ASI & Pagano: Heterodox Macaddicted? Put up or shut up. Day 2.
macaddicted
up briefly today I'm worried he missed this; there's been no reply yet.
ASI has replied, but given that it's the end of the weekend he deserves
the chance to formulate his missive to my professors and let us know he
has done so.
Message follows:
As ASI and Pagano's stated belief that I am not a "devout" Catholic is
based on my postings here I have a suggestion. Contact St. John's
Seminary in Camarillo, CA. You are trying to get in touch with Fr.
Brennan, head of the systematics department, or Dr. Fischer, my thesis
advisor. I suggest email as both are busy men.
Explain to them that I've been posting non-orthodox positions and
claiming that I learned the ideas from them through the seminary. You
should provide examples as it has been some time since I discussed
issues that arise here with either of them. Here is the website with
faculty emails:
<http://www.stjohnsem.edu/faculty.htm>
My real name is David Smith. Fr. Brennan may have trouble remembering me
so mention that I'm the guy who had the vertigo problems. My personal
email is in the header, simply remove the spam trap. Please CC me your
communications, I will need them for reference.
Both men were professors. I have a great deal of respect and a deep
admiration for each of them. Words coming from them are not taken
lightly. If they say I'm mistaken I would definitely take a hard look at
what I've been posting.
In other words: Put up or shut up.
--
macaddicted
Wisdom is radiant and unfading and she is easily discerned
by those who love her and is found by those who seek her.
Wisdom 6:12 (NRSV)
All-Seeing-I
wrote:
It has not been 12 hours and we are already on day 2?
No. You are not grandstanding, are you? [rolls eyes]
I would rather ask you, not your professors, which you have already
admitted earlier may not even remember you BTW.
What is your position on evolution?
Do you believe that everything on this planet comes from a SCA? even
though the bible says otherwise
Do you believe man is actually a higher form within the ape family?
even though the bible says God fashioned man from the dust of the
ground and then blew life into his nostrils?
Perhaps some other variation?
If I have assumed wrong about your belief, then by all means state
your position and correct me.
Why pass the buck to your professors that may not even remember you
but will remember your vertigo? You did say to mention your vertigo if
they did not remember you, right?
Shall I say "Day 3" now?
RAM
ASSinine you (and Paggie and Ray) are not God even though you all
attempt play it on cyberspace. Religious communities are not God
either but they do get to determine who belongs to their brand of
beliefs. You do not get to decide who is or is not of a particular
religion. No, neither do you get to decide if people are atheist no
not. Each of us gets to do our beliefs. These by you Paggie and Ray
reveals your militarist rigid religious beliefs and an authoritarian
personalities. You may not like peoples religious criteria but all
you can say is they can't be called your variety of religion. Even
then you can't enforce the definition. You need the religious
community's support for this. Paggie is a deviant within the Catholic
tradition, Ray is a screwball religious nut who will be unacceptable
in many Christian congregations, and you would be likewise with your
"watchers" kookiness. So trying to make someone apostate or declaring
they aren't true Christians is going to take more than your battleship
mouth and rowboat theology to accomplish.
These posts are why you are viewed as a different (from Paddie and
Ray) but functionally equivalent kook.
And of course if you wanted prove he was not following Catholic
communities beliefs you could contact his professors. It is not
whether they know him it is whether they can judge the way you do. It
is their religious community they are training him to serve.
So put up or shut up.
T Pagano
(macaddicted) wrote:
>Day 2. Well day 2 a bit early as I'm going to bed. Since Pagano popped
>up briefly today I'm worried he missed this; there's been no reply yet.
>ASI has replied, but given that it's the end of the weekend he deserves
>the chance to formulate his missive to my professors and let us know he
>has done so.
>
>
>Message follows:
>
>As ASI and Pagano's stated belief that I am not a "devout" Catholic is
>based on my postings here I have a suggestion. Contact St. John's
>Seminary in Camarillo, CA. You are trying to get in touch with Fr.
>Brennan, head of the systematics department, or Dr. Fischer, my thesis
>advisor. I suggest email as both are busy men.
macaddicted has a long history of posting heterodox opinions and
misleading members of the forum to believe that they are positions of
the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. While the Church does issue
non-Magisterial positions it makes clear their degree of force upon
the faithful.
An example of macaddicted's modus operandi: macaddicted mislead
others that the "opinions" of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC)
represented doctrinal positions of the Church. While the PBC was an
arm of the Magisterium at one time that power was stripped several
decades ago.
This is typical of his posting history. He "shops" around for a
Catholic (or nominally Catholic entity) who offers positions
consistent with atheism and evolutionism and pawns-them-off as
Magisterial / Doctrinal positions of the Catholic Church.
While the Catholic Church has always allowed its members (with some
limits) to study and theorize with freedom this does not mean that
their musings are Church positon. For example, The Pontifical
Academy of Sciences has degenerated into a body of mostly atheists who
advises the Pontiff in matters of science. This hardly means that
their advise becomes a Magisterial Teaching (or any other lesser
teaching) of the Church or an official position of the Church. Yet
this is exactly what macaddicted has lead others to believe.
>
>Explain to them that I've been posting non-orthodox positions and
>claiming that I learned the ideas from them through the seminary.
But I don't need their councel to determine what is and is not
heterdox. The Magisterial teachings are available for anyone to
peruse.
> You
>should provide examples as it has been some time since I discussed
>issues that arise here with either of them.
This is not the forum for a such a discussion.
>Here is the website with
>faculty emails:
><http://www.stjohnsem.edu/faculty.htm>
The seminaries in the United States have such a bad record since
Vatican II that I suspect the Pontiff himself would cringe at your
claim. With some rare exceptions in comparison to pre_1950 the
seminaries in the US are virtually empty.
And I don't need to contact the Seminary to know what is Catholic
Church Doctrine or not because it is rigorously and conspicuously
documented. The Church tells me what constitutes the Magisterium and
when their teachings are Magisterial.
The fact that you are unaware of (or worse ignore) this simple fact
tells me that the Catholic seminaries are in worse shape than I even
suspected.
>
>My real name is David Smith. Fr. Brennan may have trouble remembering me
>so mention that I'm the guy who had the vertigo problems. My personal
>email is in the header, simply remove the spam trap. Please CC me your
>communications, I will need them for reference.
>
>Both men were professors. I have a great deal of respect and a deep
>admiration for each of them. Words coming from them are not taken
>lightly. If they say I'm mistaken I would definitely take a hard look at
>what I've been posting.
>
>In other words: Put up or shut up.
This seriously misguided macaddicted has offered nothing but a
worthless argument from authority. Your seminarian professors are not
members of the Magisterium and they apparently failed to properly
instruct you in its membership and where you might actually find
Magisterial teachings.
I hope macaddicted changes his ways but until then
I WARN EVERYONE THAT MACADDICTED IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED WITH FAITHFULLY
OFFERING MAGISTERIAL TEACHINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Regards,
T Pagano
RAM
> >In other words: Put up or shut up.
>
> This seriously misguided macaddicted has offered nothing but a
> worthless argument from authority. �
And thus you substitute your own worthless authority for what reason?
>Your seminarian professors are not
> members of the Magisterium and they apparently failed to properly
> instruct you in its membership and where you might actually find
> Magisterial teachings.
Why not inform his professor of this fact? Coward!
>
> I hope macaddicted changes his ways �but until then
Paggie's bold face and cowardly attempt at "put up or shut up."
> I WARN EVERYONE THAT MACADDICTED IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED WITH FAITHFULLY
> OFFERING MAGISTERIAL TEACHINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
>
This resonates throughout the world!
Wow now why is it that you can't "put up or shut up."
> Regards,
> T Pagano
All-seeing-I
It is YOU that needs to put up or shut up. Shut up would be better
since you have nothing to put up.
So many of you want to use the bible or words associated with the
catholic religion and others to make an argument, but you have no idea
what any of it means.
Do you even know what Heterodox means?
I bet macaddicted does not know what it means either. Else he would
not be making such a big deal.
Here is what it means:
Heterodoxy would included any opinions or doctrines at variance with
official
orthodox position. The very essence of the word means 'unorthodox'
doctrines or opinions
Note the word "orthodox".
ANY OPINION at VARIANCE with the ORTHODOX position. Orthodox of the
twenty-first century believes precisely what was believed by Orthodox
of the first, the fifth, the tenth, the fifteenth centuries. They have
not changed their views one fraction and I am quite positive they feel
evolution plays no part in man's existence.
Orthodox Catholics do not subscribe to anything written in Vatican II
while folks such as macaddicted embrace Vat II because is mildly
suggest evolution may have a place in the church.
I can assure you that 95% of Catholics today are Heterodox according
to the Orthodox's views and I can guarantee that macaddicted is in
fact, not orthodox. For a Catholic to be an orthodox they almost have
to be a Monk. Which I doubt macaddicted is.
To illustrate just how different the Orthodox views are from the main
stream catholics, the Orthodox reject the Roman Catholic dogma of the
Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, which was defined as "of the
faith" by Pope Pius IX, on the 8th of December 1854.
If macaddicted said "The virgin Mary was immaculately conceived", as
100% of Roman Catholics believe, then he would have made an statement
considered to be Heterodox to the Orthodox Catholics. That is what
Tony said. he was saying macaddicted does not understand Orthodox
Magisterim.
Tony is probably laughing his ass off right now because macaddicted,
and now you, have your panties in a wad because of the meaning of a
word that neither of you guys seem to understand.
Tony did not call him a Heretic he called him a Heterodox. They sound
the same but the meanings are nothing a like. So, as you can see,
there was nothing to be offended about unless macaddicted was an
orthodox catholic. Which I can assure you with 100% certainty, he is
not.
Now. You should apologize to Tony.
There is no need to apologize to me because my opinion of you evo-
freaks remains unchanged anyway. To me, you are all Heretics bond to
die a second death on the last day if you do not change what you
believe.
raven1
wrote:
>
>> You
>>should provide examples as it has been some time since I discussed
>>issues that arise here with either of them.
>
>This is not the forum for a such a discussion.
IOW, you can't provide any examples. Typical Pagano.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:16:43 -0800, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
>
> (macaddicted) wrote:
> >Day 2. Well day 2 a bit early as I'm going to bed. Since Pagano popped
> >up briefly today I'm worried he missed this; there's been no reply yet.
> >ASI has replied, but given that it's the end of the weekend he deserves
> >the chance to formulate his missive to my professors and let us know he
> >has done so.
>
> >Message follows:
>
> >As ASI and Pagano's stated belief that I am not a "devout" Catholic is
> >based on my postings here I have a suggestion. Contact St. John's
> >Seminary in Camarillo, CA. You are trying to get in touch with Fr.
> >Brennan, head of the systematics department, or Dr. Fischer, my thesis
> >advisor. I suggest email as both are busy men.
>
> macaddicted has a long history of posting heterodox opinions
Do you think that **your** opinion that the Pope is a liar is
orthodox?
So, being a creationist and therefore an intellectual and moral
coward, you are running away from the challenge.
By the way: do you think that because in your opinion the head of your
own church is a liar, that your lies are condoned?
RF
> �Your seminarian professors are not
macaddicted
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:16:43 -0800, macad...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
> (macaddicted) wrote:
>
> >Day 2. Well day 2 a bit early as I'm going to bed. Since Pagano popped
> >up briefly today I'm worried he missed this; there's been no reply yet.
> >ASI has replied, but given that it's the end of the weekend he deserves
> >the chance to formulate his missive to my professors and let us know he
> >has done so.
>
> >
> >
> >Message follows:
> >
> >As ASI and Pagano's stated belief that I am not a "devout" Catholic is
> >based on my postings here I have a suggestion. Contact St. John's
> >Seminary in Camarillo, CA. You are trying to get in touch with Fr.
> >Brennan, head of the systematics department, or Dr. Fischer, my thesis
> >advisor. I suggest email as both are busy men.
>
> macaddicted has a long history of posting heterodox opinions and
> misleading members of the forum to believe that they are positions of
> the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. While the Church does issue
> non-Magisterial positions it makes clear their degree of force upon
> the faithful.
Then you should have a lot of material to send my professors.
>
> An example of macaddicted's modus operandi: macaddicted mislead
> others that the "opinions" of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC)
> represented doctrinal positions of the Church. While the PBC was an
> arm of the Magisterium at one time that power was stripped several
> decades ago.
It wasn't Magesterial it was Curial. It makes a difference. The fact
that a subsequent Pope modified what the PBC said in your precious
document not more than 40 years later proves it was not infallible or
irrevocable.
>
> This is typical of his posting history. He "shops" around for a
> Catholic (or nominally Catholic entity) who offers positions
> consistent with atheism and evolutionism and pawns-them-off as
> Magisterial / Doctrinal positions of the Catholic Church.
Popes Leo XIII, Pius XII and John Paul II are "nominally Catholic." As,
apparently, is Benedict XVI (n�e Ratzinger).
>
> While the Catholic Church has always allowed its members (with some
> limits) to study and theorize with freedom this does not mean that
> their musings are Church positon. For example, The Pontifical
> Academy of Sciences has degenerated into a body of mostly atheists who
> advises the Pontiff in matters of science. This hardly means that
> their advise becomes a Magisterial Teaching (or any other lesser
> teaching) of the Church or an official position of the Church. Yet
> this is exactly what macaddicted has lead others to believe.
Step away from the sock puppets. An address by the Pontiff to such an
organization is of doctrinal interest. And since the 1996 restated
previous encyclicals it was, by definition, a recapitulation of Roman
Catholic doctrinal beliefs. I have not said the 1996 address was itself
doctrinal, only that the apparent extension of the 1950 warning against
evolution was of great interest. I have, in fact, posted many times
warning those who use the 1996 statement not to try to extend it too far
in terms of RC belief.
But then we've been down this road several times. You know that.
>
>
> >
> >Explain to them that I've been posting non-orthodox positions and
> >claiming that I learned the ideas from them through the seminary.
>
> But I don't need their councel to determine what is and is not
> heterdox. The Magisterial teachings are available for anyone to
> peruse.
>
Ah, good. So you will define what you mean by literal intepretation now?
>
>
> > You
> >should provide examples as it has been some time since I discussed
> >issues that arise here with either of them.
>
> This is not the forum for a such a discussion.
>
>
> >Here is the website with
> >faculty emails:
> ><http://www.stjohnsem.edu/faculty.htm>
>
> The seminaries in the United States have such a bad record since
> Vatican II that I suspect the Pontiff himself would cringe at your
> claim. With some rare exceptions in comparison to pre_1950 the
> seminaries in the US are virtually empty.
The professors at seminaries teach there with the permission of their
bishop, in St. John's case Cardinal Mahony.
>
> And I don't need to contact the Seminary to know what is Catholic
> Church Doctrine or not because it is rigorously and conspicuously
> documented. The Church tells me what constitutes the Magisterium and
> when their teachings are Magisterial.
Then please, for the sake of all involved, go pick up a decent copy of
Denzinger.
>
> The fact that you are unaware of (or worse ignore) this simple fact
> tells me that the Catholic seminaries are in worse shape than I even
> suspected.
Heck, pick up a copy of "The Christian Faith." It's cheap. In fact it's
the primary source of doctrinal teaching for systematics courses at the
seminaries in poorer countries.
>
>
> >
> >My real name is David Smith. Fr. Brennan may have trouble remembering me
> >so mention that I'm the guy who had the vertigo problems. My personal
> >email is in the header, simply remove the spam trap. Please CC me your
> >communications, I will need them for reference.
> >
> >Both men were professors. I have a great deal of respect and a deep
> >admiration for each of them. Words coming from them are not taken
> >lightly. If they say I'm mistaken I would definitely take a hard look at
> >what I've been posting.
> >
> >In other words: Put up or shut up.
>
>
> This seriously misguided macaddicted has offered nothing but a
> worthless argument from authority.
Here you go again. Argument from authority isn't when the people you are
referring to _are actually authorities on the subject_. Have you never
done a research paper?
> Your seminarian professors are not
> members of the Magisterium and they apparently failed to properly
> instruct you in its membership and where you might actually find
> Magisterial teachings.
A point that you can make clear to them. But since you don't one is
forced to assume you can't.
>
> I hope macaddicted changes his ways but until then
> I WARN EVERYONE THAT MACADDICTED IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED WITH FAITHFULLY
> OFFERING MAGISTERIAL TEACHINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Pagano has, at last, admitted that it is his personal authority that is
supreme in matters of Roman Catholic belief.
macaddicted
By my count it was about 18 hours. Though you posted a "no reply" reply
after 1.5 hours. Oh, and I explained it was early and why.
