A thought for Mark Johnson
Adam Marczyk
news:1bg5gvso7k195s3gn...@4ax.com...
> All one needs to begin, is a The Theory with which people might
> generally agree. I had something of that on t.o. It's long out the
> window in these recent threads of the past month or so.
>
> Interesting, huh?
Considered for your approval:
The Roman Catholic Bible contains seven books (Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2
Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus and Baruch), collectively
called the Apocrypha or the Deuterocanonical books, that are not contained
in any Protestant Bible version; Protestants do not regard these books as
canonical. The Nestorian church, in Syria, does not contain the Apocrypha,
nor does it contain 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation; Nestorians
do not regard those books as canonical, though both Protestants and
Catholics do. The Ethopian Orthodox church has the books of the Catholics'
canon, but adds Jubilees and 1 Enoch, among others.
Even when one considers only the books of the Bible which all Christians
regard as canonical, there are numerous different translations to choose
from. Some Christians, usually hard-line Protestants, insist that the King
James translation is the only valid one and all others are Satanic
deceptions. Others would allow other translations such as the RSV or NIV.
The Jehovah's Witnesses prefer their own Watchtower version, the accuracy
of which is often bitterly contested by non-Jehovah's Witnesses.
Even when one disregards the problem of which translation to choose from,
the various Christian sects often differ on key points of doctrine. The
Roman Catholic church believes that the body and blood of Jesus are
actually present in the Eucharist (transubstantiation); other sects view it
as purely symbolic. The Catholics have an elaborate system of saints and
allow believers to pray to them; the Protestant sects repudiate this idea
and some go so far as to call it idolatry. The Catholics have an
ecclesiastical hierarchy headed by the Pope, whom they consider to be
Christ's vicar on Earth; some Protestants believe this system is the Whore
of Babylon and the Pope is the Antichrist. The Catholics believe that
believers must confess their sins to priests; most other sects believe this
is useless, even anti-Biblical, and that sins should be confessed only to
God. The Catholics believe priests should remain celibate and unmarried;
Protestant sects do not believe this. Catholics believe in a plane called
Purgatory; most other sects believe only in Heaven and Hell. The Lutherans
believe that all people must be baptized to gain entry to Heaven; other
sects believe baptism is purely symbolic. The Oneness Pentecostal churches
deny the doctrine of the Trinity; other sects insist on it. The Jehovah's
Witnesses believe Jesus was not God incarnate; other sects believe he was.
Born-again and evangelical Christians believe salvation comes only through
a single, saving act of faith; Catholics believe faith must also be
supplemented with good works. Fundamentalists believe the Bible is the
literal, unaltered word of God; liberals believe it reflects only spiritual
truths and has been changed over time by men. Calvinists believe men have
no free will and are predestined to salvation or damnation by God; most
other sects believe human beings can choose their own destiny by their
actions.
So let's take you at your own word, Mark, and stipulate that to begin, you
first have to have something with which people can generally agree.
Clearly, this is not at all the case with *your* chosen belief system -
just about every single aspect of which has been bitterly debated,
contested, and fought over - not just for a few months, either, but since
the very beginning.
So tell us, Mark, what IS . . . Christianity?
Peace.
--
"I'm materialist | a.a. #2001
Call me a humanist | http://www.ebonmusings.org
I guess I'm full of doubt | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
So I'll gladly have it out with you..." | ICQ: 8777843
--Bad Religion, "Materialist" | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert A. Walker
> Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:1bg5gvso7k195s3gn...@4ax.com...
>
> > All one needs to begin, is a The Theory with which people might
> > generally agree. I had something of that on t.o. It's long out the
> > window in these recent threads of the past month or so.
> >
> > Interesting, huh?
>
> Considered for your approval:
>
Snip
Good luck. "A thought for Mark Johnson" is a contradiction in terms.
Bill Hudson
<ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
[snipped]
> So tell us, Mark, what IS . . . Christianity?
>
> Peace.
Geez Adam; It's too bad a.t.c doesn't have a POTM award.
Tom
"Robert A. Walker" <rwa...@nycc.edu> wrote in message
news:8d9ab0cb.03070...@posting.google.com...
> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<cjLMa.575$os5...@news02.roc.ny>...
> > Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> > news:1bg5gvso7k195s3gn...@4ax.com...
> >
> > > All one needs to begin, is a The Theory with which people might
> > > generally agree. I had something of that on t.o. It's long out the
> > > window in these recent threads of the past month or so.
> > >
> > > Interesting, huh?
> >
> > Considered for your approval:
> >
>
>
> Good luck. "A thought for Mark Johnson" is a contradiction in terms.
Tom: I think it is too, however, he did say it was a thought and not
thoughts so Johnson might be able to handle it.
Mary Catherine Gallagher
<ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
I hope you're also willing to clean up the mess by yourself when MJ's
head explodes from that thought, because Miss Mary Catherine Gallagher
ain't your maid, Bubba.
Hugs (after you wash your hands of *that* mess) --
Mary Cath.
Mary Catherine Gallagher
But honey, it was one LOOOOOONG thought, and there is definitely NOT
enough room in MJ"s tuchus for that thought and his head.
And pity the poor soul who has to change that diaper, let me tell
you, because Mary Catherine Gallagher don't do diapers.
Hugs --
Mary Cath.
Mark Johnson
>Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:1bg5gvso7k195s3gn...@4ax.com...
>The Roman Catholic Bible contains seven books (Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2
>Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus and Baruch), collectively
>called the Apocrypha
Called that by Prots. But the Prots didn't compile Scriptures. The
Church did. The Prots didn't come along until roughly a millenia,
later.
>Even when one considers only the books of the Bible which all Christians
>regard as canonical
The only Christians . . are Catholic. Even The Church has loosely used
the term, Christian, to apply to both heretic and schismatic, it's
true. But in the sense of a Christian Bible, it can mean only that
approved and complied by The Church - no other.
That's what it means to be the one, true Church. The phony Prot Bibles
were created to support the creed of that 'Bible-only' sect. The
Church objected. And because they objected to bogus and self-servingly
Prot translations, they were accused by the Prot, who got to write a
lot of local histories, of disfavoring the vernacular or any
understanding of Holy Scriptures, when it was the accusers who
cynically wanted to deny their own flocks, the very Word of God.
>the various Christian sects often differ on key points of doctrine. The
>Roman Catholic church believes that the body and blood of Jesus are
>actually present in the Eucharist (transubstantiation); other sects view it
>as purely symbolic.
The Reformed Catholic, that present 'reform' sect which basically
controls the institution you might loosely call The Catholic Church,
at least that currently listed in various phone company Yellow Page
listings, is not sure if it still confesses transubstantiation. Some
feel it's just a bishop's conference away that more formal
renunciation will be made. Until then, the procedure is to act as if
it didn't happen - and don't talk about it, whatever you do. If a
'Catholic' wants to believe it's a holy 'symbol', and not God in the
Flesh, then I doubt many pastors and bishops would really be upset,
what with 'so much to do', otherwise. I very much doubt such a
'believer' would be refused communion at the Pauline Rite.
>The Catholics have an elaborate system of saints and
>allow believers to pray to them; the Protestant sects repudiate this idea
>and some go so far as to call it idolatry.
They're wrong. And the Saints said they were wrong.
>The Catholics have an
>ecclesiastical hierarchy headed by the Pope, whom they consider to be
>Christ's vicar on Earth; some Protestants believe this system is the Whore
>of Babylon and the Pope is the Antichrist.
Well, it wasn't The Church that destroyed Christendom. It was The
Church and Christendom that the Prots attacked - and defeated. The
spirit of anti-Christ can always be found in proud innovators and
'reformers', who feel wronged by Catholic Tradition. The war isn't
over, of course. And even Islam, or some portion, might be enlisted
against the new enemies of The Church, unlikely as it may seem. Maybe
even a few Prot 'born-agains' will put away their Bob Jones'
'education', their 'Satan in Rome' bigotry, and decide that there's no
point to a separate evangelical movement, when what's needed is an end
to 'reform', the collapse of a false 'ecumenism', and the introduction
of Catholic honesty in dealing with heretics and schismatics, so that
reasons can be shown and trust established among men behaving
honorably, and not within a cowardly and hated structure of 'reform'.
>So let's take you at your own word, Mark, and stipulate that to begin, you
>first have to have something with which people can generally agree.
>Clearly, this is not at all the case with *your* chosen belief system
But I do confess - what Catholics believe. So did the Saints. So did
many Popes, maybe even a bit these last two PC Popes.
You're trying to fuzzily lump in Dem and Rep, as it were, to prove
that not everyone sides with Dem or Rep, or Ralph Nader's good twin.
But even for disagreement in the parties, there are certain things
they agree on. The Dem, for example, want power, at any cost. That
greed and avarice unite them. They believe. Others may not. But it
proves nothing about them to say that others do not. Similarly - you
can say that Cranmer loathed The Mass, as he did. It says nothing
about either The Mass, that Pope, The Church, or even Bill Clinton and
the military, to point out Cranmer's prejudice.
>So tell us, Mark, what IS . . . Christianity?
You mean - what do Catholics believe?
How about starting with either Creed? Catholics confess that.
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
€R.L. Measures
1023...@compuserve.com wrote:
> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> >news:1bg5gvso7k195s3gn...@4ax.com...
>
> >The Roman Catholic Bible contains seven books (Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2
> >Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus and Baruch), collectively
> >called the Apocrypha
>
> Called that by Prots. But the Prots didn't compile Scriptures. The
> Church did. ...
*** "The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie becane truth".
-- George Orwell, *1984*
--
Rich, AG6K, 805 386 3734, www.vcnet.com/measures
remove ^ from e-mail address
Adam Marczyk
> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>> news:1bg5gvso7k195s3gn...@4ax.com...
>
>> The Roman Catholic Bible contains seven books (Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2
>> Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus and Baruch), collectively
>> called the Apocrypha
>
> Called that by Prots. But the Prots didn't compile Scriptures. The
> Church did. The Prots didn't come along until roughly a millenia,
> later.
On the other hand, to hear some Christians tell it, a lineage of True
Christianity has existed all along and has protected the real Bible from
the corruption of the Catholic church.
>> Even when one considers only the books of the Bible which all Christians
>> regard as canonical
>
> The only Christians . . are Catholic.
Well, talk about trying to define your way out of the problem! (Somehow I
knew you would do this.) So people who worship a Trinitarian God, believe
that Jesus Christ came to earth as God Incarnate to die for man's sins, and
use the Bible as their holy book are not Christians? The funny thing is,
many of these people would say the exact opposite - that *they're* the only
true Christians and you Catholics are not!
At least evolutionary scientists can have honest differences of opinion
without denying that their opponents support evolution at all. The
disagreements among them are trivial compared to the disagreements among
you people - no biologist worth his salt differs on the fundamental
principles of evolution, though they may assign more or less importance to
different mechanisms of change.
[...]
>> the various Christian sects often differ on key points of doctrine. The
>> Roman Catholic church believes that the body and blood of Jesus are
>> actually present in the Eucharist (transubstantiation); other sects
>> view it as purely symbolic.
>
> The Reformed Catholic, that present 'reform' sect which basically
> controls the institution you might loosely call The Catholic Church,
Sounds to me like you don't care too much for the direction the Catholic
church has been taking lately. So why do evolutionary scientists' much
smaller differences invalidate all of evolution?
> at least that currently listed in various phone company Yellow Page
> listings, is not sure if it still confesses transubstantiation. Some
> feel it's just a bishop's conference away that more formal
> renunciation will be made. Until then, the procedure is to act as if
> it didn't happen - and don't talk about it, whatever you do.
And to think you complain about "evolutionists" not agreeing! At least when
scientists have a difference of opinion about something, they do their best
to hammer out their differences and resolve the problem - not to act as if
the difference didn't exist and avoid talking about it.
[...]
>> The Catholics have an elaborate system of saints and
>> allow believers to pray to them; the Protestant sects repudiate this
>> idea and some go so far as to call it idolatry.
>
> They're wrong. And the Saints said they were wrong.
Well, who can argue with that? ;) (Reminds me of a fundamentalist
Protestant site I saw the other day where the author dared the Jews to
explain why it was, if Judaism was the true religion, that ninety-nine
percent of Jews who have died are now in Hell.)
>> The Catholics have an
>> ecclesiastical hierarchy headed by the Pope, whom they consider to be
>> Christ's vicar on Earth; some Protestants believe this system is the
>> Whore of Babylon and the Pope is the Antichrist.
>
> Well, it wasn't The Church that destroyed Christendom. It was The
> Church and Christendom that the Prots attacked - and defeated. The
> spirit of anti-Christ can always be found in proud innovators and
> 'reformers', who feel wronged by Catholic Tradition. The war isn't
> over, of course. And even Islam, or some portion, might be enlisted
> against the new enemies of The Church, unlikely as it may seem. Maybe
> even a few Prot 'born-agains' will put away their Bob Jones'
> 'education', their 'Satan in Rome' bigotry, and decide that there's no
> point to a separate evangelical movement, when what's needed is an end
> to 'reform', the collapse of a false 'ecumenism', and the introduction
> of Catholic honesty in dealing with heretics and schismatics, so that
> reasons can be shown and trust established among men behaving
> honorably, and not within a cowardly and hated structure of 'reform'.
In other words, there is no true Christianity and everything is corrupt and
worthless, therefore the whole system should be rejected. Right?
>> So let's take you at your own word, Mark, and stipulate that to begin,
>> you first have to have something with which people can generally agree.
>> Clearly, this is not at all the case with *your* chosen belief system
>
> But I do confess - what Catholics believe. So did the Saints. So did
> many Popes, maybe even a bit these last two PC Popes.
So you agree that differences in opinion among people who call themselves
Christians does not invalidate all of Christianity. Why do you hold
evolution to a different standard, then?
> You're trying to fuzzily lump in Dem and Rep,
Absolutely not. Democrats and Republicans do not claim to be members of the
same political group.
[...]
>> So tell us, Mark, what IS . . . Christianity?
>
> You mean - what do Catholics believe?
No. What do *Christians* believe?
> How about starting with either Creed? Catholics confess that.
In a somewhat similar vein, if you want to know what evolution is, why not
consult a good college-level biology text? If you met a Catholic who
couldn't recite either of those creeds, would you conclude that all of
Catholicism was hopelessly confused and had to be rejected? I think even
you can understand the point I'm making. If anything, you have personally
admitted that Christianity is far more confused and disjointed than
evolution ever was.
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
bardi
> Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:mljagv4cmsi7gl4hv...@4ax.com...
> > "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1bg5gvso7k195s3gn...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> The Roman Catholic Bible contains seven books (Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2
> >> Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus and Baruch), collectively
> >> called the Apocrypha
> >
> > Called that by Prots. But the Prots didn't compile Scriptures. The
> > Church did. The Prots didn't come along until roughly a millenia,
> > later.
>
>
collectively called the Apocrypha. There are books within the Old Testament
which taken collectively are called the Deuterocanon. Most Protestant
religions, while disputing their place in the Bible, also refer to them
these days as the Deuterocanon. In fact the Baptists,I am told, are in the
process of coming out with a new translation.
df
bardi
bardi
"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:olhNa.134$K_6...@news01.roc.ny...
> Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote > >
>
> Well, talk about trying to define your way out of the problem! (Somehow I
> knew you would do this.) So people who worship a Trinitarian God, believe
> that Jesus Christ came to earth as God Incarnate to die for man's sins,
and
> use the Bible as their holy book are not Christians? The funny thing is,
> many of these people would say the exact opposite - that *they're* the
only
> true Christians and you Catholics are not!
>
>
Just for the record btw, there ate substantive differences between the
proclamations of Mr Johnson, who has admitted at least an admiration for
pronounced heretics, and with the professed belief of the Roman Catholic
Church
df
bardi
Tom Vick
"bardi" <tor...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:3f05dfbf$0$49012$a046...@nnrp.fuse.net...
Really? One example?
PAX
lex orandi, lex credendi
Tony Miller
Marcel LeFebre
That's just off the top of my head.
