Fan of this Pope so far...

[D1B]

Love to see the guys who haven't set foot in a Catholic church in 30 years pretend to know what's going on.

I know you ain't talking bout me.

[89Hen]

Love to see the guys who haven't set foot in a Catholic church in 30 years pretend to know what's going on.

I know you ain't talking bout me.

It's been more than 30 years?

[D1B]

I know you ain't talking bout me.

It's been more than 30 years?

Several times a year.

Worked for the church for 8 years. Was friends with the archbishop. Planned and organized Xmas mass all 8 years at my program. One year we had 3 archbishops in attendance.

I have tremendous respect for catholic charities. My point here is that they're primarily using secular money and taking all the credit.

Most Catholics are decent people like you who have eschewed most church nonsense.

My beef is primarily with your leaders - the Vatican and your bishops and the Joltin Joes who turn a blind eye to the crimes and even defend them.

[JoltinJoe]

As you well know, I don't defend the criminals.

I defend accuracy, because understanding what actually happened, and who was actually responsible, is essential to find a workable and successful means of preventing abuse in the future. You can't prevent future abuse without understanding what actually occurred. Obviously the Church has succeeded in defining the problem, and then implementing strategies to prevent future abuse, in light of the near zero percent rate of abuse within the Church presently.

Your distortions and exaggerations about what happened (similar to the distortions of the Philly DA, for which he is now getting spanked) are not helpful to prevent future incidents of abuse. You have an anti-religious and anti-Catholic agenda, and you distort to advance that agenda. And people like SNAP and Jeff Anderson, who seek profit from all this, are certainly not interested in accuracy.

[D1B]

As you well know, I don't defend the criminals.

I defend accuracy, because understanding what actually happened, and who was actually responsible, is essential to find a workable and successful means of preventing abuse in the future. You can't prevent future abuse without understanding what actually occurred. Obviously the Church has succeeded in defining the problem, and then implementing strategies to prevent future abuse, in light of the near zero percent rate of abuse within the Church presently.

Your distortions and exaggerations about what happened (similar to the distortions of the Philly DA, for which he is now getting spanked) are not helpful to prevent future incidents of abuse. You have an anti-religious and anti-Catholic agenda, and you distort to advance that agenda. And people like SNAP and Jeff Anderson, who seek profit from all this, are certainly not interested in accuracy.

The church is not transparent, therefore your arguments are conjecture at best.

Show me the numbers. Show me the audits.

SNAP has done more to straighten out your church than anyone, including your popes. You should show more respect for them.

For every Philly anomaly, there are hundreds of valid cases. The church will continue to be bitch SNAPped for decades.

You do defend crimes.

[FCS PATRIOTS]

The recent canonization of JPII was a slap in the face of common decency considering all the child butt buggers he helped to move around and not face their day in court. He is not the only one either I assure you. And no Pope Francis isn't going to help either. He is as shady as the rest of them, if not more. Thank God for men throughout history that have had the NUTS to stand up to the papacy, the "supposed" vicar of Christ on Earth. Men like Hus, Wycliffe, Luther, Henry VIII to name a few.

[andy7171]

The recent canonization of JPII was a slap in the face of common decency considering all the child butt buggers he helped to move around and not face their day in court. He is not the only one either I assure you. And no Pope Francis isn't going to help either. He is as shady as the rest of them, if not more. Thank God for men throughout history that have had the NUTS to stand up to the papacy, the "supposed" vicar of Christ on Earth. Men like Hus, Wycliffe, Luther, Henry VIII to name a few.

[CID1990]

The recent canonization of JPII was a slap in the face of common decency considering all the child butt buggers he helped to move around and not face their day in court. He is not the only one either I assure you. And no Pope Francis isn't going to help either. He is as shady as the rest of them, if not more. Thank God for men throughout history that have had the NUTS to stand up to the papacy, the "supposed" vicar of Christ on Earth. Men like Hus, Wycliffe, Luther, Henry VIII to name a few.

i thought you had topped yourself

[Pwns]

And I thought Hank 8 opposed the Catholic church because he wanted to screw the teenage Jane Seymour.

[andy7171]

And I thought Hank 8 opposed the Catholic church because he wanted to screw the teenage Jane Seymour.

Pope wouldn't give him an anullment to a decades old marriage. So he creates his own church and makes himself the Pope of it. Way to stand up to the Papacy!

[JoltinJoe]

And I thought Hank 8 opposed the Catholic church because he wanted to screw the teenage Jane Seymour.