>
> I would rather ask you, not your professors, which you have already
> admitted earlier may not even remember you BTW.
Well golly gee it's been a few years on Fr. Brennan. I'm sure given a
clue he would remember me. I spoke to Dr. Fischer about two weeks ago.
>
> What is your position on evolution?
I've posted extensively on the subject. You have the noted ability to
grab info from the web. You are the one making the claims. It's up to
you to find and forward those posts.
>
> Do you believe that everything on this planet comes from a SCA? even
> though the bible says otherwise
Sorry, don't recognize that acronym.
>
> Do you believe man is actually a higher form within the ape family?
> even though the bible says God fashioned man from the dust of the
> ground and then blew life into his nostrils?
It what sense higher? That man has been gifted with grace and apes have
not? Yes.
>
> Perhaps some other variation?
>
> If I have assumed wrong about your belief, then by all means state
> your position and correct me.
But you judged me on my positions. Now you are saying you don't know my
positions?
>
> Why pass the buck to your professors that may not even remember you
> but will remember your vertigo? You did say to mention your vertigo if
> they did not remember you, right?
>
I have a severe case of constant vertigo. Everybody remembers the guy
who isn't drunk but walks like he is all the time.
>
> Shall I say "Day 3" now?
Well you can. It seems to be your thing.
Michael Siemon
macad...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com (macaddicted) wrote:
> T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote:
...
> >
> > I hope macaddicted changes his ways but until then
> > I WARN EVERYONE THAT MACADDICTED IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED WITH FAITHFULLY
> > OFFERING MAGISTERIAL TEACHINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > T Pagano
>
> Pagano has, at last, admitted that it is his personal authority that is
> supreme in matters of Roman Catholic belief.
That's been clear for a _long_ time, but as you say, it is good to
get it in writing from the TOP. :-) Maybe after he has you whipped
into line, he can start working on Ratzinger?
All-seeing-I
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
As we can see, macaddicted was bloating. I suppose he does not want to
tell us his position on evolution and then have it open for review.
Why is that?
Also. Why did macaddicted use such a condescending phrase to Pagano as
"your precious document" latter in this thread? Could it be
macaddicted may not be what he represents?
macaddidicted also seems to love to exaggerate as we can see by his
calling 18 hours "day 2". And then, at the end of his reply, we see
macaddicted claiming the distortion of time is my "thing" when it is
he that calls 18 hours "day 2".
I gave macaddicted the opportunity to correct me on my views about his
posts but he chose not to. Instead, he chose to refer the explanations
of his beliefs to the professors he had so long ago, that mac himself
says, they may not even remember him. Absurd to say the least.
So mac. Here is a second opportunity. Can you correct my views on your
posts?
Ye Old One
Where?
> I suppose he does not want to
>tell us his position on evolution and then have it open for review.
>Why is that?
Strange. I thought his position was clear.
>
>Also. Why did macaddicted use such a condescending phrase to Pagano as
>"your precious document" latter in this thread? Could it be
>macaddicted may not be what he represents?
No evidence to indicate that.
>
>macaddidicted also seems to love to exaggerate as we can see by his
>calling 18 hours "day 2".
10 minutes can put you into day two. You do know haw days are defined
I hope?
> And then, at the end of his reply, we see
>macaddicted claiming the distortion of time is my "thing" when it is
>he that calls 18 hours "day 2".
If you look at the headers it is the next day.
>
>I gave macaddicted the opportunity to correct me on my views about his
>posts but he chose not to. Instead, he chose to refer the explanations
>of his beliefs to the professors he had so long ago, that mac himself
>says, they may not even remember him. Absurd to say the least.
Far from it, and it still sounds like you are clucking rather loudly.
>
>So mac. Here is a second opportunity. Can you correct my views on your
>posts?
Can you face up to either of the current challenges? Or are you just a
spineless coward?
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
macaddicted
The word did come up occasionally in my Church history and Patristics
courses.
>
> Here is what it means:
> Heterodoxy would included any opinions or doctrines at variance with
> official
> orthodox position. The very essence of the word means 'unorthodox'
> doctrines or opinions
>
> Note the word "orthodox".
>
> ANY OPINION at VARIANCE with the ORTHODOX position. Orthodox of the
> twenty-first century believes precisely what was believed by Orthodox
> of the first, the fifth, the tenth, the fifteenth centuries.
With the caveat that you are referring to dogmatic statements.
> They have
> not changed their views one fraction and I am quite positive they feel
> evolution plays no part in man's existence.
Respectfully, no.
>
> Orthodox Catholics do not subscribe to anything written in Vatican II
> while folks such as macaddicted embrace Vat II because is mildly
> suggest evolution may have a place in the church.
Hookay. Even the Lefebvrists are returning.
>
> I can assure you that 95% of Catholics today are Heterodox according
> to the Orthodox's views and I can guarantee that macaddicted is in
> fact, not orthodox. For a Catholic to be an orthodox they almost have
> to be a Monk. Which I doubt macaddicted is.
>
> To illustrate just how different the Orthodox views are from the main
> stream catholics, the Orthodox reject the Roman Catholic dogma of the
> Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, which was defined as "of the
> faith" by Pope Pius IX, on the 8th of December 1854.
>
> If macaddicted said "The virgin Mary was immaculately conceived", as
> 100% of Roman Catholics believe, then he would have made an statement
> considered to be Heterodox to the Orthodox Catholics. That is what
> Tony said. he was saying macaddicted does not understand Orthodox
> Magisterim.
So now I'm being judged against the standard of schismatics? That's the
same as going back 450 years and arguing that I am not a christian
because I'm not follower of Luther or Calvin.
>
> Tony is probably laughing his ass off right now because macaddicted,
> and now you, have your panties in a wad because of the meaning of a
> word that neither of you guys seem to understand.
Except that the main point of conflict between Pagano and I is based in
doctrinal statements from the late 19th and early to mid 20th century.
From cardinals and bishops who did believe in the Immaculate Conception.
>
> Tony did not call him a Heretic he called him a Heterodox.
One could argue that consistent heterodox teaching is heretical. And
many religious (ordered or ordained) teachers have been barred from
teaching by the Vatican or their bishop for heterodox teaching.
> They sound
> the same but the meanings are nothing a like. So, as you can see,
> there was nothing to be offended about unless macaddicted was an
> orthodox catholic. Which I can assure you with 100% certainty, he is
> not.
Ah. Okay, I'm not orthodox. I'm a vanilla Catholic?
>
> Now. You should apologize to Tony.
Well I won't. Pagano has misunderstood a single document and tried to
extend it beyond what can be done validly within Catholic systematic
theology.
>
> There is no need to apologize to me because my opinion of you evo-
> freaks remains unchanged anyway. To me, you are all Heretics bond to
> die a second death on the last day if you do not change what you
> believe.
macaddicted
macaddicted
Admittedly I've put on a quite a bit of weight since I started taking
Prednisone (for my recently discovered rheumatoid arthritis), but no one
told me I was "bloating."
I guess I need to look into those low cost/new year gym memberships.
> I suppose he does not want to
> tell us his position on evolution and then have it open for review.
> Why is that?
Because I've done so many, many times. Google has a search feature (it
does still have that feature, sort of) in Google groups.
If you have specific questions then ask them. I will be happy to answer
them to the best of my abillity. Sort of like I did above.
>
> Also. Why did macaddicted use such a condescending phrase to Pagano as
> "your precious document" latter in this thread? Could it be
> macaddicted may not be what he represents?
Or could it be that Pagano is so wrong about the nature, context and
impact of ONE document for as long as I've been her.
>
> macaddidicted also seems to love to exaggerate as we can see by his
> calling 18 hours "day 2". And then, at the end of his reply, we see
> macaddicted claiming the distortion of time is my "thing" when it is
> he that calls 18 hours "day 2".
So we're both being pedantic. At least I explained why.
>
> I gave macaddicted the opportunity to correct me on my views about his
> posts but he chose not to.
You asked one question above. I answered it.
> Instead, he chose to refer the explanations
> of his beliefs to the professors he had so long ago, that mac himself
> says, they may not even remember him.
Yes. We fear for Dr. Fischer who can't recall conversations from two
weeks ago.
> Absurd to say the least.
>
> So mac. Here is a second opportunity. Can you correct my views on your
> posts?
I have, point by point, post by post.
It is interesting that when given the chance to actually put their
claims to the test, to verify what they believe both Pagano and ASI have
chosen not to.
T Pagano
(macaddicted) wrote:
>T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:16:43 -0800, macad...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
>> (macaddicted) wrote:
>>
>> >Day 2. Well day 2 a bit early as I'm going to bed. Since Pagano popped
>> >up briefly today I'm worried he missed this; there's been no reply yet.
>> >ASI has replied, but given that it's the end of the weekend he deserves
>> >the chance to formulate his missive to my professors and let us know he
>> >has done so.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Message follows:
>> >
>> >As ASI and Pagano's stated belief that I am not a "devout" Catholic is
>> >based on my postings here I have a suggestion. Contact St. John's
>> >Seminary in Camarillo, CA. You are trying to get in touch with Fr.
>> >Brennan, head of the systematics department, or Dr. Fischer, my thesis
>> >advisor. I suggest email as both are busy men.
>>
>> macaddicted has a long history of posting heterodox opinions and
>> misleading members of the forum to believe that they are positions of
>> the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. While the Church does issue
>> non-Magisterial positions it makes clear their degree of force upon
>> the faithful.
>
>Then you should have a lot of material to send my professors.
Since you offer not one magisterial teaching to support your use of
the non magisterial sources for doctrinal positions of the church this
is a waste of time.
>
>>
>> An example of macaddicted's modus operandi: macaddicted mislead
>> others that the "opinions" of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC)
>> represented doctrinal positions of the Church. While the PBC was an
>> arm of the Magisterium at one time that power was stripped several
>> decades ago.
>
>It wasn't Magesterial it was Curial. It makes a difference. The fact
>that a subsequent Pope modified what the PBC said in your precious
>document not more than 40 years later proves it was not infallible or
>irrevocable.
The pronouncement the PBC made concerning Genesis 1-3 was made while
AND as a magisterial body and it has NOT been revoked. That you chose
to ignore this teaching demonstrates clearly that you are interested
in only what justifies your belief in atheism and evolutionism.
The PBC document "you" offered held no teaching authority whatsoever.
As I previously reported the PBC has been relegated to little more
than an advisory board to the Pontiff and its advise holds NO weight
whatsoever to the faithful until and and unless the Pope and/or the
Bishops as a whole lend weight to it. They have NOT.
>
>>
>> This is typical of his posting history. He "shops" around for a
>> Catholic (or nominally Catholic entity) who offers positions
>> consistent with atheism and evolutionism and pawns-them-off as
>> Magisterial / Doctrinal positions of the Catholic Church.
>
>Popes Leo XIII, Pius XII and John Paul II are "nominally Catholic." As,
>apparently, is Benedict XVI (n�e Ratzinger).
Really? And which Magisterial or ex cathedra statements offered by
these have you offered in this forum? Any links?
>
>>
>> While the Catholic Church has always allowed its members (with some
>> limits) to study and theorize with freedom this does not mean that
>> their musings are Church positon. For example, The Pontifical
>> Academy of Sciences has degenerated into a body of mostly atheists who
>> advises the Pontiff in matters of science. This hardly means that
>> their advise becomes a Magisterial Teaching (or any other lesser
>> teaching) of the Church or an official position of the Church. Yet
>> this is exactly what macaddicted has lead others to believe.
>
>Step away from the sock puppets. An address by the Pontiff to such an
>organization is of doctrinal interest.
His speech was little more than a discussion with his science advisors
NOT the faithful; and a philosophical discussion at that. It was an
indication of his feelings on the philosophy of science not
Catholicism. Yet it was this that you (and others of your ilk)
attempted to turn into doctrine.
The only "actual" doctrinal matter that was addressed in his speech to
the Pontifical Academy of Sciences was Pope Pius XII's encyclical
"Humani Generis." Pope Paul II accepted it in his speech----in toto.
The encyclical more or less undercuts atheistic conceptions of
evolutionism and only permitted study of the topic under two
conditions both of which are routinely ignored by some catholics like
macaddicted.
Apparently "Humani Generis" wasn't discussed at macaddicted's seminary
or they left out the parts inconvenient for the secular world.
>previous encyclicals it was, by definition, a recapitulation of Roman
>Catholic doctrinal beliefs. I have not said the 1996 address was itself
>doctrinal, only that the apparent extension of the 1950 warning against
>evolution was of great interest. I have, in fact, posted many times
>warning those who use the 1996 statement not to try to extend it too far
>in terms of RC belief.
Nonetheless you have used the Pontiff's address to the PAS as support
for the claim that the Church supports evolutionism. It was little
more than an address to the members of the PAS as a dialogue with them
NOT with the faithfull. And the doctrinal support Pope Paul II made
explicit for "Humai Generis" was almost completely ignored by
macaddicted.
>
>But then we've been down this road several times. You know that.
And every time I have the slightest hint of macaddicted attempting to
misrepresent Catholic Church doctrine I will warn readers.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Explain to them that I've been posting non-orthodox positions and
>> >claiming that I learned the ideas from them through the seminary.
>>
>> But I don't need their councel to determine what is and is not
>> heterdox. The Magisterial teachings are available for anyone to
>> peruse.
>>
>
>Ah, good. So you will define what you mean by literal intepretation now?
My position is consistent with the Catechism of the Catholic Church,
2nd Edition (para 115-119) which undoubtedly is another document
macaddicted has never cracked open.
>
>>
>>
>> > You
>> >should provide examples as it has been some time since I discussed
>> >issues that arise here with either of them.
>>
>> This is not the forum for a such a discussion.
>>
>>
>> >Here is the website with
>> >faculty emails:
>> ><http://www.stjohnsem.edu/faculty.htm>
>>
>> The seminaries in the United States have such a bad record since
>> Vatican II that I suspect the Pontiff himself would cringe at your
>> claim. With some rare exceptions in comparison to pre_1950 the
>> seminaries in the US are virtually empty.
>
>The professors at seminaries teach there with the permission of their
>bishop, in St. John's case Cardinal Mahony.
>
>>
>> And I don't need to contact the Seminary to know what is Catholic
>> Church Doctrine or not because it is rigorously and conspicuously
>> documented. The Church tells me what constitutes the Magisterium and
>> when their teachings are Magisterial.
>
>Then please, for the sake of all involved, go pick up a decent copy of
>Denzinger.
I have a copy. Do you?
It is not I who have repeatedly pawned off non magisterial entities
such as the PAS and PBC as presenting doctrinal substance when at best
they offer little more than advise that the Pontiff may or may not
even consider let alone pass on as guidance to the faithful.
>
>>
>> The fact that you are unaware of (or worse ignore) this simple fact
>> tells me that the Catholic seminaries are in worse shape than I even
>> suspected.
>
>Heck, pick up a copy of "The Christian Faith." It's cheap. In fact it's
>the primary source of doctrinal teaching for systematics courses at the
>seminaries in poorer countries.
Please cite any posts in this forum where you have sourced a single
quote to this work or any of the documents contained within it.
Care to find a quote in that work that will justify your use of the
PBC after its magisterial authority was stripped and your use of the
PAS when it never held magisterial authority? Or a quote that the
Pontiff's speech to the PAS conferred doctrinal force on the faithful?
Or even doctrinal interest while "Humani Generis" is not mentioned by
macaddicted.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >My real name is David Smith. Fr. Brennan may have trouble remembering me
>> >so mention that I'm the guy who had the vertigo problems. My personal
>> >email is in the header, simply remove the spam trap. Please CC me your
>> >communications, I will need them for reference.
>> >
>> >Both men were professors. I have a great deal of respect and a deep
>> >admiration for each of them. Words coming from them are not taken
>> >lightly. If they say I'm mistaken I would definitely take a hard look at
>> >what I've been posting.
>> >
>> >In other words: Put up or shut up.
>>
>>
>> This seriously misguided macaddicted has offered nothing but a
>> worthless argument from authority.
>
>Here you go again. Argument from authority isn't when the people you are
>referring to _are actually authorities on the subject_. Have you never
>done a research paper?
The problem is that you source them as the final word rather than the
Magisterial documents themselves which possess such authority.
You use them as justification for your misuse of pronouncements by
catholic entities which possess no teaching authority whatsoever. So
your use of their "authority" serves only to bolster your misdeeds.
This renders their "authority" of almost no value.