-Tony
--
For fairly troll free Catholic discussion, join on the web at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/romancatholic/
"it is all too easy for human beings to prooftext their way into hell."
-- James R. Black.
Daniel Höhr
Sorry Tony, but Marcel Lefebvre was not a pronounced heretic, he
incurred the penalty of excommunication for being disobedient (he was
not supposed to carry out the episcopal ordinations of 30 June 1988.
But coming back to St Mark Johnson, as far as I can see it, the only
real heretic he admits admiration for is himself!
Daniel
Mark Johnson
>knew you would do this.) So people who worship a Trinitarian God, believe
>that Jesus Christ came to earth as God Incarnate to die for man's sins, and
>use the Bible as their holy book are not Christians? The funny thing is
Consider the humor, then. As the Prots, who at least publicly
confessed Trinitarianism, sung at 'gathering' or 'chapel', or
whatever, there was a period where not such a distance away, God and
His priests were under a death sentence, for being Catholic priests.
Mass was held at the cliffs. And nations were subject to the tyranny
of the Church of England. So - no - a sect that makes war on
Catholicism, literally open, hot, guns-ablazin war, and that would
kill every Catholic priest if it could - does not follow Our Lord, and
certainly not The Church that He founded. Now, maybe they've mellowed
in their age, and no longer have such laws on their books. But that's
where the sect came from. And that's what it used to do.
>many of these people would say the exact opposite - that *they're* the only
>true Christians and you Catholics are not!
People can say whatever they want. Doesn't mean it's true.
Let's look at evolutionism:
>At least evolutionary scientists can have honest differences of opinion
>without denying that their opponents support evolution at all.
What if they had an open-mind on the subject? What if they came to
such a horrible conclusion?
Would you tremble?
>disagreements among them are trivial compared to the disagreements among
>you people - no biologist worth his salt
Worth his salt? earned his pay?
How does he do that?:
>differs on the fundamental principles of evolution, though they may
But he's not allowed to disagree, or he doesn't get paid?
>> The Reformed Catholic, that present 'reform' sect which basically
>> controls the institution you might loosely call The Catholic Church,
>Sounds to me like you don't care too much for the direction the Catholic
>church has been taking lately.
Neither does God. All those things considered of God, in the past,
have been rejected by libralism, today - unholy 'reform'. So you
choose sides, as always. And I side with God, even if I'm hardly
perfect, myself. But I don't side with those who refuse God, who break
the covenant. Everything old . . as the saying goes . . . happens
again, and again.
>So why do evolutionary scientists' much
>smaller differences invalidate all of evolution?
Because it seems ridiculous on its face. I mentioned this, last year.
But in these recent threads, you can't get agreement on even roughly
what The Theory of evolution is. And yet here you go talking about -
evolution - as if the word even meant a thing. You haven't even
established that much, I'm here to tell you.
>> at least that currently listed in various phone company Yellow Page
>> listings, is not sure if it still confesses transubstantiation. Some
>> feel it's just a bishop's conference away that more formal
>> renunciation will be made. Until then, the procedure is to act as if
>> it didn't happen - and don't talk about it, whatever you do.
>And to think you complain about "evolutionists" not agreeing! At least when
>scientists have a difference of opinion about something, they do their best
>to hammer out their differences and resolve the problem - not to act as if
>the difference didn't exist and avoid talking about it.
Except for evolutionists, then. What I wrote is that the practice is
attacked prior to any formal renunciation. Then it's an accomplished
fact, and the formal statement can be made. Quite a 'clever' scheme -
huh?
>>> The Catholics have an elaborate system of saints and
>>> allow believers to pray to them; the Protestant sects repudiate this
>>> idea and some go so far as to call it idolatry.
>> They're wrong. And the Saints said they were wrong.
>Well, who can argue with that? ;) (Reminds me of a fundamentalist
>Protestant site I saw the other day where the author dared the Jews to
>explain why it was, if Judaism was the true religion, that ninety-nine
>percent of Jews who have died are now in Hell.)
You mean you don't believe the Saints when they said Protestantism was
an attack on The Holy Catholic Church? Well - how about all those wars
they waged against Catholic provinces and nations, to get rid of the
Catholic leadership, and the local Church?
>>> Christ's vicar on Earth; some Protestants believe this system is the
>>> Whore of Babylon and the Pope is the Antichrist.
>> Well, it wasn't The Church that destroyed Christendom. It was The
>> Church and Christendom that the Prots attacked - and defeated. The
>> spirit of anti-Christ can always be found in proud innovators and
>> 'reformers', who feel wronged by Catholic Tradition. The war isn't
>> over, of course. And even Islam, or some portion, might be enlisted
>> against the new enemies of The Church, unlikely as it may seem. Maybe
>> even a few Prot 'born-agains' will put away their Bob Jones'
>> 'education', their 'Satan in Rome' bigotry, and decide that there's no
>> point to a separate evangelical movement, when what's needed is an end
>> to 'reform', the collapse of a false 'ecumenism', and the introduction
>> of Catholic honesty in dealing with heretics and schismatics, so that
>> reasons can be shown and trust established among men behaving
>> honorably, and not within a cowardly and hated structure of 'reform'.
>In other words, there is no true Christianity and everything is corrupt and
>worthless, therefore the whole system should be rejected. Right?
Of course there's The Church, Militant. What you're saying is that
because there was, say, Arianism, that therefore - in conclusion - the
whole 'system should be rejected'. Well, Athanasius did not share that
opinion, nor did quite a few others. And by Providence, they were
victorious, and The Church was seen yet again, after the latest
crippling heresy. Today is no different. We're living in an Arianism
sort of period in the institutional church, if that'll help you
understand.
>> But I do confess - what Catholics believe. So did the Saints. So did
>> many Popes, maybe even a bit these last two PC Popes.
>So you agree that differences in opinion among people who call themselves
>Christians does not invalidate all of Christianity.
The fact of heretics and schismatics does not by itself "invalidate"
that from which they separated, namely the one, true Church - The
Catholic Church.
>> You're trying to fuzzily lump in Dem and Rep,
>Absolutely not. Democrats and Republicans do not claim to be members of the
>same political group.
And I, too, still maintain that there's a difference.
>>> So tell us, Mark, what IS . . . Christianity?
>> You mean - what do Catholics believe?
>No. What do *Christians* believe?
Then you're confused. How can a man follow Christ, and reject His
Church?
>> How about starting with either Creed? Catholics confess that.
>In a somewhat similar vein, if you want to know what evolution is, why not
>consult a good college-level biology text?
I take it you asked about - what Catholics believed. So I gave you a
partial answer.
>couldn't recite either of those creeds, would you conclude that all of
>Catholicism was hopelessly confused and had to be rejected? I think even
>you can understand the point I'm making. If anything, you have personally
>admitted that Christianity is far more confused and disjointed than
>evolution ever was.
So, again, in your typical logical fallacy, you insist that because
people break the law, that therefore the law is "confused and
disjointed". Maybe . . people just break the law, in full knowledge
even. And maybe they shouldn't. Maybe it's a just law. And maybe the
majority rejects Catholicism. And Catholicism is The Church founded by
God, Himself.
Tom Vick
"Tony Miller" <to...@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnbgcce...@callisto.jtan.com...
I see. I didn't know that "Marcel LeFebre" was a defined heresy. I DID
know that LeFebre was, arguably, a heretic, although that "status" may have
changed near the end of his life. That said, assuming that you are saying
that Mark agrees with LeFebre on a particular, fromal, defined
heresy.......what is it? Again, Lefebre was, arguably, excommunicated for
"disobedience", but "heresy"?
Either your statement is correct, or it is in error. Which is it? Off the
top of your head.
Tom Vick
"Daniel Höhr" <dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:3F069C5B...@myrealbox.com...
And that "heresy" (or "heresies") is (are)? Referring to someone as a
"heretic" doesn't make him/her a "heretic"......just as referring to oneself
as a "catholic" doesn't make him/her Catholic. If you, or me, or anyone, is
going to refer to someone as a "heretic", then it is incumbent upon the
"accuser" to name the heresy......no?
bardi
"Tom Vick" <to...@pld.com> wrote in message news:3f04b5ce$1_4@newsfeed...
One? Mark is an ardent supporter of Lefebvre. Not just of his group but of
the man himself.
df
bardi
bardi
"Tom Vick" <to...@pld.com> wrote in message news:3f057d17$1_1@newsfeed...
divisive, or schismatic." Hence. Lefebvre acted in ways that were divisive
and in schism with the Roman Catholic Church. Furthermore, as a member of
vocation he violated his own oaths by not remaining obedient to the Holy
See. Note. I am not stating that Mark is a heretic, only that he has shown
admiration for heretics. On the other hand, I would have sincere doubts
about calling him a Roman Catholic given his judgements on various
priests,Cardinals and Popes.
df
bardi
Daniel Höhr
Tom Vick wrote:
If you were actually reading what's in front of your nose (your Master
St. Mark Johnson finds that difficult as well, but never mind), you
would know what is being talked about.
http://www.geocities.com/ymjcath/MassNote.htm
Got it?
Daniel
--
United Trans-Atlantic Cheesecake Hunters, Eaters,
And Perusers Helping Others
(UTACHEAPHO)
bardi
Tom Vick wrote:
http://www.geocities.com/ymjcath/MassNote.htm
Got it?
But I do agree for the most part. Mark may call himself a catholic all day
long but that does not make him one.
df
bardi
Daniel Höhr
bardi wrote:
> The word "heretic" is the Greek word "hairetikos" which means "factious,
> divisive, or schismatic." Hence. Lefebvre acted in ways that were divisive
> and in schism with the Roman Catholic Church. Furthermore, as a member of
> vocation he violated his own oaths by not remaining obedient to the Holy
> See.
Good work, bardi.
> Note. I am not stating that Mark is a heretic, only that he has shown
> admiration for heretics.
I'd say that publicly denying the validity of the Consecration in the
Novus Ordo Missae _is_ "factious, divisive, or schismatic". IMHO that
makes him a heretic.
> On the other hand, I would have sincere doubts
> about calling him a Roman Catholic given his judgements on various
> priests,Cardinals and Popes.
I wouldn't have sincere doubts about calling him an Idiot.
Daniel Höhr
I can't recall having read/heard anything by the late Archbishop
Marcel Lefebvre saying the Consecration in the Novus Ordo could
possibly invalid. Having said that, I wouldn't bet on it.
Mark, however, continually and continuously _denies_ the Consecration.
Now let's see how long it will take him to post his URL....
David Jensen
in <jf9dgvg9ojefooh76...@4ax.com>:
>"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Let's look at evolutionism:
>
>>At least evolutionary scientists can have honest differences of opinion
>>without denying that their opponents support evolution at all.
>
>What if they had an open-mind on the subject? What if they came to
>such a horrible conclusion?
>
>Would you tremble?
What are you asking about?
>>disagreements among them are trivial compared to the disagreements among
>>you people - no biologist worth his salt
>
>Worth his salt? earned his pay?
>
>How does he do that?:
>
>>differs on the fundamental principles of evolution, though they may
>
>But he's not allowed to disagree, or he doesn't get paid?
No scientist is forbidden to disagree. You imply that some may have been
driven out because they had scientific objections to the use of the
evidence. Please provide examples.
[snip]
>>So why do evolutionary scientists' much
>>smaller differences invalidate all of evolution?
>
>Because it seems ridiculous on its face. I mentioned this, last year.
The fact that you claim it is ridiculous doesn't mean anything until you
show how it is ridiculous. We've mentioned that you have neglected to
support your claim.
>But in these recent threads, you can't get agreement on even roughly
>what The Theory of evolution is. And yet here you go talking about -
>evolution - as if the word even meant a thing. You haven't even
>established that much, I'm here to tell you.
Your assertion about disagreement is incorrect and invalid. Once again,
you make a claim without supporting it.
[snip]
Tony Miller
Then I stand corrected.
Tony Miller
Denying the validity of the Nuvus Ordo Missae legally promulgated by a
valid Pope, makes Mark Johnson a heretic.
(And only because he claims to be Catholic)
> PAX
> lex orandi, lex credendi
-Tony
Mary Catherine Gallagher
maf1029
>Again, Lefebre was, arguably, excommunicated for
>"disobedience"
Yoo-hoo, Mr. Word Games, one is either excommunicated, or one is not
excommunicated.. No qualifier or modifier is necessary.
And even I know that Marcel LeFebvre was excommunicated by the RCC,
not "arguably."
http://www.geocities.com/zmjcath/
maf and dog,aa #1954, EAC Cruise Director and Lounge Pianist,
respectively
Adam Marczyk
> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >knew you would do this.) So people who worship a Trinitarian God, believe
> >that Jesus Christ came to earth as God Incarnate to die for man's sins, and
> >use the Bible as their holy book are not Christians? The funny thing is
>
> Consider the humor, then. As the Prots, who at least publicly
> confessed Trinitarianism, sung at 'gathering' or 'chapel', or
> whatever, there was a period where not such a distance away, God and
> His priests were under a death sentence, for being Catholic priests.
> Mass was held at the cliffs. And nations were subject to the tyranny
> of the Church of England.
Which was, in turn, formed as a reaction to the tyranny of
Catholicism.
> So - no - a sect that makes war on
> Catholicism, literally open, hot, guns-ablazin war, and that would
> kill every Catholic priest if it could - does not follow Our Lord, and
> certainly not The Church that He founded. Now, maybe they've mellowed
> in their age, and no longer have such laws on their books. But that's
> where the sect came from. And that's what it used to do.
And I suppose you think the Protestants are the only Christian sect
that has ever attempted to kill heretics? Spanish Inquisition ring any
bells here, hmm? The Crusades? Ever heard of Giordano Bruno? (Oh, I
forgot. The people who did those things weren't "True Christians,"
right?)
[...]
> >differs on the fundamental principles of evolution, though they may
>
> But he's not allowed to disagree, or he doesn't get paid?
I don't even know what you're talking about here.
> >> The Reformed Catholic, that present 'reform' sect which basically
> >> controls the institution you might loosely call The Catholic Church,
>
> >Sounds to me like you don't care too much for the direction the Catholic
> >church has been taking lately.
>
> Neither does God. All those things considered of God, in the past,
> have been rejected by libralism, today - unholy 'reform'. So you
> choose sides, as always. And I side with God, even if I'm hardly
> perfect, myself. But I don't side with those who refuse God, who break
> the covenant. Everything old . . as the saying goes . . . happens
> again, and again.
>
> >So why do evolutionary scientists' much
> >smaller differences invalidate all of evolution?
>
> Because it seems ridiculous on its face. I mentioned this, last year.
> But in these recent threads, you can't get agreement on even roughly
> what The Theory of evolution is.
The only reason you say this is because you ask for answers and then
don't listen to them. There is no disagreement among evolutionary
scientists as to what evolution consists of. Some scientists disagree
on the relative importance of various mechanisms, or the specific
paths by which some groups evolved, but the basic mechanisms and the
fundamentals of the theory are nailed down and in no dispute. People
*have* been telling you this, and I've seen you get good answers, but
you ignore them and keep asking the same questions over and over. And
then, when I ask you to define Christianity for me, you basically
dismiss all the divisions with a wave of your hand, pretend that all
the divisions don't exist, throw yourself against the entire
established church hierarchy, and seem not to understand the point I
was making or the irony of your response. This is shockingly
inconsistent behavior.
[...]
> >In other words, there is no true Christianity and everything is corrupt and
> >worthless, therefore the whole system should be rejected. Right?
>
> Of course there's The Church, Militant. What you're saying is that
> because there was, say, Arianism, that therefore - in conclusion - the
> whole 'system should be rejected'. Well, Athanasius did not share that
> opinion, nor did quite a few others.
Similarly, just because some evolutionary biologists differ on certain
issues does not mean that the whole system should be rejected, and I
can tell you right now that they would agree with me on that point.
You are using a blatant double standard.
> >> But I do confess - what Catholics believe. So did the Saints. So did
> >> many Popes, maybe even a bit these last two PC Popes.
