Pope Pooh-poohs "Potter"

[dacs]

---

If the Potter books easily take away or divert from the teachings of the church, then the church is lax in nurturing it's sheep.

Sorry, bro, but I simply cannot understand your statement. Your 'IF' part does not connect with your 'THEN' part. If it is the Potter books that denies the teachings of the Church, then it is the Potter books that must be 'opposed'. If it is the believers that denies the teachings of the Church, then it is with the believers that the defense of the Faith must be made.

I am a Catholic but I refuse to go by "Roman Catholic" because to me that term means "universal" to call it a "Roman" kind of universal that would be a misnomer and oxy*****.
And I don't believe in the infallibility of the Pope or ex cathedra.

The Catholic Church never called itself the Roman Catholic Church in any of its official documents. Do you know where it started? Please find out. Furthermore, calling yourself Catholic does not mean you are one. Catholics are subject to the Pope and the bishops in communion with him. You surely are not Catholic as I am a Catholic. I believe and am convinced of the infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith and morals. I even doubt if you truly knew of ex cathedra.

[vern]

The Church condemns literature! Why am I not surprised? Burn the heretic at the stake!

[HoundedbyHeaven]

Double post.

[HoundedbyHeaven]

The Church condemns literature! Why am I not surprised? Burn the heretic at the stake!

What's the Bible supposed to be, stupid? Did the Church condemn the Bible? Not everything written down is literature-- the aesthetic type, that is.

[dacs]

The Church condemns literature! Why am I not surprised? Burn the heretic at the stake!

Please tell why you are not surprised. What's with the burn-the-heretic stuff?

[vern]

I'm not going to argue with religious zealots who don't know the history of their own precious church. That would just be as HoundedByHeaven puts it ... stupid. In 1632 we would've had a slightly different take on such devil books by Galileo ... something like ... "Pope Pooh-poohs Dialogo dei due massimi sistemi del mondo". He was lucky though, he didn't get burned at the stake, just house arrest for the rest of his life. It's a shame the saintly Medici popes Clemente or Leo couln't help an old family pal out. I'm guessing Pope Leo was too busy spending the coffers of the church and selling indulgences.

OT: They should bring indulgences back. It'd be a big hit.

[dacs]

I'm not going to argue with religious zealots who don't know the history of their own precious church. That would just be as HoundedByHeaven puts it ... stupid.

You should not worry about that. If you are, then you are. There is no denying it.

In 1632 we would've had a slightly different take on such devil books by Galileo ... something like ... "Pope Pooh-poohs Dialogo dei due massimi sistemi del mondo". He was lucky though, he didn't get burned at the stake, just house arrest for the rest of his life.

What a house arrest it was! Click here to read an article that should set your mind at peace. Here is also an excerpt from that article about that 'house arrest':

Under the sentence of imprisonment Galileo remained till his death in 1642. It is, however, untrue to speak of him as in any proper sense a "prisoner". As his Protestant biographer, von Gebler, tells us, "One glance at the truest historical source for the famous trial, would convince any one that Galileo spent altogether twenty-two days in the buildings of the Holy Office (i.e. the Inquisition), and even then not in a prison cell with barred windows, but in the handsome and commodious apartment of an official of the Inquisition." For the rest, he was allowed to use as his places of confinement the houses of friends, always comfortable and usually luxurious. It is wholly untrue that he was -- as is constantly stated -- either tortured or blinded by his persecutors -- though in 1637, five years before his death, he became totally blind -- or that he was refused burial in consecrated ground. On the contrary, although the pope (Urban VIII) did not allow a monument to be erected over his tomb, he sent his special blessing to the dying man, who was interred not only in consecrated ground, but within the church of Santa Croce at Florence.

Note that a number of Protestant sources are quoted in the article; all affirming what had been taught in the Catholic Church of that part of history. Note also that the Church is infalliable only in matters of faith and morals - not in discerning the laws of nature. In that sense, the Holy Office had erred - but the Holy Office is not the Church. Nor could any Pope make an infalliable pronouncement against Galileo in matters of science - and never did any Pope. Galileo's Protestant biographer, Karl von Gebler, wrote in his Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia that

The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church.