>
>> Your seminarian professors are not
>> members of the Magisterium and they apparently failed to properly
>> instruct you in its membership and where you might actually find
>> Magisterial teachings.
>
>A point that you can make clear to them. But since you don't one is
>forced to assume you can't.
But they are not here misguiding others----it is you.
I bear no responsibility for their misleading you. If you hold them
in high regard then bring them here to justify your misdeeds. And if
they are Catholic Priests and they do in writing here what you have
done I will be obligated as a Catholic to report them to their Bishop,
to the Bishops as a whole in the US, and the appropriate authority at
the Vatican. Bet on it.
Now I've called your bluff.
>
>>
>> I hope macaddicted changes his ways but until then
>> I WARN EVERYONE THAT MACADDICTED IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED WITH FAITHFULLY
>> OFFERING MAGISTERIAL TEACHINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> T Pagano
>
>Pagano has, at last, admitted that it is his personal authority that is
>supreme in matters of Roman Catholic belief.
Nonsense. It is the Magisterium and the documents it has promulgated
over the centuries which hold authority. I've beat this horse to
death.
It is macaddicted who has made abundantly clear that he shops around
for whatever catholic entitiy will support his belief in atheism and
evolutionism. macaddicted didn't quote a single magisterial
authority for his misdeeds he merely shifted the blame to his
professors at the seminary. And the seminaries in the US are being
emptied for such teachings.
Regards,
T Pagano
raven1
wrote:
>I bear no responsibility for their misleading you. If you hold them
>in high regard then bring them here to justify your misdeeds. And if
>they are Catholic Priests and they do in writing here what you have
>done I will be obligated as a Catholic to report them to their Bishop,
>to the Bishops as a whole in the US, and the appropriate authority at
>the Vatican. Bet on it.
I'm sure they'll get right on your complaint, Tony.
<snicker>
Dan Drake
(in article
<2950bd52-701f-47fb...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>):
> On Dec 13, 11:16ï¿œpm, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com (macaddicted)
You mean, only 4 short days -- really short days -- and this idiot who
understands Catholicism better than the Catholic clergy and hierarchy do will
REST? Praise be!
--
Dan Drake
d...@dandrake.com
RAM
don't get to assert social reality. People get to decide their
religious beliefs and they can be confirmed or denied by some
religious community who may or may not share their beliefs. But it is
a community decision it they wish to share collectively their
beliefs. If they wish to not participate in a religious community
they still get to decide what are their religious beliefs and call
them what they want.
You and Tony may shout and pout and stomp your footsies, but if
remains true that you don't get to decide.
So put up or shut up.
> So many of you want to use the bible or words associated with the
> catholic religion and others to make an argument, but you have no idea
> what any of it means.
Like some kook who asserted that "watchers" were real people. The
kook even provided a Biblical verse that showed that "watchers' was
part of a dream vision.
>
> Do you even know what Heterodox means?
>
> I bet macaddicted does not know what it means either. Else he would
> not be making such a big deal.
>
> Here is what it means:
> Heterodoxy would included any opinions or doctrines at variance with
> official
> orthodox position. The very essence of the word means 'unorthodox'
> doctrines or opinions
>
> Note the word "orthodox".
>
> ANY OPINION at VARIANCE with the ORTHODOX position. Orthodox of the
> twenty-first century believes precisely what was believed by Orthodox
> of the first, the fifth, the tenth, the fifteenth centuries. They have
> not changed their views one fraction and I am quite positive they feel
> evolution plays no part in man's existence.
>
> Orthodox Catholics do not subscribe to anything written in Vatican II
> while folks such as macaddicted embrace Vat II because is mildly
> suggest evolution may have a place in the church.
>
> I can assure you that 95% of Catholics today are Heterodox according
> to the Orthodox's views and I can guarantee that macaddicted is in
> fact, not orthodox. For a Catholic to be an orthodox they almost have
> to be a Monk. Which I doubt macaddicted is.
Neither is Paggie. He is more like a chattering monkey who engages in
aggressive displays by loudly declaring victory as he runs from
cyberspace and loudly declaring victory as he reenters cyberspace.
Monks are more reflective, quite and peace focused which is indeed
more like macaddicted
>
> To illustrate just how different the Orthodox views are from the main
> stream catholics, the Orthodox reject the Roman Catholic dogma of the
> Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, which was defined as "of the
> faith" by Pope Pius IX, on the 8th of December 1854.
>
> If macaddicted said "The virgin Mary was immaculately conceived", as
> 100% of Roman Catholics believe, then he would have made an statement
> considered to be Heterodox to the Orthodox Catholics. That is what
> Tony said. he was saying macaddicted does not understand Orthodox
> Magisterim.
>
> Tony is probably laughing his ass off right now because macaddicted,
> and now you, have your panties in a wad because of the meaning of a
> word that neither of you guys seem to understand.
>
> Tony did not call him a Heretic he called him a Heterodox. They sound
> the same but the meanings are nothing a like. So, as you can see,
> there was nothing to be offended about unless macaddicted was an
> orthodox catholic. Which I can assure you with 100% certainty, he is
> not.
Nothing you say above changes the fact you and Paggie cannot play God
and tell people what they believe. The Catholic Orthodox vs.
Heterodox positions are an example of a community of believers I'm
referring who may get to decide whether macaddicted is member or
not.
So put up or shut up.
If they decide he is not then he can withdraw and still believe and
claim allegiance to any tradition. These are termed the unchurched
believers by social scientists.
>
> Now. You should apologize to Tony.
>
Not as long as Tony is claiming he knows who is a Catholic and what
type of Catholic he is. Macaddicted gets to decide and if he wishes
to be a member of some religious community they get to decide. And if
he doesn't like their decision that he still gets to decide.
> There is no need to apologize to me because my opinion of you evo-
> freaks remains unchanged anyway.
That is because you are willfully ignorant of science and evolution.
This can be empirically demonstrated by looking at your TO posts.
Most of which show how wrong you are about evolution and science qua
science
> To me, you are all Heretics bond to
> die a second death on the last day if you do not change what you
> believe.
Their you go again, playing God. And you are so bad at it. Telling
people what to believe and yet you are so stupid you think "watchers"
are real. You are wrong about science and wrong about evolution and
If you can't interpret a simple Bible verse about a dream, why should
anyone think you have the slightest idea what the Bible (a very
ambiguous document in your hands) really means.
You after 10000 + posts per year with no substantive contribution to
TO have earned the title ASSinine bloviator.
bpuharic
wrote:
>
>The PBC document "you" offered held no teaching authority whatsoever.
>As I previously reported the PBC has been relegated to little more
>than an advisory board to the Pontiff and its advise holds NO weight
>whatsoever to the faithful until and and unless the Pope and/or the
>Bishops as a whole lend weight to it. They have NOT.
you have called the ENTIRE BISHOPS SYNOD 'heretics' (sic) for
disagreeing with you that the bible is literally true
and you yourself have failed to quote the catechism to cite where it
says the bible is literally true.
so you're in a poor position, being a 'sedevacantist' to tell
catholics what doctrine is
>
>The only "actual" doctrinal matter that was addressed in his speech to
>the Pontifical Academy of Sciences was Pope Pius XII's encyclical
>"Humani Generis." Pope Paul II accepted it in his speech----in toto.
>The encyclical more or less undercuts atheistic conceptions of
>evolutionism and only permitted study of the topic under two
>conditions both of which are routinely ignored by some catholics like
>macaddicted.
evolutionism doesn't exist. and the current pope is on record as
saying evolution is science
so you got a problem.
>>>
>>
>>Ah, good. So you will define what you mean by literal intepretation now?
>
>My position is consistent with the Catechism of the Catholic Church,
>2nd Edition (para 115-119) which undoubtedly is another document
>macaddicted has never cracked open
I await your response as to the lack of catechectical support for
literalism
>death.
>
>It is macaddicted who has made abundantly clear that he shops around
>for whatever catholic entitiy will support his belief in atheism and
>evolutionism. macaddicted didn't quote a single magisterial
>authority for his misdeeds he merely shifted the blame to his
>professors at the seminary. And the seminaries in the US are being
>emptied for such teachings.
>
meaningless. they are being emptied because men want to marry, not
because of evolution
i was a seminarian. pagano was not.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>So many of you want to use the bible or words associated with the
>catholic religion and others to make an argument, but you have no idea
>what any of it means.
neither do christians. there are 38,000 denominations. seems you guys
don't eitehr
>
>ANY OPINION at VARIANCE with the ORTHODOX position. Orthodox of the
>twenty-first century believes precisely what was believed by Orthodox
>of the first, the fifth, the tenth, the fifteenth centuries. They have
>not changed their views one fraction and I am quite positive they feel
>evolution plays no part in man's existence.
none of them believed 'in the bible'. that's a new invention not
supported by 20 centuries of orthodox traditon
check the nicene creed. tell me what it says about the bible, m'kay?
>
>To illustrate just how different the Orthodox views are from the main
>stream catholics, the Orthodox reject the Roman Catholic dogma of the
>Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, which was defined as "of the
>faith" by Pope Pius IX, on the 8th of December 1854.
i don't know of any catholics who reject this, although i know alot
who think it's ridiculous and unimportant
>
>Tony did not call him a Heretic he called him a Heterodox. They sound
>the same but the meanings are nothing a like. So, as you can see,
>there was nothing to be offended about unless macaddicted was an
>orthodox catholic. Which I can assure you with 100% certainty, he is
>not.
tony's a rogue, sedevacantist catholic. he doesn't speak for the
church
bpuharic
wrote:
>
>macaddicted has a long history of posting heterodox opinions and
>misleading members of the forum to believe that they are positions of
>the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. While the Church does issue
>non-Magisterial positions it makes clear their degree of force upon
>the faithful.
>
>An example of macaddicted's modus operandi: macaddicted mislead
>others that the "opinions" of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC)
>represented doctrinal positions of the Church. While the PBC was an
>arm of the Magisterium at one time that power was stripped several
>decades ago.
>
>This is typical of his posting history. He "shops" around for a
>Catholic (or nominally Catholic entity) who offers positions
>consistent with atheism and evolutionism and pawns-them-off as
>Magisterial / Doctrinal positions of the Catholic Church.
>
>While the Catholic Church has always allowed its members (with some
>limits) to study and theorize with freedom this does not mean that
>their musings are Church positon.
the recent catholic bishop's synod said biblical literalism was wrong
tony said they were all heretics. sounds like tony has a problem with
the magisterium....all the while pontificating on what it is...
this is a typical contradiction seen in creationism
in addition, the vatican held a conference in march in which all
presenters were evolutionary biologists
creationists were not permitted to attend, although they asked.
and in 2005, benedict gave a speech in which he said evolution is
science
For example, The Pontifical
>Academy of Sciences has degenerated into a body of mostly atheists who
>advises the Pontiff in matters of science.
so let's see. the bishops are atheists. the PAS is atheists.
and tony knows this because he's more catholic than the bishops
This hardly means that
>their advise becomes a Magisterial Teaching (or any other lesser
>teaching) of the Church or an official position of the Church. Yet
>this is exactly what macaddicted has lead others to believe.
>
>
>>
>>Explain to them that I've been posting non-orthodox positions and
>>claiming that I learned the ideas from them through the seminary.
>
>But I don't need their councel to determine what is and is not
>heterdox. The Magisterial teachings are available for anyone to
>peruse.f
and not one of them says accepting evolution is wrong.
>
>And I don't need to contact the Seminary to know what is Catholic
>Church Doctrine or not because it is rigorously and conspicuously
>documented. The Church tells me what constitutes the Magisterium and
>when their teachings are Magisterial.
says the guy who thinks all bishops are heretics because they don't
agree with him regarding literalism
>
>I hope macaddicted changes his ways but until then
>I WARN EVERYONE THAT MACADDICTED IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED WITH FAITHFULLY
>OFFERING MAGISTERIAL TEACHINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
>
nor, of course, can tony. sedevacantists are excommunicated from the
church
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-Seeing-I
<allse...@usa.com>:
Why not? You complained that everyone ran away when less
than 2 hours has elapsed without response following one of
your idiotic vomitus sessions. At 5:30 in the morning. On
Sunday. A bit of a double standard here?
>No. You are not grandstanding, are you? [rolls eyes]
Nope, he's giving you the rope with which to hang yourself.
Enjoy!
>I would rather ask you, not your professors, which you have already
>admitted earlier may not even remember you BTW.
>
>What is your position on evolution?
The same as the RCC, perhaps? After all, that *is* the
issue.
>Do you believe that everything on this planet comes from a SCA? even
>though the bible says otherwise
Only if read literally, as is frequently done by idiots. But
reading the Bible literally is rejected by the RCC. Quite a
quandary for you, isn't it?
>Do you believe man is actually a higher form within the ape family?
>even though the bible says God fashioned man from the dust of the
>ground and then blew life into his nostrils?
>
>Perhaps some other variation?
>
>If I have assumed wrong about your belief, then by all means state
>your position and correct me.
Nice try, but no biscuit. The issue isn't whether he accepts
evolution, it's whether his acceptance agrees with the
Church. It does.
>Why pass the buck to your professors that may not even remember you
>but will remember your vertigo? You did say to mention your vertigo if
>they did not remember you, right?
>
>
>Shall I say "Day 3" now?
>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
macaddicted
Leo XII: Providentissimus Deus
Pius XII: Divno Afflante Spiritu, Humani Generis
John XXIII, Paul VI: Dei Verbum (Vatican II)
To a lesser extent the anti-Modernism writings:
Pius X: Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Lamentibli Sane
Benedict XV: Spiritus Paraclitus
Oh, and of course the Councils of Trent and Vatican I.
> >
> >>
> >> An example of macaddicted's modus operandi: macaddicted mislead
> >> others that the "opinions" of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC)
> >> represented doctrinal positions of the Church. While the PBC was an
> >> arm of the Magisterium at one time that power was stripped several
> >> decades ago.
> >
> >It wasn't Magesterial it was Curial. It makes a difference. The fact
> >that a subsequent Pope modified what the PBC said in your precious
> >document not more than 40 years later proves it was not infallible or
> >irrevocable.
>
> The pronouncement the PBC made concerning Genesis 1-3 was made while
> AND as a magisterial body and it has NOT been revoked.
1. The PBC was never formed as a magesterial body. It was formed in the
manner of and followed the same format as the Holy Office.
2. Divino modified the 1909 decree. The Letter to Cardinal Suhard
(1949), confimred when it was taken up in whole in Humani (1950),
further clarified the historical nature of pre-history Genesis.
> That you chose
> to ignore this teaching demonstrates clearly that you are interested
> in only what justifies your belief in atheism and evolutionism.
Nope. Simply proves you are clueless as always, and that in the face of
clear, contradictory evidence you close your mind.
>
> The PBC document "you" offered held no teaching authority whatsoever.
And I never offered it as "magesterial" in the manner you seem to
prefer. Yet somehow a document that is released by a Curial Commission,
is presented with a signed introduction by the prefect of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (who later became Pope) more
than indicates that it is important. Additionally the document is
intended to be a restatement of Catholic teaching. It's authority comes
not from within the document by from the official, teaching documents it
brings together and summerizes.
> As I previously reported the PBC has been relegated to little more
> than an advisory board to the Pontiff and its advise holds NO weight
> whatsoever to the faithful until and and unless the Pope and/or the
> Bishops as a whole lend weight to it. They have NOT.
The ordinary of your diocese is going to want to have a discussion with
you about ecclesiology.
>
> >
> >>
> >> This is typical of his posting history. He "shops" around for a
> >> Catholic (or nominally Catholic entity) who offers positions
> >> consistent with atheism and evolutionism and pawns-them-off as
> >> Magisterial / Doctrinal positions of the Catholic Church.
> >
> >Popes Leo XIII, Pius XII and John Paul II are "nominally Catholic." As,
> >apparently, is Benedict XVI (n�e Ratzinger).
>
> Really? And which Magisterial or ex cathedra statements offered by
> these have you offered in this forum? Any links?
I have repeatedly offered:
Providentissimus Deus:
<http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-x
iii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html>
Divino Afflante Spiritu:
<http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x
ii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html>
Humani Generis:
<http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x
ii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html>
Dei Verbum:
<http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/document
s/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html>
> >
> >>
> >> While the Catholic Church has always allowed its members (with some
> >> limits) to study and theorize with freedom this does not mean that
> >> their musings are Church positon. For example, The Pontifical
> >> Academy of Sciences has degenerated into a body of mostly atheists who
> >> advises the Pontiff in matters of science. This hardly means that
> >> their advise becomes a Magisterial Teaching (or any other lesser
> >> teaching) of the Church or an official position of the Church. Yet
> >> this is exactly what macaddicted has lead others to believe.
