RELIGION....(part 2)

[Gwynhuever]

---

@mosimos...thanks for the last post...it is heart warming to see that you care....pero don't worry bro...i am not an unbeliever....God is within me remember? ....and in my belief now i am at peace and have also found happiness like you....so let us just leave it at that...mao ra man ta na ako gusto bro...for us to have a discussion without biting our heads off although naa ta differences.....

Also I don't feel bad because i resisted the truth....sige na gani ko post bro nga there is no religion higher than the TRUTH...i feel bad because i do not like to hate...i do not like to not forgive...i do not like to be judgmental...to be narrow minded...to be quick to hurt others...these are the things that make me feel bad....so before i succumb to these negative emotions which i believe have no importance and meaning in my life....exit gracefully na lang ko sa discussion....

silence is the best recourse for now....pero bro salamat for the message....i understood what you meant.

[shoeless_rebel]

dacs:

1. i have not investigated the issue myself... of course you know it's a lil impossible to do from where i am. what i do is i read... and about the duplessis affair... i've read an article about a certain Sister Gisele Fortier denying (one of my sources for the denial thingy and will post a link as soon as i find it again) the allegations of the surviving duplessis orphan. well... the 2,000Â* (more or less) orphans could be lying... maybe... maybe not. and i know full well what a media hype is... i used to be with the media (in some unofficial capacity) and used to be surrounded by media people. 1 more thing... i hate the media as much as the oh so holy roman catholic church.

and me being gullible? if i was gullible i would have been like you or an athiest coz i happen to be born in a dominantly religious family. my mother and grandparents on both sides are devote christians and my father is an athiest...

2. did the pope cover up the 2 incidents? that i dont know but sure as hell somebody did the covering up or the very least denied such things happend. i am not off the mark.

3. to be honest i do not understand why we call the pope as holy father... i just wonder how a man like pope alexander VI can be called a holy father though...

4. do i know when infallibility can be used? of course i do... it's a common english word. m not refering to the roman catholic definition of "Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals"

don't tell me that the actions of the church the past hundreds of years does not give you the idea that it as a system is trying to project the image of infallibility (incapable of erring)?

if not then i can say how unfortunate for you too bro...

hagyo lang sad ko bro... ayaw sad pataka ug yawyaw kung wala ka kasabot sa ako gi-sulti.

5. if i commented on certain incidents that the church actually admitted as the way things would be since we are pilgrims of this world? then i will accept that...

but me punching someone who is already down? i dont think so... it's just me. how can i "verbally" punch the mighty roman catholic church? how can i go for the kill ur funny...

6. about the galileo affair: i have the same take as Gwyn but since i know now that the galileo controversy was not the official position of the church then here i will humbly admit my mistake.

7. open your eyes and you'll know what hypocrisy means... it's all around you... and it's all over your church.

mannyamador:

1. thank you for saying this "It is a Church made up of sinners. Even its leaders are sinners"

some people just can't seem to admit that fact.

2. maybe i dont know much about galileo. maybe the church doesn't have anything against heliocentrism. but i know he was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy. he was required to recant his heliocentric ideas (heretical daw...)

but i'm glad i learned something... i never thought that the galileo affair was not the official stand of the church.

by the way... you mentioned that it could be personal and not about heliocentrism? hmmmm... you mean the rift between galileo and pope urban the VIII? was that the reason why he was ordered to stand trial? because galileo did not include what pope urban wanted him to include or should i say galileo did include what pope urban did not want him to include?

pls enlighten me on this one... thanks sir manny.

mosimos:

1. thanks for the clarification on the galileo issue.

2. if the pope is morally and faithfully infallible then i guess pope alexander VI was a faithfull morally upright person.

i think mannyamador has a clearer picture of the church and it's leaders.

OT: i'll be goin away on a 1 week vacation... i guess you guys gave me a reason to look for an internet cafe in cloud 9. hehehehehe...

thanks for your replies and once i am satisfied or atleast convinced that this argument is not going anywhere then i will bow out gracefully as well...

[dacs]

dacs:

1. i have not investigated the issue myself... of course you know it's a lil impossible to do from where i am. what i do is i read... and about the duplessis affair... i've read an article about a certain Sister Gisele Fortier denying (one of my sources for the denial thingy and will post a link as soon as i find it again) the allegations of the surviving duplessis orphan. well... the 2,000Â* (more or less) orphans could be lying... maybe... maybe not. and i know full well what a media hype is... i used to be with the media (in some unofficial capacity) and used to be surrounded by media people. 1 more thing... i hate the media as much as the oh so holy roman catholic church.

