--- David Nicol [email protected] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 6:03 AM, Leo Mauler [email protected] wrote:
First off, some people don't celebrate (for lack of a better word) Lent.
the word you appear to be looking for is "observe"
Thank you, sometimes the word doesn't even make it to the tip of the tongue.
Secondly, Vatican II put a lot of joy back into Lent, and I doubt there are many pre-Vatican II folks on KCLUG (for example, Grandma eats fish on ALL Fridays and she's 97 years old).
um, we have Luke-jr, who appears to be pre-reformation
Vatican II changed everyday doctrines such as changing the banning of the consumption of meat on Fridays to merely the banning of the consumption of meat on Fridays *during Lent*. The Pope's official apology to Galileo didn't come till the 1990s.
St. Patrick's Day Trivia: St. Patrick's Day occurs during Lent, and in 2000 and 2006 it landed on a Friday, the Lenten day on which meat cannot be eaten. This sent the Irish-American Catholic population into turmoil, for the traditional dish on St. Patrick's Day in Irish-American Catholic households is "corned beef and cabbage". Fortunately, Catholic bishops granted special dispensations in 2000 and 2006 to permit Irish-Americans to eat "corned beef and cabbage" (but no other meat dish) on St. Patrick's Day during Lent. St. Patrick's Day will not be a Friday in Lent again until 2017.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
On Saturday 22 March 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
Vatican II changed everyday doctrines
This alone proves Vatican II to be non-Catholic. Doctrine (revealed truth), being objective truth, does not change. Ever.
such as changing the banning of the consumption of meat on Fridays to merely the banning of the consumption of meat on Fridays *during Lent*.
While abstaining from meat on Fridays probably goes back to the apostles' time, it has never been purported as a doctrine by the Catholic Church, nor could it be, since it deals neither with faith nor morals. Abstaining from meat on Fridays is a *law* that must be obeyed, but it is not a matter of truth/doctrine. While it has not been changed, there is no reason it could not be.
The Pope's official apology to Galileo didn't come till the 1990s.
There is nothing to apologize for. (nor was the man you're referring to a pope)
St. Patrick's Day Trivia: St. Patrick's Day occurs during Lent, and in 2000 and 2006 it landed on a Friday, the Lenten day on which meat cannot be eaten. This sent the Irish-American Catholic population into turmoil, for the traditional dish on St. Patrick's Day in Irish-American Catholic households is "corned beef and cabbage". Fortunately, Catholic bishops granted special dispensations in 2000 and 2006 to permit Irish-Americans to eat "corned beef and cabbage" (but no other meat dish) on St. Patrick's Day during Lent. St. Patrick's Day will not be a Friday in Lent again until 2017.
Laws can obviously be dispensed of by proper authorities as well.
So since Vatican II is an official part of the Roman Catholic Church, we can assume you didn't like the way Catholicism was going with Vatican II so you forked the doctrine and didn't apply any of the Vatican II updates?
No. Your premise is incorrect, since Vatican II is not part of the Church, but is a fork of it. If you want it in terms of technology, Wireshark (Vat2) is a fork of Ethereal (Catholicism), but took most of the developers and users with it.
--- Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:
On Saturday 22 March 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
The Pope's official apology to Galileo didn't come till the 1990s.
There is nothing to apologize for. (nor was the man you're referring to a pope)
The man who apologized about the Catholic Church's error in its complete and unqualified condemnation of Galileo's heliocentrism, *Pope John Paul II*, wasn't a Pope? This may come as a surprise to the Roman Catholic Church, since they generally keep very good track of who is or is not the Pope.
"If contemporary culture is marked by a tendency to scientism, the cultural horizon of Galileo's age was uniform and carried the imprint of a particular philosophical formation.... The majority of theologians did not recognize the formal distinction between Sacred Scripture and its interpretation, and this led them unduly to transpose into the realm of the doctrine of the faith a question which in fact pertained to scientific investigation..."
"Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture...."
Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - 4th November, 1992
(whole address here: http://tinyurl.com/3r94b)
So since Vatican II is an official part of the Roman Catholic Church, we can assume you didn't like the way Catholicism was going with Vatican II so you forked the doctrine and didn't apply any of the Vatican II updates?