Again, I quote from the above-mentioned article:

... it was a churchman, Nicholas Copernicus, who first advanced the contrary doctrine that the sun and not the earth is the centre of our system, round which our planet revolves, rotating on its own axis. His great work, "De Revolutionibus orblure coelestium", was published at the earnest solicitation of two distinguished churchmen, Cardinal Schömberg and Tiedemann Giese, Bishop of Culm. It was dedicated by permission to Pope Paul III in order, as Copernicus explained, that it might be thus protected from the attacks which it was sure to encounter on the part of the "mathematicians" (i.e. philosophers) for its apparent contradiction of the evidence of our senses, and even of common sense. He added that he made no account of objections which might be brought by ignorant wiseacres on Scriptural grounds. Indeed, for nearly three quarters of a century no such difficulties were raised on the Catholic side, although Luther and Melanchthon condemned the work of Copernicus in unmeasured terms. Neither Paul III, nor any of the nine popes who followed him, nor the Roman Congregations raised any alarm, and, as has been seen, Galileo himself in 1597, speaking of the risks he might run by an advocacy of Copernicanism, mentioned ridicule only and said nothing of persecution. Even when he had made his famous discoveries, no change occurred in this respect. On the contrary, coming to Rome in 1611, he was received in triumph; all the world, clerical and lay, flocked to see him, and, setting up his telescope in the Quirinal Garden belonging to Cardinal Bandim, he exhibited the sunspots and other objects to an admiring throng.

Yes, it was the Catholic Church who encouraged Nicholas Copernicus to publish his great work De Revolutionibus orblure coelestium and no amount of denial could disprove that. Galileo then is not the original thinker of the heliocentric theory. It was Nicholas Copernicus.

It's a shame the saintly Medici popes Clemente or Leo couln't help an old family pal out. I'm guessing Pope Leo was too busy spending the coffers of the church and selling indulgences.

OT: They should bring indulgences back. It'd be a big hit.

Clemente? You mean Clement - that is, Pope Clement VIII. Are you hallucinating? How could Pope Clement VIII be involved with the Galileo controversy when that started 1616, and Pope Clement VIII was already dead by 1605? You may be referring to another 'victim'. Giordano Bruno, perhaps?

What with Pope Leo? Since you are talking about Galileo, you must mean Pope Leo XI. Pope Leo XI was Pope only for 27 days; most of which he spent in bed sick. During this time, many members of the Curia and a few ambassadors from foreign courts 'implored' him to confer the cardinalate on one of his grandnephews, whom he had himself educated and whom he loved dearly. But he had such an aversion for nepotism that he firmly refused the request. When his confessor urged him to grant it, he dismissed him and sent for another confessor to prepare him for death. This is the Pope you are maligning. May God grant repose to his soul and justice to yours.

By now, I really doubt if you have your facts straight. I truly doubt if you understand what an indulgence is. Do you define indulgence as how non-Catholics would define it, or do you define indulgence as how Catholics understand it?

[vern]

Wow. It's amazing how some catholics are so bent on justifiying their own history if they can't deny or lie about it.

1. On Galileo ... That was an example ... and I did say ... a merciful example compared to what others did go through. Please justify those as well.

2.

What a house arrest it was! Click here to read an article that should set your mind at peace. Here is also an excerpt from that article about that 'house arrest':

You might as well quote www.catholic.org so I can laugh, maybe that will set my mind at ease. Like I said, if you zealots can't deny or lie about it, you justify it. That goes with the rest of your quotes that seem to imply that the church all along supported science that might unseat them from power.

3. I was referring to the Medici popes who bought their way up the ladder (not uncommon), Clemente(yes that is the right spelling) XII and Leo X. I in no way said that they could help nor could be involved in what you call the "Galileo controversy". I merely said that too bad they COULDN'T help Galileo who taught the Medici family children.

4. Wow, how do Catholics define indulgences? Is there a secret that only Catholics know and that non-Catholics don't? Perhaps history by Catholics? ... a history filled with love, rainbows, and doves. I'd trust a two year old with a pen before I trust a zealot Catholic historian to tell me history. I'd just love to hear your justification of indulgences. Nothing wrong with an indulgence. There is however something wrong when it is taken advantage of for monetary value that Pope Pius V had to disallow the attachment of financial gain to indulgences after the Council of Trent ... BUT only after the Catholic church underwent the Reformation which came about because of Luther's disgust for Pope Leo X (yes that pope). I doubt you have your facts straight considering that you can't even get history straight.

5. The only light in the history of Catholicism is that occasionally there are good devout Catholics who are less zealot and more great. That doesn't say much for the institution that has fostered hate, violence, and murder for centuries.