Henry VIII broke with the Catholic Church over his second marriage to Ann Boleyn. Jane Seymour was his third wife.

He divorced Catherine of Aragon to marry Ann Boleyn, and sought an annulment, which was denied to him. So he broke from the Catholic Church and named himself head of the Church of England.

When he tired of screwing Ann Boleyn, though, and wanted to screw young Jane Seymour instead, he showed he learned his lesson from his inability to secure an annulment of his first marriage.

He had Ann Boleyn beheaded, so this time he didn't need an annulment.

His marriage to Jane Seymour was short-lived, as she died the year following the marriage after experiencing complications after giving birth to a boy who would become Edward VI.

What a hero.

[OL FU]

And I thought Hank 8 opposed the Catholic church because he wanted to screw the teenage Jane Seymour.

Henry VIII broke with the Catholic Church over his second marriage to Ann Boleyn. Jane Seymour was his third wife.

He divorced Catherine of Aragon to marry Ann Boleyn, and sought an annulment, which was denied to him. So he broke from the Catholic Church and named himself head of the Church of England.

When he tired of screwing Ann Boleyn, though, and wanted to screw young Jane Seymour instead, he showed he learned his lesson from his inability to secure an annulment of his first marriage.

He had Ann Boleyn beheaded, so this time he didn't need an annulment.

His marriage to Jane Seymour was short-lived, as she died the year following the marriage after experiencing complications after giving birth to a boy who would become Edward VI.

What a hero.

I think it is safe to say that Henry was not a good fellow. But at that period of time in History he was in pretty good company with most of the Papal hierarchy Different sins but plenty of sinning going around nonetheless


and of course I usually don't jump in these threads but you know..... the pot and kettle thing

[FCS PATRIOTS]

http://www.somethingawful.com/most-awfu ... r-synod/1/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Vicars of Christ"

[CAA Flagship]

Worked for the church for 8 years. Was friends with the archbishop. Planned and organized Xmas mass all 8 years at my program. One year we had 3 archbishops in attendance.

I have tremendous respect for catholic charities. My point here is that they're primarily using secular money and taking all the credit.

Most Catholics are decent people like you who have eschewed most church nonsense.

[D1B]

And I thought Hank 8 opposed the Catholic church because he wanted to screw the teenage Jane Seymour.

Henry VIII broke with the Catholic Church over his second marriage to Ann Boleyn. Jane Seymour was his third wife.

He divorced Catherine of Aragon to marry Ann Boleyn, and sought an annulment, which was denied to him. So he broke from the Catholic Church and named himself head of the Church of England.

When he tired of screwing Ann Boleyn, though, and wanted to screw young Jane Seymour instead, he showed he learned his lesson from his inability to secure an annulment of his first marriage.

He had Ann Boleyn beheaded, so this time he didn't need an annulment.

His marriage to Jane Seymour was short-lived, as she died the year following the marriage after experiencing complications after giving birth to a boy who would become Edward VI.

What a hero.

Well, he didn't allow an army of pedophiles to rape tens of thousands of children, mostly boys your kids' age, like John Paul II did.

[JoltinJoe]

Henry VIII broke with the Catholic Church over his second marriage to Ann Boleyn. Jane Seymour was his third wife.

He divorced Catherine of Aragon to marry Ann Boleyn, and sought an annulment, which was denied to him. So he broke from the Catholic Church and named himself head of the Church of England.

When he tired of screwing Ann Boleyn, though, and wanted to screw young Jane Seymour instead, he showed he learned his lesson from his inability to secure an annulment of his first marriage.

He had Ann Boleyn beheaded, so this time he didn't need an annulment.

His marriage to Jane Seymour was short-lived, as she died the year following the marriage after experiencing complications after giving birth to a boy who would become Edward VI.

What a hero.

I think it is safe to say that Henry was not a good fellow. But at that period of time in History he was in pretty good company with most of the Papal hierarchy Different sins but plenty of sinning going around nonetheless


and of course I usually don't jump in these threads but you know..... the pot and kettle thing

It's difficult to separate fact from fiction regarding "bad" popes, since after Luther broke from Catholicism, Protestants began filling the "history books" with a lot of lies about the papacy and Catholicism. Some of these lies have been debunked authoritatively (such as Pope Joan, although many Protestants still insist "she" existed). Others are more difficult to assess, because they are "unsourced legends," such as papal orgies, popes have sex with children, etc. (Just look at the BS in FCSPatriots' link above. )

But there are areas where you can actually assess papal actions. The fact is that if Catholic leaders actually executed people for "heresy," Luther would have been a dead man long before he had a following (as one of my Protestant theology professors, who studied at Yale -- hardly a hotbed of Catholicism -- was quick to point out).