Then, why jump into the bandwagon without knowing your facts first?

and me being gullible? if i was gullible i would have been like you or an athiest coz i happen to be born in a dominantly religious family. my mother and grandparents on both sides are devote christians and my father is an athiest...

What am I gullible about then? Does it really follow that someone who happens (your exact words) to be born in a dominantly religious family. my mother and grandparents on both sides are devote christians and my father is an athiest will be gullible?Â* Is that logical?

2. did the pope cover up the 2 incidents? that i dont know but sure as hell somebody did the covering up or the very least denied such things happend. i am not off the mark.

You said : 'the head of your church ang buhaton is to cover things up'.Â* Now, you are saying you don't know.Â* I am just asking you now to make up your mind.Â* Your statements are contradictory.

3. to be honest i do not understand why we call the pope as holy father... i just wonder how a man like pope alexander VI can be called a holy father though...

What doctrine did he change?Â* Did he make infallible pronouncement that are actually wrong?Â* He may have live a very bad life but that is him, not the office.Â* The office was commissioned by Christ and is holy.Â* The occupant is still human, having free will and concupiscence.Â* No Catholic denies that, and all Catholics should understand that.

4. do i know when infallibility can be used? of course i do... it's a common english word. m not refering to the roman catholic definition of "Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals"

Hey, you know some!Â* But you were using the word to describe the Catholic Church and, without any qualifiers, the word has to be understood as the Church understands it.Â* Your problem is the fact that your understanding of the word is not the same as the Church yet you use the word against the Church as though your usage is the same as the Church.Â* If the word infallibility is a common English word, how many times do you think will it be used in a lifetime conversation of an native speaker of English?

don't tell me that the actions of the church the past hundreds of years does not give you the idea that it as a system is trying to project the image of infallibility (incapable of erring)?

if not then i can say how unfortunate for you too bro...

Eek!Â* Not much knowledge there.Â* You have not grasped the full import of what charism of infallibility means.Â* Again, I implore you to read.Â* Do not allow yourself to be dragged down with 'personal baggages'.

hagyo lang sad ko bro... ayaw sad pataka ug yawyaw kung wala ka kasabot sa ako gi-sulti.

Nice try.Â*

5. if i commented on certain incidents that the church actually admitted as the way things would be since we are pilgrims of this world? then i will accept that...

but me punching someone who is already down? i dont think so... it's just me. how can i "verbally" punch the mighty roman catholic church? how can i go for the kill ur funny...

You mean you believe you can't (i.e. "verbally" punch the mighty roman catholic church)?Â* I don't believe you are that naive.

6. about the galileo affair: i have the same take as Gwyn but since i know now that the galileo controversy was not the official position of the church then here i will humbly admit my mistake.

You suprise me, bro.Â* That is a noble act.Â* Thank you.

7. open your eyes and you'll know what hypocrisy means... it's all around you... and it's all over your church.

As is the case above, you sometimes use a word not the way we Catholics understand them.Â* So, I am asking you : define hypocrisy.Â* Please give examples to this in the context of your use of the word.

'Til then.

[mannyamador]

by the way... you mentioned that it could be personal and not about heliocentrism? hmmmm...

Some background first... MOST people in the scientific community at that time did NOT believe in heliocentrism. They held to the Ptolemaic model, not the Copernican. Galileo himself said that he at first did not want to publicly espouse the Copernican model for fear of ridicule from the scientific community (not the Church). As this excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia notes (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm):

Nevertheless 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.

The troubles really had to do more with attitude, not against science (the Church at that time was one of the greatest patrons of science). Remember, this was during the Reformation, when Martin Luther and many others were making errorneous personal interpretations of Scriptiure. There was genuine fear then that Galileo and those who backed him were taking upon htemselves the authoroty to interpret Scripture. As the article from the Catholic Encyclopedia notes:

Foscarini, a Carmelite friar of noble lineage, who had twice ruled Calabria as provincial, and had considerable
reputation as a preacher and theologian, threw himself with more zeal than discretion into the controversy,
as when he sought to find an argument for Copernicanism in the seven-branched candlestick of the Old Law.
Above all, he excited alarm by publishing works on the subject in the vernacular, and thus spreading the new
doctrine, which was startling even for the learned, amongst the masses who were incapable of forming any
sound judgment concerning it. There was at the time an active sceptical party in Italy, which aimed at the
overthrow of all religion, and, as Sir David Brewster acknowledges (Martyrs of Science), there is no doubt that
this party lent Galileo all its support.