6. Unless you are linking to an objective source, don't bother linking.

7. Before any of you zealots continue with your name calling, I hope you realize that God is not going to stop me from banning any of you.

8. I have nothing against the Catholic church or any Catholics ... I just feel like throwing up that people like you defend the Catholic as if the rest of the world is blind to history. You are blind for thinking that we are blind.

[HoundedbyHeaven]

Wow. It's amazing how some catholics are so bent on justifiying their own history if they can't deny or lie about it.
1. On Galileo ... That was an example ... and I did say ... a merciful example compared to what others did go through. Please justify those as well.

Why don't you open a thread and lay down one by one your accusations like "Answer me this: Was Pope Pius XII Hitler's Pope?" or "Answer me this: How Horrible was the Inquisition?" and we will answer them candidly...that is, if you are sincerely looking for answers or just plain bashing Mother Church.

2.You might as well quote www.catholic.org so I can laugh, maybe that will set my mind at ease. Like I said, if you zealots can't deny or lie about it, you justify it. That goes with the rest of your quotes that seem to imply that the church all along supported science that might unseat them from power.

So why don't you find out if those "Protestant biographers" were really Protestants and not Catholics-in-disguise or are you contented with the "invulnerable validity" of the facts in your anti-Catholic sources. Or are you afraid to find out?

Science unseating the Church from power? Hahaha...God, my stomach hurts. Without the Church, there would have been no modern science, thank you! Try counting how many Catholics fathered the different sciences, pal!
Oh, by the way, since it seems like you think Galileo really won that "struggle between faith and science" in his time. Look at the mistakes Mother Church would have committed had She listened to Galileo:
1. The sun is the center of the solar system and the universe (The sun is the center of the solar system but not the center of the universe. It orbits the center of a galaxy called the Milky Way, which is neither the center of the universe.).
2. The sun is a fixed center (The sun orbits the center of the Milky Way, therefore it moves.).

It's a shame the saintly Medici popes Clemente or Leo couln't help an old family pal out. I'm guessing Pope Leo was too busy spending the coffers of the church and selling indulgences.

3. I was referring to the Medici popes who bought their way up the ladder (not uncommon), Clemente(yes that is the right spelling) XII and Leo X. I in no way said that they could help nor could be involved in what you call the "Galileo controversy". I merely said that too bad they COULDN'T help Galileo who taught the Medici family children.

Galileo was born in February 15, 1564 and died in January 8, 1642. Papa Clemente XII was born on April 7, 1652. Papa Leo X died in December 1, 1521. Clemente XII is not even a Medici; he's a Corsini. What heck of "help" were you talking about? And how the heck could they be involved?! Clemente XII hasn't even fertilized his mother's egg yet and Leo X was already dust in his grave! And we are the ones who can't get our history straight?! Right...

4. Wow, how do Catholics define indulgences? Is there a secret that only Catholics know and that non-Catholics don't? Perhaps history by Catholics? ... a history filled with love, rainbows, and doves. I'd trust a two year old with a pen before I trust a zealot Catholic historian to tell me history. I'd just love to hear your justification of indulgences. Nothing wrong with an indulgence. There is however something wrong when it is taken advantage of for monetary value that Pope Pius V had to disallow the attachment of financial gain to indulgences after the Council of Trent ... BUT only after the Catholic church underwent the Reformation which came about because of Luther's disgust for Pope Leo X (yes that pope). I doubt you have your facts straight considering that you can't even get history straight.

Honestly, I really think you do trust a two year old with a pen with that "Corsini" blunder and that of those dates. Is that two-year old Dan Brown or Jack Chick or any one of those esoteric historians?

There are no secrets to definining indulgences. It's all there in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which some non-Catholics (and sadly some Catholics) are unaware of, ignore or outrightly reject. And of course, any misrepresentation of the teaching is wrong. The most common misrepresentation is that when an indulgence is understood to be the ultimate backstage pass to heaven despite unrepented sins.

5. The only light in the history of Catholicism is that occasionally there are good devout Catholics who are less zealot and more great. That doesn't say much for the institution that has fostered hate, violence, and murder for centuries.

I hear anti-Catholic bashers do very well, nowadays. I mean, since when have they not.

6. Unless you are linking to an objective source, don't bother linking.

Unless you are interested in intelligent discussion, don't bother interacting.