> >
> >Step away from the sock puppets. An address by the Pontiff to such an
> >organization is of doctrinal interest.
>
> His speech was little more than a discussion with his science advisors
> NOT the faithful;
Who missed the notice in L'Osservatore Romano that they weren't to pay
any notice to what was said.
> and a philosophical discussion at that. It was an
> indication of his feelings on the philosophy of science not
> Catholicism.
Which is why he took ideas from Humani and Providentissimus.
> Yet it was this that you (and others of your ilk)
> attempted to turn into doctrine.
Nope. In fact I've told others here and elsewhere to be careful lest
they read too much into the address. But as a restatement of a couple of
encyclicals, and a small step from the injuction on evolution in Humani
in garnered notice.
>
> The only "actual" doctrinal matter that was addressed in his speech to
> the Pontifical Academy of Sciences was Pope Pius XII's encyclical
> "Humani Generis." Pope Paul II accepted it in his speech----in toto.
"More than a theory," was a movement beyond what Humani said. Everybody
else in the world got it except you.
> The encyclical more or less undercuts atheistic conceptions of
> evolutionism and only permitted study of the topic under two
> conditions both of which are routinely ignored by some catholics like
> macaddicted.
You would have to define what "atheistic concepts of evolutionism (?)"
are.
>
> Apparently "Humani Generis" wasn't discussed at macaddicted's seminary
> or they left out the parts inconvenient for the secular world.
No. It was discussed at great length by me and my thesis director.
Amazingly discussions on evolution are seen as outside the core
requirements for priestly training. Silly Vatican.
We did have an elective course on evolution. My thesis advisor was one
instructor. I had to drop because of health concerns but went back over
the material later with him.
>
>
> >previous encyclicals it was, by definition, a recapitulation of Roman
> >Catholic doctrinal beliefs. I have not said the 1996 address was itself
> >doctrinal, only that the apparent extension of the 1950 warning against
> >evolution was of great interest. I have, in fact, posted many times
> >warning those who use the 1996 statement not to try to extend it too far
> >in terms of RC belief.
>
> Nonetheless you have used the Pontiff's address to the PAS as support
> for the claim that the Church supports evolutionism.
What is "evolutionism?"
> It was little
> more than an address to the members of the PAS as a dialogue with them
> NOT with the faithfull. And the doctrinal support Pope Paul II made
> explicit for "Humai Generis" was almost completely ignored by
> macaddicted.
Yeah, not so much.
>
> >
> >But then we've been down this road several times. You know that.
>
> And every time I have the slightest hint of macaddicted attempting to
> misrepresent Catholic Church doctrine I will warn readers.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Explain to them that I've been posting non-orthodox positions and
> >> >claiming that I learned the ideas from them through the seminary.
> >>
> >> But I don't need their councel to determine what is and is not
> >> heterdox. The Magisterial teachings are available for anyone to
> >> peruse.
> >>
> >
> >Ah, good. So you will define what you mean by literal intepretation now?
>
> My position is consistent with the Catechism of the Catholic Church,
> 2nd Edition (para 115-119) which undoubtedly is another document
> macaddicted has never cracked open.
>
Strange then that your idea of "literal" is more akin to the
perspicacious reading generally seen in evangelical/fundamentalist
faiths than the foundation of an exegetical exploration.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > You
> >> >should provide examples as it has been some time since I discussed
> >> >issues that arise here with either of them.
> >>
> >> This is not the forum for a such a discussion.
> >>
> >>
> >> >Here is the website with
> >> >faculty emails:
> >> ><http://www.stjohnsem.edu/faculty.htm>
> >>
> >> The seminaries in the United States have such a bad record since
> >> Vatican II that I suspect the Pontiff himself would cringe at your
> >> claim. With some rare exceptions in comparison to pre_1950 the
> >> seminaries in the US are virtually empty.
> >
> >The professors at seminaries teach there with the permission of their
> >bishop, in St. John's case Cardinal Mahony.
> >
> >>
> >> And I don't need to contact the Seminary to know what is Catholic
> >> Church Doctrine or not because it is rigorously and conspicuously
> >> documented. The Church tells me what constitutes the Magisterium and
> >> when their teachings are Magisterial.
> >
> >Then please, for the sake of all involved, go pick up a decent copy of
> >Denzinger.
>
> I have a copy. Do you?
Several.
>
> It is not I who have repeatedly pawned off non magisterial entities
> such as the PAS and PBC as presenting doctrinal substance when at best
> they offer little more than advise that the Pontiff may or may not
> even consider let alone pass on as guidance to the faithful.
Says Pagano, who seems to have conflated the idea of non-doctrinal and
unimportant.
>
>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> The fact that you are unaware of (or worse ignore) this simple fact
> >> tells me that the Catholic seminaries are in worse shape than I even
> >> suspected.
> >
> >Heck, pick up a copy of "The Christian Faith." It's cheap. In fact it's
> >the primary source of doctrinal teaching for systematics courses at the
> >seminaries in poorer countries.
>
> Please cite any posts in this forum where you have sourced a single
> quote to this work or any of the documents contained within it.
Here's one from Providentissumus to snex:
<http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/bb416499565511da?dmode=
source>
Here it is again, this time to Glenn:
<http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e7cfedb85d4aa458?dmode=
source>
And here's one of the times I mentioned it to you, and provided a link
to it in the EWTN library:
<http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f41d0ef0c93a5d3c?dmode=
source>
Oh, it seems you did read the document at the time as you responded on a
couple of points from with in the encyclical.
>
> Care to find a quote in that work that will justify your use of the
> PBC after its magisterial authority was stripped and your use of the
> PAS when it never held magisterial authority? Or a quote that the
> Pontiff's speech to the PAS conferred doctrinal force on the faithful?
<duck>
Oh God ! The SOCK PUPPETS are attacking.
</duck>
> Or even doctrinal interest while "Humani Generis" is not mentioned by
> macaddicted.
Oh, it's Humani you want:
<http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6338a7502701eace?dmode=
source>
Since you responded here:
<http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9704ab8bb6486f62?dmode=
source>
I have simply assumed you had read the post.
--Or here:
<http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d43371fd8144d6fb?dmode=
source>
And your response:
<http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/45f5dfe8b1e4cb1f?dmode=
source>
--Mentioned it here:
<http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/cfa01991771e80f9?dmode=
source>
--Mentioned it here:
<http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/67d4e2ca9fc649b3?dmode=
source>
--Actually Mike Dunford got into the act too:
<http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/42ad2013858db0dd?dmode=
source>
Not sure why I posted that one. Waste not want not I guess.
--Hey, you mentioned it several times here:
<http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7926d52d31927640?dmode=
source>
in response to a post of mine. Oh, and notice how I'm warning people not
to overstate the 1996 address and actually providing the warning from
Humani?
--Here's a thread that doesn't involve you and me, but still Humani
manages to pop up:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/msg/3fc0c294bdecc28
1?dmode=source>
Actually this is in regards to my understanding of Humani. Sort of a
passing hit.
--One more for the road:
<http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/a6021a
d22a8fcfb0/e1ef8cecdbebbec3?q=author%3A+macaddicted%2C+generis&lnk=ol&#>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >My real name is David Smith. Fr. Brennan may have trouble remembering me
> >> >so mention that I'm the guy who had the vertigo problems. My personal
> >> >email is in the header, simply remove the spam trap. Please CC me your
> >> >communications, I will need them for reference.
> >> >
> >> >Both men were professors. I have a great deal of respect and a deep
> >> >admiration for each of them. Words coming from them are not taken
> >> >lightly. If they say I'm mistaken I would definitely take a hard look at
> >> >what I've been posting.
> >> >
> >> >In other words: Put up or shut up.
> >>
> >>
> >> This seriously misguided macaddicted has offered nothing but a
> >> worthless argument from authority.
> >
> >Here you go again. Argument from authority isn't when the people you are
> >referring to _are actually authorities on the subject_. Have you never
> >done a research paper?
>
> The problem is that you source them as the final word rather than the
> Magisterial documents themselves which possess such authority.
My professor for Synoptics made us have 20 magazine/journal articles and
15 books in our term paper. We learned to go back through the footnotes
to the original source of a quote if only for the extra footnote.
Ever since I've known that by referencing a quote or idea taken directly
from a previous document I am essentially quoting the original document
(or at least summarizing it to the point it requires a footnote).
But I'm going to take your answer as a "no."
>
> You use them as justification for your misuse of pronouncements by
> catholic entities which possess no teaching authority whatsoever. So
> your use of their "authority" serves only to bolster your misdeeds.
> This renders their "authority" of almost no value.
No.
>
>
> >
> >> Your seminarian professors are not
> >> members of the Magisterium and they apparently failed to properly
> >> instruct you in its membership and where you might actually find
> >> Magisterial teachings.
> >
> >A point that you can make clear to them. But since you don't one is
> >forced to assume you can't.
>
> But they are not here misguiding others----it is you.
>
> I bear no responsibility for their misleading you. If you hold them
> in high regard then bring them here to justify your misdeeds. And if
> they are Catholic Priests and they do in writing here what you have
> done I will be obligated as a Catholic to report them to their Bishop,
> to the Bishops as a whole in the US, and the appropriate authority at
> the Vatican. Bet on it.
>
> Now I've called your bluff.
Nah. Though I like to see you and Fr. Brennan in a room together. The
man can stare paint off a wall.
But back to your inconsistent point. I'm misleading people. Then in the
next sentence my professor were misleading me. But then my misdeeds are
suddenly based on their misdeeds. Is no one or everyone at fault in that
paragraph?
Lastly, I would recommend starting with the Rector at St. John's, he's
going to be far easier to contact than the Cardinal. Or you could try
Fr. Benson, who is the Academic Dean. You know, they guy with the
biology MA in his CV.
>
> >
> >>
> >> I hope macaddicted changes his ways but until then
> >> I WARN EVERYONE THAT MACADDICTED IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED WITH FAITHFULLY
> >> OFFERING MAGISTERIAL TEACHINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> T Pagano
> >
> >Pagano has, at last, admitted that it is his personal authority that is
> >supreme in matters of Roman Catholic belief.
>
> Nonsense. It is the Magisterium and the documents it has promulgated
> over the centuries which hold authority. I've beat this horse to
> death.
It would be nice if you tried using more than just the one.
>
> It is macaddicted who has made abundantly clear that he shops around
> for whatever catholic entitiy will support his belief in atheism and
> evolutionism.
But it's Christmas! Oops, wrong shopping.
No.
> macaddicted didn't quote a single magisterial
> authority for his misdeeds he merely shifted the blame to his
> professors at the seminary.
Okay. It is the professors fault. They'd probably appreciate hearing
that from you. Can't let heretics run loose in the country. Might lead
to (gasp) free thinking, new intellectual associations, taking Latin out
of the Mass...
>And the seminaries in the US are being
> emptied for such teachings.
>
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Burkhard
A great resource with lot of useful links
On Dec 15, 1:25�am, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com (macaddicted)
wrote:
> T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:43:43 -0800, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
> > (macaddicted) wrote:
>
> > >T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > >> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:16:43 -0800, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
Glenn
wrote:
> T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:43:43 -0800, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
> > (macaddicted) wrote:
>
> > >T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > >> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:16:43 -0800, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
"The PBC was established by Pope Leo XIII in the document Vigilantiae
studiique to undertake "the challenge of explaining and safeguarding"
the Scriptures (sec. 3). It was made an official arm of the
Magisterium with this statement, "Its work will have the happy result
of providing the Apostolic See with the opportunity to declare what
ought to be inviolably maintained by Catholics, what ought to be
reserved for further research, and what ought to be left for the
judgment of each individual." (sec. 9)"
http://catholicbiblestudent.com/2008/02/early-responsa-of-pontifical-biblical.html
Perhaps an arm is not part of the body...
"Pope St. Pius X made the rulings of the Commission a part of the
Magisterium, the supreme teaching authority of the Church."
macaddicted
I'm transcribing this from Catholic Principles for Interpreting
Scripture. Please forgive any typos:
<http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Principles-Interpreting-Scripture-Interp
retation/dp/8876536175/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260846877&sr=8-1>
The name, the Pontifical Biblical Commission, refers to two quite
different entities employed by the popes of this century to take a
concern for Catholic biblical scholarship. The original Biblical
Commission was established in 1902 by Pope Leo XIII with the task of
promoting biblical interpretation in harmony with his encyclical
_Providentissimus Deus_ and of guarding against false interpretations.
Because of new developments in the biblical sciences, Pope Leo wished to
relieve the Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith) of responsibility for decisions regarding Scripture, and to
entrust those decisions instead to a group specializing in the field.
The members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission were all Cardinals and
the commission functioned like other Congregations of the Curia. In
addition, the Commission employed the assistance of Scripture scholars
and theologians as consultors. In the years that followed the Biblical
Commission functioned as an organ of the Church's Magisterium, and its
decisions, once approved by the Pope, were binding like those of other
Congregations with concerned doctrine. The Commission began its activity
during the Catholic Church's vigorous reaction to Modernism, and its
decisions until 1940 had a decidedly defensive character, treating such
topics as source criticism (called "literary criticism"), authorship,
the integrity of the biblical books, dates of composition and the
historicity of biblical narratives. After Pope Pius XII's encyclical
_Divino Afflante Spiritu_ (1943), however, the perspective changed
significantly and the Biblical Commission began to support the
scientific study of Scripture. Clarifications were issued, indicating
that earlier decisions of the Commission were to be taken as responding
to a particular historical situation, and the Catholic scholars could
pursue their research and investigations in full freedom.
The point is that the fact that the decisions handed down by the PBC
were not infallible or irrevocable.
T Pagano
(macaddicted) wrote:
>T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:43:43 -0800, macad...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
>> (macaddicted) wrote:
>>
>> >T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:16:43 -0800, macad...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
>> >> (macaddicted) wrote:
>> >>
snipped everything as a waste of time.
I wouldn't waste another minute on the likes of you. However your
attempts to misrepresent the church will be dealt with swiftly and
directly at every opportunity.
And I'm done here.
Regards,
T Pagano
macaddicted
> A great resource with lot of useful links
Thanks, but I'm not sure it is worthy of such a statement.
I would note that Pagano has replied by snipping all my quotes and, as
usual, running.
It's a common tactic of his, requesting quotes of posts saying this or
that. In this case I gave him many and he has folded. If for no other
reason my post should serve as a quick reply whenever Pagano tries this
again. "Look what happened the last time" can be stated.
macaddicted
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:25:37 -0800, macad...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
> (macaddicted) wrote:
>
> >T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:43:43 -0800, macad...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
> >> (macaddicted) wrote:
> >>
> >> >T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:16:43 -0800, macad...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
> >> >> (macaddicted) wrote:
> >> >>
>
>
> snipped everything as a waste of time.
Ran from evidence that undermined his claims.
>
>
> I wouldn't waste another minute on the likes of you. However your
> attempts to misrepresent the church will be dealt with swiftly and
> directly at every opportunity.
>
It hasn't happened yet.
> And I'm done here.
Wow. How completely unsurprising and spectacularly underwhelming.
>
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
So I get to say: Subject line says it all.
I would note that Pags used one of his regular techniques ("quote me")
in the snipped portion of this thread. I did. He quit (charitable) or
ran (more characteristic).
Here is the Google group link for this thread:
<http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/8e0cbd
65ab8d8f17/d6e71625a81bf50d>
All who regularly engage with Pagano and encounter this particular,
well, bluff should simply point to it as an example of his complete
failure to respond in the face of the very evidence he requested. More
than a dozen links responding specifically to his request I do so are
there.
Apparently there's to be no day 3. I shall be charitable and not declare
victory. In public.
:-)
And finally,
I'm done here.
Bill
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:25:37 -0800, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
>
> (macaddicted) wrote:
> >T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:43:43 -0800, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
> >> (macaddicted) wrote:
>
> >> >T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:16:43 -0800, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
> >> >> (macaddicted) wrote:
.
>
> snipped everything as a waste of time. �
>
> I wouldn't waste another minute on the likes of you. � However your
> attempts to misrepresent the church will be dealt with swiftly and
> directly at every opportunity.
>
> And I'm done here.
Bwaaaaawk, bawkbawkbawkbawkbawkbawk....