No. Your premise is incorrect, since Vatican II is not part of the Church, but is a fork of it. If you want it in terms of technology, Wireshark (Vat2) is a fork of Ethereal (Catholicism), but took most of the developers and users with it.
But a doctrine as old as geocentrism is the doctrine that the Pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church, and the official Roman Catholic Church Pope at the time of Vatican II chose the Vatican II version of Catholicism. Your version decided not to go with Vatican II, which means your fork was the one which left the official Church and took some of the developers and users with it.
If we spoke in terms of the Linux Kernel, then what happened was that there was a kernel fork, you went with one version, and Linus Torvalds (the keeper of the official kernel) went with the other version. Linus' version is the only official version, so all others aren't the official version.
I realize that you feel strongly about your own theology, but in the end the version of Roman Catholicism that has the Pope at the helm really is the official version of Roman Catholicism. This means that no matter how much you consider Vatican II to be a falsehood, it is still the official policy of the official Roman Catholic Church.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
On Saturday 22 March 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
--- Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:
On Saturday 22 March 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
The Pope's official apology to Galileo didn't come till the 1990s.
There is nothing to apologize for. (nor was the man you're referring to a pope)
The man who apologized about the Catholic Church's error in its complete and unqualified condemnation of Galileo's heliocentrism,
The condemnation was rather Galileo's claim that the Bible was in error, not so much Galileo's erroneous heliocentrism itself.
*Pope John Paul II*, wasn't a Pope? This may come as a surprise to the Roman Catholic Church, since they generally keep very good track of who is or is not the Pope.
John Paul II was an antipope and is recognized as such by at least the majority of Catholic bishops.
So since Vatican II is an official part of the Roman Catholic Church, we can assume you didn't like the way Catholicism was going with Vatican II so you forked the doctrine and didn't apply any of the Vatican II updates?
No. Your premise is incorrect, since Vatican II is not part of the Church, but is a fork of it. If you want it in terms of technology, Wireshark (Vat2) is a fork of Ethereal (Catholicism), but took most of the developers and users with it.
But a doctrine as old as geocentrism is the doctrine that the Pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church, and the official Roman Catholic Church Pope at the time of Vatican II chose the Vatican II version of Catholicism.
Couldn't figure out how to parse that sentence, but...
Geocentrism, not being a matter of faith nor morals, is not something which the Church herself has a teaching or doctrine either for or against.
The Vatican II sect split from the Church after Pope Pius XII's death, taking advantage of the interrigum to quietly kick the Catholics out of the Vatican and assist their antipope-to-be in usurping the location and civil authorities traditionally held by the pope.
If we spoke in terms of the Linux Kernel, then what happened was that there was a kernel fork, you went with one version, and Linus Torvalds (the keeper of the official kernel) went with the other version. Linus' version is the only official version, so all others aren't the official version.
More accurate would be Linus dying and leaving the official kernel in his will to Willy Tarreau, but an actively-work-against-binary-modules faction supresses this information and makes Greg K-H the new main kernel maintainer.
Greg K-H's branch takes control of kernel.org and other official resources, implementing the binary-module-blocker, while Willy Tarreau knows of the will and "forks" to continue the de jure official Linux tree, as Linus had planned it.
I realize that you feel strongly about your own theology, but in the end the version of Roman Catholicism that has the Pope at the helm really is the official version of Roman Catholicism. This means that no matter how much you consider Vatican II to be a falsehood, it is still the official policy of the official Roman Catholic Church.
There are about ten people today who claim to be pope of the Catholic Church. What makes you think Benedict XVI is the one? Keep in mind that among the many guarantees Christ made for His Church, majority was not one of them.
The Catholic Church teaches (as unchangable doctrine) that to become pope, someone must first be Catholic, not a heretic as Montini (the more recent antipope John XXIII) and his successors have been. The Church also teaches that once a new pope is chosen, he must be first consecrated a bishop before he is actually the pope (this can also be proven by logic-- since the pope is bishop of Rome, he must in fact be a bishop in the first place). The "consecration" that allegedly made Benedict XVI a bishop was officially condemned by Pope Leo XIII in 1896.
how about this the one true religion based upon Jesus Christ is the one in the bible! not the Catholic church, which did not exist untill around 100 years after the death of Christ
-- Philip Dorr
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 3:59 AM, Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:
On Saturday 22 March 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
--- Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:
On Saturday 22 March 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
The Pope's official apology to Galileo didn't come till the 1990s.