This isn't to say that all the popes were saints. But the case against any of the "bad" popes really cannot be made without historical evidence of their actual actions, i.e., what we know that they actually did.

[D1B]

I think it is safe to say that Henry was not a good fellow. But at that period of time in History he was in pretty good company with most of the Papal hierarchy Different sins but plenty of sinning going around nonetheless


and of course I usually don't jump in these threads but you know..... the pot and kettle thing

It's difficult to separate fact from fiction regarding "bad" popes, since after Luther broke from Catholicism, Protestants began filling the "history books" with a lot of lies about the papacy and Catholicism. Some of these lies have been debunked authoritatively (such as Pope Joan, although many Protestants still insist "she" existed). Others are more difficult to assess, because they are "unsourced legends," such as papal orgies, popes have sex with children, etc. (Just look at the BS in FCSPatriots' link above. )

But there are areas where you can actually assess papal actions. The fact is that if Catholic leaders actually executed people for "heresy," Luther would have been a dead man long before he had a following (as one of my Protestant theology professors, who studied at Yale -- hardly a hotbed of Catholicism -- was quick to point out).

This isn't to say that all the popes were saints. But the case against any of the "bad" popes really cannot be made without historical evidence of their actual actions, i.e., what we know that they actually did.

Apply the same evidence standard to Jesus.

[D1B]

[CID1990]

Hey I'm just checking in

have you guys solved whether or not there's a god yet?

[OL FU]

I think it is safe to say that Henry was not a good fellow. But at that period of time in History he was in pretty good company with most of the Papal hierarchy Different sins but plenty of sinning going around nonetheless


and of course I usually don't jump in these threads but you know..... the pot and kettle thing

It's difficult to separate fact from fiction regarding "bad" popes, since after Luther broke from Catholicism, Protestants began filling the "history books" with a lot of lies about the papacy and Catholicism. Some of these lies have been debunked authoritatively (such as Pope Joan, although many Protestants still insist "she" existed). Others are more difficult to assess, because they are "unsourced legends," such as papal orgies, popes have sex with children, etc. (Just look at the BS in FCSPatriots' link above. )

But there are areas where you can actually assess papal actions. The fact is that if Catholic leaders actually executed people for "heresy," Luther would have been a dead man long before he had a following (as one of my Protestant theology professors, who studied at Yale -- hardly a hotbed of Catholicism -- was quick to point out).

This isn't to say that all the popes were saints. But the case against any of the "bad" popes really cannot be made without historical evidence of their actual actions, i.e., what we know that they actually did.

I realize that admitting anything would be akin to surrendering to D1B which of course is not allowed. But certainly there were bad popes. Simply the idea that in a day when enlightenment was occurring throughout Europe on all types of subjects the simple fact that Luther would have been a dead man makes the argument, not to mention simple things like the Inquisition which basically meant you are guilty unless you repent.

Once again, I should stay out of this cause I don't really care, but without one other piece of knowledge if you simply explained the long duration of the church and the immense power that it held for close to 1500 years, I can promise you I could state firmly that there were bad popes without one other piece of evidence offered simply because I understand humans and power and I would be 99.9% certain that I would be right.

I am out. I will let you and D1B go back to having fun.

[JoltinJoe]

It's difficult to separate fact from fiction regarding "bad" popes, since after Luther broke from Catholicism, Protestants began filling the "history books" with a lot of lies about the papacy and Catholicism. Some of these lies have been debunked authoritatively (such as Pope Joan, although many Protestants still insist "she" existed). Others are more difficult to assess, because they are "unsourced legends," such as papal orgies, popes have sex with children, etc. (Just look at the BS in FCSPatriots' link above. )

But there are areas where you can actually assess papal actions. The fact is that if Catholic leaders actually executed people for "heresy," Luther would have been a dead man long before he had a following (as one of my Protestant theology professors, who studied at Yale -- hardly a hotbed of Catholicism -- was quick to point out).

This isn't to say that all the popes were saints. But the case against any of the "bad" popes really cannot be made without historical evidence of their actual actions, i.e., what we know that they actually did.

I realize that admitting anything would be akin to surrendering to D1B which of course is not allowed. But certainly there were bad popes. Simply the idea that in a day when enlightenment was occurring throughout Europe on all types of subjects the simple fact that Luther would have been a dead man makes the argument, not to mention simple things like the Inquisition which basically meant you are guilty unless you repent.

