." But if you're concerned about Catholics not feeling enough shame for their sins, what you should really be doing is encouraged them to go to Confession more often. But if you don't believe in Confession, Lent, or anything else, why do you care about such minutiae? It seems to me that you are a trying to sow seeds of doubt about the Catholic religion without really attacking it head on. Meanwhile, we don't even know what you yourself believe.

[torchbearer]

The meaning and content of the ritual can't shift over time? It's wrought in stone? If it means what you say it once meant, then it must always mean exactly that in every time, to every person?

What matters is what it means to the Church today, which, for that matter, is much the same as it meant then. The beginning of Lent is a time when you're supposed to recieve absolution of sins, though not communally anymore.



Just because things change doesn't mean that they lose all meaning. The tassel on the mortarboard cap of college graduates originated a means for monks to more easily remove their skullcaps. The name of the New York Knicks once stood for "Knickerbockers," a name associated with New York by Washington Irving due to its Dutch origins. Now all that is lost. Does that mean these things should be discarded?



If you feel that way, become a catechist and teach people about it. Don't just mock it and dismiss it. You're wasting your own time then, just as much as a Catholics who you assume to be "going through the empty motions." But if you're concerned about Catholics not feeling enough shame for their sins, what you should really be doing is encouraged them to go to Confession more often. But if you don't believe in Confession, Lent, or anything else, why do you care about such minutiae? It seems to me that you are a trying to sow seeds of doubt about the Catholic religion without really attacking it head on. Meanwhile, we don't even know what you yourself believe.

If I'm wasting my time telling people on a forum about the idiocy of repeating traditions people don't understand, you are wasting your time conversing with me.

[torchbearer]

It's like you're saying that because our current government no longer follows the original intent of the constitution, that it is ok.. because things change... and ignorance is an excuse to keep repeating the same shit without ever understanding why we did it in the first place.

I say Original intent matters most.
Ignorance is the enemy, and its used to destroy the things that matter most.

[NYgs23]

It's like you're saying that because our current government no longer follows the original intent of the constitution, that it is ok.. because things change... and ignorance is an excuse to keep repeating the same shit without ever understanding why we did it in the first place.

I say Original intent matters most.
Ignorance is the enemy, and its used to destroy the things that matter most.

Torchbearer: Sacramentals are not comparable to the Constitution. That's like comparing the infallible declarations of the Ecumenical Councils to the meaning of red stripes on the American flag. Besides, I think "original intent" doesn't matter with the Constitution; only the plain meaning of the text itself matters. I don't care what was in James Madison's heart when he wrote it.

Rituals such as recieving the ashes still have meaning to the Church. You seem to think that it is simply a matter of going through the motions for the heck of it, but we do impute a symbolic purpose to it. The question of whether details of the ritual are exactly the same as they were 1500 years ago is irrelevant. Pope Pius XII condemned precisely that sort of "archeologism," by which people feel the need to dig through layers of historical development to get to some perceived "pure early Church." The preservation of Christian Truth is the necessary thing, not so much the details of the rituals used to express it (the continuity in Church practice and custom is beneficial for many obvious reasons). Mostly, you are seeing a problem where there is none. And even where you have a point that many Catholic lack a clear understanding of meaning behind many of these rituals, your solution is to throw the whole thing out of the window, rather than educate Catholics better as to the meaning behind the traditions.

[torchbearer]

Torchbearer: Sacramentals are not comparable to the Constitution. That's like comparing the infallible declarations of the Ecumenical Councils to the meaning of red stripes on the American flag. Besides, I think "original intent" doesn't matter with the Constitution; only the plain meaning of the text itself matters. I don't care what was in James Madison's heart when he wrote it.

Rituals such as recieving the ashes still have meaning to the Church. You seem to think that it is simply a matter of going through the motions for the heck of it, but we do impute a symbolic purpose to it. The question of whether details of the ritual are exactly the same as they were 1500 years ago is irrelevant. Pope Pius XII condemned precisely that sort of "archeologism," by which people feel the need to dig through layers of historical development to get to some perceived "pure early Church." The preservation of Christian Truth is the necessary thing, not so much the details of the rituals used to express it (the continuity in Church practice and custom is beneficial for many obvious reasons). Mostly, you are seeing a problem where there is none. And even where you have a point that many Catholic lack a clear understanding of meaning behind many of these rituals, your solution is to throw the whole thing out of the window, rather than educate Catholics better as to the meaning behind the traditions.

So, what god wants us to believe changes with the times?
God is now pro-capitalist consumerism who doesn't care much for the traditions he was so fond of 2000 years ago?
I would think sacrementals to be more important than the constitution if your soul depended on it.
Of course, you make the valid point, all of these traditions are actually useless and have nothing to do with god.
That is what I stated to begin with... I just had to get you to say the same thing.


The preservation of Christian Truth is the necessary thing, not so much the details of the rituals used to express it

[NYgs23]

So, what god wants us to believe changes with the times?
God is now pro-capitalist consumerism who doesn't care much for the traditions he was so fond of 2000 years ago?
I would think sacrementals to be more important than the constitution if your soul depended on it.
Of course, you make the valid point, all of these traditions are actually useless and have nothing to do with god.
That is what I stated to begin with... I just had to get you to say the same thing.

Torchbearer: So if something is not an absolutely necessary, unchangeable dogma, it is completely useless? Since when did I or the Church say that the reception of ashes is necessary for salvation? It's not even a Holy Day of Obligation. Theoretically, I suppose the Church could abolish it if she wanted to. But why? It's a laudable tradition that helps us grow in faith and virtue.

It is a Protestant idea--not a Catholic one--that if God didn't explicitly lay out a practice in the Scripture, it is somehow an evil or idolatrous practice. This leaves no room for the development of pious tradition or custom. Is it idolatrous to build churches with steeples because Christ never stated that churches have to be built with steeples?

[Dr.3D]

I think the biggest question is, 'where in the Bible are all of these rituals found'?
Are they something made up by someone other than God?