>
> >So you agree that differences in opinion among people who call themselves
> >Christians does not invalidate all of Christianity.
>
> The fact of heretics and schismatics does not by itself "invalidate"
> that from which they separated, namely the one, true Church - The
> Catholic Church.
Very well. And the fact of disagreements among some evolutionary
biologists does not by itself invalidate the one, true theory of
evolution.
> >>> So tell us, Mark, what IS . . . Christianity?
>
> >> You mean - what do Catholics believe?
>
> >No. What do *Christians* believe?
>
> Then you're confused. How can a man follow Christ, and reject His
> Church?
Many Protestants would say the same thing about you. I feel no
obligation to even try untangling two thousand years of theological
disputes to get to the heart of what "true" Christianity is, though
you seem to feel yourself qualified to blithely dismiss all the
differences with a definitional handwave.
> >> How about starting with either Creed? Catholics confess that.
>
> >In a somewhat similar vein, if you want to know what evolution is, why not
> >consult a good college-level biology text?
>
> I take it you asked about - what Catholics believed. So I gave you a
> partial answer.
And you asked what evolution is. You were given many good answers. You
seem to be ignoring them and repeating the question over and over.
> >couldn't recite either of those creeds, would you conclude that all of
> >Catholicism was hopelessly confused and had to be rejected? I think even
> >you can understand the point I'm making. If anything, you have personally
> >admitted that Christianity is far more confused and disjointed than
> >evolution ever was.
>
> So, again, in your typical logical fallacy, you insist that because
> people break the law, that therefore the law is "confused and
> disjointed".
I never said that. I am merely pointing out that that is the *exact*
process of reasoning that *you* are using to justify your rejection of
evolution. If it's a fallacy for me to do it, it's just as much a
fallacy for you to do it.
--
Adam, via Google a.a. #2001
Tom Vick
>
>
> bardi wrote:
>
> > The word "heretic" is the Greek word "hairetikos" which means "factious,
> > divisive, or schismatic." Hence. Lefebvre acted in ways that were
divisive
> > and in schism with the Roman Catholic Church. Furthermore, as a member
of
> > vocation he violated his own oaths by not remaining obedient to the Holy
> > See.
>
> Good work, bardi.
>
> > Note. I am not stating that Mark is a heretic, only that he has shown
> > admiration for heretics.
>
> I'd say that publicly denying the validity of the Consecration in the
> Novus Ordo Missae _is_ "factious, divisive, or schismatic". IMHO that
> makes him a heretic.
I don't think your opinion, or mine, should matter, here. Either Lefebre
was, or was not, a heretic. If he was, then please name the heresy he was
guilty of. As far as I know, Lefebre never denied the validity of The
Consecration, as long as the Form, Matter, and Intent were Valid (as with
all Sacraments).
>
> > On the other hand, I would have sincere doubts
> > about calling him a Roman Catholic given his judgements on various
> > priests,Cardinals and Popes.
>
> I wouldn't have sincere doubts about calling him an Idiot.
Have you read any of Lefebre's writings? Just because you disagree with a
Priest/Bishop/Theologian of the Church, on a serious matter such as the
Validity of the "New Mass Consecration", they are automatically an "idiot"?
No matter what? I don't think most Novus Ordians would go quite that far,
but then again.....
Tom Vick
"maf1029" <maf...@trazansplace.com> wrote in message
news:6ceegvsgpto1hc6oj...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 08:03:50 -0500, "Tom Vick" <to...@pld.com> wrote:
>
> >Again, Lefebre was, arguably, excommunicated for
> >"disobedience"
>
> Yoo-hoo, Mr. Word Games, one is either excommunicated, or one is not
> excommunicated.. No qualifier or modifier is necessary.
> And even I know that Marcel LeFebvre was excommunicated by the RCC,
> not "arguably."
>
> http://www.geocities.com/zmjcath/
>
Again, it is "arguable" that Lefebre was excommunicated, whether you agree
with that point, or not. You say "yes", I say "the position is arguable"
(maybe yes, maybe no). Regardless, "excommunication" was not the point of
my post. I was asking about Lefebre's specific "heresy", which Tony Miller
specifically referred to, and has now admitted that he was in error.
BTW, I am impressed that Mr. Miller (or anyone, for that matter), would
admit to "Then I stand corrected", whether I agree with him, or not.
Tom Vick
And the heresy is? Specifically? If (IF) one considers the liturgy
"dicipline", and not Dogma, is one a heretic for questioning whether such
liturgy is "good", or "evil"? Valid or invallid? Licit or illicit? Is it
possible for the same "opinion" to be applied to previous liturgies?
Tom Vick
And THAT specific heresy is?
Tom Vick
"Mary Catherine Gallagher" <m...@snl.org> wrote in message
news:jmdegvs5qm8j01703...@4ax.com...
Well, as much as I hate to admit it, I read the "referenced" page, in order
to give this poster the "benefit of the doubt". Specifically, I find no
difference, from the postings of that particular site, between what Mark
supposedly "says", and the "professed belief of the Roman Catholic Church".
I assume the above poster finds some difference "with the professed belief
of the Roman Catholic Church", but, Dogmatically, it's just not there.
Tom Vick
I am impressed (it really doesn't take much to impress me). I have seen
people on both sides, traditional and liberal, refuse to admit error. I
sincerely hope that I will continually be able to, humbly, admit my own
errors, WHEN (not if) I make them.
Daniel Höhr
Tom Vick wrote:
> "Daniel Höhr" <dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:be6se9$1s62q$1...@ID-82123.news.dfncis.de...
>
>>
>>bardi wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The word "heretic" is the Greek word "hairetikos" which means "factious,
>>>divisive, or schismatic." Hence. Lefebvre acted in ways that were
>
> divisive
>
>>>and in schism with the Roman Catholic Church. Furthermore, as a member
>
> of
>
>>>vocation he violated his own oaths by not remaining obedient to the Holy
>>>See.
>>
>>Good work, bardi.
>>
>>
>>>Note. I am not stating that Mark is a heretic, only that he has shown
>>>admiration for heretics.
>>
>>I'd say that publicly denying the validity of the Consecration in the
>>Novus Ordo Missae _is_ "factious, divisive, or schismatic". IMHO that
>>makes him a heretic.
>
>
> I don't think your opinion, or mine, should matter, here. Either Lefebre
> was, or was not, a heretic. If he was, then please name the heresy he was
> guilty of. As far as I know, Lefebre never denied the validity of The
> Consecration, as long as the Form, Matter, and Intent were Valid (as with
> all Sacraments).
I was talking about Mark Johson and not about the late Marcel
Lefebvre. That should be clear from the context. Just read what's
written, as written.
>
>>>On the other hand, I would have sincere doubts
>>>about calling him a Roman Catholic given his judgements on various
>>>priests,Cardinals and Popes.
>>
>>I wouldn't have sincere doubts about calling him an Idiot.
>
>
> Have you read any of Lefebre's writings? Just because you disagree with a
> Priest/Bishop/Theologian of the Church, on a serious matter such as the
> Validity of the "New Mass Consecration", they are automatically an "idiot"?
> No matter what? I don't think most Novus Ordians would go quite that far,
> but then again.....
I was talking about Mark Johson and not about the late Marcel
Lefebvre. That should be clear from the context. Just read what's
written, as written.
> PAX
> lex orandi, lex credendi
>
>
Daniel
Daniel Höhr
Tom Vick wrote:
>>>>Marcel LeFebre
>>>
>>>Sorry Tony, but Marcel Lefebvre was not a pronounced heretic, he
>>>incurred the penalty of excommunication for being disobedient (he was
>>>not supposed to carry out the episcopal ordinations of 30 June 1988.
>>
>>Then I stand corrected.
>>
>
>
> I am impressed (it really doesn't take much to impress me). I have seen
> people on both sides, traditional and liberal, refuse to admit error. I
> sincerely hope that I will continually be able to, humbly, admit my own
> errors, WHEN (not if) I make them.
I don't think that admitting errors has anything to do with being
"traditional" or "liberal". It has something to do with being honest.
Daniel
> PAX
> lex orandi, lex credendi
>
>
--
Tony Miller
Tom Vick <to...@pld.com> wrote:
>
> "Daniel Höhr" <dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:be6se9$1s62q$1...@ID-82123.news.dfncis.de...
>>
>>
>> bardi wrote:
>>
>> > The word "heretic" is the Greek word "hairetikos" which means "factious,
>> > divisive, or schismatic." Hence. Lefebvre acted in ways that were
> divisive
>> > and in schism with the Roman Catholic Church. Furthermore, as a member
> of
>> > vocation he violated his own oaths by not remaining obedient to the Holy
>> > See.
>>
>> Good work, bardi.
>>
>> > Note. I am not stating that Mark is a heretic, only that he has shown
>> > admiration for heretics.
>>
>> I'd say that publicly denying the validity of the Consecration in the
>> Novus Ordo Missae _is_ "factious, divisive, or schismatic". IMHO that
>> makes him a heretic.
>
> I don't think your opinion, or mine, should matter, here. Either Lefebre
> was, or was not, a heretic. If he was, then please name the heresy he was
> guilty of. As far as I know, Lefebre never denied the validity of The
> Consecration, as long as the Form, Matter, and Intent were Valid (as with
> all Sacraments).
But wasn't it HIS opinion of what constituted valid FMI?
>> > On the other hand, I would have sincere doubts
>> > about calling him a Roman Catholic given his judgements on various
>> > priests,Cardinals and Popes.
>>
>> I wouldn't have sincere doubts about calling him an Idiot.
>
> Have you read any of Lefebre's writings? Just because you disagree with a
> Priest/Bishop/Theologian of the Church, on a serious matter such as the
> Validity of the "New Mass Consecration", they are automatically an "idiot"?
> No matter what? I don't think most Novus Ordians would go quite that far,
> but then again.....
I think he's talking about Mark Johnson. If this is the case, I have to
concur...
> PAX
> lex orandi, lex credendi
Nice signoff. Latin too. Reminiscent of someone else's signoff.
Tony Miller
St. Thomas Aquinas says:
##
Reply to Objection 2. Vices take their species from their proximate end,
while, from their remote end, they take their genus and cause. Thus in the
case of adultery committed for the sake of theft, there is the species of
adultery taken from its proper end and object; but the ultimate end shows
that the act of adultery is both the result of the theft, and is included
under it, as an effect under its cause, or a species under its genus, as
appears from what we have said about acts in general (I-II, 18, 7).
Wherefore, as to the case in point also, the proximate end of heresy is
adherence to one's own false opinion, and from this it derives its
species, while its remote end reveals its cause, viz. that it arises from
pride or covetousness.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/301101.htm
##
Note the last two sentences. St. Thomas could have been talking about
Mark Johnson.
-Tony
PS: We will never see that quote on any website of Mark's
Mary Catherine Gallagher
How open-minded of you. You should go have an MRI to make sure you
didn't have a stroke or pop an blood vessel.
>Specifically, I find no
>difference, from the postings of that particular site, between what Mark
>supposedly "says",
What he "supposedly" said? So you don't read Mark's continual stream
of invective, cattiness, and insult worthy of Miss Erica Kane? (Well,
Erica Kane if she suddenly lost 50 IQ points, at any rate).
Now *that*, sweetie-darling, is a profession of faith like no other.
Mary Catherine is arguably impressed.
Hugs,
Mary Cath.
maf1029
wrote:
>On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 10:16:44 -0500,
> Tom Vick <to...@pld.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Daniel Höhr" <dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>> news:be6se9$1s62q$1...@ID-82123.news.dfncis.de...
>>>
>>>
>>> bardi wrote:
>>>
>>> > The word "heretic" is the Greek word "hairetikos" which means "factious,
>>> > divisive, or schismatic." Hence. Lefebvre acted in ways that were
>> divisive
>>> > and in schism with the Roman Catholic Church. Furthermore, as a member
>> of
>>> > vocation he violated his own oaths by not remaining obedient to the Holy
>>> > See.
>>>
>>> Good work, bardi.
>>>
>>> > Note. I am not stating that Mark is a heretic, only that he has shown
>>> > admiration for heretics.
>>>
>>> I'd say that publicly denying the validity of the Consecration in the
>>> Novus Ordo Missae _is_ "factious, divisive, or schismatic". IMHO that
>>> makes him a heretic.
>>
>> I don't think your opinion, or mine, should matter, here. Either Lefebre
>> was, or was not, a heretic. If he was, then please name the heresy he was
>> guilty of. As far as I know, Lefebre never denied the validity of The
>> Consecration, as long as the Form, Matter, and Intent were Valid (as with
>> all Sacraments).
>
>But wasn't it HIS opinion of what constituted valid FMI?
Oh, no, Tony, you forgot to allow for the "double standard" clause.
If it's the opinion of a "Novus Ordo whore" (and I'm
paraphrasing........ here, but the intent is preserved), then it's
wrong to say anything. BUT ---- if it's the opinion of Mark Johnson or
his sockpuppet/good buddy Tom, then it's the right and proper course
of action.
Don't project.
http://www.geocities.com/zmjcath/
maf and dog,aa #1954, EAC Cruise Director and Lounge Pianist,
respectively
>
maf1029
>
>"maf1029" <maf...@trazansplace.com> wrote in message
>news:6ceegvsgpto1hc6oj...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 08:03:50 -0500, "Tom Vick" <to...@pld.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Again, Lefebre was, arguably, excommunicated for
>> >"disobedience"
>>
>> Yoo-hoo, Mr. Word Games, one is either excommunicated, or one is not
>> excommunicated.. No qualifier or modifier is necessary.
>> And even I know that Marcel LeFebvre was excommunicated by the RCC,
>> not "arguably."
>>
>> http://www.geocities.com/zmjcath/
>>
>
>Again, it is "arguable" that Lefebre was excommunicated,
Yeah, just don't let that little excommunication get in the way of
your grasping the facts, Tom.
>whether you agree
>with that point, or not.
And LeFebvre was still excommunicated, whether *you* want to
acknowledge the fact or not.
> You say "yes", I say "the position is arguable"
>(maybe yes, maybe no). Regardless, "excommunication" was not the point of
>my post.
You brought it up. You can now discuss why you think being
excommunicated is now suddenly not excommunication.
Or is it just because you just don't like it?
> I was asking about Lefebre's specific "heresy", which Tony Miller
>specifically referred to, and has now admitted that he was in error.
>
>BTW, I am impressed that Mr. Miller (or anyone, for that matter), would
>admit to "Then I stand corrected", whether I agree with him, or not.
I'm impressed with a mind that can twist an action into its opposite.
I'm also impressed at the consistency of your double standard.......
here.
http://www.geocities.com/zmjcath/
maf and dog,aa #1954, EAC Cruise Director and Lounge Pianist,
respectively
>PAX
>lex orandi, lex credendi
>
Mark Johnson
>St. Thomas Aquinas says:
>http://www.newadvent.org/summa/301101.htm
>Note the last two sentences. St. Thomas could have been talking about
>Mark Johnson.
Let's see, oh Tony the troll, what St. Thomas said.
"The proximate end of heresy is adherence to one's own false opinion".
Now, you've got a webpage, don't you, full of mischaracterizations,
calumnies, lies and assorted other diabolical nonsense which derives
from YOUR adherence to heresy . . . correct? All of that is based on
your false opinion.
He's talking about you.
Peace.
------------------------------------------------------------
* When one finds nothing more to say to God,
* but just knows He is there --
* that, in itself, is the best of prayers.
[Fr. John Vianney, priest of Ars township, France, 1859]
Mark Johnson
>"Daniel Höhr" <dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>news:be6s0n$1rpd4$1...@ID-82123.news.dfncis.de...
>Tom Vick wrote:
>If you were actually reading what's in front of your nose (your Master
>St. Mark Johnson
'Barrrrrdi'. Yep, you're getting lower and lower with each post. That
doesn't tell you anything about yourself, or the heresies to which you
attach yourself?
>http://www.geocities.com/ymjcath/MassNote.htm
>Got it?