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Glenn
wrote:
> Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 6:25 pm, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com (macaddicted)
> > wrote:
> > > T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > > >It wasn't Magesterial it was Curial. It makes a difference. The fact
> > > > >that a subsequent Pope modified what the PBC said in your precious
> > > > >document not more than 40 years later proves it was not infallible or
> > > > >irrevocable.
>
> > > > The pronouncement the PBC made concerning Genesis 1-3 was made while
> > > > AND as a magisterial body and it has NOT been revoked. �
>
> > > 1. The PBC was never formed as a magesterial body. It was formed in the
> > > manner of and followed the same format as the Holy Office.
>
> > Can I get some verification of that?
>
> > "The PBC was established by Pope Leo XIII in the document Vigilantiae
> > studiique to undertake "the challenge of explaining and safeguarding" the
> > Scriptures (sec. 3). It was made an official arm of the Magisterium with
> > this statement, "Its work will have the happy result of providing the
> > Apostolic See with the opportunity to declare what ought to be inviolably
> > maintained by Catholics, what ought to be reserved for further research,
> > and what ought to be left for the judgment of each individual." (sec. 9)"
verification that the Commission was not a "magisterial body".
Establish this before you go on to further claims about infallibility
and such. Your source claims "In the years that followed the Biblical
Commission functioned as an organ of the Church's Magisterium".
Your claim that the Commission was formed "in the manner of and
followed the same format as the Holy Office" also seems false. The
Commission is now within the CDF. Once again, your source seems to
contradict your claim: "Pope Leo wished to relieve the Holy Office
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:25:37 -0800, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
>
> (macaddicted) wrote:
> >T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:43:43 -0800, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
> >> (macaddicted) wrote:
>
> >> >T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:16:43 -0800, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
> >> >> (macaddicted) wrote:
>
> snipped everything as a waste of time. �
>
> I wouldn't waste another minute on the likes of you. � However your
> attempts to misrepresent the church will be dealt with swiftly and
> directly at every opportunity.
>
> And I'm done here.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
...and once again Tony Pagano runs from the thread, demonstrating once
again that he is a moral and intellectual coward.
You will be reminded of this next time you reappear claiming to have
demolished your opponents in argument.
RF
Burkhard
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:25:37 -0800, macad...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
> (macaddicted) wrote:
>
>> T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:43:43 -0800, macad...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
>>> (macaddicted) wrote:
>>>
>>>> T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:16:43 -0800, macad...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
>>>>> (macaddicted) wrote:
>>>>>
>
>
> snipped everything as a waste of time.
>
>
> I wouldn't waste another minute on the likes of you.
Translation: Having been found out again, I have no answer, so I better run
However your
> attempts to misrepresent the church will be dealt with swiftly and
> directly at every opportunity.
>
By whom? Not by you, as this requires someone who actually knows
something about Church doctrine
> And I'm done here.
And running he does
>
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
Ye Old One
There seems to a lot of chickens about on TO at the moment, you,
Mudbrain and NashtOff all running from things at once.
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
raven1
wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:25:37 -0800, macad...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
>(macaddicted) wrote:
>
>>T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:43:43 -0800, macad...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
>>> (macaddicted) wrote:
>>>
>>> >T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:16:43 -0800, macad...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
>>> >> (macaddicted) wrote:
>>> >>
>
>
>snipped everything as a waste of time.
>
>
>I wouldn't waste another minute on the likes of you. However your
>attempts to misrepresent the church will be dealt with swiftly and
>directly at every opportunity.
>
>And I'm done here.
"Brave Sir Tony ran away. Bravely ran away, away..."
All-seeing-I
wrote:
> T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:25:37 -0800, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
> > (macaddicted) wrote:
>
>
> > >> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:43:43 -0800, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
> > >> (macaddicted) wrote:
>
> > >> >T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > >> >> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:16:43 -0800, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
You just did. Which makes you a lier, uncharitable and heterdoxial .
And count your blessings that I did not go get your sources and rip
you a new ass with them.
>
> And finally,
> I'm done here.
I was yesterday.
macaddicted
Note the "smiley" face.
>
> And count your blessings that I did not go get your sources and rip
> you a new ass with them.
>
The thought keeps me up nights. Really does.
Oh, that's irony BTW.
>
> >
> > And finally,
> > I'm done here.
>
> I was yesterday.
Having tripped on the starting line...
Glenn
> > for the claim that the Church supports evolutionism. �
>
> What is "evolutionism?"
>
Ray Martinez
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:25:37 -0800, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
>
> (macaddicted) wrote:
> >T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:43:43 -0800, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
> >> (macaddicted) wrote:
>
> >> >T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:16:43 -0800, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
> >> >> (macaddicted) wrote:
>
> snipped everything as a waste of time. �
>
> I wouldn't waste another minute on the likes of you. � However your
> attempts to misrepresent the church will be dealt with swiftly and
> directly at every opportunity.
>
> And I'm done here.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Tony: this is what ALL Darwinists here at Talk Origins do:
misrepresent, distort, caricature. It's what Atheists do to their
enemies.
I wouldn't waste another minute here in this topic, too.
Ray
Mitchell Coffey
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:25:37 -0800, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
>
> (macaddicted) wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:43:43 -0800, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
> >> (macaddicted) wrote:
>
> >> >T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:16:43 -0800, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
> >> >> (macaddicted) wrote:
>
> snipped everything as a waste of time. �
>
> I wouldn't waste another minute on the likes of you. � However your
> attempts to misrepresent the church will be dealt with swiftly and
> directly at every opportunity.
Gee, we didn't expect some kind of Spanish Inquisition!
Mitchell Coffey
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
They are not Darwinist or Atheists. The Atheists i know have more
character.
Only someone doing the snake's buisness would pose as a christian to
delibertly distort their religion.
2 Corinthians 11:14
14And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
John Stockwell
Nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquisition....
-Torquemada
>
> Mitchell Coffey
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:25:37 -0800, macad...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
>(macaddicted) wrote:
>
>>T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:43:43 -0800, macad...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
>>> (macaddicted) wrote:
>>>
>>> >T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:16:43 -0800, macad...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
>>> >> (macaddicted) wrote:
>>> >>
>
>
>snipped everything as a waste of time.
Of course; everything you can't answer is a waste of time to
you. That's because you're a lying coward.
>I wouldn't waste another minute on the likes of you. However your
>attempts to misrepresent the church will be dealt with swiftly and
>directly at every opportunity.
So that's why you refuse to answer the simple question, "Did
a global flood as described in the story of Noah actually
occur?" is it? Because you enjoy misrepresenting the Church,
which does *not* consider the Bible a literal history book?
OK, your privilege. But don't try to claim that you're a
Catholic.
>And I'm done here.
You've been done here for years, Tony. It only remains to
give the eulogy.
Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
macaddicted
Sigh. It is self-evident, as it isn't a Council (eg Vatican I) or Ex
Cathedra statement, that it isn't "infallible." I figured I wouldn't
have to state the obvious.
> Establish this before you go on to further claims about infallibility
> and such. Your source claims "In the years that followed the Biblical
> Commission functioned as an organ of the Church's Magisterium".
But that's where things go off the rails. Just because a doctrine is
promulgated as Magisterial does not mean that it is infallible.
>
> Your claim that the Commission was formed "in the manner of and
> followed the same format as the Holy Office" also seems false. The
> Commission is now within the CDF.
Which is the second form, the one I didn't think I needed to enter as it
had no bearing on Pagano's claims regarding the PBC in 1909.
> Once again, your source seems to
> contradict your claim: "Pope Leo wished to relieve the Holy Office
> (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) of responsibility
> for decisions regarding Scripture, and to entrust those decisions
> instead to a group specializing in the field."
Um, ok.
The issue here isn't whether or not the documents put forth by the PBC
before Divino were Magisterial but whether they were irrevocable. The
very issuance of Divino, a Papal encyclical, showed that PBC documents
were revocable. Two examples that relate to texts here are the
historical nature of Gen. 1-3 and the Mosaic authorship of the
Pentateuch.
In the first case Catholics teach that Gen 1-3 has a historical
character, but is not a "history" work (in the modern, or even ancient
Roman or Greek sense--See Divino) but carries a historicity. In this
specific case we believe that God created the world but that the precise
method of that creation is not described in the biblical text.
In the second case the JEPD source is readily accepted in the authorship
of the Pentateuch. A great example is the chiastic structure in the Noah
epic. For an example of the structure see:
<http://www.examiner.com/x-8276-Methodist-Examiner~y2009m7d31-Bible-Inte
rpretation-101--What-is-a-chiasm>
The Noachian epic contains two sources (J & P IIRC, but don't hold me to
it.) They have been brought together into their current form by a
Redactor, who formed the chiasm. The story moves, step by step, building
to that wonderful moment in Gen 8:1 "And God remembered Noah." Each step
to that point is reflected, in order, until as we began with Noah we are
left with Noah.
There are many dogmatic statements in the Church. But not every official
statement made by the Church is necessarily dogmatic and thus
unchageable.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
<GlennS...@msn.com>:
Nope, he's someone who objects to clueless and
scientifically illiterate fundies, such as Tony, attempting
to portray evolutionary science as a religious belief
("ism").
HTH
Glenn
Then why the fuck did you use it? I asked for verification.
>
> > Establish this before you go on to further claims about infallibility
> > and such. Your source claims "In the years that followed the Biblical
> > Commission functioned as an organ of the Church's Magisterium".
>
> But that's where things go off the rails. Just because a doctrine is
> promulgated as Magisterial does not mean that it is infallible.
>
You claim this is the "point", yet as far as I can see it is a
strawman. In this thread Tony is not attempting to show that the
Magisterium ever produced "infallible" statements.
>
> > Your claim that the Commission was formed "in the manner of and
> > followed the same format as the Holy Office" also seems false. The
> > Commission is now within the CDF.
>
> Which is the second form, the one I didn't think I needed to enter as it
> had no bearing on Pagano's claims regarding the PBC in 1909.
Tony claimed a pronouncement as authoritative and not revoked, not
"infallible".
>
> > Once again, your source seems to
> > contradict your claim: "Pope Leo wished to relieve the Holy Office
> > (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) of responsibility
> > for decisions regarding Scripture, and to entrust those decisions
> > instead to a group specializing in the field."
>
> Um, ok.
>
> The issue here isn't whether or not the documents put forth by the PBC
> before Divino were Magisterial but whether they were irrevocable.
Horseshit. And you still haven't supported the one claim I asked you
to.
Glenn
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:29:17 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
>
> >On Dec 14, 6:25�pm, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com (macaddicted)
> >wrote:
> >> T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> >> > Nonetheless you have used the Pontiff's address to the PAS as support
> >> > for the claim that the Church supports evolutionism. �
>
> >> What is "evolutionism?"
>
> >Ah, missed this. You're a troll.
>
> Nope, he's someone who objects to clueless and
> scientifically illiterate fundies, such as Tony, attempting
> to portray evolutionary science as a religious belief
> ("ism").
>
so convincing.
Kleuskes & Moos
And the blind, retarded paraplegic makes sense, while you don't.
"Beati pauperi spiritu", would be the phrase, i think. Hard to imagine
a true follower of christ using such terms as pejoratives.
But then again...
You're not.
Glenn
You're actually right on the last. Just do and say the opposite of
what you "think" and you should be ok, as long as you stay away from
sharp objects, latin, and such. But do keep lying.
Ye Old One
What is a "lier" you illiterate trollslob?
> uncharitable and heterdoxial .
>
>And count your blessings that I did not go get your sources and rip
>you a new ass with them.
Go on then Mudbrain, give it your best.
>
>
>>
>> And finally,
>> I'm done here.
>
>I was yesterday.
Clucking again Mudbrain - you are a real coward.
Time to face up to at least these two examples of your past stupid
claims.
1) That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
[Message-ID: <e3xDk.44738$De7....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>]
2) That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
[Message-ID: <3Olyk.31543$Ep1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>]
Now, all you have to do is justify them, with evidence of course, or
finally admit you were a fool to make them.
Or are you just going to go on being a cowardly lying troll?
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Fairy stories again Mudbrain.
All-Seeing-I
For Dishonesty
For Failure to meet an agreement
For meaingless attacks
For biblical stupidity
For denial that I answered your list several times
And for being a general dumb-ass
macaddicted
> On Dec 15, 12:42 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 7:23 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:25:37 -0800, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
> >
> > > (macaddicted) wrote:
> > > >T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >
> > > >> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:43:43 -0800, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
> > > >> (macaddicted) wrote:
> >
> > > >> >T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >
> > > >> >> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:16:43 -0800, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
> > > >> >> (macaddicted) wrote:
> >
> > > snipped everything as a waste of time.
> >
> > > I wouldn't waste another minute on the likes of you. However your
> > > attempts to misrepresent the church will be dealt with swiftly and
> > > directly at every opportunity.
> >
> > > And I'm done here.
> >
> > > Regards,
> > > T Pagano
> >
> > Tony: this is what ALL Darwinists here at Talk Origins do:
> > misrepresent, distort, caricature. It's what Atheists do to their
> > enemies.
> >
> > I wouldn't waste another minute here in this topic, too.
See, now that's funny. I actually laughed.
> >
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> They are not Darwinist or Atheists. The Atheists i know have more
> character.
>
> Only someone doing the snake's buisness would pose as a christian to
> delibertly distort their religion.
>
> 2 Corinthians 11:14
> 14And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
Quoting someone, especially when they've asked that you do so, is now
"misrepresent, distort, caricature."
Presenting proof that contradicts a claim is now "misrepresent, distort,
caricature."
It's getting Orwellian in here.
macaddicted
> > > > >l-... cal.html
Because it describes the reality of what happened in the 1950's and
after in biblical scholarship. There isn't a document that says "Forget
everything the PBC said over the last 40 years." Divino, and the
subsequent actions of the PBC did so in effect.
> >
> > > Establish this before you go on to further claims about infallibility
> > > and such. Your source claims "In the years that followed the Biblical
> > > Commission functioned as an organ of the Church's Magisterium".
> >
> > But that's where things go off the rails. Just because a doctrine is
> > promulgated as Magisterial does not mean that it is infallible.
> >
> You claim this is the "point", yet as far as I can see it is a
> strawman. In this thread Tony is not attempting to show that the
> Magisterium ever produced "infallible" statements.
Again, it is a matter of effect. He is hung up on a document from the
PBC in 1909. I've tried, repeatedly, to explain how things changed after
Divino.
Put it another way: He would be right in 1942, wondering in 1943, and
wrong in 1950. Which is the point I'm trying to make, that the PBC
findings were not infallible or irrevocable.
> >
> > > Your claim that the Commission was formed "in the manner of and
> > > followed the same format as the Holy Office" also seems false. The
> > > Commission is now within the CDF.
> >
> > Which is the second form, the one I didn't think I needed to enter as it
> > had no bearing on Pagano's claims regarding the PBC in 1909.
>
> Tony claimed a pronouncement as authoritative and not revoked, not
> "infallible".
The effect of his argument is the PBC findings were infallible. It is
his unwillingness to acknowledge that later documents touched on the
same issues but came to different (but not disconnected) conclusions
which leads me to my conclusion.
> >
> > > Once again, your source seems to
> > > contradict your claim: "Pope Leo wished to relieve the Holy Office
> > > (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) of responsibility
> > > for decisions regarding Scripture, and to entrust those decisions
> > > instead to a group specializing in the field."
> >
> > Um, ok.
> >
> > The issue here isn't whether or not the documents put forth by the PBC
> > before Divino were Magisterial but whether they were irrevocable.
>
> Horseshit. And you still haven't supported the one claim I asked you
> to.
That part is in my original quote, that the PBC was a Curial commission
which was later granted the power to make pronouncements which carried
the same weight as a Magisterial pronouncements (those of ordinaries
over their diocese, etc.) but were effective over the whole Church. It
wasn't formed as a "Magisterial" organization, unless you mean it was
made up of Cardinals, but as a Curial commission to which the ability to
make declarations that affected the entire Church was added.
That ability, however, was checked by the necessity of the sitting Pope
affirming the decisions of the PBC even after its scope was extended.
macaddicted
Any fisherman knows that trolling is how you catch the big fish.
Well, trout at least.
bpuharic
(macaddicted) wrote:
>
>It's getting Orwellian in here.
ASI is now calling his religion 'spiritual science'....
creationism couldn't survive if it spoke english
Glenn
happened.
I asked for verification of how the PBC was formed.
>
> > > > Establish this before you go on to further claims about infallibility
> > > > and such. Your source claims "In the years that followed the Biblical
> > > > Commission functioned as an organ of the Church's Magisterium".