[torchbearer]

Torchbearer: So if something is not an absolutely necessary, unchangeable dogma, it is completely useless? Since when did I or the Church say that the reception of ashes is necessary for salvation? It's not even a Holy Day of Obligation. Theoretically, I suppose the Church could abolish it if she wanted to. But why? It's a laudable tradition that helps us grow in faith and virtue.

It is a Protestant idea--not a Catholic one--that if God didn't explicitly lay out a practice in the Scripture, it is somehow an evil or idolatrous practice. This leaves no room for the development of pious tradition or custom. Is it idolatrous to build churches with steeples because Christ never stated that churches have to be built with steeples?

if it isn't necesary.. or isn't even something jesus taught... why are you doing it?
This whole thing that someone is going to tell you what god wants is ridiculous.
No one knows, and if they say they do.. they are lying to you.

I think Jesus had some great teachings, and i don't think you could go wrong living as he taught.
But "christians" don't even come close to living as he taught. Not even close.
Monks and Nuns in monestaries are more on the mark because they have given up worldly possessions and live in communals.
It is easier for a camel to pass through an eye of needle than a wealthy man to enter heaven...
Give up your worldly things and follow me.
Jesus was not a capitalist, and people in america forget or choose to ignore that fact so that they can continue stuffing their fat faces and be able to sleep at night.

Just another hypocrisy I witness on a daily basis along with people repeating silly rituals (and not even knowing why they do it).

People really need to take a step back and look at what they are doing.

[torchbearer]

and don't get me starting on Paul's letters....

[NYgs23]

if it isn't necesary.. or isn't even something jesus taught... why are you doing it?
This whole thing that someone is going to tell you what god wants is ridiculous.
No one knows, and if they say they do.. they are lying to you.

Your whole conception of the way the Catholic Church operates is ridiculously simplistic. It's much more complex than that. According to Catholic belief, here is a Deposit of Faith--a body of unchangeable Truth given by God. It comes from three sources: Sacred Tradition (passed down from the Apostles), Scripture (which that aspect of Tradition that was written down), and the Magisterium (the present teaching authority of the Church). From this we discern such necessary, unchangeable doctrines as the Seven Sacrements and the Hypostatic Union. Then there are various teachings and practices that have evolved around. Some are not absolutely unchangeable but nonetheless required by the Church, such as priestly celibacy. Some are non-obligatory practices, like the reception of ashes on Ash Wednesday. Some are mere pious traditions of individual Catholic that are accepted, if not officialized by the Church hierarchy, like the various customary ways of holding the fingers to make the Sign of the Cross. In the same way, there infallibly defined doctrines, non-infallible but authoritatively taught doctrines, theological opinions, et cetera. And even this description I'm giving is a major simplification. Your perception that of religion is as a mere list of absoluate tenants has no connection to reality.


But "christians" don't even come close to living as he taught. Not even close.
Monks and Nuns in monestaries are more on the mark because they have given up worldly possessions and live in communals.
It is easier for a camel to pass through an eye of needle than a wealthy man to enter heaven...
Give up your worldly things and follow me.

Not all Christians have the same vocation in life. I am happy to belong to a faith that accepts great variety and diversity in life. If everyone were a nun or a monk, the human race would die out in a century.


Jesus was not a capitalist, and people in america forget or choose to ignore that fact so that they can continue stuffing their fat faces and be able to sleep at night.

Why are you a member of a forum founded in support of a politician who strongly advocates free market capitalism?


Just another hypocrisy I witness on a daily basis along with people repeating silly rituals (and not even knowing why they do it).

For the umpteenth time, well-informed Catholics do understand why they engage in the rituals they do. You don't understand why they do it.

[NYgs23]

I think the biggest question is, 'where in the Bible are all of these rituals found'?
Are they something made up by someone other than God?

Catholics don't believe in "Sola Scripture"--that Divine Revelation comes only from Scripture. While Scripture is an authoritative source of Divine Revelation, it also comes from Tradition and the Magisterium. After all, what authority did Christians turn to before the writing and codifying of the Bible?

[torchbearer]

Your whole conception of the way the Catholic Church operates is ridiculously simplistic. It's much more complex than that. According to Catholic belief, here is a Deposit of Faith--a body of unchangeable Truth given by God. It comes from three sources: Sacred Tradition (passed down from the Apostles), Scripture (which that aspect of Tradition that was written down), and the Magisterium (the present teaching authority of the Church). From this we discern such necessary, unchangeable doctrines as the Seven Sacrements and the Hypostatic Union. Then there are various teachings and practices that have evolved around. Some are not absolutely unchangeable but nonetheless required by the Church, such as priestly celibacy. Some are non-obligatory practices, like the reception of ashes on Ash Wednesday. Some are mere pious traditions of individual Catholic that are accepted, if not officialized by the Church hierarchy, like the various customary ways of holding the fingers to make the Sign of the Cross. In the same way, there infallibly defined doctrines, non-infallible but authoritatively taught doctrines, theological opinions, et cetera. And even this description I'm giving is a major simplification. Your perception that of religion is as a mere list of absoluate tenants has no connection to reality.



Not all Christians have the same vocation in life. I am happy to belong to a faith that accepts great variety and diversity in life. If everyone were a nun or a monk, the human race would die out in a century.



Why are you a member of a forum founded in support of a politician who strongly advocates free market capitalism?



For the umpteenth time, well-informed Catholics do understand why they engage in the rituals they do. You don't understand why they do it.

I am a big supporter of capitalism and i don't pretend it goes along with the teachings of jesus.
But at the same time, i've never been wealthy, so my station in life has left me little choice but to make enough money just to survive.


And it isn't vocations i'm talking about.. its the political views of jesus(if you can call it that- he wasn't interested in anything earthly) that don't jive with american christian habits i'm talking about.
Hippies were closer to jesus' teaching than the bankers on wall street. Matters not the vocation.

DO you even know what kind of society the earliest christians live in???
The people who followed the apostles... and the people who lived the generation or two after that?
They all lived communal.... why?
Because that was christ-like.