You gotta read it, first, 'bardi'. Then see if you 'got it'.
>But I do agree for the most part. Mark may call himself a catholic all day
>long but that does not make him one.
Speak for yourself, 'bardi'. I've said you are Reformed Catholic, for
darned good reason. Myself, I'm Catholic. I chose to be Catholic,
against what it is that you profess.
Let's be honest.
Mark Johnson
>In alt.talk.creationism, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote
>in <jf9dgvg9ojefooh76...@4ax.com>:
>>"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Let's look at evolutionism:
>>>At least evolutionary scientists can have honest differences of opinion
>>>without denying that their opponents support evolution at all.
>>What if they had an open-mind on the subject? What if they came to
>>such a horrible conclusion?
>>Would you tremble?
>What are you asking about?
What if they had an open-mind on the subject? What if they came to
such a horrible conclusion?
Would you tremble?
>>>disagreements among them are trivial compared to the disagreements among
>>>you people - no biologist worth his salt
>>Worth his salt? earned his pay?
>>How does he do that?:
>>>differs on the fundamental principles of evolution, though they may
>>But he's not allowed to disagree, or he doesn't get paid?
>No scientist is forbidden to disagree.
Of course they are. That's why eliminating evolutionism could be a
real benefit to science. There wouldn't be that cloud hanging over
their heads. You're talking about a subculture that actually thinks PC
is a _good_ thing. Okay? Academics are not the one's who so much
revere academic freedom - unless it's the freedom to always agree with
a particular PC school. That's the damaging thing - and has been since
before the term, political correctness, was coined (in ref to the
Chicoms in 1960s). On that basis, failure to conform, can have serious
consequences for one's career. Again, think Piltdown and the
'upstairs' attitude. If one's willing to wait 40 years, in that
desert, as it were . . . but not everyone can.
>>But in these recent threads, you can't get agreement on even roughly
>>what The Theory of evolution is. And yet here you go talking about -
>>evolution - as if the word even meant a thing. You haven't even
>>established that much, I'm here to tell you.
>Your assertion about disagreement is incorrect and invalid.
By that you mean, correct - or I would hope so. Groups.google, again.
Check it out.
What IS . . . The Theory of Evolution? Some say one thing. Some say
another. But the problem is, no one wants to agree with each other. So
even when you DO get one person to agree with himself, which isn't
always easy (because people always want to backtrack and modify and
change around that which becomes embarrassing), there's nothing to say
anyone else will then agree with him.
And yet - youze guys - luuuuv to talk about 'the theory of evolution',
as if the phrase meant anything. That's all.
Peace.
----------------------------------------
Theorem: All numbers are equal.
Choose arbitrary a and b, and let t = a + b.
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb
a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb
a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4
(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b
Mark Johnson
>> Then I stand corrected.
You're giving this troll far too much credit. I believe he has a
webpage which is just a constant stream of lies and
misrepresentations, which he, at least in the past, refused to
correct, behaving as a stubbornly zealous 'reformer'. He goes Cranmer
one better, that is. If he ever fixed that, and reported what I wrote
as actually written, fairly, then maybe you'd have something about
which to compliment the guy. But it's not going to happen. A guy like
that, he just doesn't have it in his character.
Daniel Höhr
Well actually, you have just described your own flowery webpage, you
know the one where you deny the Consecration.
As far as Tony's webpage goes, he puts _your_ diabolical nonsense
right, you know, the stuff that's based on _your_ false opinion, so
don't project.
> He's talking about you.
No, he's talking about _you_, MJ.
Glad to help.
Daniel
SumBuny
I went to see what this was about, and found this:
http://www.stignatiussf.org/its2002b.pdf
The lead article is "Music as Prayer"...good read. It even goes into the
physiology of what happens when one sings. While it does talk about Latin,
plainchant, melisma, etc, it also states, "A diet of contemporary music has
no more integrety than a diet of only plainsong." While I realise the
temptation of a certain poster to "creatively edit" the second part out,
if/when he does so, he proves that he cannot understand the concept that
*either* is wrong....something I have been saying for years.
Buny
David Jensen
>David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>
>>In alt.talk.creationism, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote
>>in <jf9dgvg9ojefooh76...@4ax.com>:
>
>>>"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>Let's look at evolutionism:
>
>>>>At least evolutionary scientists can have honest differences of opinion
>>>>without denying that their opponents support evolution at all.
>
>>>What if they had an open-mind on the subject? What if they came to
>>>such a horrible conclusion?
>
>>>Would you tremble?
>
>>What are you asking about?
>
>What if they had an open-mind on the subject? What if they came to
>such a horrible conclusion?
>
>Would you tremble?
>
What subject are you talking about? The question makes no sense.
>
>>>>disagreements among them are trivial compared to the disagreements among
>>>>you people - no biologist worth his salt
>
>>>Worth his salt? earned his pay?
>
>>>How does he do that?:
>
>>>>differs on the fundamental principles of evolution, though they may
>
>>>But he's not allowed to disagree, or he doesn't get paid?
>
>>No scientist is forbidden to disagree.
>
>Of course they are.
Lie.
> That's why eliminating evolutionism could be a
>real benefit to science. There wouldn't be that cloud hanging over
>their heads. You're talking about a subculture that actually thinks PC
>is a _good_ thing. Okay?
No, your claim is false and dishonest.
> Academics are not the one's who so much
>revere academic freedom - unless it's the freedom to always agree with
>a particular PC school. That's the damaging thing - and has been since
>before the term, political correctness, was coined (in ref to the
>Chicoms in 1960s). On that basis, failure to conform, can have serious
>consequences for one's career. Again, think Piltdown and the
>'upstairs' attitude. If one's willing to wait 40 years, in that
>desert, as it were . . . but not everyone can.
>
Your ignorance is profound. Your arrogance is breathtaking. Your
misrepresentation of the Piltdown affair is consistent with the rest of
your behavior. Your repeated accusations against science of being 'PC'
are completely without foundation, but lack of evidence never stops you
from libelling folks.
>
>>>But in these recent threads, you can't get agreement on even roughly
>>>what The Theory of evolution is. And yet here you go talking about -
>>>evolution - as if the word even meant a thing. You haven't even
>>>established that much, I'm here to tell you.
>
>>Your assertion about disagreement is incorrect and invalid.
>
>By that you mean, correct - or I would hope so. Groups.google, again.
>Check it out.
Prove me wrong then, liar.
>What IS . . . The Theory of Evolution? Some say one thing. Some say
>another.
Nonsense. You misrepresent all of us.
>But the problem is, no one wants to agree with each other. So
>even when you DO get one person to agree with himself, which isn't
>always easy (because people always want to backtrack and modify and
>change around that which becomes embarrassing), there's nothing to say
>anyone else will then agree with him.
More dishonesty.
>And yet - youze guys - luuuuv to talk about 'the theory of evolution',
>as if the phrase meant anything. That's all.
It does. Your inability to comprehend it is no longer our problem, since
you have shown that you do not care to understand it.
>Peace.
Says an acolyte of Big Brother.
Mary Catherine Gallagher
<da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>Your ignorance is profound. Your arrogance is breathtaking. Your
>misrepresentation of the Piltdown affair is consistent with the rest of
>your behavior. Your repeated accusations against science of being 'PC'
>are completely without foundation, but lack of evidence never stops you
>from libelling folks.
Honey, there are websites dedicated to the GLORY that is St. Mark
Johnson.
http://www.geocities.com/zmjcath/
http://home.jtan.com/~ircd_/meetmarkjohnson/
#1 is strictly humorous in nature.
#2 addresses his disturbingly profound deficiencies in several areas.
We have a saying over here on arc-rc: Responding seriously to His
Assholiness, St. Markie, is a waste of electrons. Electrons deserve a
chance to be productive, too. FOR GOD'S SAKE, THINK OF THE
ELECTRONS!!!
Hugs,
Mary Catherine Gallagher
David Jensen
<embhgvom97vjojcik...@4ax.com>:
But he almost appears sane. I will, yes, I will think of the electrons
-- and my sanity.
I will not let Mark get to me.
I will not let Mark get to me.
I will not let Mark get to me.
I will not let Mark get to me.
Paul Duca
David Jensen wrote:
I was raised to understand that the theory of evolution did not act
in opposition to the Catholic church....I'm surprised that Mark would want
to support something uneducated Protestants do.
Paul
Tony Miller
Absolutely. I love the old Latin hymns, and the newer contemporary stuff.
Some of the newer stuff I don't prefer, but some of the older stuff was
crap (IMO) too.
Tony Miller
Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> "Tom Vick" <to...@pld.com> wrote:
>
>>"Tony Miller" <to...@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
>>news:slrnbgdp2...@callisto.jtan.com...
>>> On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 11:37:31 +0200,
>>> Daniel Höhr <dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>> > Tony Miller wrote:
>
>>> > Sorry Tony, but Marcel Lefebvre was not a pronounced heretic, he
>>> > incurred the penalty of excommunication for being disobedient (he was
>>> > not supposed to carry out the episcopal ordinations of 30 June 1988.
>
>>> Then I stand corrected.
>
>>I am impressed (it really doesn't take much to impress me). I have seen
>>people on both sides, traditional and liberal, refuse to admit error. I
>>sincerely hope that I will continually be able to, humbly, admit my own
>>errors, WHEN (not if) I make them.
>
> You're giving this troll far too much credit. I believe he has a
> webpage which is just a constant stream of lies and
> misrepresentations, which he, at least in the past, refused to
> correct, behaving as a stubbornly zealous 'reformer'. He goes Cranmer
> one better, that is. If he ever fixed that, and reported what I wrote
> as actually written, fairly, then maybe you'd have something about
> which to compliment the guy. But it's not going to happen. A guy like
> that, he just doesn't have it in his character.
Hahahahaha!!!!! I used to be the object of your snide condescension,
since I have smartened up (thanks to the intelligent discourse of others
here) I have become the object of your scorn. I have to say, I greatly
prefer #2 (which aptly describes what you most often spew).
I have offered on several occasions to correct what you might have found
wrong. You prefer to just say my page is a lie (a 'calumny' in itself,
you know).
G'wan. Each time you've pointed out an error, I've either corrected it,
or logically pinned your ears back. I'm ready whenever you are.
BTW, you can start on your question list. It's growing at...
http://home.jtan.com/~ircd_/meetmarkjohnson/#faq
> Peace.
Heh. 'Peace'. Gotta love it. :)
Mary Catherine Gallagher
<da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
Honey, no, it's even easier than that. You don't even need to do the
affirmations.
No matter what he writes, simply respond with:
Don't project.
No matter what, just type "Don't project."
He'll twist in the wind better than an empty straw wrapper.
Guaranteed.
Of course you will have to join the Mark Johnson Fan Club if you want
to learn advanced Johnson-speak, or as we members like to call it,
"Speaking to your Johnson 101."
Hugs,
Mary Cath.
Daniel Höhr
Tony, you have definitely been promoted. I see from others postings that
His Misrepresentedness, St. Mark Johnson, now has conferred the honours
of calling you a "troll" to you.
Which means, of course, he has admitted defeat. As usual.
> I have offered on several occasions to correct what you might have found
> wrong. You prefer to just say my page is a lie (a 'calumny' in itself,
> you know).
You don't expect MJ to "discuss" all the items on your webpage with you,
do you? Anyway, once again, you address all his errors on your page, put
them right and it's good reading.
> G'wan. Each time you've pointed out an error, I've either corrected it,
> or logically pinned your ears back. I'm ready whenever you are.
MJ is always ready and willing. To lie, to project, to err...
> BTW, you can start on your question list. It's growing at...
>
> http://home.jtan.com/~ircd_/meetmarkjohnson/#faq
That'll give him something to do. I bet he will say "I answered all the
questions. It's on groups.google.com" or something....
Daniel
maf1029
wrote:
>Tony, you have definitely been promoted. I see from others postings that
>His Misrepresentedness, St. Mark Johnson, now has conferred the honours
>of calling you a "troll" to you.
Excuse us............ here...........
But His Royal and Holy Persecutedness does not appreciate being
unfairly characterized as His Misrepresentedness.... you 'Catholic"
you.
Don't project.
Love,
The Correspondence Office of the Mark Johnson Fan Club, a division of
Mark Johnson
>In alt.talk.creationism, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote
>in <pm4hgvodp74kk0jp9...@4ax.com>:
>>David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>>>In alt.talk.creationism, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote
>>>in <jf9dgvg9ojefooh76...@4ax.com>:
>>>>"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>What if they had an open-mind on the subject? What if they came to
>>such a horrible conclusion?
>>Would you tremble?
>What subject are you talking about? The question makes no sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Let's look at evolutionism:
>>>At least evolutionary scientists can have honest differences of opinion
>>>without denying that their opponents support evolution at all.
>>What if they had an open-mind on the subject? What if they came to
>>such a horrible conclusion?
>>Would you tremble?
>What are you asking about?
What if they had an open-mind on the subject? What if they came to
such a horrible conclusion?
Would you tremble?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>disagreements among them are trivial compared to the disagreements among
>>>>>you people - no biologist worth his salt
>>>>Worth his salt? earned his pay?
>>>>How does he do that?:
>>>>>differs on the fundamental principles of evolution, though they may
>>>>But he's not allowed to disagree, or he doesn't get paid?
>>>No scientist is forbidden to disagree.
>>Of course they are. That's why eliminating evolutionism could be a
>>real benefit to science. There wouldn't be that cloud hanging over
>>their heads. You're talking about a subculture that actually thinks PC
>>is a _good_ thing. Okay? Academics are not the one's who so much
>>revere academic freedom - unless it's the freedom to always agree with
>>a particular PC school. That's the damaging thing - and has been since
>>before the term, political correctness, was coined (in ref to the
>>Chicoms in 1960s). On that basis, failure to conform, can have serious
>>consequences for one's career. Again, think Piltdown and the
>>'upstairs' attitude. If one's willing to wait 40 years, in that
>>desert, as it were . . . but not everyone can.
>Your ignorance is profound. Your arrogance is breathtaking. Your
>misrepresentation of the Piltdown affair is consistent with the rest of
>your behavior.
What misrepresentation? It's just uncomfortable for you, is all. You
know the history. It embarasses you.
>Your repeated accusations against science
Evolutionism, rather.
>>>>But in these recent threads, you can't get agreement on even roughly
>>>>what The Theory of evolution is. And yet here you go talking about -
>>>>evolution - as if the word even meant a thing. You haven't even
>>>>established that much, I'm here to tell you.
>>>Your assertion about disagreement is incorrect and invalid.
>>By that you mean, correct - or I would hope so. Groups.google, again.
>>Check it out.
>Prove me wrong then, liar.
Find any thread, in the last weeks or months. No one can agree with
anyone else just what IS . . The Theory of Evolution. You may not like
it. But calling that a lie, or me a liar, doesn't change the truth of
that.
As I wrote:
>>What IS . . . The Theory of Evolution? Some say one thing. Some say
>>another.
>Nonsense. You misrepresent all of us.
Not my 'The Theory'. Remember, I don't believe in evolutionism. I
don't subscribe to it.
As I wrote:
>>But the problem is, no one wants to agree with each other. So
>>even when you DO get one person to agree with himself, which isn't
>>always easy (because people always want to backtrack and modify and
>>change around that which becomes embarrassing), there's nothing to say
>>anyone else will then agree with him.
>>And yet - youze guys - luuuuv to talk about 'the theory of evolution',
>>as if the phrase meant anything. That's all.
>It does.
Does not.
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
Mark Johnson
>Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message news:<jf9dgvg9ojefooh76...@4ax.com>...
>> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Consider the humor, then. As the Prots, who at least publicly
>> confessed Trinitarianism, sung at 'gathering' or 'chapel', or
>> whatever, there was a period where not such a distance away, God and
>> His priests were under a death sentence, for being Catholic priests.
>> Mass was held at the cliffs. And nations were subject to the tyranny
>> of the Church of England.
>Which was, in turn, formed as a reaction to the tyranny of
>Catholicism.