This fear plus the prevailing scientific opinion of the time (which was pro-Ptolemaic and anti-Copernican) led to mistakes. The Inquisition in 1616 wrongly declared Galieo's opinions as unscriptural and heretical. Later, the Congregation of the Index banned certain books, including those which taught the Copernican theory. Both these actions were wrong, both theologically and scientifically, but not everyone realized it at the time.

Still, it wasn't a clear-cut, stupid decision either. The article continues:

At the same time, it must not be forgotten that, while there was as yet no sufficient proof of the Copernican
system, no objection was made to its being taught as an hypothesis which explained all phenomena in a simpler
manner than the Ptolemaic, and might for all practical purposes be adopted by astronomers. What was
objected to was the assertion that Copernicanism was in fact true, "which appears to contradict Scripture". It is
clear, moreover, that the authors of the judgment themselves did not consider it to be absolutely final and
irreversible, for Cardinal Bellarmine, the most influential member of the Sacred College, writing to Foscarini, after
urging that he and Galileo should be content to show that their system explains all celestial phenomena -- an
unexceptional proposition, and one sufficient for all practical purposes -- but should not categorically assert what
seemed to contradict the Bible, thus continued:

I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the
earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the
passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood
these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated.

The problems really began when Galieo violated his own promise to the Inquisition not to teach his theories as proven truth. He not only continued to do so, but made a really big thing out of it. Galieo was not at all patient with anyone who disagreed with him, and made even more enemies by publicly ridiculing them. In fact, he insulted the Pope in his famous "dialogue" where a character named Simplicio (meaning "simpleton") was made to mouth the personal beliefs of Pope Urban VIII (pro-Ptolemaic).

This may have been because Galieo was disappointed that the Pope did not reverse the decision of the Inquisition in 1616. Prior to his election as Pope, Cardinal Barberini was Galileo's personal friend and even opposed Galieo's first condemantion by the Inquisition in 1616. Thus Galieo was probably expected the Pope to reverse the decision and was then very disappointed and bitter that his old friend didn't help him. The Pope probably made a mistake there. Pope Urban VIII was not a believer in the Copernican theory (heliocentirsm), but I guess he shouild have seen that the judgement was unjust. Galieo, however, made things worse for himself, and his manner of publicly attacking those who disagreed with him may have ticked off the Pope. That is what I think makes up the personal angle involved in the Galileo case.

So, it is true that the Inquisition made a mistake. So did Pope Urban VIII. But we should remember that the Pope's personal beliefs and the judgements of ecclessiastical courts ARE NOT EX CATHEDRA DEFINITIONS OF CATHOLIC DOCTRINE. So while one may be justified in condemning the decisions of certain Catholics as wrong, one cannot attack Church doctrine on the same grounds. The one's who were wrong were persons, but not the Church as a whole or its doctrines.

[godCode]

adto na gyud mo langit ani tanan... yemen! yemen!

[shoeless_rebel]

dacs:

1. bandwagon issue: i did not jump into the bandwagon issue... i'm more of "if your'e not part of the solution then you are a part of the problem" type of guy.

2. gullible issue: my mistake... sorry for being vague. when i said "i would have been like you..." ako pasabot i would have been a catholic like you because i am surrounded by catholics. i did not say u are gullible. i apologize.

3. head of the church issue: who knows ryt? in my views the head of your church is responsible... unless there's somebody ordering the cover ups and denials other than the pope.

4. u have a knack at twisting the post of your "opponents" to suit u... i specifically pointed out that by saying "infallible" i meant it as "incapable of erring" but i got your point and will refrain from using the term from now on... kay stalemate ni.

5. how many times do i think the word "infallible" will be used in a lifetime conversation of a native english speaker? i've used it a lot lately... prolly alot... but then again me answering this question does not mean that you don't ask alot of irrelevant questions. (IE. how many times do you think will it be used in a lifetime conversation of an native speaker of English?)

6. about my verbal assault against the church: u asked me if i Â*believe i can't (i.e. "verbally" punch the mighty roman catholic church)? IMHO i believe our discussion here wont even matter a tiny bit to the church. ionno... maybe i'm wrong on this one... but i dont think so...

7. about the galileo affair: i'm not trying to be noble... but your welcome.

8. about hypocrisy: the meaning of my "hypocrisy" is the most basic meaning of that word. look it up in the dictionary... now can you please enlighten me on how you catholics understand the word?

mannyamador:

honestly sir... your'e making a lot of sense as always. ur clearing things up for me as a non believer.

"But we should remember that the Pope's personal beliefs and the judgements of ecclessiastical courts ARE NOT EX CATHEDRA DEFINITIONS OF CATHOLIC DOCTRINE. So while one may be justified in condemning the decisions of certain Catholics as wrong, one cannot attack Church doctrine on the same grounds. The one's who were wrong were persons, but not the Church as a whole or its doctrines."

thanks alot for this post... i guess i will have to re-evaluate my position. while chillin and ridin the waves in siargao! hehehehehe...

enjoy the weekend everyone.