And then you have the literalist, who really aren't literalist because they pick and choose what is literal...
And then you have those who believe the bible is divinely inspired, but only the parts they want to believe are divinely inspired.
If you'd like examples, i can provide them. Though the liberty women may be upset to know they are not acting "godly" according to the new testament. :rolleyes:

Of course, i don't really follow any of that stuff anymore... as a serious student of theology, who has studied many years, and under great men of knowledge... it was understood among all of them that people don't really follow the teachings... and all of them understood there is no original bible.. are no original manuscript from god.
But they don't bother people about it... which i think is dishonest of them... because if they know people are being ignorant, they should point it out...
But maybe they learned early on that people won't care what they say...
I just haven't gotten to the point of apathy yet.

If i can make just one person start looking into this stuff seriously, I would be pleased.
Once you know, you should feel a responsibility to tell others.

In the end, it really doesn't effect me... but i hate watching people put their hand in the blender.

[Dr.3D]

Catholics don't believe in "Sola Scripture"--that Divine Revelation comes only from Scripture. While Scripture is an authoritative source of Divine Revelation, it also comes from Tradition and the Magisterium. After all, what authority did Christians turn to before the writing and codifying of the Bible?

Um... God?

[torchbearer]

Catholics don't believe in "Sola Scripture"--that Divine Revelation comes only from Scripture. While Scripture is an authoritative source of Divine Revelation, it also comes from Tradition and the Magisterium. After all, what authority did Christians turn to before the writing and codifying of the Bible?

And yeah, the whole idea of purgatory came from one line in the old testament.


"It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead." 2 Maccabees 12:46

And it was some off hand reference to pray for those who died in battle.
Thus, the men in funny hats declare that all people MUST go to place to purge themselves of sin before going to heaven.

How drunk with power were these pricks?
I guess since they could appoint rulers because the king needed some kind of backing... and the people believed these guys to be God's messengers.... they could also just make up whatever crap they wanted... along with the silly rituals... and that was "Godly"?
Would that not be offensive to a divine?
I know i'd be pissed.

[torchbearer]

Thinking about it, I was always compared to the Maccabeans. Partly to do with my facial hair, but also my fighting spirit...
For those who are students of history.

[NYgs23]

I am a big supporter of capitalism and i don't pretend it goes along with the teachings of jesus.
But at the same time, i've never been wealthy, so my station in life has left me little choice but to make enough money just to survive.


And it isn't vocations i'm talking about.. its the political views of jesus(if you can call it that- he wasn't interested in anything earthly) that don't jive with american christian habits i'm talking about.
Hippies were closer to jesus' teaching than the bankers on wall street. Matters not the vocation.

DO you even know what kind of society the earliest christians live in???
The people who followed the apostles... and the people who lived the generation or two after that?
They all lived communal.... why?
Because that was christ-like.


And then you have the literalist, who really aren't literalist because they pick and choose what is literal...
And then you have those who believe the bible is divinely inspired, but only the parts they want to believe are divinely inspired.
If you'd like examples, i can provide them. Though the liberty women may be upset to know they are not acting "godly" according to the new testament. :rolleyes:

Of course, i don't really follow any of that stuff anymore... as a serious student of theology, who has studied many years, and under great men of knowledge... it was understood among all of them that people don't really follow the teachings... and all of them understood there is no original bible.. are no original manuscript from god.
But they don't bother people about it... which i think is dishonest of them... because if they know people are being ignorant, they should point it out...
But maybe they learned early on that people won't care what they say...
I just haven't gotten to the point of apathy yet.

If i can make just one person start looking into this stuff seriously, I would be pleased.
Once you know, you should feel a responsibility to tell others.

In the end, it really doesn't effect me... but i hate watching people put their hand in the blender.

You're expending energy battling against strawmen, and most of them Protestant strawmen (Biblical literalist, Sola Scriptura, etc). As much as you consider yourself "a serious student of theology," you're knowledge of Catholic thought and theology is clearly limited. You seem to be trying to interpret a religion alien to you through a secular-humanistic lens developed primarily in reaction to 19th century Protestant fundamentalism. Because the fundamentalists worry about legalism, literalism, and archeologism, you do as well. These things are not a major priority for most Catholics. I know this is a cliche, but it's not a question of "either/or", but of "both/and". This is why I find you discussion of things like the origin of the blessed ashes so underwhelming. It's not that I don't believe you or don't understand. I just don't think that it's very relevant. It's an interesting historical narrative that may expand our understanding of the nature of the ritual, but it in no way discredits it.

As for your contention that Christ's teachings are incompatible with free market capitalism, I disagree. I think Christ would favor voluntary exchange. Christ taught that men must be charitable, but he did not teach forced charity. He also did not appear to be a great fan of political solutions. He also had wealthy people amongst his followers, such as Joseph of Arimathea. Also:

Mary took a liter of costly perfumed oil made from genuine aromatic nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and dried them with her hair; the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil. Then Judas the Iscariot, one (of) his disciples, and the one who would betray him, said, "Why was this oil not sold for three hundred days' wages and given to the poor?" He said this not because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief and held the money bag and used to steal the contributions. So Jesus said, "Leave her alone. Let her keep this for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.

-John 12:3-8

Doesn't sound like a social democrat to me. Christ's early followers did have jobs and families, although some of them literally gave up such things to wander and preach the Word. Very early on, the differentiations between bishops, priests, and laypeople were developed.

[torchbearer]

You're expending energy battling against strawmen, and most of them Protestant strawmen (Biblical literalist, Sola Scriptura, etc). As much as you consider yourself "a serious student of theology," you're knowledge of Catholic thought and theology is clearly limited. You seem to be trying to interpret a religion alien to you through a secular-humanistic lens developed primarily in reaction to 19th century Protestant fundamentalism. Because the fundamentalists worry about legalism, literalism, and archeologism, you do as well. These things are not a major priority for most Catholics. I know this is a cliche, but it's not a question of "either/or", but of "both/and". This is why I find you discussion of things like the origin of the blessed ashes so underwhelming. It's not that I don't believe you or don't understand. I just don't think that it's very relevant. It's an interesting historical narrative that may expand our understanding of the nature of the ritual, but it in no way discredits it.