Sure, if you were taught that in Anglican schools. That twisted
history is exact what Chesterton complained about. PC for it day -
apparently even now.
>> So - no - a sect that makes war on
>> Catholicism, literally open, hot, guns-ablazin war, and that would
>> kill every Catholic priest if it could - does not follow Our Lord, and
>> certainly not The Church that He founded. Now, maybe they've mellowed
>> in their age, and no longer have such laws on their books. But that's
>> where the sect came from. And that's what it used to do.
>And I suppose you think the Protestants are the only Christian sect
>that has ever attempted to kill heretics?
The Prots didn't kill heretics. They murdered Catholics.
>Spanish Inquisition ring any
>bells here, hmm? The Crusades?
By which you mean . . what?
>Ever heard of Giordano Bruno? (Oh, I
>forgot. The people who did those things weren't "True Christians,"
>right?)
Was Martin Luther a 'true' Catholic, in your opinion?
How about Thomas Cranmer? Why not him? And he was burned at the stake.
As for Bruno:
"God and the world are one; matter and spirit, body and soul, are two
phases of the same substance; the universe is infinite; beyond the
visible world there is an infinity of other worlds, each of which is
inhabited; this terrestrial globe has a soul; in fact, each and every
part of it, mineral as well as plant and animal, is animated; all
matter is made up of the same elements (no distinction between
terrestrial and celestial matter); all souls are akin (transmigration
is, therefore, not impossible). This unitary point of view is Bruno's
justification of "natural magic." No doubt, the attempt to establish a
scientific continuity among all the phenomena of nature is an
important manifestation of the modern spirit, and interesting,
especially on account of its appearance at the moment when the
medieval point of view was being abandoned. And one can readily
understand how Bruno's effort to establish a unitary concept of
nature commanded the admiration of such men as Spinoza, Jacobi, and
Hegel. On the other hand, the exaggerations, the limitations, and the
positive errors of his scientific system; his intolerance of even
those who were working for the reforms to which he was devoted; the
false analogies, fantastic allegories, and sophistical reasonings into
which his emotional fervour often betrayed him have justified, in the
eyes of many, Bayle's characterization of him as "the knight-errant
of philosophy." His attitude of mind towards religious truth was that
of a rationalist. Personally, he failed to feel any of the vital
significance of Christianity as a religious system. It was not a
Roman Inquisitor, but a Protestant divine, who said of him that he
was "a man of great capacity, with infinite knowledge, but not a trace
of religion."
[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03016a.htm]
>> >differs on the fundamental principles of evolution, though they may
>> But he's not allowed to disagree, or he doesn't get paid?
>I don't even know what you're talking about here.
The phrase - worth his salt - was used. You understand that reference?
>The only reason you say this is because you ask for answers and then
>don't listen to them.
I read everything you write.
>There is no disagreement among evolutionary
>scientists as to what evolution consists of. Some scientists disagree
>on the relative importance of various mechanisms, or the specific
>paths by which some groups evolved, but the basic mechanisms and the
>fundamentals of the theory are nailed down and in no dispute.
So what are they? What IS . . The Theory of Evolution, with which you
can agree?
>*have* been telling you this, and I've seen you get good answers, but
>you ignore them
No, that's you - ignoring what I've said.
>and keep asking the same questions over and over.
Many of which are never answered. The question on The Theory receives
various unique answers, often from the same person.
>then, when I ask you to define Christianity for me, you basically
>dismiss all the divisions with a wave of your hand, pretend that all
>the divisions don't exist, throw yourself against the entire
>established church hierarchy, and seem not to understand the point I
>was making or the irony of your response. This is shockingly
>inconsistent behavior.
Divisions between those promoting unholy 'reform' and those pointing
to Tradition and The Church? That division has always existed. Bruno
would have been a 'reformer'. Those who rightly called him a heretic
would be those called, traditionalist, today - the Catholics of old.
The division has always existed. You'll find it described in The Acts.
Goes back to the beginnings of The Church.
>> >In other words, there is no true Christianity and everything is corrupt and
>> >worthless, therefore the whole system should be rejected. Right?
>> Of course there's The Church, Militant. What you're saying is that
>> because there was, say, Arianism, that therefore - in conclusion - the
>> whole 'system should be rejected'. Well, Athanasius did not share that
>> opinion, nor did quite a few others.
>Similarly, just because some evolutionary biologists differ on certain
>issues does not mean that the whole system should be rejected
That's different. Science isn't Revelation. There's no comparison.
Athanasius could turn to Tradition, to Revelation. His critics could
not. Science isn't like that.
>can tell you right now that they would agree with me on that point.
>You are using a blatant double standard.
I'm saying The Church is not comparable to your notion of scientific
consensus. There's no Revelation is science. The natural world can be
viewed in so many ways. And there are disagreements without a
foundation of doctrine. In science, the old theories can be relegated
to irrelevancy. In The Church, Revelation is what remains constant
through the ages.
Very different.
>> The fact of heretics and schismatics does not by itself "invalidate"
>> that from which they separated, namely the one, true Church - The
>> Catholic Church.
>Very well. And the fact of disagreements among some evolutionary
>biologists does not by itself invalidate the one, true theory of
>evolution.
The one, true Church teaches, for example - The Creed. We can say what
the words of the Creed . . . are. There's a standard. Tell me - what's
the one, true theory of evolution?
>> >>> So tell us, Mark, what IS . . . Christianity?
>> >> You mean - what do Catholics believe?
>> >No. What do *Christians* believe?
>> Then you're confused. How can a man follow Christ, and reject His
>> Church?
>Many Protestants would say the same thing about you.
So would Muslims. They're wrong. So are Prots, at least at that level
of sectarian teaching. Even atheists, individually, can perform public
charity. That's different.
>obligation to even try untangling two thousand years of theological
>disputes
Didn't realize Prot took themselves back that far, before Luther.
>to get to the heart of what "true" Christianity is, though
>you seem to feel yourself qualified to blithely dismiss all the
>differences with a definitional handwave.
You think it unfair of me not to call, Prots, followers of God and His
Church? Well, do you think I'm unfair to say that the French did not
follow Pres. Bush, not to compare him to The Church? But the French
were instrumental in our Revolution. They share the masonic values of
many of the founders. Other Frenchmen share a Catholicism of many of
our other founders, and at least the general desire to avoid a
church/state separation as the masons have always preached. Can I
still not say they refused to follow Bush, for all they share in
common with us? Weak analogy, maybe. But maybe you get it.
>> >> How about starting with either Creed? Catholics confess that.
>> >In a somewhat similar vein, if you want to know what evolution is, why not
>> >consult a good college-level biology text?
>> I take it you asked about - what Catholics believed. So I gave you a
>> partial answer.
>And you asked what evolution is.
Actually, I've been asking . . . you. I'm the Catholic. I can say what
Catholicism is. You're the evolutionist. You can say . . . what?
>> >couldn't recite either of those creeds, would you conclude that all of
>> >Catholicism was hopelessly confused and had to be rejected? I think even
>> >you can understand the point I'm making. If anything, you have personally
>> >admitted that Christianity is far more confused and disjointed than
>> >evolution ever was.
>> So, again, in your typical logical fallacy, you insist that because
>> people break the law, that therefore the law is "confused and
>> disjointed".
>I never said that. I am merely pointing out that that is the *exact*
>process of reasoning that *you* are using to justify your rejection of
>evolution. If it's a fallacy for me to do it, it's just as much a
>fallacy for you to do it.
I don't. And it is a fallacy when "you do it". That's because it's a
logical fallacy.
Peace.
David Jensen
>David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>
>>In alt.talk.creationism, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote
>>in <pm4hgvodp74kk0jp9...@4ax.com>:
>>>David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
...
>>>Let's look at evolutionism:
>
>>>>At least evolutionary scientists can have honest differences of opinion
>>>>without denying that their opponents support evolution at all.
>
>>>What if they had an open-mind on the subject? What if they came to
>>>such a horrible conclusion?
>
>>>Would you tremble?
>
>>What are you asking about?
>
>What if they had an open-mind on the subject? What if they came to
>such a horrible conclusion?
>
>Would you tremble?
Scientists do have an open mind on the subject. Evolution was discovered
because of that open mind.
I do not tremble at the implications of thd discoveries of science,
though I do tremble at some of the ways humans are willing to use
scientific knowledge.
[repeated nonsense deleted]
Tony Miller
"Going troll" means putting Mark in a tight spot that he can't easily
wiggle from. The pointed questions he refuses to answer is one of them.
Confusedly addressing his points gives MJ a chance to shine until someone
(one of the 'trolls' . . . here, sets him right).
>> I have offered on several occasions to correct what you might have found
>> wrong. You prefer to just say my page is a lie (a 'calumny' in itself,
>> you know).
>
> You don't expect MJ to "discuss" all the items on your webpage with you,
> do you? Anyway, once again, you address all his errors on your page, put
> them right and it's good reading.
Nah, I've stopped 'discussing' and have gotten into 'correcting' and
'ridiculing'. Much better for my blood pressure I have to say.
>> G'wan. Each time you've pointed out an error, I've either corrected it,
>> or logically pinned your ears back. I'm ready whenever you are.
>
> MJ is always ready and willing. To lie, to project, to err...
>
>> BTW, you can start on your question list. It's growing at...
>>
>> http://home.jtan.com/~ircd_/meetmarkjohnson/#faq
>
> That'll give him something to do. I bet he will say "I answered all the
> questions. It's on groups.google.com" or something....
And he has. I have explained that I will either accept an answer . . .
here, or a Message-ID: of a previous answer and as soon as I receive
either, I'll cross it off the list. So far all I hear is crickets...
> Daniel
Tony Miller
Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> Tony Miller <to...@cigardiary.com> wrote:
>
>>I have offered on several occasions to correct what you might have found
>>wrong.
>
> stop lying, you ignore that. So . . that's you.
Ok, explain where I 'refused' . . . here, or alternately, show the
Message-ID: where you 'corrected' - me . . . here.
> If people tire of you wasting their valuable time, there's always,
> instead:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/ymjcath/MassNote.htm
If you like flowers, illogic, projection and creative clipping, that's the
place to go. If it were a book, it'd be in the 'fiction' section.
> Peace.
Tom Vick
Ok. It's possible I've overlooked something Mark has said.......I admit
that. Please enlighten me as to anything Mark has said, that can be
interpreted as a "rejection of Catholic Dogma". I believe this all started
in my response to 'bardi's' statement:
"Just for the record btw, there ate substantive differences between the
proclamations of Mr Johnson, who has admitted at least an admiration for
pronounced heretics, and with the professed belief of the Roman Catholic
Church."
If 'bardi' is stating, as fact, that Mark has said something "substantively
different" that the "professed belief of the Roman Catholic Church", then
all I asked was for an example, just one. Did I misunderstand what 'bardi'
posted, above? Or, has Mark posted a rejection of any Catholic Dogma, which
I overlooked? I'm not perfect. Please point out if I have made an error,
or overlooked a "substantive difference" (rejection of Catholic Dogma)
between what Mark has written, and "the professed belief of the Roman
Catholic Church".
Stephanie
> ebon...@hotmail.com (Adam Marczyk) wrote:
>
>>Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message news:<jf9dgvg9ojefooh76...@4ax.com>...
>>> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Consider the humor, then. As the Prots, who at least publicly
>>> confessed Trinitarianism, sung at 'gathering' or 'chapel', or
>>> whatever, there was a period where not such a distance away, God and
>>> His priests were under a death sentence, for being Catholic priests.
>>> Mass was held at the cliffs. And nations were subject to the tyranny
>>> of the Church of England.
>
>>Which was, in turn, formed as a reaction to the tyranny of
>>Catholicism.
>
> Sure, if you were taught that in Anglican schools. That twisted
> history is exact what Chesterton complained about. PC for it day -
> apparently even now.
Not at all. I went to an Anglican school (religious studies department of
McGill University) and even they were very open about the fact that the
Anglican Church was founded on dubious ground, namely, Henry VIII´s desire
to marry without an annullment. I didn´t realize the hissy fit of an
English King qualified as ¨a reaction to tyranny¨.
Daniel Höhr
Tony Miller wrote:
>
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:25:38 -0700,
> Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> > If people tire of you wasting their valuable time, there's always,
> > instead:
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/ymjcath/MassNote.htm
>
> If you like flowers, illogic, projection and creative clipping, that's the
> place to go. If it were a book, it'd be in the 'fiction' section.
It'd be in the humour section, I reckon. Foul humour that is....
Daniel
Mary Catherine Gallagher, Cheesecake Queen
Tom, darling, choosing not to read ignorance of MJ's scribblings
because you have chosen not to engage him directly in discussion
(thereby neatly avoiding being insulted and personally attacked) is
not an excuse.
According to a quick Google search, MJ has referred to the Novus Ordo
missae as a product of the "unholy spirit of Vatican 2," approximately
160 times.
As the Novus Ordo is the legally promulgated current rite of the RCC,
and as the Second Vatican council was held by and approved by the
Vatican and the then-current Pope (who was also licitly elected by the
College of Cardinals), then you now have approximately 160 examples of
MJ:
1. rejecting Catholic dogma
2. rejecting the authority of a legitimate Church council
3. rejecting the validity of the current liturgical rite
Want more? Good. Because tomorrow's lesson will be:
How many times has MJ rejected and decried the current Pope?
> Did I misunderstand what 'bardi'
>posted, above?
Did you........... here?
(HINT: The extraneous and incorrect punctuation is a dead give-away,
'Tom'.)
MCG
Tom Vick
"Mary Catherine Gallagher, Cheesecake Queen" <m...@snl.org> wrote in message
news:ddhjgvso7tm94rgs1...@4ax.com...
Well, unless I am mistaken, I think I've just been "insulted" and
"personally attacked". Neat!
>
> According to a quick Google search, MJ has referred to the Novus Ordo
> missae as a product of the "unholy spirit of Vatican 2," approximately
> 160 times.
And, that SPECIFIC heresy is?
> As the Novus Ordo is the legally promulgated current rite of the RCC,
> and as the Second Vatican council was held by and approved by the
> Vatican and the then-current Pope (who was also licitly elected by the
> College of Cardinals), then you now have approximately 160 examples of
> MJ:
>
> 1. rejecting Catholic dogma
And that SPECIFIC DOGMA is?
> 2. rejecting the authority of a legitimate Church council
And that SPECIFIC heresy is?
> 3. rejecting the validity of the current liturgical rite
And that SPECIFIC heresy is?
>
> Want more? Good. Because tomorrow's lesson will be:
>
> How many times has MJ rejected and decried the current Pope?
And that SPECIFIC heresy is?
One more time (and it really IS one more time, because it seems that time
devoted to discussion with you is waisted, at least from my point of view),
what is THE heresy? Arianism? Modernism? Jansenism? What IS THE heresy?
What specific DOGMA has Mark rejected, obstinately? So far, your responses
provide NO answer to this SPECIFIC question.
>
>
> > Did I misunderstand what 'bardi'
> >posted, above?
>
> Did you........... here?
>
> (HINT: The extraneous and incorrect punctuation is a dead give-away,
> 'Tom'.)
>
> MCG
It appears that you have no desire to answer my question, which is not
surprising, considering the "answers" I get from most (not all) "novus
ordoites" (James Black being one of the few exceptions). Assuming that you
refuse, again, to specifically answer my question(s), then there is
certainly no point in further communication (assuming there was any
communication to begin with).
Regardless of your response, or non-response, to my question......
Tom Vick
> "Tom Vick" <to...@pld.com> wrote:
>
> >> One? Mark is an ardent supporter of Lefebvre. Not just of his group but
of
> >> the man himself.
>
> >And THAT specific heresy is?
>
> I would take it that the ever charitable 'bardi' considers the
> 'Lefebvrist heresy' to be - one who 'supports' Lefebvre. Why is that a
> heresy, you say? Because it is, she'll say. The corollary, one who
> says Lefebvre got some things right, is also necessary a 'heretic'.
> 'Bardi's 'Catholic', you know?