7. Before any of you zealots continue with your name calling, I hope you realize that God is not going to stop me from banning any of you.

So ban us, BIGOT! That will only prove your anti-Catholic bias. Maybe that will also show that ISTORYA.NET has an Anti-Catholic soul for tolerating someone like you to ban us.


[

8. I have nothing against the Catholic church or any Catholics ... I just feel like throwing up that people like you defend the Catholic as if the rest of the world is blind to history. You are blind for thinking that we are blind.

You have something against the Catholic church. You are an anti-Catholic if you wrote this:

That doesn't say much for the institution that has fostered hate, violence, and murder for centuries.

and refuse to read the defense of the accused because you trust a two-year old with a pen than a zealot Catholic.

Oh, and the rest of the world is blind to your take on history. Our take on history make it in encyclopedias while your take on history make it in fiction novels and Hollywood popcorn movies and the like. We're not blind too, we just don't see you because we're just too many.

[dacs]

Wow. It's amazing how some catholics are so bent on justifiying their own history if they can't deny or lie about it.

Be it known that this guy had not given any supporting document to justify his claims. It may be that he doesn't have any or 'these' are all lies.

1. On Galileo ... That was an example ... and I did say ... a merciful example compared to what others did go through. Please justify those as well.

Name them.

2. You might as well quote www.catholic.org so I can laugh, maybe that will set my mind at ease. Like I said, if you zealots can't deny or lie about it, you justify it.

You, on the other hand, resort to name-calling if you can't prove your point. Typical but way off - way way off. Man, you can't argue reasonably and logically. Pity.

That goes with the rest of your quotes that seem to imply that the church all along supported science that might unseat them from power.

The worst thing than a blind man is one who refuse to see. You are that man. Take Galileo, for example. His support of the heliocentric theory is commendable. Yet, his specific ideas about the theory are way off. If you have read the previous article I have quoted, you would have known - but you choose to be blind, right? Let me remind you again. The heliocentric theory was developed by Nicholas Copernicus (a Catholic) who was supported and encouraged by his bishop. You must first disprove that claim and provide us with verifiable and widely-recognized scholarship.

3. I was referring to the Medici popes who bought their way up the ladder (not uncommon), Clemente(yes that is the right spelling) XII and Leo X. I in no way said that they could help nor could be involved in what you call the "Galileo controversy". I merely said that too bad they COULDN'T help Galileo who taught the Medici family children.

Poor guy, how far do you choose to be blind? Check your facts.

4. Wow, how do Catholics define indulgences? Is there a secret that only Catholics know and that non-Catholics don't? Perhaps history by Catholics?

Define indulgence then.

... a history filled with love, rainbows, and doves. I'd trust a two year old with a pen before I trust a zealot Catholic historian to tell me history.

Well, the previous article quoted Protestant sources (complete with title of work, date of publication, publisher). Provide us with your sources.

I'd just love to hear your justification of indulgences. Nothing wrong with an indulgence. There is however something wrong when it is taken advantage of for monetary value that Pope Pius V had to disallow the attachment of financial gain to indulgences after the Council of Trent ... BUT only after the Catholic church underwent the Reformation which came about because of Luther's disgust for Pope Leo X (yes that pope). I doubt you have your facts straight considering that you can't even get history straight.

Can't you hear yourself? I have not even presented anything about indulgence. Yet, here you are - doubting that my facts are straight since, to you, I can't even get history straight. Really? Look who's getting history straight! Medici? Come on!

5. The only light in the history of Catholicism is that occasionally there are good devout Catholics who are less zealot and more great. That doesn't say much for the institution that has fostered hate, violence, and murder for centuries.

Who's fostering hate? Us who keep our cool, or you who keep calling us zealots? Violence and murder? Are you serious? Give us your sources and I'll get back to you.

6. Unless you are linking to an objective source, don't bother linking.

I understand. You have chosen not to see. Poor man.

7. Before any of you zealots continue with your name calling, I hope you realize that God is not going to stop me from banning any of you.

Who's name-calling again?

You have free will. I believe that. You are also free to sin, and God will not stop you also. You must freely choose Him and His commandments.

8. I have nothing against the Catholic church or any Catholics ... I just feel like throwing up that people like you defend the Catholic as if the rest of the world is blind to history. You are blind for thinking that we are blind.

I think I gonna throw up. He thinks that the rest of the world thinks like him. You have indeed chosen to be blind.