>
> > > But that's where things go off the rails. Just because a doctrine is
> > > promulgated as Magisterial does not mean that it is infallible.
>
> > You claim this is the "point", yet as far as I can see it is a
> > strawman. In this thread Tony is not attempting to show that the
> > Magisterium ever produced "infallible" statements.
>
> Again, it is a matter of effect. He is hung up on a document from the
> PBC in 1909. I've tried, repeatedly, to explain how things changed after
> Divino.
>
> Put it another way: He would be right in 1942, wondering in 1943, and
> wrong in 1950. Which is the point I'm trying to make, that the PBC
> findings were not infallible or irrevocable.
>
statements, but wrong about that in 1950? You are really off the wall.
And it really looks like you don't have a clue what the fuck you're
talking about.
>
> > > > Your claim that the Commission was formed "in the manner of and
> > > > followed the same format as the Holy Office" also seems false. The
> > > > Commission is now within the CDF.
>
> > > Which is the second form, the one I didn't think I needed to enter as it
> > > had no bearing on Pagano's claims regarding the PBC in 1909.
>
> > Tony claimed a pronouncement as authoritative and not revoked, not
> > "infallible".
>
> The effect of his argument is the PBC findings were infallible. It is
> his unwillingness to acknowledge that later documents touched on the
> same issues but came to different (but not disconnected) conclusions
> which leads me to my conclusion.
>
because different conclusions were made afterward? That might reflect
on the Church, but could not be used as refutation. I'm concerned that
your observations of "effect" are incorrect. As they apply to this
thread, Tony has not made that claim explicit. What he has said can
not be interpreted as such, except possibly with "the final word", but
which would need to be taken out of context to be represented as an
example of your charge.
But the reason you Tony into our exchange is unclear. You still
haven't supplied evidence of the claim I asked verification for. And
you have not produced evidence that the early teachings of the PBC
were not infallible.
>
> > > > Once again, your source seems to
> > > > contradict your claim: "Pope Leo wished to relieve the Holy Office
> > > > (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) of responsibility
> > > > for decisions regarding Scripture, and to entrust those decisions
> > > > instead to a group specializing in the field."
>
> > > Um, ok.
>
> > > The issue here isn't whether or not the documents put forth by the PBC
> > > before Divino were Magisterial but whether they were irrevocable.
>
> > Horseshit. And you still haven't supported the one claim I asked you
> > to.
>
> That part is in my original quote, that the PBC was a Curial commission
> which was later granted the power to make pronouncements which carried
> the same weight as a Magisterial pronouncements (those of ordinaries
> over their diocese, etc.) but were effective over the whole Church. It
> wasn't formed as a "Magisterial" organization, unless you mean it was
> made up of Cardinals, but as a Curial commission to which the ability to
> make declarations that affected the entire Church was added.
>
It's unclear why you think labeling the early PBC as a curial
commission has any bearing on this, and you don't provide the reason.
The word doesn't really scare me into believing you.
The PBC began forming and was made official a year later as part of
the Magisterium and the Pontifical family, in 1902. The Magisterium is
not a curial institution. If there was a time that a PBC operated in
less than that capacity before 1902 it is irrelevant. And all sources
I have seen contradict your claim that it was not formed as a
Magisterial "organization". I suspect you are trying to make that
stick so that your claim the PBC didn't produce infallible teaching
will wash.
> That ability, however, was checked by the necessity of the sitting Pope
> affirming the decisions of the PBC even after its scope was extended.
Extended when, and why is that relevant? And why would the necessity
of the Pope signing of on teachings make them not infallible?
http://www.catholicscripture.net/enchiridion/vigilantiae.html
Glenn
wrote:
> Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 6:25 pm, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com (macaddicted)
> > wrote:
> > > T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Nonetheless you have used the Pontiff's address to the PAS as support
> > > > for the claim that the Church supports evolutionism. �
>
> > > What is "evolutionism?"
>
> > Ah, missed this. You're a troll.
>
> Any fisherman knows that trolling is how you catch the big fish.
>
> Well, trout at least.
> --
justified in using that tactic to bait Tony into telling you what you
already thought you knew? Or what he has already made explicit?
Ye Old One
As I keep saying, you really should be shunned. However, as I've also
said many times that would give you an easy way out - a way to escape
and not face up to at least these two examples of your past stupid
johnetho...@yahoo.com
Sounds like a description of you, Ray, Nashton and some of the other
creationists here - spew lies and hate and claim to be the good guys.
Greg G.
How many minutes did you waste in this thread reading the other
replies and then replying?
macaddicted
macaddicted
I didn't say he was right about the documents being infallible, I've
said, repeatedly, he TREATS THEM as infallible.
> but wrong about that in 1950? You are really off the wall.
> And it really looks like you don't have a clue what the fuck you're
> talking about.
He was right about how Catholics were to approach biblical
interpretation in 1942. In 1943 Divino was promulgated. In 1949 the
letter the Cardinal Suhard was released. In 1950 Humani was, which took
up Suhard in total, was promulgated.
Yes, I know very well what I am talking about.
> >
> > > > > Your claim that the Commission was formed "in the manner of and
> > > > > followed the same format as the Holy Office" also seems false. The
> > > > > Commission is now within the CDF.
> >
> > > > Which is the second form, the one I didn't think I needed to enter as it
> > > > had no bearing on Pagano's claims regarding the PBC in 1909.
> >
> > > Tony claimed a pronouncement as authoritative and not revoked, not
> > > "infallible".
> >
> > The effect of his argument is the PBC findings were infallible. It is
> > his unwillingness to acknowledge that later documents touched on the
> > same issues but came to different (but not disconnected) conclusions
> > which leads me to my conclusion.
> >
> You are led to the conclusion that PBC finding were not infallible
> because different conclusions were made afterward? That might reflect
> on the Church, but could not be used as refutation.
Oh heavens sake. Look, if you want to discuss this would you please look
up some ecclesiology or canon law? Infallible statements by the Church
are very rare, and usually in all the papers as it involves:
1. A very large gathering of Cardinals and bishops typically refered to
as a "Council."
2. A Papal Ex Cathedra statement.
> I'm concerned that
> your observations of "effect" are incorrect. As they apply to this
> thread,
My correspondence with Pagano extends well beyond this thread,
particularly on this tipic.
> Tony has not made that claim explicit.
No. In fact he has made explicit his understanding that the documents
were not infallible. But, as he has done over many years, he continues
to treat them as being effectively infallible. Which is what I've been
saying to you for at least three posts now.
If you take a Matisterial position, which carries the requirment of the
silent assent of faith, and extend it to the entire Church rather than
to a diocese or region (as is typical) then it becomes an official
teaching. But by not acknowledging that the 1909 decree on Gen. 1-3 by
the PBC, which was Magisterial in the manner I just described, has been
modified in a major way Pagano has EXTENDED that teaching, in the face
of contravening teaching declarrations, to one that is infallible
>What he has said can
> not be interpreted as such, except possibly with "the final word", but
> which would need to be taken out of context to be represented as an
> example of your charge.
See above
> But the reason you Tony into our exchange is unclear. You still
> haven't supplied evidence of the claim I asked verification for. And
> you have not produced evidence that the early teachings of the PBC
> were not infallible.
NO TEACHING OF A CURIAL COMMISSION OR CONGREGATION CAN BE INFALLIBLE
UNDER CANON LAW.
Are we clear now?
>
> >
> > > > > Once again, your source seems to
> > > > > contradict your claim: "Pope Leo wished to relieve the Holy Office
> > > > > (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) of responsibility
> > > > > for decisions regarding Scripture, and to entrust those decisions
> > > > > instead to a group specializing in the field."
> >
> > > > Um, ok.
> >
> > > > The issue here isn't whether or not the documents put forth by the PBC
> > > > before Divino were Magisterial but whether they were irrevocable.
> >
> > > Horseshit. And you still haven't supported the one claim I asked you
> > > to.
> >
> > That part is in my original quote, that the PBC was a Curial commission
> > which was later granted the power to make pronouncements which carried
> > the same weight as a Magisterial pronouncements (those of ordinaries
> > over their diocese, etc.) but were effective over the whole Church. It
> > wasn't formed as a "Magisterial" organization, unless you mean it was
> > made up of Cardinals, but as a Curial commission to which the ability to
> > make declarations that affected the entire Church was added.
> >
>
>
> It's unclear why you think labeling the early PBC as a curial
> commission has any bearing on this, and you don't provide the reason.
> The word doesn't really scare me into believing you.
> The PBC began forming and was made official a year later as part of
> the Magisterium and the Pontifical family, in 1902. The Magisterium is
> not a curial institution.
AARRGHHH.
It was still a Curial commission. It still is a Curial commission. After
1970 it's ability to release documents that required the same assent of
faith as a Magesterial document was removed and the commission was
reconstituted.
Magesterial teachings are on the local (diocese) or regional (USCCB)
level. Perhaps the fact that the Church didn't have a Magisterial
gathering that has the capacity to promulgate infallible teaching
between the 1860's and 1960's (Vatican I, Vatican II) has you confused.
>If there was a time that a PBC operated in
> less than that capacity before 1902 it is irrelevant.
I don't care about 1902. The document that Pagano and I have been
debating for almost 8 years was in 1909.
> And all sources
> I have seen contradict your claim that it was not formed as a
> Magisterial "organization".
Or for heavens sake. Fine. Define for me, please, what your concept is
of a Magesterial organization that can promulgate infallible, or even
irrevocable, documents.
>I suspect you are trying to make that
> stick so that your claim the PBC didn't produce infallible teaching
> will wash.
I think the fact that several Popes have contradicted what you are
claiming is an infallible teaching rather makes my point.
>
> > That ability, however, was checked by the necessity of the sitting Pope
> > affirming the decisions of the PBC even after its scope was extended.
>
> Extended when, and why is that relevant? And why would the necessity
> of the Pope signing of on teachings make them not infallible?
>
> http://www.catholicscripture.net/enchiridion/vigilantiae.html
And what. Look at 145
We wish it to be composed of some Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church who
shall be chosen in virtue of Our authority.
Note: The authority of the commission devolves from the Papacy.
It is Our intention to add to them with the functions and titles of
consultors, and to take part in the same studies and the sane labors, as
it is customary in the sacred Roman commissions, certain eminent men who
belong to different nationalities, who are recommended by their
knowledge in sacred studies, and above all, in whatever appertains to
biblical science.
Note: The PBC will function in the same manner as other commissions that
were in place at that time.
The Commission will hold its fixed reunions and publish its writings,
which will appear periodically or as need may require. If advice is
asked of it, it will reply to those who consult it.
Note: Question on scriptural interpretation should now be forwarded to
the PBC and not the Holy Office. As was the case with Cardinal Suhard
In a word, it will labor by all means in its power to maintain and to
develop the studies of which we speak. We desire that a report
concerning all the questions which may be treated in common should be
addressed to the Sovereign Pontiff by the Consultor to whom the
Commission will have confided the office of secretary.
Note: Answers to questions submitted to the PBC will be reviewed and
approved by the sitting Pope.
Seriously, the answers you were looking for regarding the formation and
authority of the PBC were right there.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
Tough; if I thought anything rational could actually
persuade you to give up irrationality I'd try harder, but
that idea died quite a while back.
So you think someone who objects to incorrect
characterization is a troll? Interesting logic...
Or are you merely not aware of the connotations of "ism"?
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-Seeing-I
<allse...@usa.com>:
No context or attributions? So this is directed at yourself?
Glenn
wrote:
> Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 15, 6:10 pm, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com (macaddicted)
> > wrote:
> > > Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 14, 6:25 pm, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com (macaddicted)
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Nonetheless you have used the Pontiff's address to the PAS as support
> > > > > > for the claim that the Church supports evolutionism. �
>
> > > > > What is "evolutionism?"
>
> > > > Ah, missed this. You're a troll.
>
> > > Any fisherman knows that trolling is how you catch the big fish.
>
> > > Well, trout at least.
> > > --
> > Fair enough, just realize that its a trick of deception. Did you feel
> > justified in using that tactic to bait Tony into telling you what you
> > already thought you knew? Or what he has already made explicit?
>
> Hey, he's the who claims to be the One True Catholic� here.
> --
argument.
I see no real difference between his argument and yours that keeps you
out
of the running for a "One True" Catholic here.
Glenn
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:01:02 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
>
>
>
> >On Dec 15, 1:31�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:29:17 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
> >> <GlennShel...@msn.com>:
>
> >> >On Dec 14, 6:25�pm, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com (macaddicted)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> > Nonetheless you have used the Pontiff's address to the PAS as support
> >> >> > for the claim that the Church supports evolutionism. �
>
> >> >> What is "evolutionism?"
>
> >> >Ah, missed this. You're a troll.
>
> >> Nope, he's someone who objects to clueless and
> >> scientifically illiterate fundies, such as Tony, attempting
> >> to portray evolutionary science as a religious belief
> >> ("ism").
> >This, coming from a blind retarded paraplegic, such as yourself, isn't
> >so convincing.
>
> Tough; if I thought anything rational could actually
> persuade you to give up irrationality I'd try harder, but
> that idea died quite a while back.
>
> So you think someone who objects to incorrect
> characterization is a troll? Interesting logic...
By characterizing my logic as such, you actually represent yourself as
a troll.
>
> Or are you merely not aware of the connotations of "ism"?
> --
Everyone is aware of the existence of "isms". Your particular
interpretation of the "connotations" in this case are likely coming
from the same rationality and logic you provide above.
RAM
Well your model for a Christian is lacking in class, sensitivity and
self insight unless you think being an abject ass is how a Christian
should approach blindness, mental retardation and paralysis.
Glenn
No, you have not. Tony argued that the documents were Magisterial and
had not been revoked.
That was in reply to your statement: "The fact that a subsequent Pope
modified what the PBC said in your precious document not more than 40
years later proves it was not infallible or irrevocable."
You are the one that appears to insist on the document not being
"infallible or irrevocable" as having some importance to the
disagreement, and that is a strong implication that you regard Tony's
arguments as incoporating "infallibility" . Tony here does not appear
to have that problem, stressing that it was "authoritative" and had
not been revoked.
You make a big deal out of the Commission being "curial", supposedly
in order to minimize the authoritative nature of the documents, and
even claim that it was not Magisterial. The fact of the matter is that
you have failed to support even that one assertion with any real
evidence other than rhetoric; I've found NO writings, from peon to
pope, that make that claim. They all either state or imply that the
Commission WAS a magisterial body at the time.
>
> > but wrong about that in 1950? You are really off the wall.
> > And it really looks like you don't have a clue what the fuck you're
> > talking about.
>
> He was right about how Catholics were to approach biblical
> interpretation in 1942. In 1943 Divino was promulgated. In 1949 the
> letter the Cardinal Suhard was released. In 1950 Humani was, which took
> up Suhard in total, was promulgated.
>
> Yes, I know very well what I am talking about.
>
Why, because you can flap your lips? Say shit like "how to approach"?
It was Catholic Dogma, and if not revoked "legally" by the "rules" of
"authorities", and by a "higher" authority, can not be otherwise
thought of as no longer applying, regardless of what individual
opinion may be. The 1909 teaching you seem to be arguing about in
particular is regarded as "de fide", and is in some sense of the word,
"infallible". What specifically was in the 1959 Humani Generis that
"revoked" this "de fide" dogma?
>
> > > > > > Your claim that the Commission was formed "in the manner of and
> > > > > > followed the same format as the Holy Office" also seems false. The
> > > > > > Commission is now within the CDF.
>
> > > > > Which is the second form, the one I didn't think I needed to enter as it
> > > > > had no bearing on Pagano's claims regarding the PBC in 1909.
>
> > > > Tony claimed a pronouncement as authoritative and not revoked, not
> > > > "infallible".
>
> > > The effect of his argument is the PBC findings were infallible. It is
> > > his unwillingness to acknowledge that later documents touched on the
> > > same issues but came to different (but not disconnected) conclusions
> > > which leads me to my conclusion.
>
> > You are led to the conclusion that PBC finding were not infallible
> > because different conclusions were made afterward? That might reflect
> > on the Church, but could not be used as refutation.
>
> Oh heavens sake. Look, if you want to discuss this would you please look
> up some ecclesiology or canon law? Infallible statements by the Church
> are very rare, and usually in all the papers as it involves:
>
> 1. A very large gathering of Cardinals and bishops typically refered to
> as a "Council."
> 2. A Papal Ex Cathedra statement.