There is nothing to apologize for. (nor was the man you're referring to a pope)
The man who apologized about the Catholic Church's error in its complete
and
unqualified condemnation of Galileo's heliocentrism,
The condemnation was rather Galileo's claim that the Bible was in error, not so much Galileo's erroneous heliocentrism itself.
*Pope John Paul II*, wasn't a Pope? This may come as a surprise to the Roman Catholic Church, since they generally keep very good track of who
is
or is not the Pope.
John Paul II was an antipope and is recognized as such by at least the majority of Catholic bishops.
So since Vatican II is an official part of the Roman Catholic
Church, we
can assume you didn't like the way Catholicism was going with
Vatican II
so you forked the doctrine and didn't apply any of the Vatican II updates?
No. Your premise is incorrect, since Vatican II is not part of the
Church,
but is a fork of it. If you want it in terms of technology, Wireshark (Vat2) is a fork of Ethereal (Catholicism), but took most of the developers and users with it.
But a doctrine as old as geocentrism is the doctrine that the Pope is
the
head of the Roman Catholic Church, and the official Roman Catholic
Church
Pope at the time of Vatican II chose the Vatican II version of
Catholicism.
Couldn't figure out how to parse that sentence, but...
Geocentrism, not being a matter of faith nor morals, is not something which the Church herself has a teaching or doctrine either for or against.
The Vatican II sect split from the Church after Pope Pius XII's death, taking advantage of the interrigum to quietly kick the Catholics out of the Vatican and assist their antipope-to-be in usurping the location and civil authorities traditionally held by the pope.
If we spoke in terms of the Linux Kernel, then what happened was that
there
was a kernel fork, you went with one version, and Linus Torvalds (the
keeper
of the official kernel) went with the other version. Linus' version is
the
only official version, so all others aren't the official version.
More accurate would be Linus dying and leaving the official kernel in his will to Willy Tarreau, but an actively-work-against-binary-modules faction supresses this information and makes Greg K-H the new main kernel maintainer.
Greg K-H's branch takes control of kernel.org and other official resources, implementing the binary-module-blocker, while Willy Tarreau knows of the will and "forks" to continue the de jure official Linux tree, as Linus had planned it.
I realize that you feel strongly about your own theology, but in the end
the
version of Roman Catholicism that has the Pope at the helm really is the official version of Roman Catholicism. This means that no matter how
much
you consider Vatican II to be a falsehood, it is still the official
policy
of the official Roman Catholic Church.
There are about ten people today who claim to be pope of the Catholic Church. What makes you think Benedict XVI is the one? Keep in mind that among the many guarantees Christ made for His Church, majority was not one of them.
The Catholic Church teaches (as unchangable doctrine) that to become pope, someone must first be Catholic, not a heretic as Montini (the more recent antipope John XXIII) and his successors have been. The Church also teaches that once a new pope is chosen, he must be first consecrated a bishop before he is actually the pope (this can also be proven by logic-- since the pope is bishop of Rome, he must in fact be a bishop in the first place). The "consecration" that allegedly made Benedict XVI a bishop was officially condemned by Pope Leo XIII in 1896. _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list [email protected] http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
On Saturday 22 March 2008, Philip Dorr wrote:
how about this the one true religion based upon Jesus Christ is the one in the bible! not the Catholic church, which did not exist untill around 100 years after the death of Christ
The Church spoken of in the Bible is the one and same Catholic Church as today. The laws might have changed a bit, but the doctrine and spiritual hierarchy is all the same.
You see, this is why you need to ban jerks like this who use your Linux discussion list as their own personal trolling ground. You can argue that you can just ignore him, but as you've seen he manages to stir everyone else up. He's not here for serious discourse, he uses this list as a semi-anonymous method of broadcasting his bullshit to a large audience.
Jeffrey.