As for your contention that Christ's teachings are incompatible with free market capitalism, I disagree. I think Christ would favor voluntary exchange. Christ taught that men must be charitable, but he did not teach forced charity. He also did not appear to be a great fan of political solutions. He also had wealthy people amongst his followers, such as Joseph of Arimathea. Also:

Mary took a liter of costly perfumed oil made from genuine aromatic nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and dried them with her hair; the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil. Then Judas the Iscariot, one (of) his disciples, and the one who would betray him, said, "Why was this oil not sold for three hundred days' wages and given to the poor?" He said this not because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief and held the money bag and used to steal the contributions. So Jesus said, "Leave her alone. Let her keep this for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.

-John 12:3-8

Doesn't sound like a social democrat to me. Christ's early followers did have jobs and families, although some of them literally gave up such things to wander and preach the Word. Very early on, the differentiations between bishops, priests, and laypeople were developed.

Imagine yourself... someone who decided to be a priest... thinking you can actually decide what god wants... what rituals he wants... and what dogma he wants... where do you get that authority?
Would you feel ok doing that?

[NYgs23]

And yeah, the whole idea of purgatory came from one line in the old testament.

And it was some off hand reference to pray for those who died in battle.
Thus, the men in funny hats declare that all people MUST go to place to purge themselves of sin before going to heaven.

How drunk with power were these pricks?
I guess since they could appoint rulers because the king needed some kind of backing... and the people believed these guys to be God's messengers.... they could also just make up whatever crap they wanted... along with the silly rituals... and that was "Godly"?
Would that not be offensive to a divine?
I know i'd be pissed.

Your letting yourself be blinded by your personal visions of strawmen. First of all, the doctrine of Purgatory did not come from the Old Testament. No teaching "comes from" the Bible exactly. The Bible is one source of Divine Revelation. That line is Scriptural evidence for Purgatory. The doctrine of Purgatory as we know it today was the result of centuries of theological thought and doctrinal development. It's also logical. According to the Faith-Only Protestants, Jeffrey Dahmer can go straight to Heaven because he gave his soul to Jesus. How just is that?

[torchbearer]

You're expending energy battling against strawmen, and most of them Protestant strawmen (Biblical literalist, Sola Scriptura, etc). As much as you consider yourself "a serious student of theology," you're knowledge of Catholic thought and theology is clearly limited. You seem to be trying to interpret a religion alien to you through a secular-humanistic lens developed primarily in reaction to 19th century Protestant fundamentalism. Because the fundamentalists worry about legalism, literalism, and archeologism, you do as well. These things are not a major priority for most Catholics. I know this is a cliche, but it's not a question of "either/or", but of "both/and". This is why I find you discussion of things like the origin of the blessed ashes so underwhelming. It's not that I don't believe you or don't understand. I just don't think that it's very relevant. It's an interesting historical narrative that may expand our understanding of the nature of the ritual, but it in no way discredits it.

As for your contention that Christ's teachings are incompatible with free market capitalism, I disagree. I think Christ would favor voluntary exchange. Christ taught that men must be charitable, but he did not teach forced charity. He also did not appear to be a great fan of political solutions. He also had wealthy people amongst his followers, such as Joseph of Arimathea. Also:

Mary took a liter of costly perfumed oil made from genuine aromatic nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and dried them with her hair; the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil. Then Judas the Iscariot, one (of) his disciples, and the one who would betray him, said, "Why was this oil not sold for three hundred days' wages and given to the poor?" He said this not because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief and held the money bag and used to steal the contributions. So Jesus said, "Leave her alone. Let her keep this for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.

-John 12:3-8

Doesn't sound like a social democrat to me. Christ's early followers did have jobs and families, although some of them literally gave up such things to wander and preach the Word. Very early on, the differentiations between bishops, priests, and laypeople were developed.

Oh, and you must at least give me an internet reference to when this parish type structure(of priest/bishop/pope) came into being... and how they relate to the earliest christian sects...
Because my history lessons show that this bureaucratic structure were roman in origin.. and not practiced among the early christians.

[NYgs23]

Um... God?

And after God, His apostles. And after them, their disciples and so forth. That's where Sacred Tradition comes from.

[torchbearer]

Your letting yourself be blinded by your personal visions of strawmen. First of all, the doctrine of Purgatory did not come from the Old Testament. No teaching "comes from" the Bible exactly. The Bible is one source of Divine Revelation. That line is Scriptural evidence for Purgatory. The doctrine of Purgatory as we know it today was the result of centuries of theological thought and doctrinal development. It's also logical. According to the Faith-Only Protestants, Jeffrey Dahmer can go straight to Heaven because he gave his soul to Jesus. How just is that?

Read your catechism.

[torchbearer]

Your letting yourself be blinded by your personal visions of strawmen. First of all, the doctrine of Purgatory did not come from the Old Testament. No teaching "comes from" the Bible exactly. The Bible is one source of Divine Revelation. That line is Scriptural evidence for Purgatory. The doctrine of Purgatory as we know it today was the result of centuries of theological thought and doctrinal development. It's also logical. According to the Faith-Only Protestants, Jeffrey Dahmer can go straight to Heaven because he gave his soul to Jesus. How just is that?

Here, you are too lazy to do your own damn home work: http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/art12.html
online catechism for catholics who don't own their own copy.


III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY
1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.[604] The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:[605] As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.[606]

1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."[607] From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.[608] The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead: Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.[609]

[torchbearer]

I recommend protestants read the catechism, if for nothing else, to understand where this shit comes from...
I hate reading their misconceptions on catholicism also.

[NYgs23]

Imagine yourself... someone who decided to be a priest... thinking you can actually decide what god wants... what rituals he wants... and what dogma he wants... where do you get that authority?
Would you feel ok doing that?

Once again, you reveal what I'll charitably call your lack of knowledge about Catholicism. Your idea is that someone just pulled this stuff out of his ass one day. Most of these teachings and practices are the result of long periods of development and debate. Many of the most contentious theological issues were eventually decided upon in the Ecumenical Councils. Others have simply been the general teaching of the Church for many years. We believe that the Holy Ghost will protect the Church from serious error in matters of faith and morals. If you don't, that's your prerogative, but at least give us credit for being a little more nuanced than simply having some guy make any arbitrary rulings he wants.