>
> As you know, I think Lefebvre was greatly admired, was admired by now
> St. Pio, and was pushed to his consecrations such that any mention of
> 'excommunication' - like 'bardi's 'Lefebvrism' - can't stand the light
> of day. For the Pope to mention "excommunication" and give an offense
> for which a priest or bishop cannot be excommunicated is absurd on its
> face. And the lack of 'ecumenism' shown in this case, while reserved
> for the worst scoundrels, otherwise, also makes any honest claim of
> excummunication very dubious.
Very interesting point. I was a "novus ordoite" myself, several years ago.
Choir, RCIA, CCD, EEM, Cursillo, Mass Server, the "works". I believed
(still do) that all people should be delt with in charity, up to a point.
That held true with our "seperated brethren", as well as the Israelites and
others. I began to hear about the "traditionalist scum" back in about
1996-97, and I began wondering why many of them were not treated with the
same charity as others with whom "novus ordoites" disagreed. One day I ask
a simple question of my fellow "novus ordoites": "Why do we have communion
in the hand when a majority of the Bishops polled (in the Vat2 documents)
opposed it?" I was immediately shunned by my so-called "friends". It
appears they (they, in the general "novus ordoite" sense) have no use for
those who hold a traditionalist opinion, or ask "why".
> It appears to be a political lynching,
> in other words, and nothing less, and certainly nothing based on
> Catholic dogma or tradition - perhaps based even on an anti-tradition,
> if you will.
It certainly appears such.
>
> As for the SSPX, I share some concerns others have expressed in their
> desire to swear this personal oath of loyalty not just to the papacy,
> but to the person, and personality, of JP II. That would suggest that,
> like the Adoremans, they would not only be ready with eager excuses
> for 'reform', but might encourage 'reform', themselves, because it is
> the ground of the 'reformist', JP II.
>
It seems, at times, that most (at least most in this ng, anyway) are
"papalogists", at least.
And, to you....
maf1029
>I was a "novus ordoite" myself, several years ago.
>Choir, RCIA, CCD, EEM, Cursillo, Mass Server, the "works". I believed
>(still do) that all people should be delt with in charity, up to a point.
So, for you,"up to a point" means "up to the fourth word of any given
post"? Or just this post?
>That held true with our "seperated brethren", as well as the Israelites and
>others. I began to hear about the "traditionalist scum" back in about
>1996-97, and I began wondering why many of them were not treated with the
>same charity as others with whom "novus ordoites" disagreed. One day I ask
>a simple question of my fellow "novus ordoites": "Why do we have communion
>in the hand when a majority of the Bishops polled (in the Vat2 documents)
>opposed it?" I was immediately shunned by my so-called "friends". It
>appears they (they, in the general "novus ordoite" sense) have no use for
>those who hold a traditionalist opinion, or ask "why".
I worked for the RCC for almost 20 years, at various parishes. I was
also frequently hired as organist for the diocesan Cathedral.
In all my years as a practicing Catholic (which included attendance at
approximately 3,597 Masses - a conservative estimate-, NOT including,
elevations, ordinations, funerals, and weddings)
I witnessed the following:
NO occasions where anyone bashed "traditionalists"
NO occasions where "traditionalists" bashed "Novus Ordoites"
NO occasions of anyone being "shunned" for having a dissenting opinion
NO instances of anyone being turned away from Communion for receiving
on the tongue
NO instances of anyone being turned away from Communion for kneeling
at the altar
ZERO. NADA. NONE.
And don't even try the "you never attended a real Mass" routine,
learned from your mentor.
Except for Ambrosian rite and Byzantine rite, I have "been there and
done that."
Now, I would submit to you that your lovely anecdote is fiction.
In addition, I would submit to you that your obligatory Mass
attendance is insignificant compared to mine; hence, you do not have
the basis on which to make your broadbrush assertions cum denigrations
of your fellow Catholics.
Oh, and don't even try it, bub. *I* have the pay stubs and tax returns
to prove my employment.
I would also submit that the problem...... here....... is your
inability to get along with others and quite probably your need to be
right, not your beliefs.
Your complaints are also baseless, as you can take Communion on the
tongue and on your knees at the altar, no matter what the rite. To go
even further, you can still attend a variety of licit Latin-language
Masses (in my area, we have the choices of Tridentene, Byzantine, and
Novus Ordo).
http://www.geocities.com/zmjcath/
maf and dog,aa #1954, EAC Cruise Director and Lounge Pianist,
respectively
Robert A. Walker
While I can't match the numbers, I can say I've had the same experience as you.
Mary Catherine Gallagher, Fashion Demi-Goddess
<cross-posting to alt.talk.creationism removed>
>
>"Mary Catherine Gallagher, Cheesecake Queen" <m...@snl.org> wrote in message
>news:ddhjgvso7tm94rgs1...@4ax.com...
<snip for brevity. If I have inadvertently removed anything of
importance, I apologize in advance>
>> >Ok. It's possible I've overlooked something Mark has said.......I admit
>> >that. Please enlighten me as to anything Mark has said, that can be
>> >interpreted as a "rejection of Catholic Dogma". I believe this all
>started
>> >in my response to 'bardi's' statement:
>> >
>> >"Just for the record btw, there ate substantive differences between the
>> >proclamations of Mr Johnson, who has admitted at least an admiration for
>> >pronounced heretics, and with the professed belief of the Roman Catholic
>> >Church."
>> >
>> >If 'bardi' is stating, as fact, that Mark has said something
>"substantively
>> >different" that the "professed belief of the Roman Catholic Church", then
>> >all I asked was for an example, just one.
>>
>> Tom, darling, choosing not to read ignorance of MJ's scribblings
>> because you have chosen not to engage him directly in discussion
>> (thereby neatly avoiding being insulted and personally attacked) is
>> not an excuse.
>
>Well, unless I am mistaken,
You misspelled "since."
> I think I've just been "insulted" and
>"personally attacked". Neat!
You may take it that way if you wish, no matter how erroneous your
reasoning.
Just out of curiosity, when was the last time you spoke to MJ about
his insults and personal attacks on others?
Surely a faithful Catholic such as yourself, who espouses charitable
behavior and defends those under verbal attack, would naturally jump
forward to defend those who have been insulted and personally
attacked, especially by someone whom you consider a fellow Catholic,
right? Right?
>> According to a quick Google search, MJ has referred to the Novus Ordo
>> missae as a product of the "unholy spirit of Vatican 2," approximately
>> 160 times.
>
>And, that SPECIFIC heresy is?
Antiultramontanism, a special case/subset of modernism.
Thank you for asking.
And, just to refresh your memory:
heresy -- adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma b
: denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman
Catholic Church c : an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma
Yup, Mark's stance on Novus Ordo fits all 3.
Gosh, maybe we should all take a shower in holy water before we
examine his heresies WRT the current Pope.
>> As the Novus Ordo is the legally promulgated current rite of the RCC,
>> and as the Second Vatican council was held by and approved by the
>> Vatican and the then-current Pope (who was also licitly elected by the
>> College of Cardinals), then you now have approximately 160 examples of
>> MJ:
>>
>> 1. rejecting Catholic dogma
>
>And that SPECIFIC DOGMA is?
That the Novus Ordo Mass in the vernacular is the licit, valid rite of
Mass for the Roman Catholic Church.
Is that specific enough? If not, then your question should be, "What
is the name of this act of denial, and does it fall into the category
of heresy?"
OR -- now, this is just a thought, but............ you could pretend
to be CONVERSING and just state your opinion clearly and cogently,
rather than asking poorly-worded, ambiguous questions and then getting
snarky when you don't like the answers, dearie.
See, that's called COMMUNICATION, of which you profess fondness.
Gosh, so you're deliberately not communicating, and then accusing me
of not desiring communication?
What would that be called, specifically?
(HINT: starts with P, ends with N, rhymes with PROJECTION)
>> 2. rejecting the authority of a legitimate Church council
>
>And that SPECIFIC heresy is?
Oh, how clever of you. You're trying to get me to say that Mark's
position is sententia de haeresi suspecta, haeresim sapiens.
Or would you prefer "schismatic," a special case of either sententia
haeresi proxima or propositio theologice erronea, depending on the tac
of the argument?
Nice try.
Antiultramontanism, a special case/subset of modernism.
And, just to refresh your memory:
heresy -- adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma b
: denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman
Catholic Church c : an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma
Mark fits all 3.
NEXT!!!!
>> 3. rejecting the validity of the current liturgical rite
>
>And that SPECIFIC heresy is?
Antiultramontanism, a special case/subset of modernism.
>> Want more? Good. Because tomorrow's lesson will be:
>>
>> How many times has MJ rejected and decried the current Pope?
>
>And that SPECIFIC heresy is?
Antiultramontanism, a special case/subset of modernism. (Happy now?)
I'm sure I don't need to explain ultramontanism to you, Mr. Vick.
Or why antiultramontanism is, by definition, contrary to the basic
tenets Catholicism.
>One more time (and it really IS one more time, because it seems that time
>devoted to discussion with you is waisted, at least from my point of view),
Your loss.
>what is THE heresy? Arianism? Modernism? Jansenism? What IS THE heresy?
Oh, you are saying there is a specific name for the heresy of not
believing that JP 2 is the Pope?
Mary Catherine does not usually bow to obtuse demands, but in your
case, I shall indulge:
The word you're obtusely demanding from me is:
antiultramontanism.
In this case, the bizarre original argument could be argued as
sententia haeresi proxima or propositio theologice erronea. Of course,
you have chosen not to do that. Now, why would that be?
Hmmmm..............
If I were to sepeculate, I would say that you're not familiar with
your heresies.
If I were to infer, I would say that any defense you would offer would
label you as whatever label MJ has earned.
Hmmmmmm...............
>What specific DOGMA has Mark rejected, obstinately? So far, your responses
>provide NO answer to this SPECIFIC question.
My, my, my........... such demands when you yourself are unwilling to
live up to those demands. My, my, my............
>> > Did I misunderstand what 'bardi'
>> >posted, above?
>>
>> Did you........... here?
>>
>> (HINT: The extraneous and incorrect punctuation is a dead give-away,
>> 'Tom'.)
>>
>> MCG
>
>It appears that you have no desire to answer my question,
Just did, sweetie.
And I used the vocabulary which you obtusely demanded from me, while
avoiding such yourself.
There's a word for that, too, but in the interests of civility (and
typing one-handed due to cheesecake indulgence), I shan't venture
there today.
> which is not
>surprising, considering the "answers" I get from most (not all) "novus
>ordoites"
Yeahyeahyeah, you're the last bastion of the faith, and we're all just
ecumenical whores of Rome. Yadayadayada.
And quite frankly, I don't have the disposition to be anyone's whore,
physically, sartorially, or metaphorically.
> (James Black being one of the few exceptions). Assuming that you
>refuse, again, to specifically answer my question(s), then there is
>certainly no point in further communication (assuming there was any
>communication to begin with).
Actually, there was on my part. YOU chose to be otherwise. And now
demand that from others. Hmmmmmmmmm...........
Now, what would the specific social offense be........ here?
Could it be the one that starts with a P, ends with N< and rhymes with
PROJECTION?
Or would it be the one that starts with an H?
>Regardless of your response, or non-response, to my question......
Your questions have been answered repeatedly, Mr. Vick.
Whose fault is it that you don't like the answers?
>PAX
>lex orandi, lex credendi
Oh, how sweet of you.
Peace, sweetie!
Mary Cath.
maf1029
wrote:
Isn't it amazing that no one *EXCEPT* the disgruntled few still bitter
about any Mass not in Latin has "witnessed" any of these alleged
problems?
maf and dog, aa #1954
Just some of the behind-the-scenes people at:
Tony Miller
Because the Catholic Church is not a democracy. If you wish to receive on
the tongue, feel free to do so. Why do you feel the need to impose your
views on us 'novus ordoites'.
> appears they (they, in the general "novus ordoite" sense) have no use for
> those who hold a traditionalist opinion, or ask "why".
No, I have no use for those who resist change for the resisting's sake.
>> It appears to be a political lynching,
>> in other words, and nothing less, and certainly nothing based on
>> Catholic dogma or tradition - perhaps based even on an anti-tradition,
>> if you will.
>
> It certainly appears such.
I say it's a backlash. You say that my eucharist, promulgated by a valid
Pope is invalid, I'm going to tell you to 'kiss my ass' . . . here.
>> As for the SSPX, I share some concerns others have expressed in their
>> desire to swear this personal oath of loyalty not just to the papacy,
>> but to the person, and personality, of JP II. That would suggest that,
>> like the Adoremans, they would not only be ready with eager excuses
>> for 'reform', but might encourage 'reform', themselves, because it is
>> the ground of the 'reformist', JP II.
>>
>
> It seems, at times, that most (at least most in this ng, anyway) are
> "papalogists", at least.
'papologist' is that anything like a 'PC pope'? I have to keep my
'traditionalist' terms straight.
> And, to you....
>
> PAX
> lex orandi, lex credendi
-Tony
maf1029
wrote:
>>> It appears to be a political lynching,
>>> in other words, and nothing less, and certainly nothing based on
>>> Catholic dogma or tradition - perhaps based even on an anti-tradition,
>>> if you will.
>>
>> It certainly appears such.
>
>I say it's a backlash. You say that my eucharist, promulgated by a valid
>Pope is invalid, I'm going to tell you to 'kiss my ass' . . . here.
Ya know -- I have never understood the whole double standard thing:
The novus ordo whores are wrong wrong wrong for "not following the
Church," despite their following the dogma of the Church, but the
Tradition-mongers, who aren't following the Church, are right right
right and holier than Jesus for being martyrs for their made-up cause.
What's even more amazing is that out here in a place I like to call
Reality, I'd never heard of this shit, and I was an employee of the
RCC. People went to Mass, they didn't bitch about it not being in
Latin, and they took Communion however they thought best. And no one,
I mean NOT A SINGLE PERSON, griped about it. Not about any of it.
Hell, the last time I heard anyone bitch about Mass not in Latin was
my paternal grandfather, and only because my father got a minor in
Latin studies in college, and Grandpa felt that my father had wasted
some money on that, since "not even the Mass is in Latin anymore,
thank Christ." (actual quote).
Now, as a former RCC emplyee, either I was really far out of the
proverbial loop on this whole "Traddy vs. New Order whore" bruhaha, or
*certain people* are blowing the whole controversy out of all
realistic proportion.
Gosh, I wonder which choice <coughcoughthelattercoughcough> is a more
accurate reflection of reality?
<maf dismounts soapbox>
Please, feel free to carry on.
Matthew
<1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>rwa...@nycc.edu (Robert A. Walker) wrote:
>
>>maf1029 <maf...@trazansplace.jungle> wrote in message news:<novjgvk04iv02nf4g...@4ax.com>...
>
>>> I worked for the RCC for almost 20 years, at various parishes.
>
>'maf', if I may.
No, you may not, asslicker. But, hey, don't stop on my account.
Oh, and I noticed that you don'ty have the balls to respond to me
directly. Must suck being a hertic and a coward.
>You, lady - are an idiot.
Misogynistic AND childish, all in 5 words.
How unimpressively yawn-inspiring, you 'Catholic' you.
>You're a troll.
Don't project.
> You're a
>Godless liar.
Don't project.
> I've literally had to killfile you - TWICE - for just
>that!
If I'm killfiled, then HOW are you responding, O Gutless One?
>You have no shame. And why you imagine, for one minute, that
>anyone in their right mind would believe a single word you write is to
>imagine something so ridiculous - like a third term for Clinton, or
>something.
>
>>> I witnessed the following:
>
>No one cares.
Don't project, O Persecuted One.
> You're the 'maf troll'.
>Peace, anyway.
Up yours, after you remove your head from your ass.
Peace, snookums.
Enjoy the website much?
Margie Sanger
<1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>rwa...@nycc.edu (Robert A. Walker) wrote:
>
>>maf1029 <maf...@trazansplace.jungle> wrote in message news:<novjgvk04iv02nf4g...@4ax.com>...