*shoeless_rebel hangs up a sign saying "gone surfin"

[shoeless_rebel]

adto na gyud mo langit ani tanan... yemen! yemen!

mao lagi ni bro ako blema... di man daw ko ma hilangit kay dili daw ko katoliko. mao ingon sa amo silingan. hehehehehe...

[wak_wak]

adto na gyud mo langit ani tanan... yemen! yemen!

mao lagi ni bro ako blema... di man daw ko ma hilangit kay dili daw ko katoliko. mao ingon sa amo silingan. hehehehehe...

No comment ko sa imu silingan, pero wala jud ka dungog na pari ni sulti na kung di ka katholic di ka malangit. Agree pako cguro uban church na mu sulti ana, i tried attending laing laing simbahan di nalang ko mu mention ug names, part jud sa sermon sa ila pastor or unsa tawag ana nila na ang sa church ra nila ang mga save, ang uban pud kay dautan ang ubang church kay mas maau ilaha and naa pa mga worst na statement.

Ako respect man ko sa mga belief sa uban religion pero tawn oi dautan nimu ang uban church or religion di napud na sakto.

Diri pud sa forum, respect ko sa inyo tanang comments, mao man na imu belief. If against ka sa Catholic Church then adto sa lain church na imu gituohan na sakto wala man sad mi namugos na mu tuo mu sa amu tinuohan then keep nalang nimu sa imu self ang mga di nimu ganahan sa amo Church.

Pasalamat sad ko sa nag defend sa Catholic Church , thumbs up!

[shoeless_rebel]

i agree with you bro... ako sad... wala gyud ko na dungan na pari ni sulti na dili ma langit ang mga dili katoliko. not that i talk to priest as much as i do back in highschool (no choice po... catholic school po pag high school)

pero bro... gi-ingnan man gud ko dinhi sa istorya a long time ago na damned na ko for all eternity and ila nalang kuno i-ampo ako soul na maluwas and gi-ingnan ko na they feel sorry for my soul kay dili ko mu tu-o sa mga pulong sa simbahan specifically the catholic church.

hehehehehe... amawa bitaw to amu silingan. sa tinu-odanay mas maayo paman cguro ko na tawo kay sa ato niya.... ingon ra sad na sa usa namo ka silingan

[dacs]

3. head of the church issue: who knows ryt? in my views the head of your church is responsible... unless there's somebody ordering the cover ups and denials other than the pope.

Let me get this. You are of the opinion that the pope is responsible until proven otherwise. Is this correct? I was of the opinion that a person is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Indeed, our opinions do clash.

4. u have a knack at twisting the post of your "opponents" to suit u... i specifically pointed out that by saying "infallible" i meant it as "incapable of erring" but i got your point and will refrain from using the term from now on... kay stalemate ni.

Read carefully. I pointed out the inconsistency of your logic. If that is 'twisting' in your way of thinking, so be it.

5. how many times do i think the word "infallible" will be used in a lifetime conversation of a native english speaker? i've used it a lot lately... prolly alot... but then again me answering this question does not mean that you don't ask alot of irrelevant questions. (IE. how many times do you think will it be used in a lifetime conversation of an native speaker of English?)

Start at the beginning. You asserted that the word infallible is a common English word. From my own experience, it is not. You don't want to define for me the meaning of the word because to you it is a common term. I then asked you for your opinion on the number of times the word would be used by a native speaker of English to gauge if it is really common. You never answered that one. That is unfortunate. I just wanted to know where you are basing your opinion. Just because you are using it a lot lately is not proof enough for it to be called a common word.

6. about my verbal assault against the church: u asked me if i believe i can't (i.e. "verbally" punch the mighty roman catholic church)? IMHO i believe our discussion here wont even matter a tiny bit to the church. ionno... maybe i'm wrong on this one... but i dont think so...

The object here is not whether it will matter or not. The object is to find if truly one cannot "verbally" punch the mighty roman catholic church. You have given no definite answer.

8. about hypocrisy: the meaning of my "hypocrisy" is the most basic meaning of that word. look it up in the dictionary... now can you please enlighten me on how you catholics understand the word?

You had just told me that you used the word infallible different from the understanding of the Catholic Church. Consequently, I would like to know if you have a different understanding of the word hyprocrite because I simply cannot find any hypocrisy in the part of the Pope on the issue at hand. Enlighten a dull mind, please.