Oh, and you must at least give me an internet reference to when these parish type structure came into being... and how they relate to the earliest christian sects...
Because my history lessons show that this bureaucratic structure were roman in origin.. and not practiced among the early christians.

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaens (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm) (Circa AD110)


Here, you are too lazy to do your own damn home work: http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/art12.html
online catechism for catholics who don't own their own copy.

How does any of that contradict what I said? Did I not say that that passage was evidence for Purgatory? But in you rhetoric, we are invited to envision some Medieval Pope sitting in a tower thinking, "Gosh, I'd sure like to fleece the public some more," sifting through the Bible and saying, "Eureka! I can use this to make some foolishness I'll call Purgatory!" This has no basis in reality.

[torchbearer]

Once again, you reveal what I'll charitably call your lack of knowledge about Catholicism. Your idea is that someone just pulled this stuff out of his ass one day. Most of these teachings and practices are the result of long periods of development and debate. Many of the most contentious theological issues were eventually decided upon in the Ecumenical Councils. Others have simply been the general teaching of the Church for many years. We believe that the Holy Ghost will protect the Church from serious error in matters of faith and morals. If you don't, that's your prerogative, but at least give us credit for being a little more nuanced than simply having some guy make any arbitrary rulings he wants.



See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaens (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm) (Circa AD110)



How does any of that contradict what I said? Did I not say that that passage was evidence for Purgatory? But in you rhetoric, we are invited to envision some Medieval Pope sitting in a tower thinking, "Gosh, I'd sure like to fleece the public some more," sifting through the Bible and saying, "Eureka! I can use this to make some foolishness I'll call Purgatory!" This has no basis in reality.

I put this shit right in front of you.. and that is the best you can do?(it was roman in origin)
And yes, it is all about power and control. BUt I wouldn't expect you to see it from my word alone, nor do I expect you to read your origins...

It would require too much time on your part to research, and the truth isn't that important to you.

So, go to mass this sunday, go through the rituals... kinda like an analog clock who has no choice but to follow the cogs.

You are following a man-made religion. And you wouldn't recognize divinity if it hit you the face... unless the pope decreed it so.

Good luck. I'm sure whatever greatness has brought this pale blue dot to us.. can understand... at least, I hope the divine does....

[torchbearer]

Remember, we are the center of the universe.

http://quarks.lal.in2p3.fr/quark/images/hst_galaxies.jpg

And all the universe must come to god through a man born on this planet.

[Dr.3D]

And after God, His apostles. And after them, their disciples and so forth. That's where Sacred Tradition comes from.



Mark 7:8-9 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. kjv



Mark 7:13 13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. kjv

I will not follow the traditions of men.

[torchbearer]

I will not follow the traditions of men.

Who wrote the books and letters of the bible?
and who decided which books you get to read as the bible?

[NYgs23]

I put this shit right in front of you.. and that is the best you can do?(it was roman in origin)
And yes, it is all about power and control. BUt I wouldn't expect you to see it from my word alone, nor do I expect you to read your origins...

It would require too much time on your part to research, and the truth isn't that important to you.

So, go to mass this sunday, go through the rituals... kinda like an analog clock who has no choice but to follow the cogs.

You are following a man-made religion. And you wouldn't recognize divinity if it hit you the face... unless the pope decreed it so.

Good luck. I'm sure whatever greatness has brought this pale blue dot to us.. can understand... at least, I hope the divine does....

Torchbearer: This is your response? It addresses nothing of what I said nor the evidence I presented. You present me a passage from the Catechism that lays out a fine explication of the doctrine of Purgatory, and expect me to take it as evidence against the doctrine of Purgatory! What sense does that make? Other than that your arguments are mainly knocking down strawmen: "It's Roman, I tell you. Roman paganism strung with crosses by Constantine." We have been hearing that rhetoric for the past 500 years; we're tired of knocking down the same old myths. I think if anything is slavishly following the superstitions of a manmade religion, it is you with your academic religion.

[Dr.3D]

Who wrote the books and letters of the bible?
and who decided which books you get to read as the bible?

At least the Bible cuts out the middleman with the funny hat. Those scriptures were written long before the man in the funny hat came along.

[NYgs23]

I will not follow the traditions of men.

Sigh...here we go again...

[torchbearer]

Torchbearer: This is your response? It addresses nothing of what I said nor the evidence I presented. You present me a passage from the Catechism that lays out a fine explication of the doctrine of Purgatory, and expect me to take it as evidence against the doctrine of Purgatory! What sense does that make? Other than that your arguments are mainly knocking down strawmen: "It's Roman, I tell you! Roman paganism strung with crosses by Constantine!" We have been hearing that rhetoric for the past 500 years; we're tired of knocking down the same old myths. I think if anything is slavishly following the superstitions of a manmade religion, it is you with your academic religion.

You don't get what i'm saying... so, I'm not saying it anymore.
I pointed to scriptural origins that you deny exist.

Your idea that priest are conduits of god who can make shit up as some sincere way of god telling you how to be is retarded, and though that wasn't very valuable as a statement, it is a summation of everything i have presented you.

You see the shadow puppets on the back of the cave and want to argue their specifics when the whole time i'm trying to show you they are only puppets.

This communication isn't going to work, so enjoy your puppets.

Their is a huge thing called the cosmos around you... and your man-made idea of god doesn't begin to touch it.

Don't take a single word I say as fact, figure it out on your own.

[torchbearer]

At least the Bible cuts out the middleman with the funny hat. Those scriptures were written long before the man in the funny hat came along.

The men in funny hats decided you were not to read anything the gnostics had to say... so, no, the middle men decided what the bible was going to be... sorry.

[torchbearer]

The men in funny hats decided you were not to read anything the gnostics had to say... so, no, the middle men decided what the bible was going to be... sorry.

in fact, your book is a furthur redaction by other men of the redaction of the men in funny hats....

[Dr.3D]

The men in funny hats decided you were not to read anything the gnostics had to say... so, no, the middle men decided what the bible was going to be... sorry.



Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Not really, they just sorted out the gnostic books and kept them out of the picture as they were written many years later than the rest. I am fully aware of how the canon of the Bible was selected.

And originally the man in the funny hat said he didn't want anybody to read any of the Bible as it was only for those who the 'church' had ordained.

[torchbearer]

Not really, they just sorted out the gnostic books and kept them out of the picture as they were written many years later than the rest. I am fully aware of how the canon of the Bible was selected.

and you are fully aware you are missing a few books because god told some guy later they weren't really his intent either?

[NYgs23]

At least the Bible cuts out the middleman with the funny hat. Those scriptures were written long before the man in the funny hat came along.

What's with the obsession on the thread with clothing outside our cultural sphere? In ancient Rome, baseball caps would be considered "funny hats." In any case, the canon of the New Testament was officialized by bishops at the Council of Nicaea. I don't know whether or not they were wearing mitres ("funny hats") at the time. The Bible didn't fall out of the sky in a beam of light one day. It had to be written, codified, translated, and, of course, declared inspired Scripture by someone.

[torchbearer]

What's with the obsession on the thread with clothing outside our cultural sphere? In ancient Rome, baseball caps would be considered "funny hats." In any case, the canon of the New Testament was officialized by bishops at the Council of Nicaea. I don't know whether or not they were wearing mitres ("funny hats") at the time. The Bible didn't fall out of the sky in a beam of light one day. It had to be written, codified, translated, and, of course, declared inspired Scripture by someone.

You are getting warmer.( note the bold text in quotes)
The funny hat reference is my opinion only. But obviously all parties involved know what i'm talking about... and yeh, caps would have seem weird to them, but those dead guys aren't involved in this thread.

[Dr.3D]

and you are fully aware you are missing a few books because god told some guy later they weren't really his intent either?

I have a library of nearly all of those so called missing books.... most of them are irrelevant to the main theme of the Bible.

[torchbearer]

I have a library of nearly all of those so called missing books.... most of them are irrelevant to the main theme of the Bible.

So they were removed because....??????

[torchbearer]

So they were removed because....??????

I'd like to note, this goes along with my previous rant on how humans decide some parts to be "divine" and other to not be.... and if it was a universal, god inspired truth, why didn't the men in funny hats get it right the first time?
Maybe a furthur redaction is in order... i think i'm feeling divinely inspired tonight, maybe i should find a few books I find to be irrelevant to remove....
That can be the new improved, godly inspired bible 2.0 for people to fight over.

[NYgs23]

You don't get what i'm saying... so, I'm not saying it anymore.
I pointed to scriptural origins that you deny exist.

No, I don't. My point is that the doctrine is not dependent on that Scripture. Even if it was, so what?


Your idea that priest are conduits of god who can make shit up as some sincere way of god telling you how to be is retarded, and though that wasn't very valuable as a statement, it is a summation of everything i have presented you.

It's a summation of the activity of a Straw Church that doesn't exist.


You see the shadow puppets on the back of the cave and want to argue their specifics when the whole time i'm trying to show you they are only puppets.

This communication isn't going to work, so enjoy your puppets.

Their is a huge thing called the cosmos around you... and your man-made idea of god doesn't begin to touch it.

In other words, your opinion is that your opinions are superior to the Catholic Church's opinions. I'll keep that in mind from now on.


Don't take a single word I say as fact, figure it out on your own.

I already did, and it led me to faith in Catholicism.

[Dr.3D]

So they were removed because....??????

Because they were written more than 100 years after the fact and were probably anecdotal in nature. Pseudopigraphia was common in those days and is even now.

[torchbearer]

Because they were written more than 100 years after the fact and were probably anecdotal in nature. Pseudopigraphia was common in those days and is even now.

This part: Pseudopigraphia was common in those days and is even now...
Has been true for a lot longer than that....
Even the Torah had a "great redactor" who piece mealed a bunch of scrolls together in an effort to make it fit together.

[torchbearer]

I already did, and it led me to faith in Catholicism.

So, your straw men wear funny hats. Congrats.
It always made me feel better to know my silly traditions were older than most.

[NYgs23]

Because they were written more than 100 years after the fact and were probably anecdotal in nature. Pseudopigraphia was common in those days and is even now.

Who decides what is apocryphal and what isn't? Up until a relatively late period many people argued that Revelations was apocryphal. Scripture alone doesn't work. You can't prove Scripture from Scripture.

[torchbearer]

Who decides what is apocryphal and what isn't? Up until a relatively late period many people argued that Revelations was apocryphal. Scripture alone doesn't work. You can't prove Scripture from Scripture.

and your traditions began after christ died.
Congrats, you both follow man made traditions.
You have something in common.

I bet, people on other planets have the same bible and same traditions. :rolleyes:

edit: not sure if they removed or kept the same books, but god definitely spread the same truth throughout the universe. It is universal truth...

[NYgs23]

So, your straw men wear funny hats. Congrats.
It always made me feel better to know my silly traditions were older than most.

How can one have a serious discussion with you when you insist on argument from caricature? Meanwhile, you remain vague about your own beliefs. I'm sure whatever they are, they are just as easily caricatured as those bead-couting halibut-munching Cath-y-licks with their men in dresses.

[SigurdVolsung]

Who decides what is apocryphal and what isn't? Up until a relatively late period many people argued that Revelations was apocryphal. Scripture alone doesn't work. You can't prove Scripture from Scripture.

So all those Gnostic Christians and Cathars that were killed were really reading scripture and not apocryphal heretical texts?

[torchbearer]

How can one have a serious discussion with you when you insist on argument from caricature? Meanwhile, you remain vague about your own beliefs. I'm sure whatever they are, they are just as easily caricatured as those bead-couting halibut-munching Cath-y-licks with their men in dresses.

my beliefs are vague because i admit I don't know god's mind and only can seek him through the study of his creation...
I guess that makes me the only honest one here when i say i'm agnostic.
After many years of hard core study of all earthly beliefs... I have to admit, I don't know.
I just know what is bullshit....

[NYgs23]

and your traditions began after christ died.
Congrats, you both follow man made traditions.
You have something in common.