>
>>> I worked for the RCC for almost 20 years, at various parishes.
>
>'maf', if I may.
No, you may not, asslicker. But, hey, don't stop on my account.
Oh, and I noticed that you don'ty have the balls to respond to me
directly. Must suck being a hertic and a coward.
>You, lady - are an idiot.
Misogynistic AND childish, all in 5 words.
How unimpressively yawn-inspiring, you 'Catholic' you.
>You're a troll.
Don't project.
> You're a
>Godless liar.
Don't project.
> I've literally had to killfile you - TWICE - for just
>that!
If I'm killfiled, then HOW are you responding, O Gutless One?
>You have no shame. And why you imagine, for one minute, that
>anyone in their right mind would believe a single word you write is to
>imagine something so ridiculous - like a third term for Clinton, or
>something.
>>> I witnessed the following:
>No one cares.
Don't project, O Persecuted One.
> You're the 'maf troll'.
Translation: you never could come up with anything cogent or
meaningful.
>Peace, anyway.
Up yours, after you remove your head from your ass.
Peace, snookums.
Enjoy the website much?
http://www.geocities.com/zmjcath/
Mark Phillips
<1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>rwa...@nycc.edu (Robert A. Walker) wrote:
>
>>maf1029 <maf...@trazansplace.jungle> wrote in message news:<novjgvk04iv02nf4g...@4ax.com>...
>
>>> I worked for the RCC for almost 20 years, at various parishes.
>
>You're a troll.
Don't project.
Don't project.
>Peace, anyway.
Peace, snookums.
Enjoy the website much?
http://www.geocities.com/zmjcath/
Tom Vick
"Mary Catherine Gallagher, Fashion Demi-Goddess " <m...@snl.org> wrote in
message news:fl2kgvsdgkk9dcgtf...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 15:15:48 -0500, "Tom Vick" <to...@pld.com> wrote:
>
> <cross-posting to alt.talk.creationism removed>
>
> >
> >"Mary Catherine Gallagher, Cheesecake Queen" <m...@snl.org> wrote in
message
> >news:ddhjgvso7tm94rgs1...@4ax.com...
>
> <snip for brevity. If I have inadvertently removed anything of
> importance, I apologize in advance>
>
<snipped for brevity, this post was getting rather long. And, I also
apologize if I have removed any relevant material>
ultramontanism - "A term used to denote integral and active Catholicism,
because it recognizes as its spiritual head the pope, who, for the greater
part of Europe, is a dweller beyond the mountains (ultra montes), that is,
beyond the Alps." from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm (New
Advent website). There is more written on the subject, at the referenced
site, and I leave it to the reader of this post to visit the site and read
the remainder. A websearch indicates many sites with some form of
reverence/definition of the term.
It appears that the term is used to indicate "integral and active
Catholicism, because it recognizes as its spiritual head the pope,.....",
and in that regard one may assume that the term "anti-ultramontanism" would
then refer to "non-integral and/or inactive Catholicism, because it does not
recognize as its spiritual head the pope,......". Logic dictates, to some,
that the "anti" form, then, would apply to anyone who rejects the pope as
spiritual head of the Catholic Church. While this "anti" would be accurate
in describing a protestant, since they reject (for the most part) ANY pope
as the visible head of the Church, and the successor to St. Peter, it (anti)
is NOT accurate in describing one who either a) doubts the spiritual
jurisdiction of a recent pope or popes (SSPX *might* fall into this
category), or b) doubts both the juridic and spiritual authority of a
recent pope or popes (most "sede vacantes" would fall into this category).
Also, while the term (anti-ultramontanism) may be applicable as an
indication of a person's position in this regard, it is not defined as a
"formal heresy" by the Church, at least in any of the documents I have
researched, in this particular situation. As MCG has indicated in her
previous post, there is an arguement for consideration of classifying such
as "schismatics", although that arguement doesn't hold much weight in many
writings of the Saints, Fathers, and Doctors. St. Robert Bellarmine, among
others, has written regarding a pope-heretic, and has theorized as to what
*might* happen, and what Catholics *may* think/do, in good conscience.
Since most "sedes" and other "traditionalist" Catholic sects (including
SSPX, according to my interpretation of their position) recognize the
Papacy, as the Papacy, then the argument which refers to them as "heretics",
fails to meet the definition of "heretic", technically.
Finally, as I indicated in my previous post in this thread, I expected
either 1) no answer from MCG, or 2) an answer which didn't specifically
address the question. I was not disappointed. It is apparent, to me, that
MCG has no desire to enter into an intelligent discussion of this question,
and further responses to her, on my part, would be counterproductive.
Therefore, I will leave her to continue to post her non-responses, without
further input from me.
I use OE for this newsgroup, so "killfile" is not an option (that I know of,
any help on this?) for this poster.
bardi
"Tom Vick" <to...@pld.com> wrote in message >
> Ok. It's possible I've overlooked something Mark has said.......I admit
> that. Please enlighten me as to anything Mark has said, that can be
> interpreted as a "rejection of Catholic Dogma". I believe this all
started
> in my response to 'bardi's' statement:
>
> "Just for the record btw, there ate substantive differences between the
> proclamations of Mr Johnson, who has admitted at least an admiration for
> pronounced heretics, and with the professed belief of the Roman Catholic
> Church."
>
> If 'bardi' is stating, as fact, that Mark has said something
"substantively
> different" that the "professed belief of the Roman Catholic Church", then
> all I asked was for an example, just one. Did I misunderstand what
'bardi'
> posted, above? Or, has Mark posted a rejection of any Catholic Dogma,
which
> I overlooked? I'm not perfect. Please point out if I have made an error,
> or overlooked a "substantive difference" (rejection of Catholic Dogma)
> between what Mark has written, and "the professed belief of the Roman
> Catholic Church".
>
> PAX
> lex orandi, lex credendi
>
Examples
1>an implied declaration of the invalidity of the Papacy.
2> a stated declaration of the invalidity of the Eucharist as stated by the
Holy See
3>a statement of admiration for specific heretics, implying that they were
correct and thus allowing oneself the possible accusatoin of being heretical
. Not that I stated (I believe) that Mark is a heretic himself. But that is
not my position to state one way or another.
btw..save yourself keystrokes. The name is bardi..not 'bardi'. It is a fair
diminutive translation of my natal surname.
df
bardi
>
>
bardi
> "bardi" <tor...@fuse.net> wrote:
>
> >"Daniel Höhr" <dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> >news:be6s0n$1rpd4$1...@ID-82123.news.dfncis.de...
> >Tom Vick wrote:
>
> >If you were actually reading what's in front of your nose (your Master
> >St. Mark Johnson
>
> 'Barrrrrdi'. Yep, you're getting lower and lower with each post. That
> doesn't tell you anything about yourself, or the heresies to which you
> attach yourself?
>
>
Look at your posts better Mark..that was not my comment.
> >http://www.geocities.com/ymjcath/MassNote.htm
>
> >Got it?
>
> You gotta read it, first, 'bardi'. Then see if you 'got it'.
>
>
> >But I do agree for the most part. Mark may call himself a catholic all
day
> >long but that does not make him one.
>
> Speak for yourself, 'bardi'. I've said you are Reformed Catholic, for
> darned good reason. Myself, I'm Catholic. I chose to be Catholic,
> against what it is that you profess.
>
> Let's be honest.
>
>
I was speaking for myself Mark. I did not say you were or were not a
Catholic. Merely that you are not one simply because you state that you are.
Although, given your sad hostility for the Holy See, your status would be
seen by most as being questionable.
dnp
bardi
Tom Vick
I haven't read such an "implied declaration". Not saying it didn't happen,
just that I haven't seen such.
> 2> a stated declaration of the invalidity of the Eucharist as stated by
the
> Holy See
I have seen Mark post that he believes the Form of the Novus Ordo
Consecration is invalid (I hope I am right, Mark could have said "illicit",
but I believe I read somewhere that he posted "invalid"). Nowhere have I
read where Mark "declared" the Eucharist invalid, as stated by the Council
of Trent.
> 3>a statement of admiration for specific heretics, implying that they were
> correct and thus allowing oneself the possible accusatoin of being
heretical
Again, I must have missed this, unless you are referring to LeFebvre (who
was excommunicated, arguably, for "disobedience", not heresy). Are there
"statements" I've missed?
> . Not that I stated (I believe) that Mark is a heretic himself. But that
is
> not my position to state one way or another.
True, to a certain extent. However, one may be a heretic, ipso facto,
regardless of whether you, or I, or anyone else, thinks so.
>
> btw..save yourself keystrokes. The name is bardi..not 'bardi'. It is a
fair
> diminutive translation of my natal surname.
Fair enough. I'll try to remember. It's just that I haven't seen this
"name" before. If you want to be referred to as bardi, I have no problem
with that (that I'm aware of).
bardi
"Tom Vick" <to...@pld.com> wrote in message news:3f08a40a_4@newsfeed...
If I may,let me make a personal aside here. I have nothing whatsoever
against the celebration of the Tridentine Mass. Not only because of its
historical value, or its place in the Tradition of the Church. There is a
..hmm..spiritual element that is different than the Pauline Mass. Not
better, not worse, but different.
As for His Holiness,John Paul II. I am required to be obedient. This is not
the same as always admiring,or even always agreeing. But still I remain
obedient because he is the one in the Seat of Peter. Not Mark,not myself.
What I do have a fundamental problem with, however, are those who think
that they personally know better than the Vatican what is correct, and that
anyone who disagrees with them, up to and including the Vatican, are
wrong,liars,etc.
df
bardi
bardi
> "Stephanie" <n...@thankyou.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 04:47:29 -0700, Mark Johnson wrote:
> >
> >> ebon...@hotmail.com (Adam Marczyk) wrote:
> >>
> >>>Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:<jf9dgvg9ojefooh76...@4ax.com>...
> >>>> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Consider the humor, then. As the Prots, who at least publicly
> >>>> confessed Trinitarianism, sung at 'gathering' or 'chapel', or
> >>>> whatever, there was a period where not such a distance away, God and
> >>>> His priests were under a death sentence, for being Catholic priests.
> >>>> Mass was held at the cliffs. And nations were subject to the tyranny
> >>>> of the Church of England.
>
> >>>Which was, in turn, formed as a reaction to the tyranny of
> >>>Catholicism.
>
> >> Sure, if you were taught that in Anglican schools. That twisted
> >> history is exact what Chesterton complained about. PC for it day -
> >> apparently even now.
>
> >Not at all. I went to an Anglican school
>
> Chesterton was talking about - unless you're 'Biblically' old.
>
Mark,Mark...she was agreeing with you. Relax.
dnp
bardi
bardi
"Tom Vick" <to...@pld.com> wrote in message news:3f096aec$1_4@newsfeed...
Holy See.
> > 3>a statement of admiration for specific heretics, implying that they
were
> > correct and thus allowing oneself the possible accusatoin of being
> heretical
>
> Again, I must have missed this, unless you are referring to LeFebvre (who
> was excommunicated, arguably, for "disobedience", not heresy). Are there
> "statements" I've missed?
>
Depends on definition. heretic being defined as schismatic or divisive would
lead to Mr LeFebvre to have been heretical. Not in his belief in the
sacrament as involved in the Tridentine Mass, but in his belief that he had
a greater authority than the Vatican.
> > . Not that I stated (I believe) that Mark is a heretic himself. But that
> is
> > not my position to state one way or another.
>
> True, to a certain extent. However, one may be a heretic, ipso facto,
> regardless of whether you, or I, or anyone else, thinks so.
>
There is, I suppose, a difference between a heretic,one who performs
functions which could be construed as heretical and a Heretic, that is one
proclaimed as such by the Church.
> >
> > btw..save yourself keystrokes. The name is bardi..not 'bardi'. It is a
> fair
> > diminutive translation of my natal surname.
>
> Fair enough. I'll try to remember. It's just that I haven't seen this
> "name" before. If you want to be referred to as bardi, I have no problem
> with that (that I'm aware of).
>
> PAX
> lex orandi, lex credendi
>
>
I myself have only seen one other person use the ' ' around my name,that
being Mr Johnson, for reasons of his own which are not worth the time to
fathom.
dnp
bardi
David Jensen
>David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>
>>In alt.talk.creationism, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote
>>in <lveigvkl46pabqr27...@4ax.com>:
>>>David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>>>>In alt.talk.creationism, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote
>>>>in <pm4hgvodp74kk0jp9...@4ax.com>:
>>>>>David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>What if they had an open-mind on the subject? What if they came to
>>>>>such a horrible conclusion?
>
>>>>>Would you tremble?
>
>>>>What are you asking about?
>
>>>What if they had an open-mind on the subject? What if they came to
>>>such a horrible conclusion?
>
>>>Would you tremble?
>
>>Scientists do have an open mind on the subject. Evolution was discovered
>>because of that open mind.
>
>What if it was discovered that the whole thing was nonsense?
It would depend on how it were shown to be nonsense. Given that there is
an overwhelming amount of evidence to show that evolution happens, I
won't worry about the problem unless it arises.
>>I do not tremble at the implications of thd discoveries of science
>
>Because you don't concern yourself with such. You're an evolutionist,
>who changes his mind on something so basic as what IS . . The Theory
>of Evolution, in practically every post.
Mark, your writings appear to imply that you think that the theory of
evolution is some sort of magic incantation that must be said correctly
each time. It is not. What you get here is a short description of a
complex model that explains the history of life on earth.
If you want to learn a fair amount about evolution, read _The Structure
of Evolutionary Theory_ by Stephen Jay Gould. That will give you a
comprehensive overview of it.
Peter Scott
Mark Johnson wrote:
> rwa...@nycc.edu (Robert A. Walker) wrote:
>
>
>>maf1029 <maf...@trazansplace.jungle> wrote in message news:<novjgvk04iv02nf4g...@4ax.com>...
>
>
>>>I worked for the RCC for almost 20 years, at various parishes.
>
>
> 'maf', if I m
'mark johnson', you're just pissed off that in contrast to you
self-titled 'catholic' maf, an atheist, has more insight in
Catholicism than you. You lost every debate with maf, you look even
more stupid than you actually are when he deals with you.
You're a sad sight, 'mark johnson'.
> No one cares. You're the 'maf troll'.
No one cares. You're the 'mark johnson troll'.
Now go and think and think about it, you mega-'catholic' half wit, you.
Peace, even to an Asshole!
Tony Miller
Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>
>>In alt.talk.creationism, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote
>>in <lveigvkl46pabqr27...@4ax.com>:
>>>David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>>>>In alt.talk.creationism, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote
>>>>in <pm4hgvodp74kk0jp9...@4ax.com>:
>>>>>David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>What if they had an open-mind on the subject? What if they came to
>>>>>such a horrible conclusion?
>
>>>>>Would you tremble?
>
>>>>What are you asking about?
>
>>>What if they had an open-mind on the subject? What if they came to
>>>such a horrible conclusion?
>
>>>Would you tremble?
>
>>Scientists do have an open mind on the subject. Evolution was discovered
>>because of that open mind.
>
> What if it was discovered that the whole thing was nonsense?
What if it was discovered that the whole thing was God's design?
>>I do not tremble at the implications of thd discoveries of science
>
> Because you don't concern yourself with such. You're an evolutionist,
> who changes his mind on something so basic as what IS . . The Theory
> of Evolution, in practically every post.
Evolution is not inconsistent with creation, unless you're locked in the
16th century.
Tony Miller
Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> Tony Miller <to...@cigardiary.com> wrote:
>
>>"Going troll" means putting Mark in a tight spot that he can't easily
>>wiggle from.
>
> No, it means you are abusive, profane, dishonest and unwilling to
> discuss a thing. You behave childishly and attempt to shut off any
> discussion.
You want to discuss? Let's discuss.
The rite described by Justin the Martyr... is it valid or invalid?
But I know you don't want to discuss anything. You want to evade the
tough questions, pontificate and advertise your flowery page.
So do you have the balls to answer the question, or point me to a
Message-ID where it is answered? The smart money is on . . . no . . .
here.