>
That's plain horseshit, and reflects either an ignorance of or
misrepresentation of the meaning(s) of and degrees of "infallibility".
>
> > I'm concerned that
> > your observations of "effect" are incorrect. As they apply to this
> > thread,
>
> My correspondence with Pagano extends well beyond this thread,
> particularly on this tipic.
Sure, but what you represent in this thread as his argument is what is
relevant.
>
> > Tony has not made that claim explicit.
>
> No. In fact he has made explicit his understanding that the documents
> were not infallible. But, as he has done over many years, he continues
> to treat them as being effectively infallible. Which is what I've been
> saying to you for at least three posts now.
No, at least if you have implicitly it was lost in your rhetoric.
Again, what is relevant here is what the thread contains. Tony's
statements you have replied to here do not include explicit claims of
infallibility; only to the extent of his claim that the PBC was a
Magisterial body can an implicit claim of "infallibility" be inferred.
It is not reasonable then to assume that Tony regards the teachings of
the Magisterium as only being "effectively" infallible as opposed to
being infallible. I'd have to see evidence where Tony explicitly
argues that "the documents", referring to the Magisterial teachings of
the PBC, were not infallible.
>
> If you take a Matisterial position, which carries the requirment of the
> silent assent of faith, and extend it to the entire Church rather than
> to a diocese or region (as is typical) then it becomes an official
> teaching. But by not acknowledging that the 1909 decree on Gen. 1-3 by
> the PBC, which was Magisterial in the manner I just described, has been
> modified in a major way Pagano has EXTENDED that teaching, in the face
> of contravening teaching declarrations, to one that is infallible
Huh? Do some spell check and proof reading, please. There is no other
position that can be taken other than that the PBC in 1909 was a
Magisterial body which produced infallible teachings, and Catholic
Dogma.
>
> >What he has said can
> > not be interpreted as such, except possibly with "the final word", but
> > which would need to be taken out of context to be represented as an
> > example of your charge.
>
> See above
>
> > But the reason you Tony into our exchange is unclear. You still
> > haven't supplied evidence of the claim I asked verification for. And
> > you have not produced evidence that the early teachings of the PBC
> > were not infallible.
>
> NO TEACHING OF A CURIAL COMMISSION OR CONGREGATION CAN BE INFALLIBLE
> UNDER CANON LAW.
>
> Are we clear now?
>
Again, flapping of lips is no substitute for evidence, as is the case
with this claim. It has no supporting evidence within this entire
thread. You keep harping on the PBC being a curial institution, as it
does exist now. Yet everyone appears to agree (except you) that in
1909 the PBC was a MAGISTERIAL body, and that level within the Church
is the AUTHORITY. NO higher level exists. You really sound very
deluded.
NO. In 1909 it was a Magisterial body, regardless that the physical
structure of the organization was constructed similar to curial
institutions. That's quite a lame argument.
>
> Magesterial teachings are on the local (diocese) or regional (USCCB)
> level. Perhaps the fact that the Church didn't have a Magisterial
> gathering that has the capacity to promulgate infallible teaching
> between the 1860's and 1960's (Vatican I, Vatican II) has you confused.
I'm not confused at all, and your unsupported claims do not confuse
me. The Magisterial teachings of the PBC, until they were reassigned
to the Curia, were not at or concerning a local or regional level.
>
> >If there was a time that a PBC operated in
> > less than that capacity before 1902 it is irrelevant.
>
> I don't care about 1902. The document that Pagano and I have been
> debating for almost 8 years was in 1909.
Fine, in 1909 the PBC had been a Magisterial body for 7 years.
>
> > And all sources
> > I have seen contradict your claim that it was not formed as a
> > Magisterial "organization".
>
> Or for heavens sake. Fine. Define for me, please, what your concept is
> of a Magesterial organization that can promulgate infallible, or even
> irrevocable, documents.
Holy shit, it sounds as if you don't know what the Magisterium is. You
misspell it often enough.
I'm not going to allow you to off topic here. You claim the PBC was
not a Magisterial body. That is easily shown to be false.
>
> >I suspect you are trying to make that
> > stick so that your claim the PBC didn't produce infallible teaching
> > will wash.
>
> I think the fact that several Popes have contradicted what you are
> claiming is an infallible teaching rather makes my point.
>
No it doesn't, nor am I aware that any Pope has contradicted that
fact. If it WAS "an" infallible teaching, it still IS, unless
infallible is not infallible. Plain and simple. Now you can introduce
the subtleties of the levels of "infallibility" if you wish, but you
haven't so far. I suspect you have not because you realize that if you
do the can of worms will be opened.
>
> > > That ability, however, was checked by the necessity of the sitting Pope
> > > affirming the decisions of the PBC even after its scope was extended.
>
> > Extended when, and why is that relevant? And why would the necessity
> > of the Pope signing of on teachings make them not infallible?
>
> >http://www.catholicscripture.net/enchiridion/vigilantiae.html
>
> And what. Look at 145
> We wish it to be composed of some Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church who
> shall be chosen in virtue of Our authority.
>
> Note: The authority of the commission devolves from the Papacy.
So? ALL authority "devolves" from the Pope.
"The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been
entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the
Pope and to the bishops in communion with him." -Catechism of the
Catholic Church, 2nd edition
Guess what? The PBC was not formed as an administrative body.
>
> It is Our intention to add to them with the functions and titles of
> consultors, and to take part in the same studies and the sane labors, as
> it is customary in the sacred Roman commissions, certain eminent men who
> belong to different nationalities, who are recommended by their
> knowledge in sacred studies, and above all, in whatever appertains to
> biblical science.
>
> Note: The PBC will function in the same manner as other commissions that
> were in place at that time.
>
The lame argument. See above, it was formed as a Magisterial body.
> The Commission will hold its fixed reunions and publish its writings,
> which will appear periodically or as need may require. If advice is
> asked of it, it will reply to those who consult it.
>
> Note: Question on scriptural interpretation should now be forwarded to
> the PBC and not the Holy Office. As was the case with Cardinal Suhard
Perhaps you and Suhard should read more carefully:
"It is proper that the principal seat of this Commission should be in
Rome, under the very eyes of the Sovereign Pontiff. As it is the seat
of the mistress and guardian of Christian knowledge, it should also be
the center from which there should flow through the whole body of the
Christian commonwealth the pure incorruptible teaching of this science
which is now so indispensable."
>
> In a word, it will labor by all means in its power to maintain and to
> develop the studies of which we speak. We desire that a report
> concerning all the questions which may be treated in common should be
> addressed to the Sovereign Pontiff by the Consultor to whom the
> Commission will have confided the office of secretary.
>
> Note: Answers to questions submitted to the PBC will be reviewed and
> approved by the sitting Pope.
Yep.
>
> Seriously, the answers you were looking for regarding the formation and
> authority of the PBC were right there.
>
Yep.
Glenn
Did you forget that you're an idiot with tunnel vision?
John Harshman
John Harshman
[snip]
This thread has made me very glad I'm not a Catholic, and reminds me
what a twisted and perverse institution the church is. So thanks.
But I would like some clarification here, regarding Tony's favorite
document (the 1909 one). Was it, at the time it was issued, binding on
Catholics? I don't know the technical terms (and hardly care to learn),
but I mean to ask if it was official doctrine, something you were
required to believe.
If so, was there a later document that modified this in some way, by
changing the official doctrine (either substituting other claims or
making the claims in the 1909 document no longer binding)?
And if so, what was this second document?
What are Catholics required to believe about evolution, earth history,
and such? What are the limits on their freedom of belief in these matters?
And I would appreciate a minimum of jargon. If you use "magisterial",
for example, at least define its significance in this context.
macaddicted
When I am not certain I say so. When I need more information I tell the
poster and go try and get it. If I am wrong I admit it.
Glenn
Explaining a "twisted and perverse institution"? Good luck with that
one.
Glenn
Not relevant.
John Harshman
Why not? Don't even twisted and perverse institutions have rules and
explanations?
Michael Siemon
John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
...
> This thread has made me very glad I'm not a Catholic, and reminds me
> what a twisted and perverse institution the church is. So thanks.
>
> But I would like some clarification here, regarding Tony's favorite
> document (the 1909 one). Was it, at the time it was issued, binding on
> Catholics? I don't know the technical terms (and hardly care to learn),
> but I mean to ask if it was official doctrine, something you were
> required to believe.
macaddicted has given a summary of what "Magisterial" teaching means.
It means you must accept[*] the teaching (being "silent" about any
doubts or criticism). You then hope it may be changed (in a decade
or century or millennium, or so...)
[*] If you are in the diocese, or larger region, over which the
particular bishop or committee has authority.
And indeed this whole strand of Catholic teaching is part of what
separates them from the rest of Christianity. (The fundagelicals
have their own bugaboos on doctrinal authority, but without the
institutionalization of the Roman Church). Orthodox, Anglican, and
most European Protestant Christianity can get a poker up its ass
on doctrinal matters, but not with the same kind of bureaucratic
nightmare that then applies to serious Catholic scholars. It is
also the only branch of Christianity (AFAIK) that has the kind of
"you may not publish unless I [for some value of ignorant and
abusive authority] grant permission". Yes, in "theory" the relevant
authority is "better informed and aware of this matter" than the
publishing "expert." You are free to believe that if you will.
Namely, that bishop, or set of bishops, have been "consecrated"
and you haven't; neener, neener, neener. As a side note, it is
often said (by Episcopalians, watching the antics of bishops)
that the consecration ceremony is effectively a spine removal.
The Catholic equivalent seems more likely to be "oh goody; now
_I_ can make an ass of myself."
> If so, was there a later document that modified this in some way, by
> changing the official doctrine (either substituting other claims or
> making the claims in the 1909 document no longer binding)?
>
> And if so, what was this second document?
macaddicted's posts have named the subsequent documents that modify
the impact of the 1909 doc; I am not familiar with them, but my
reading of Catholic biblical scholarship in the latter half of the
20th century essentially shows them following standard text critical
practice, though there are often very complex footnotes to "save"
traditional components of Catholic interpretation. :-)
>
> What are Catholics required to believe about evolution, earth history,
> and such? What are the limits on their freedom of belief in these matters?
>
> And I would appreciate a minimum of jargon. If you use "magisterial",
> for example, at least define its significance in this context.
He did. Yes, I know it makes no sense.
I should say in closing that my own (Anglican) take on Christianity
shares _a lot_ with Catholicism. And my roots as a Christian (both
from a Lutheran childhood, and my adult Episcopalianism, as well as
the cultural influences that moved me during my atheist years) ALL
reach back to Catholic tradition. It is the formalization and
institutionalization of this (which of course is part of what the
Middle Ages were, and the latter-day responses to those developments)
which I find objectionable.
"From the tyranny of the bishop of Rome, and all his detestable
enormities, good Lord deliver us." [From the litany in procession
of the first Book(s) of Common Prayer; I think that was dropped a
while back, at the very least by the 1979 Prayer Book. I guess we
no longer think we need God's help in this... :-)]
Glenn
True Catholic here, you should add that when you are not certain you
bullshit. Perhaps that's an attribute of a True Catholic.
So you are answering my questions? The first, that you are certain
Tony claims to be the One True Catholic?
That Tony at times needs more information but doesn't go try to get
it?
That if Tony thinks he is wrong he doesn't admit it? Or do you
determine for Tony when he is wrong.
Glenn
Inherently twisted and perverse ones.
RAM
So being Christian is not relevant. Since when?
You denigrate someone by employing personally severe handicaps that
are never funny or joke worthy and have a life alerting effect on
those who experience them. And I have tunnel vision?
All is see is hypocrisy and more hypocrisy.
Next will you claim I'm suffering from double vision.
John Harshman
see if anyone attempts that explanation. Aren't you trying to get one
yourself?
chris thompson
snip
>
> I should say in closing that my own (Anglican) take on Christianity
> shares _a lot_ with Catholicism. And my roots as a Christian (both
> from a Lutheran childhood, and my adult Episcopalianism, as well as
> the cultural influences that moved me during my atheist years) ALL
> reach back to Catholic tradition. It is the formalization and
> institutionalization of this (which of course is part of what the
> Middle Ages were, and the latter-day responses to those developments)
> which I find objectionable.
>
> "From the tyranny of the bishop of Rome, and all his detestable
> enormities, good Lord deliver us." [From the litany in procession
> of the first Book(s) of Common Prayer; I think that was dropped a
> while back, at the very least by the 1979 Prayer Book. I guess we
> no longer think we need God's help in this... :-)]
I find this all very interesting. I myself was raised Roman Catholic,
and never seriously considered any other Christian sect- and then
before I knew it, I found myself an atheist.
But I am most curious about what makes people change from one sort of
Christianity to another. I think it boils down to two factors, but I
would really appreciate being corrected on this.
The first reason I can think of is that God favors the type of worship
practiced in one church over another. There are, after all, some big
differences between the various forms of Roman Catholic and Protestant
services. My question is, How do you know which God prefers? There are
some sections of the Bible that can give hints, but really, that's all
they provide. How do you know?
The second reason is that you, personally, are more comfortable in a
particular service. You think God accepts worship in almost whatever
form it is given. That's fine and understandable. But if that's the
case, how do you know God does not WANT you to be a little
uncomfortable? Or whatever.
I am actually pretty curious about this, so any answers are
appreciated.
Chris
John Harshman
God prefers a religion that allows Henry VIII to get a divorce. Because
he said so. Henry, that is.
Glenn
Twisted explanations would inherently be hard to explain, I should
imagine.
But no, I'm not asking for explanations, but specific claims supported
by clear, explicit references. So far, I haven't seen any smoking gun
from macaddicted, despite his shouting.
Glenn
That works.
macaddicted
> Bob Casanova wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> This thread has made me very glad I'm not a Catholic, and reminds me
> what a twisted and perverse institution the church is. So thanks.
>
> But I would like some clarification here, regarding Tony's favorite
> document (the 1909 one). Was it, at the time it was issued, binding on
> Catholics?
Yes.
>I don't know the technical terms (and hardly care to learn),
> but I mean to ask if it was official doctrine, something you were
> required to believe.
It required the "Religious submission of intellect and will." Generally
this would be offering deference to the teaching. An example is the
teaching in Humani Generis about monogenism.
An infallible teaching requires "full assent of faith." Basically if you
don't believe in this you need to re-think if you are Roman Catholic.
The infallible teaching that the Pope was could teach infallibly brought
out the latter reaction in a some of the hierarchy of that time.
>
> If so, was there a later document that modified this in some way, by
> changing the official doctrine (either substituting other claims or
> making the claims in the 1909 document no longer binding)?
Yes.
>
> And if so, what was this second document?
Divino Afflante Spiritu redefined how Catholic theologians did biblical
interpretation. Humani Generis acknowledged that the manner in which the
Church understood Genesis 1-3 has history (the topic of the 1909
document) had changed.
>
> What are Catholics required to believe about evolution, earth history,
> and such? What are the limits on their freedom of belief in these matters?
>
In terms of evolution we can explore any issue with two caveats:
1. The creation of the soul in the individual as coming from any source
but God.
2. That there was not a first pair (Adam & Eve, monogenism).
The rest, following the teachings of Trent, Vatican I and
Providentissimus Deus, we leave to the scientists. The caveat to that is
science proclaiming something as definitively true which is in
opposition to dogmatic truths. "Truth cannot contradict truth" is said
in many places in Church history.
> And I would appreciate a minimum of jargon. If you use "magisterial",
> for example, at least define its significance in this context.
Apparently I'm not allowed to anymore since Glenn doesn't like the
variety of spelling I use.
The documents, except for Trent and Vatican I, are Papal encyclicals.
They are not infallible, but do require the submission of will. Trent
and Vatican I are infallible and require the full assent of faith.
I really do try not to fall into the jargon if I don't have to. I taught
religious ed to 12 year olds for years in my parish (hopefully sparing
me some few seconds in purgatory). They won't stand for it (well sit for
it) so I learned to break thing into understandable parts. Someday,
perhaps, I get good enough at it that I can explain the Trinity without
all of them breaking out into the theme song for some cartoon I've never
seen. Sort of Children of the Corn like. Scary.
;-)
macaddicted
> > > > > > > > >ontifica l-... cal.html
> >
> > > > > > > > > Perhaps an arm is not part of the body...
> >
> > > > > > > > > "Pope St. Pius X made the rulings of the Commission a part
> > > > > > > > > of the Magisterium, the supreme teaching authority of the
> > > > > > > > > Church."