I bet, people on other planets have the same bible and same traditions. :rolleyes:

You have imbibed the Protestant assumption also accepted by folks like Dr. 3D that the standard of Divine Revelation is whether or not Christ can be shown to have explicated it from His own mouth. An impossible standard given that He never even wrote anything that we know of. What so arcane to you about a present teaching authority guided by Divine Revelation? Why must God only reveal Himself in one moment in the distant past frozen on paper?

[NYgs23]

So all those Gnostic Christians and Cathars that were killed were really reading scripture and not apocryphal heretical texts?

It's my belief that the Scripture comes from the Church as a divine institution. The Church hierarchy first codified the books on the New Testament at the Council of Nicaea.

[NYgs23]

my beliefs are vague because i admit I don't know god's mind and only can seek him through the study of his creation...
I guess that makes me the only honest one here when i say i'm agnostic.
After many years of hard core study of all earthly beliefs... I have to admit, I don't know.
I just know what is bullshit....

If God exists, is it not logical to consider the possibility that He might have chosen to reveal Himself to mankind in some discernable fashion? If so, it seems irrational for you to dismiss revealed religion out of hand as "bullshit."

[torchbearer]

You have imbibed the Protestant assumption also accepted by folks like Dr. 3D that the standard of Divine Revelation is whether or not Christ can be shown to have explicated it from His own mouth. An impossible standard given that He never even wrote anything that we know of. What so arcane to you about a present teaching authority guided by Divine Revelation? Why must God only reveal Himself in one moment in the distant past frozen on paper?

I was talking to you using your beliefs, not mine.
The only thing I know of god is what I see around me, and throughout the cosmos.
I only wished to point out the inconsistancies and humor of the make-believe.

If you truly study the bible through sociological glasses.... you will see that human perception and understanding of a divine evolved and changed throughout time... and differed by location and culture.
It was all sculptured by what was convenient to the men selling the snake oil.
Some sincere, some not.... same as today.

Early people of the bible had no concept of an afterlife... in fact, the idea of heaven was closer to new testament times.
God in earlier times was vengeful god of many demands and of natural disaster.
The later god was a god of love and peace...

If you study all the worlds religions in their context over time long enough, you will start to see the trend...
Its all a guess by people who saw god through the eyes and mind of the people of their time.

[torchbearer]

If God exists, is it not logical to consider the possibility that He might have chosen to reveal Himself to mankind in some discernable fashion? If so, it seems irrational for you to dismiss revealed religion out of hand as "bullshit."

read my post above. i'm a step ahead.

[NYgs23]

I was talking to you using your beliefs, not mine.
The only thing I know of god is what I see around me, and throughout the cosmos.
I only wished to point out the inconsistancies and humor of the make-believe.

If you truly study the bible through sociological glasses.... you will see that human perception and understanding of a divine evolved and changed throughout time... and differed by location and culture.
It was all sculptured by what was convenient to the men selling the snake oil.
Some sincere, some not.... same as today.

Early people of the bible had no concept of an afterlife... in fact, the idea of heaven was closer to new testament times.
God in earlier times was vengeful god of many demands and of natural disaster.
The later god was a god of love and peace...

If you study all the worlds religions in their context over time long enough, you will start to see the trend...
Its all a guess by people who saw god through the eyes and mind of the people of their time.

You seem to make a a priori assumption that it's all "make-believe" and weigh everything according to that pre-existing assumption. I don't even know how you can state with certainty that early people had no concept of an afterlife without seeing into their hearts. In any case, it wouldn't discount the existence of an afterlife, only the early revealation of that truth. I will admit that the portrayal of God's actions in the early books of the Bible is troubling and a lot of people struggle with it. Those are complicated issues. Have you looked at what Christians (and Jews) have said about them before dismissing the whole matter?

[torchbearer]

You seem to make a a priori assumption that it's all "make-believe" and weigh everything according to that pre-existing assumption. I don't even know how you can state with certainty that early people had no concept of an afterlife without seeing into their hearts. In any case, it wouldn't discount the existence of an afterlife, only the early revealation of that truth. I will admit that the portrayal of God's actions in the early books of the Bible is troubling and a lot of people struggle with it. Those are complicated issues. Have you looked at what Christians (and Jews) have said about them before dismissing the whole matter?

its make-believe because it isn't consistant( in fact, it is widely varied), which the truth would be consistant.
( why would god want to confuse his beloved?)
You are only reading the interpretation of a mind of that time.
Now that we know more of the universe around us.. should we not update our perception of god, thus leaving behind the less informed opinions of his existance from the past as other cultures have done before?

[torchbearer]

if you grew up in India, Hinduism may be your "truth"
If you grew up in other parts of asia, buddism may be your "truth"
or maybe feng shui?
If you grew up in the middle east, maybe islam would be your "truth"
or maybe judaism?
What about the native american's truth?
or the african's truth?

Oh wait, you got the REAL truth because it happens to be the religion your culture accepts. I forgot. Silly me.
Christianity is the real truth. Isn't it obvious? I mean we have a book written by god himself.
How non-ethnocentric of me.

[NYgs23]

its make-believe because it isn't consistant( in fact, it is widely varied), which the truth would be consistant.
( why would god want to confuse his beloved?)
You are only reading the interpretation of a mind of that time.

Ah, but is it not consistant in objective reality or not consistant in your perception? How do you know you are even interpreting the Bible correctly? Here's an interesting discussion on a Catholic forum about this issue: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=293607


Now that we know more of the universe around us.. should we not update our perception of god, thus leaving behind the less informed opinions of his existance?

Teachings regarding our perception of God can develop, as I already said. As such, I don't understand why insist on the Protestant standard of dismissing every belief, idea, and custom to develop after the last word of the Bible as self-evidently phony. However, the Truth doesn't change and our ideas about God can't change in ways that contradict Truth. Where do we find the Truth revealed. My experience has led me to find the Catholic Church a pretty good bet.

I'm going to bed now. Goodnight, all.