>>(one of the 'trolls' . . . here, sets him right).
>
> A troll doesn't seek a reply. He simply harasses. Under the bridge -
> out from under the bridge. A troll.
Heh, you don't even have the proper definition of a troll. A troll puts
the bait into the water, drags it along and waits for bites. You're not
even a challenge anymore. You bite on a bare hook.
And I don't seek a reply any more, because I've learned I don't get a
reply.
The rite described by Justin the Martyr... is it valid or invalid?
Let's see if you can reply...
>>> You don't expect MJ to "discuss" all the items on your webpage with you,
>>> do you? Anyway, once again, you address all his errors on your page, put
>>> them right and it's good reading.
>
>>Nah, I've stopped 'discussing' and have gotten into 'correcting' and
>>'ridiculing'. Much better for my blood pressure I have to say.
>
> But you begin with such ridicule and misrepresentation. I told you not
> to lie. You pointedly refused to stop.
The ridicule is right on target. If you want it to stop, change your
behavior. But I don't expect that to happen, because I believe your
particular brand of 'traditionalism' is a syndrome. Like Tourette's
syndrome. These statements just keep popping out of your mouth...
Unnn... uhhhhhhhh.... uhhhhhhhhhhhh.... TRENDY CORNER PARISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>And he has. I have explained that I will either accept an answer . . .
>>here, or a Message-ID: of a previous answer and as soon as I receive
>
> We've been over and over and over this.
And you have yet to do it.
> In fact, in looking over my replies to you, I seem to address one of
> your mischaracterizations in almost every post, even if not
> specifically trying to correct your webpage.
As far as mischaracterizations go, those who read these posts . . . here .
. . will judge the correctness of my characterizations. If you don't want
to be characterized like that, stop *behaving* like that.
> So - pick any thread, and any reply I given you. But you don't care.
> You're gonna gnash and wail, and try to nip at my heels, and show me
> what a 'true Catholic' you are, in the service of evil. You just don't
> get it. You don't think there's a God. You think injustice will be
> rewarded.
No, i'm going to continue to correct you, and if you behave obnoxiously,
I'm going to correct you. But ultimately, I'm going to pray for you.
Did you know that he who sings prays twice? Here's one for you...
~```And he will raise... you up... on eagle's wings.... ~``~`
> Peace.
Yeah, whatever.
Mark Phillips
<1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>Matthew <Mat...@compuserv.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 23:29:48 -0700, Mark Johnson
>><1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>>rwa...@nycc.edu (Robert A. Walker) wrote:
>>>>maf1029 <maf...@trazansplace.jungle> wrote in message news:<novjgvk04iv02nf4g...@4ax.com>...
>
>Gee, 'maf'. You sounded angry.
Don't project.
"'maf', if I may. You, lady - are an idiot. You're a troll. You're a
Godless liar. I've literally had to killfile you - TWICE - for just
that! You have no shame." -- Mark Johnson, angry inbred moron
Have a nice day.
Mary Catherine Gallagher
But not to you.
>that the "anti" form, then, would apply to anyone who rejects the pope as
>spiritual head of the Catholic Church.
Yes. MJ rejects JP2 as the licit spiritual head of the RCC.
Thank you for proving the point.
Now, about your 'tude, missy:
You got exactly what you demanded, and then played your trite word
game to whine about it. Your problem.
And killfiles are for cowards who can't face up to what they started.
Enjoy.
Mary Cath.
PS -- plagiarism is never pretty, Tom. Even sockpuppets should know
that.
maf1029
>
>"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:b9pkgv0rm3gigk657...@4ax.com...
>> "Stephanie" <n...@thankyou.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 04:47:29 -0700, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> >
>> >> ebon...@hotmail.com (Adam Marczyk) wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:<jf9dgvg9ojefooh76...@4ax.com>...
>> >>>> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> Consider the humor, then. As the Prots, who at least publicly
>> >>>> confessed Trinitarianism, sung at 'gathering' or 'chapel', or
>> >>>> whatever, there was a period where not such a distance away, God and
>> >>>> His priests were under a death sentence, for being Catholic priests.
>> >>>> Mass was held at the cliffs. And nations were subject to the tyranny
>> >>>> of the Church of England.
>>
>> >>>Which was, in turn, formed as a reaction to the tyranny of
>> >>>Catholicism.
>>
>> >> Sure, if you were taught that in Anglican schools. That twisted
>> >> history is exact what Chesterton complained about. PC for it day -
>> >> apparently even now.
>>
>> >Not at all. I went to an Anglican school
>>
>> You didn't when such laws were on the books. You didn't in the era
>> Chesterton was talking about - unless you're 'Biblically' old.
>>
>
>Mark,Mark...she was agreeing with you. Relax.
bardi, MJ doesn't care if people agree with him. His martyr complex
needs nourishment.
BTW, how are you?
Mark Johnson
>"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:rd4hgvoilm7omust8...@4ax.com...
>> "bardi" <tor...@fuse.net> wrote:
>> >"Daniel Höhr" <dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>> >news:be6s0n$1rpd4$1...@ID-82123.news.dfncis.de...
>> >Tom Vick wrote:
>> >If you were actually reading what's in front of your nose (your Master
>> >St. Mark Johnson
>> 'Barrrrrdi'. Yep, you're getting lower and lower with each post. That
>> doesn't tell you anything about yourself, or the heresies to which you
>> attach yourself?
>Look at your posts better Mark..that was not my comment.
It reads:
>> "bardi" <tor...@fuse.net> wrote:
And message-id: 3f06f4d7$0$79620$a046...@nnrp.fuse.net
And you said:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you were actually reading what's in front of your nose (your Master
St. Mark Johnson . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are one extraordinarily confused woman, aren't you?
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
Mark Johnson
>Depends on definition. heretic being defined as schismatic or divisive would
>lead to Mr LeFebvre to have been heretical.
Divisive with whom? with heretics, or with The Church? You need to
call Ottaviani, Bacci, et al 'heretical' because they complained of
'new order'. You must say this not merely of Lefebvre, but of Davies,
von Hildebrand, and oh, yes - St. Pio. You need to call Mgr. Gamer a
'heretic', because you won't honestly apply that term, to yourself.
You need to call everyone who disagrees, heretical. It's calling
black, white, and up, down. And that's a mark of diabolism, bardi. You
have no Catholic standard. But Catholics do.
Thus - your problem, and downfall (unless you wise up).
>There is, I suppose, a difference between a heretic,one who performs
>functions which could be construed as heretical and a Heretic, that is one
>proclaimed as such by the Church.
You have no clue what you're talking about, do you, bardi?
I keep telling you that, if you'll recall.
>I myself have only seen one other person use the ' ' around my name,that
>being Mr Johnson, for reasons of his own which are not worth the time to
>fathom.
It seemed like an obvious alias. Did you ever mention this to me,
before?
Mark Johnson
>In alt.talk.creationism, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote
>in <v2qkgv0vdd5ev5k5f...@4ax.com>:
>>David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>>>In alt.talk.creationism, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote
>>>in <lveigvkl46pabqr27...@4ax.com>:
>>>>David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>>>>>In alt.talk.creationism, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote
>>>>>in <pm4hgvodp74kk0jp9...@4ax.com>:
>>>>>>David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>>>>>>What if they had an open-mind on the subject? What if they came to
>>>>>>such a horrible conclusion?
>>>>>>Would you tremble?
>>>>>What are you asking about?
>>>>What if they had an open-mind on the subject? What if they came to
>>>>such a horrible conclusion?
>>>>Would you tremble?
>>>Scientists do have an open mind on the subject. Evolution was discovered
>>>because of that open mind.
>>What if it was discovered that the whole thing was nonsense?
>It would depend on how it were shown to be nonsense. Given that there is
>an overwhelming amount of evidence to show that evolution happens, I
>won't worry about the problem unless it arises.
Evidence for . . what? You can't even agree with yourself what
evolution . . is. Maybe it's evidence for something else, upon which
everyone might agree, if they ditched the PC.
>>>I do not tremble at the implications of thd discoveries of science
>>Because you don't concern yourself with such. You're an evolutionist,
>>who changes his mind on something so basic as what IS . . The Theory
>>of Evolution, in practically every post.
>Mark, your writings appear to imply that you think that the theory of
>evolution is some sort of magic incantation that must be said correctly
>each time. It is not.
Golly. Watch that straw burn. And we're headed for a heat wave out
here, too, starting tomorrow. You better have a permit for that.
Anyway - read what I write, as written. Then you don't have to make
stuff up.
How hard can it be?
>If you want to learn a fair amount about evolution, read _The Structure
>of Evolutionary Theory_ by Stephen Jay Gould. That will give you a
>comprehensive overview of it.
So what did he say was The Theory of Evolution? He surely used the
phrase. Would you agree if he gave a definition, or not?
Since you've read the book - what _did_ he say?
Mark Johnson
>"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:b9pkgv0rm3gigk657...@4ax.com...
>> "Stephanie" <n...@thankyou.com> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 04:47:29 -0700, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> >> ebon...@hotmail.com (Adam Marczyk) wrote:
>> >>>Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:<jf9dgvg9ojefooh76...@4ax.com>...
>> >>>> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Sure, if you were taught that in Anglican schools. That twisted
>> >> history is exact what Chesterton complained about. PC for it day -
>> >> apparently even now.
>> >Not at all. I went to an Anglican school
>> You didn't when such laws were on the books. You didn't in the era
>> Chesterton was talking about - unless you're 'Biblically' old.
>Mark,Mark...she was agreeing with you. Relax.
Always a good thing. Chesterton was talking about the past, btw. But
you don't know what I meant, by that. I know.
Peace.
----------------------------------------
Theorem: All numbers are equal.
Choose arbitrary a and b, and let t = a + b.
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb
a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb
a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4
(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b
Daniel Höhr
Mark Johnson wrote:
> "bardi" <tor...@fuse.net> wrote:
>
>
>>"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>>news:rd4hgvoilm7omust8...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>"bardi" <tor...@fuse.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Daniel Höhr" <dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:be6s0n$1rpd4$1...@ID-82123.news.dfncis.de...
>>>>Tom Vick wrote:
>
>
>>>>If you were actually reading what's in front of your nose (your Master
>>>>St. Mark Johnson
>
>
>>>'Barrrrrdi'. Yep, you're getting lower and lower with each post. That
>>>doesn't tell you anything about yourself, or the heresies to which you
>>>attach yourself?
>
>
>>Look at your posts better Mark..that was not my comment.
>
>
> It reads:
>
>
>>>"bardi" <tor...@fuse.net> wrote:
>
>
> And message-id: 3f06f4d7$0$79620$a046...@nnrp.fuse.net
>
> And you said:
Look, the message was not properly indended. I wrote that.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> If you were actually reading what's in front of your nose (your Master
> St. Mark Johnson . . .
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> You are one extraordinarily confused woman, aren't you?
You are an extraordinarily confused asshole, aren't you?
Daniel
--
Paul Duca
Mark Johnson wrote:
> Tony Miller <to...@cigardiary.com> wrote:
>
> >"Going troll" means putting Mark in a tight spot that he can't easily
> >wiggle from.
>
> No, it means you are abusive, profane, dishonest and unwilling to
> discuss a thing. You behave childishly and attempt to shut off any
> discussion.
>
> >(one of the 'trolls' . . . here, sets him right).
>
> A troll doesn't seek a reply. He simply harasses. Under the bridge -
> out from under the bridge. A troll.
>
> >> You don't expect MJ to "discuss" all the items on your webpage with you,
> >> do you? Anyway, once again, you address all his errors on your page, put
> >> them right and it's good reading.
>
> >Nah, I've stopped 'discussing' and have gotten into 'correcting' and
> >'ridiculing'. Much better for my blood pressure I have to say.
>
> But you begin with such ridicule and misrepresentation. I told you not
> to lie. You pointedly refused to stop.
>
> >And he has. I have explained that I will either accept an answer . . .
> >here, or a Message-ID: of a previous answer and as soon as I receive
>
> We've been over and over and over this.
>
> In fact, in looking over my replies to you, I seem to address one of
> your mischaracterizations in almost every post, even if not
> specifically trying to correct your webpage.
>
> So - pick any thread, and any reply I given you. But you don't care.
> You're gonna gnash and wail, and try to nip at my heels, and show me
> what a 'true Catholic' you are, in the service of evil. You just don't
> get it. You don't think there's a God. You think injustice will be
> rewarded.
>
Mark thinks HE'LL be rewarded, and that's just as ridiculous...
Paul
Paul Duca
Mark Johnson wrote:
> Tony Miller <to...@cigardiary.com> wrote:
>
> >> It certainly appears such.
>
> >I say it's a backlash.
>
> Tony, you're clueless, and you know it. That's why you take up with
> diabolism, and mock Catholicism.
>
> >Pope is invalid, I'm going to tell you to 'kiss my ass' . . . here.
>
> Wouldn't a swift kick, seem more appropriate?
>
Like the one God and Jesus constantly give everyone, both here on
earth and in Catholic Heaven (TM)?
>
> >>> As for the SSPX, I share some concerns others have expressed in their
> >>> desire to swear this personal oath of loyalty not just to the papacy,
> >>> but to the person, and personality, of JP II. That would suggest that,
> >>> like the Adoremans, they would not only be ready with eager excuses
> >>> for 'reform', but might encourage 'reform', themselves, because it is
> >>> the ground of the 'reformist', JP II.
>
> >> It seems, at times, that most (at least most in this ng, anyway) are
> >> "papalogists", at least.
>
> >'papologist' is that anything like a 'PC pope'?
>
> I think it's one who would treat a PC Pope as if he's impeccable on
> matters of 'reform', and that's as far as the cult would go.
>
> > I have to keep my 'traditionalist' terms straight.
>
> You mean by that, Catholic. The Traditionalist is the Catholic who
> just kept - being Catholic - much to your dismay, surely.
And how will such a person be kept from being bored out of his skull
in Catholic Heaven(TM)?
Paul
Paul Duca
Mark Johnson wrote:
> Matthew <Mat...@compuserv.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 23:29:48 -0700, Mark Johnson
> ><1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> >>rwa...@nycc.edu (Robert A. Walker) wrote:
> >>>maf1029 <maf...@trazansplace.jungle> wrote in message news:<novjgvk04iv02nf4g...@4ax.com>...
>
> Gee, 'maf'. You sounded angry.
>
> I'll just leave you with . . .
>
> Peace.
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> God and the Blessed Virgin and the Saints help a
> poor ignorant soul trying to do his duty--not that THEY care
>
> [Dracula, Bram Stoker, 1897, Ch. 7,
> Demeter Captain's log, last entry]
Paul Duca
bardi wrote:
> "Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:b9pkgv0rm3gigk657...@4ax.com...
> > "Stephanie" <n...@thankyou.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 04:47:29 -0700, Mark Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > >> ebon...@hotmail.com (Adam Marczyk) wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:<jf9dgvg9ojefooh76...@4ax.com>...
> > >>>> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>>> Consider the humor, then. As the Prots, who at least publicly
> > >>>> confessed Trinitarianism, sung at 'gathering' or 'chapel', or
> > >>>> whatever, there was a period where not such a distance away, God and
> > >>>> His priests were under a death sentence, for being Catholic priests.
> > >>>> Mass was held at the cliffs. And nations were subject to the tyranny
> > >>>> of the Church of England.
> >
> > >>>Which was, in turn, formed as a reaction to the tyranny of
> > >>>Catholicism.
> >
> > >> Sure, if you were taught that in Anglican schools. That twisted
> > >> history is exact what Chesterton complained about. PC for it day -
> > >> apparently even now.
> >
> > >Not at all. I went to an Anglican school
> >
> > You didn't when such laws were on the books. You didn't in the era
> > Chesterton was talking about - unless you're 'Biblically' old.
> >
>
> Mark,Mark...she was agreeing with you. Relax.
And if she's a hot babe, Mark will want to breed with her (as
opposed to the advances offered by crazy Dore).
Paul