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 4:12 AM, Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:
The Church spoken of in the Bible is the one and same Catholic Church as today. The laws might have changed a bit, but the doctrine and spiritual hierarchy is all the same.
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Jeffrey Watts [email protected] wrote:
You see, this is why you need to ban jerks like this who use your Linux discussion list as their own personal trolling ground. You can argue that you can just ignore him, but as you've seen he manages to stir everyone else up. He's not here for serious discourse, he uses this list as a semi-anonymous method of broadcasting his bullshit to a large audience.
Okay, I surrender. Luke has convinced me that you're right. We need some form of moderation.
Adrian
--- Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:
On Saturday 22 March 2008, Philip Dorr wrote:
how about this the one true religion based upon Jesus Christ is the one in the bible! not the Catholic church, which did not exist untill around 100 years after the death of Christ
The Church spoken of in the Bible is the one and same Catholic Church as today. The laws might have changed a bit, but the doctrine and spiritual hierarchy is all the same.
I seem to recall from my Bible studies that the Bible not only allowed, but *insisted on*, the marriage of elders, deacons, and bishops. In fact, you were considered *ineligible* for these church offices until you were "the husband of one wife". The Pauline books that these verses appear in would have been written down earlier than any of the Gospels, 50-60 C.E. as opposed to the earliest Gospel dated around 70-84 C.E.
But when I turn to look at the Roman Catholic Church, *pre-Vatican II*, I see a church which requires a vow of *celibacy* for all its priests and bishops, and does not require its priests and bishops to be married, like the Bible insists should be so.
And so I find it a little hard to believe that the Church spoken of in the Bible is "the one and same Catholic Church as today." Especially as since it seems obvious that a Vatican II-like conference resulted in a sharp *change* from the Bible text requiring priests and bishops to be married.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Replied off-list. Let me know if you want to be added to the CC.
On 3/27/08, Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:
Replied off-list. Let me know if you want to be added to the CC. _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list [email protected] http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
Luke,
Thank you for taking this discussion off-list. I applaud your respect of consensus decision of the other list members and the general topic of this organization.
Please CC me as to your off topic conversation. I find your opinion on the topic interesting.
--- Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:
On Saturday 22 March 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
*Pope John Paul II*, wasn't a Pope? This may come as a surprise to the Roman Catholic Church, since they generally keep very good track of who is or is not the Pope.
John Paul II was an antipope and is recognized as such by at least the majority of Catholic bishops.
Which is an interesting statement, since most fringe Catholic groups which claim that Pope John Paul II (and everyone else elected Pope since Vatican II) was an antipope (especially the sedevacantists), also claim that the great majority of the bishops listed in the Holy See's "Annuario Pontificio" are in reality laymen.
Thanks to the rule in Canon Law that someone only gets ordained a Bishop with a permission slip from the current Pope in the Vatican (this rule predates Vatican II and thus is still a part of "traditional" Catholicism), any other "list of Bishops" is therefore also invalid and all the Bishops listed on such lists are also "laymen". Canon Law lists no alternative method to the "papal permission slip" of officially ordaining a Catholic Bishop.
So it would appear that "a majority of Catholic Bishops recognize that Pope John Paul II was an antipope" is a statement arrived at by fudging the data, since if you think that it is true, then you also think that "a majority of Catholic Bishops" aren't really Bishops. If 90 of 100 Bishops support Pope Benedict XVI, and you artificially delete those Bishops from the registry because "they're not really Bishops", naturally you'll hit a majority of 10 out of 10 who think he's an "antipope".
These numbers are, however, more like a survey about Linux where you only call Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates: "100% of computer professionals surveyed think Linux sucks."
There are about ten people today who claim to be pope of the Catholic Church.
Well its a pity there is such a small supply (the real number is still like 17), otherwise I'd suggest that the Catholic Church go into quantum physics and develop a new, clean energy source from crashing popes into antipopes.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Please take this off the list.
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Leo Mauler [email protected] wrote:
Catholic groups which claim
s/which/who/; # they're people, you know
-
Adrian Griffis -
bewkard -
Christopher A. Bier -
David Nicol -
Jeffrey Watts -
Leo Mauler -
Luke -Jr -
Philip Dorr