[torchbearer]

Ah, but is it not consistant in objective reality or not consistant in your perception? How do you know you are even interpreting the Bible correctly? Here's an interesting discussion on a Catholic forum about this issue: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=293607



Teachings regarding our perception of God can develop, as I already said. As such, I don't understand why insist on the Protestant standard of dismissing every belief, idea, and custom to develop after the last word of the Bible as self-evidently phony. However, the Truth doesn't change and our ideas about God can't change in ways that contradict Truth. Where do we find the Truth revealed. My experience has led me to find the Catholic Church a pretty good bet.

I'm going to bed now. Goodnight, all.


digest the previous post and sleep on that.
Your beliefs are far superior to the rest of the worlds'. :rolleyes:
If your soul depends on it.. are you willing to leave it to chance.. or a bet?

[NYgs23]

if you grew up in India, Hinduism may be your "truth"
If you grew up in other parts of asia, buddism may be your "truth"
or maybe feng shui?
If you grew up in the middle east, maybe islam would be your "truth"
or maybe judaism?
What about the native american's truth?
or the african's truth?

And if you grew up in the secular humanistic West, secular humanism would be your "truth." 'Night.

[torchbearer]

And if you grew up in the secular humanistic West, secular humanism would be your "truth." 'Night.

I grew up in catholic/baptist household but kept an open mind because it was that important. Good night.

[torchbearer]

And if you grew up in the secular humanistic West, secular humanism would be your "truth." 'Night.

oh , and just because i don't suck the pope's dick doesn't mean i'm athiest. good night cocksucker.

[SigurdVolsung]

oh , and just because i don't suck the pope's dick doesn't mean i'm athiest. good night cocksucker.

He's right you know, you are viewing things Catholic via a Protestant world view. I know what your trying to say, but I just don't think you understand that with the Catholic mindset these issues don't matter. For instance Christ's birth on the 25th, doesnt matter if he was born in April, the significance of the day is the significance we give to it now. Now I know all about the pagan origins of a lot of Christian rituals, but as I said the significance of these practices is what we choose to give them, just like when a Druid said worship an Oak for the first time its how we choose to signify our believes that gives them power not their ultimate origins.

[NEPA_Revolution]

he's right you know, you are viewing things catholic via a protestant world view. I know what your trying to say, but i just don't think you understand that with the catholic mindset these issues don't matter. For instance christ's birth on the 25th, doesnt matter if he was born in april, the significance of the day is the significance we give to it now. Now i know all about the pagan origins of a lot of christian rituals, but as i said the significance of these practices is what we choose to give them, just like when a druid said worship an oak for the first time its how we choose to signify our believes that gives them power not their ultimate origins.

qft

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

qft

The conflict between Galileo and the Catholic Church was not between science and God. This is a common fallacy perpetuated on the student masses at Universities. It wasn't a war between science and God but between the science of Galileo and the science of Aristotle. The science of Aristotle had been adopted by the Catholic Church almost to the extent that it had become their third book of scripture on par with the new and old testaments. In fact, it was not uncommon for Church officials to take parts of Aristotle's works to piece them together into an argument claiming God's "natural laws."
In order for Galileo to take on the astute Aristotle, Galileo incorporated the dialogue method of Plato. Therefore it wasn't just little Galileo taking on Aristotle but little Galileo using a method incorporated by Plato, the master professor of Aristotle.
Descartes later likewise used Plato's rational dialectic of "best principled statements" to keep science from throwing the logical baby out with the bath water. Therefore, Cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am, is not a logical statement. It is a best principled statement.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

He's right you know, you are viewing things Catholic via a Protestant world view. I know what your trying to say, but I just don't think you understand that with the Catholic mindset these issues don't matter. For instance Christ's birth on the 25th, doesnt matter if he was born in April, the significance of the day is the significance we give to it now. Now I know all about the pagan origins of a lot of Christian rituals, but as I said the significance of these practices is what we choose to give them, just like when a Druid said worship an Oak for the first time its how we choose to signify our believes that gives them power not their ultimate origins.

In the end, after Einstein finished challenging Newton's universal view of the universe with his own relative one, he recanted. Einstein finished his life proclaiming the metaphysical conclusion that "God does not play dice."
So, in the end, man is central not only in a universal sense of Newton but in an existential sense in that God tended to a garden. A garden is not a wilderness but a design with mankind at its heart in purpose.
At the end of Christ's life, He as the living fullness of what God is, He took Himself to be broken into pieces of bread as individual members of Mankind. This made mankind the universal and existential purpose of the Almighty.

The catholics discard the authority in the bible and replace it with that of the authority of the pope. As the authority in the bible addressed God's divine "Civil-Purpose," the authority of the pope created legal-precedent rituals outside of the bible for his followers to worship.

The conflict between the Catholics and the Protestant Catholics dealt with this issue.

[SigurdVolsung]

Actually that is not entirely accurate. The Catholics did not replace the authority of Scripture with the authority of the Pope. One of the main contentions between Protestants and Catholics is that Catholics see the Scripture as only one element of the Truth. Also Catholics tend to look at Scripture in theological and philosophical ways. Protestants on the other hand believe that the only source of Truth is through Scripture and they also tend to view Scripture in a literalist interpretation only.

[Galileo Galilei]

Pope Apologizes after 500 years of Throwing Italian Designer Shoes at Galileo

Il Papa profesori, the kinder, gentler Inquisitor Ratzinger has decided to make a clean breast of it before the new year. The target of his mea culpa is astronomer and physicist Galileo Galilei.

This is the 500 year anniversary of his telescopic invention that called into question the ancient Biblical assumption that the earth was the center of our planetary system. The geo-egocentric system was shaken to the core by the scientific proof that the planets revolve around the sun.

One of the former Cardinal Ratzinger's predecessors was about to execute Galileo when the pragmatic and hedinist Italian told the Pope that he was wrong and that couldn't he just have house imprisonment with vino, pasta and espresso.

Pope Benedict told Galileo's tomb that he and 500 years of Roman Catholic infallibilty were sorry about his hardships but that since they could not be wrong they couldn't really take responsibility for the problems that befall avant garde scientists. Benedict announced the Charles Darwin has been placed on the agenda for the 2508 apology conference.

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s3i45554#this