> >
> > > > > > > > >http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt94.html
> >
> > > > > > > > I'm transcribing this from Catholic Principles for
> > > > > > > > Interpreting Scripture. Please forgive any typos:
> > > > > > > > <http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Principles-Interpreting-Scri
> > > > > > > > pture-In terp
> > > > > > > > retation/dp/8876536175/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=126084
> > > > > > > > 6877&sr= 8-1>
[snip--part recapitulates above and is not necessary to my reply]
Ok, on the substance of Pagano's idea about the 1909 document: By using
the decree's statement regarding the ability to use Gen. 1-3 to defend
his method of interpretation of the pre-history books, and more
specifically the creation myths and Noahic deluge, he has specifically
disregarded later Papal and Conciliar (specifically Vatican II)
documents.
Thus he has, as I continue to argue, effectively found the 1909 document
to be at best irrevocable, at worst infallible. Correspondence has led
me to the belief that his view is one that forces an infallible belief
(though he has denied it in writing) on that particular document.
But let's grant that the 1909 document is not infallible, and that Tony,
as he has stated, does not believe that it is infallible. His posts in
defense and explanation (when he chooses to explain) still leave his
stance as one of it being irrevocable.
In RC theology infallible and irrevocable tend to work hand in hand.
Typically one cannot be one without also being the other; a revocable
belief cannot be infallible, a falible belief can, and likely will, be
revoked (the latter tend to be heresies).
> >
> > > but wrong about that in 1950? You are really off the wall.
> > > And it really looks like you don't have a clue what the fuck you're
> > > talking about.
> >
> > He was right about how Catholics were to approach biblical
> > interpretation in 1942. In 1943 Divino was promulgated. In 1949 the
> > letter the Cardinal Suhard was released. In 1950 Humani was, which took
> > up Suhard in total, was promulgated.
> >
> > Yes, I know very well what I am talking about.
> >
> Why, because you can flap your lips? Say shit like "how to approach"?
> It was Catholic Dogma, and if not revoked "legally" by the "rules" of
> "authorities", and by a "higher" authority, can not be otherwise
> thought of as no longer applying, regardless of what individual
> opinion may be. The 1909 teaching you seem to be arguing about in
> particular is regarded as "de fide", and is in some sense of the word,
> "infallible". What specifically was in the 1959 Humani Generis that
> "revoked" this "de fide" dogma?
Specifically? The Letter to Cardinal Suhard (which unfortunately was a
dead link on the web page you listed). In the late 40's, in response to
the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu Cardinal Suhard of Paris asked
the PBC for a clarification of the 1909 decree (and others) on Genesis
in light of the encyclical. The response, by the secretary of the PBC,
is taken up whole in Humani Generis pp. 38.
If you had asked a theologian in 1942 if Genesis was history he (very
few "she's" at the time) would have said yes. Divino changed that in
1943. History it was, but not history as a modern reader understands it,
and certainly not in the manner used by the ancient Romans or Greeks.
God created; life came into being; man, through the grace and gift of
God, came to know God. But Genesis was not to be read as we read, say, a
history of WWII.
Yet it seemed, at least to Suhard, to contradict what had been said and
taught before. It did, though not in the way that others have tried to
portray. Genesis remained history, per the PBC. But what is history? Are
we to interpret any work that proclaims itself history only in the way
we read a modern history schoolbook? Ultimately Pope Pius XII answered
no. Divino had already given the answer.
If Genesis 1-3, what we today call the creation myths, were not history
then did they, could they, carry and further value to the Church.
Certainly answered Pius in Humani. For though they are not history as a
modern reader understands the word and concept, they are history
none-the-less. Their character is not to portray what happened and when
BUT THAT IT HAPPENED. But that God, in his grace, brought it into being.
We use a word for that, historicity. It means that a text carries a
historical character but should not be read as a history work, that the
text shouldn't be stripped of it's value theologically. That the text
requires the careful examination of a biblical scholar to understand
what the author was trying to tell the reader (or more appropriately for
much of the OT listener), which is exegesis.
> >
> > > > > > > Your claim that the Commission was formed "in the manner of
> > > > > > > and followed the same format as the Holy Office" also seems
> > > > > > > false. The Commission is now within the CDF.
> >
> > > > > > Which is the second form, the one I didn't think I needed to
> > > > > > enter as it had no bearing on Pagano's claims regarding the PBC
> > > > > > in 1909.
> >
> > > > > Tony claimed a pronouncement as authoritative and not revoked, not
> > > > > "infallible".
> >
> > > > The effect of his argument is the PBC findings were infallible. It
> > > > is his unwillingness to acknowledge that later documents touched on
> > > > the same issues but came to different (but not disconnected)
> > > > conclusions which leads me to my conclusion.
> >
> > > You are led to the conclusion that PBC finding were not infallible
> > > because different conclusions were made afterward? That might reflect
> > > on the Church, but could not be used as refutation.
> >
> > Oh heavens sake. Look, if you want to discuss this would you please look
> > up some ecclesiology or canon law? Infallible statements by the Church
> > are very rare, and usually in all the papers as it involves:
> >
> > 1. A very large gathering of Cardinals and bishops typically refered to
> > as a "Council."
> > 2. A Papal Ex Cathedra statement.
> >
> That's plain horseshit, and reflects either an ignorance of or
> misrepresentation of the meaning(s) of and degrees of "infallibility".
You keep waving the word "Magisterial" around like it is some talisman
to ward off evil. Yet even a Magisterial statement, be it that of an
Ordinary to his diocese or a Congregation to the Church as a whole,
doesn't carry the weight of infallibility.
CCC, pp. 891
891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this
infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and
teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he
proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.
.. . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the
body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the
supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the
Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief
as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the
definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This
infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.
<http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/891.htm>
Code of Canon Law
Can. 749 �1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses
infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all
the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the
faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals
is to be held.
Note: This is an Ex Cathedra declaration.
�2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when
the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the
magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for
the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held
definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the
bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and
teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith
or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held
definitively.
Note: Council called by the Pope or the entire college of bishops,
dispersed but acting together, in both cases in union with the Pope,
declaring that a proposition is to be held as definitive.
�3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is
manifestly evident.
Note: If it aint Ex Cathedra, and if the Pope ain't involved it ain't
infallible.
<http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM?
> >
> > > I'm concerned that
> > > your observations of "effect" are incorrect. As they apply to this
> > > thread,
> >
> > My correspondence with Pagano extends well beyond this thread,
> > particularly on this tipic.
>
> Sure, but what you represent in this thread as his argument is what is
> relevant.
> >
> > > Tony has not made that claim explicit.
> >
> > No. In fact he has made explicit his understanding that the documents
> > were not infallible. But, as he has done over many years, he continues
> > to treat them as being effectively infallible. Which is what I've been
> > saying to you for at least three posts now.
>
> No, at least if you have implicitly it was lost in your rhetoric.
> Again, what is relevant here is what the thread contains.
It's strange that you feel you can redefine the nature of my interaction
with Pagano. Does the fact that a thing was not said here, in this
thread, mean it was not said? Pagano's reaction to another poster could
not follow your rule as I had yet to post anything on the requested
subject in that thread. His characterization of my ability to properly
portray RC teaching preceeded my actually responding with any
information.
Why was Pagano giving a negative appraisal of my abilities when I had
yet to actually do anything in that particular thread. One is forced to
assume that he was reacting to our previous interactions, just as I in
this thread.
> Tony's
> statements you have replied to here do not include explicit claims of
> infallibility; only to the extent of his claim that the PBC was a
> Magisterial body can an implicit claim of "infallibility" be inferred.
> It is not reasonable then to assume that Tony regards the teachings of
> the Magisterium as only being "effectively" infallible as opposed to
> being infallible.
> I'd have to see evidence where Tony explicitly
> argues that "the documents", referring to the Magisterial teachings of
> the PBC, were not infallible.
---quote---
<http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e873263338dfd554?dmode=
source>
Pagano replies:
You fail to realize that the Catholic Church is NOT guided by your
opinion but through the Teaching Authority of the Church. Produce the
Church documents which supercede the Pontifical Biblical Commission's
teaching of 1909. And while the 1909 ruling of the Commission on the
historical character of Genesis 1-3 is not an unreformable,
infallible, de fide, dogma it does enjoy the same authority as the
decrees of the other Sacred Congregations.
---end quote---
Which is what I have tried to do repeatedly, through explanations of the
impact of Divino and Humani, such as the one above.
> >
> > If you take a Matisterial position, which carries the requirment of the
> > silent assent of faith, and extend it to the entire Church rather than
> > to a diocese or region (as is typical) then it becomes an official
> > teaching. But by not acknowledging that the 1909 decree on Gen. 1-3 by
> > the PBC, which was Magisterial in the manner I just described, has been
> > modified in a major way Pagano has EXTENDED that teaching, in the face
> > of contravening teaching declarrations, to one that is infallible
>
> Huh? Do some spell check and proof reading, please. There is no other
> position that can be taken other than that the PBC in 1909 was a
> Magisterial body which produced infallible teachings, and Catholic
> Dogma.
Golly gee, so sorry. I was typing this between helping customers.
But you know us trolls, big fingers and all.
> >
> > >What he has said can
> > > not be interpreted as such, except possibly with "the final word", but
> > > which would need to be taken out of context to be represented as an
> > > example of your charge.
> >
> > See above
> >
> > > But the reason you Tony into our exchange is unclear. You still
> > > haven't supplied evidence of the claim I asked verification for. And
> > > you have not produced evidence that the early teachings of the PBC
> > > were not infallible.
> >
> > NO TEACHING OF A CURIAL COMMISSION OR CONGREGATION CAN BE INFALLIBLE
> > UNDER CANON LAW.
> >
> > Are we clear now?
> >
> Again, flapping of lips is no substitute for evidence, as is the case
> with this claim. It has no supporting evidence within this entire
> thread. You keep harping on the PBC being a curial institution, as it
> does exist now. Yet everyone appears to agree (except you) that in
> 1909 the PBC was a MAGISTERIAL body, and that level within the Church
> is the AUTHORITY. NO higher level exists. You really sound very
> deluded.
Does the world somehow devolve into what is on the screen before you
when you post here? Does nothing of the past remain?
And no, the PBC was no more a "Magisterial" body than the Holy Office
was. Unless you want to define "Magisterial" as a few Cardinals who got
together in a probably great looking room in Rome and made a decision on
this and that. They still had to take it to the Pope for it to be
binding on the whole Church.
[snip need for Glenn to find a Roman Catholic Dictionary]
macaddicted
OK. From his bombastic posting style, his aggressive take no facts hold
on Catholic truths, and his denigration of all who state their active or
inactive Catholicism but disagree with his Catholic founded teachings
(which, I think, is everybody) I _infer_ that he believes that he is the
One True Catholic� here.
Happy?
macaddicted
You don't. (Could someone please give me the phone prefix for Vatican
City? I need to be able to check my caller ID.)
> There are
> some sections of the Bible that can give hints, but really, that's all
> they provide. How do you know?
>
> The second reason is that you, personally, are more comfortable in a
> particular service. You think God accepts worship in almost whatever
> form it is given. That's fine and understandable. But if that's the
> case, how do you know God does not WANT you to be a little
> uncomfortable? Or whatever.
>
> I am actually pretty curious about this, so any answers are
> appreciated.
>
> Chris
macaddicted
That would be the case if you are a ordered religious (sister, brother,
ordered priest), and to a lesser extent a diocesan priest. We lay people
can do pretty much what we want, though sometimes someone gets a call to
report to Rome with explanations.
RAM
Only for the self deceptive.
Glenn
That would be you. Are you really this stupid, or are you just acting
the obvious fool?
RAM
Your attempt to deflect attention from your moral miasma and
indifference for your stunning display of Christian hypocrisy is
noted. I honestly would be ashamed to try an defend such a grossly
and morally insensitive comment. It speaks to your character more
than you realize or possibly want to admit.
Michael Siemon
macad...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com (macaddicted) wrote:
> Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
...
> > macaddicted has given a summary of what "Magisterial" teaching means.
> > It means you must accept[*] the teaching (being "silent" about any
> > doubts or criticism). You then hope it may be changed (in a decade
> > or century or millennium, or so...)
...
> > "you may not publish unless I [for some value of ignorant and
> > abusive authority] grant permission".
>
> That would be the case if you are a ordered religious (sister, brother,
> ordered priest), and to a lesser extent a diocesan priest. We lay people
> can do pretty much what we want, though sometimes someone gets a call to
> report to Rome with explanations.
Thank you for the context here. There are "orders" in Anglicanism (and
beyond the regular orders of clergy, there are even Franciscans, but
_no_ Jesuits... :-)). And there is, indeed, some episcopal control in
operation, though not at the micro-management level that seems to be
the case for the Roman church. Most certainly not with regard to
scholarly publication! Also note what I said about Anglican bishops
being generally considered spineless...
I have certainly been in local Episcopalian congregations where the
priest(s) have had no hesitation in calling out the diocese or the
national church for hypocrisy, stupidity, or just plain pig-headedness.
But my parishes have been in Berkeley and Manhattan :-)
[*] on the other side of political chaos such as the above indicates,
there are the kinds of parishes in places very _unlike_ Berkeley or
Manhattan who _also_ call out (quite different) elements of the national
church -- to the point of schism. Anglicanism has, up to the late 20th
century, generally avoided this kind of Protestant disease. Those who
hate the way the main part of the Church is going would be all too happy
to impose a Roman style of discipline -- as long as _they_ were in
control. They oppose it flatly when they are not. I seriously dislike
the way the current Archbishop of Canterbury is trying to appease the
African fundamentalists -- but I would _hate_ to be in his position.
Glenn
challenged, and even then when you realize your claim was wrong, you
don't admit it, but further try to support it by a "modification".
Judging from your long winded lip flapping in another part of this
thread, I could infer that you believe you are the One True Catholic
here. I'll not respond to your latest attempt there to support your
claim that the PBC was never a magisterial body. I asked for
verification, and the best you have provided is fragmentary parts of
literature that can not be definitively interpreted as verification. I
have others, but this would be an example of what I would consider:
"With the motu proprio Sedula Cura, Paul VI completely restructured
the Biblical Commission so that it was no longer an organ of the
Magisterium, but a meeting place between the Magisterium and exegetes,
a place of dialogue in which representatives of the Magisterium and
qualified exegetes could meet to find together, so to speak, the
intrinsic criteria which prevent freedom from selt-destruction, thus
elevating it to the level of true freedom."
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/PBC100.htm
From that I can infer that the PBC was an organ of the Magisterium.
Your original claim began as "It wasn't Magesterial it was Curial" and
"The PBC was never formed as a magesterial body" and ended up as "the
PBC was no more a "Magisterial" body than the Holy Office was. Unless
you want to define "Magisterial" as a few Cardinals who got
together in a probably great looking room in Rome and made a decision
on
this and that. They still had to take it to the Pope for it to be
binding on the whole Church."
At this point I'd define it as "Magisterial", as I would define an
organ as a body part.
Glenn
You claim _I'M_ deflecting attention??? You really are stupid.
macaddicted
> > > If you can't produce a quote where Tony explicity claims he is the One
> > > True Catholic here, you should add that when you are not certain you
> > > bullshit. Perhaps that's an attribute of a True Catholic.
> > > So you are answering my questions? The first, that you are certain
> > > Tony claims to be the One True Catholic?
> > > That Tony at times needs more information but doesn't go try to get
> > > it?
> > > That if Tony thinks he is wrong he doesn't admit it? Or do you
> > > determine for Tony when he is wrong.
> >
> > OK. From his bombastic posting style, his aggressive take no facts hold
> > on Catholic truths, and his denigration of all who state their active or
> > inactive Catholicism but disagree with his Catholic founded teachings
> > (which, I think, is everybody) I _infer_ that he believes that he is the
> > One True Catholic� here.
> >
> So it would appear that you only say you are not certain when
> challenged, and even then when you realize your claim was wrong, you
> don't admit it, but further try to support it by a "modification".
> Judging from your long winded lip flapping in another part of this
> thread, I could infer that you believe you are the One True Catholic
> here.
You really do make pedantic into an art form. I see that "hyperbolic"
and "sarcasm" as argument styles have slipped past you, as one can INFER
from your text above. Perhaps we should all provide extra contextual
clues, sort of like html tags, to help your perspicacious mind.
Since I ASSUME that isn't likely to satisfy you, I'm going to ASSUME you
are done.
[snip part where Glenn actually quotes the post he doesn't want to
answer until I admit I am a lier. Sorry, liar. Been reading too much
ASI.]