Once again, I should stay out of this cause I don't really care, but without one other piece of knowledge if you simply explained the long duration of the church and the immense power that it held for close to 1500 years, I can promise you I could state firmly that there were bad popes without one other piece of evidence offered simply because I understand humans and power and I would be 99.9% certain that I would be right.

I am out. I will let you and D1B go back to having fun.

I never said there were not bad popes. I said that many of the allegations asserted against the popes are Protestant canards started around the period of the Reformation, in order to discredit Catholicism. I was specifically referring to much of the "information" contained in FCSPatriots link.

Also, Luther pre-dated the Enlightenment. Luther was actually invited to discuss his position with leaders of the Catholic Inquisition prior to the Diet of Worms, and he attended those sessions. The end result of that process was that Luther was excommunicated. Period. He wasn't tortured by the Catholic Inquisition; he was not executed.

In 1521, the Holy Roman Emperorer convened the Diet of Worms. This proceeding was not under the authority of the Catholic Church. Luther was adjudged guilty of heresy, but was permitted safe passage to and from the Diet, even though the Diet of Worms essentially indicated that Luther could thereafter be killed without punishment by anyone. Again, that judgment, which is frequently and falsely attributed to the Catholic Church, was the act of the Empire.

[OL FU]

I realize that admitting anything would be akin to surrendering to D1B which of course is not allowed. But certainly there were bad popes. Simply the idea that in a day when enlightenment was occurring throughout Europe on all types of subjects the simple fact that Luther would have been a dead man makes the argument, not to mention simple things like the Inquisition which basically meant you are guilty unless you repent.

Once again, I should stay out of this cause I don't really care, but without one other piece of knowledge if you simply explained the long duration of the church and the immense power that it held for close to 1500 years, I can promise you I could state firmly that there were bad popes without one other piece of evidence offered simply because I understand humans and power and I would be 99.9% certain that I would be right.

I am out. I will let you and D1B go back to having fun.

I never said there were not bad popes. I said that many of the allegations asserted against the popes are Protestant canards started around the period of the Reformation, in order to discredit Catholicism. I was specifically referring to much of the "information" contained in FCSPatriots link.

Also, Luther pre-dated the Enlightenment. Luther was actually invited to discuss his position with leaders of the Catholic Inquisition prior to the Diet of Worms, and he attended those sessions. The end result of that process was that Luther was excommunicated. Period. He wasn't tortured by the Catholic Inquisition; he was not executed.

In 1521, the Holy Roman Emperorer convened the Diet of Worms. This proceeding was not under the authority of the Catholic Church. Luther was adjudged guilty of heresy, but was permitted safe passage to and from the Diet, even though the Diet of Worms essentially indicated that Luther could thereafter be killed without punishment by anyone. Again, that judgment, which is frequently and falsely attributed to the Catholic Church, was the act of the Empire.

I understand Luther Pre-dated the enlightenment. I was referring more to what was going on in science etc. I was also not referring to Luther being tortured by the inquisition. It was more of a general statement. and believe me, I don't really want to get into the debate with you. you are far to educated on the subject and besides, I am still trying to wash the fundamentalist slime off of me from my childhood

[D1B]

I realize that admitting anything would be akin to surrendering to D1B which of course is not allowed. But certainly there were bad popes. Simply the idea that in a day when enlightenment was occurring throughout Europe on all types of subjects the simple fact that Luther would have been a dead man makes the argument, not to mention simple things like the Inquisition which basically meant you are guilty unless you repent.

Once again, I should stay out of this cause I don't really care, but without one other piece of knowledge if you simply explained the long duration of the church and the immense power that it held for close to 1500 years, I can promise you I could state firmly that there were bad popes without one other piece of evidence offered simply because I understand humans and power and I would be 99.9% certain that I would be right.

I am out. I will let you and D1B go back to having fun.

I never said there were not bad popes. I said that many of the allegations asserted against the popes are Protestant canards started around the period of the Reformation, in order to discredit Catholicism. I was specifically referring to much of the "information" contained in FCSPatriots link.

Also, Luther pre-dated the Enlightenment. Luther was actually invited to discuss his position with leaders of the Catholic Inquisition prior to the Diet of Worms, and he attended those sessions. The end result of that process was that Luther was excommunicated. Period. He wasn't tortured by the Catholic Inquisition; he was not executed.

In 1521, the Holy Roman Emperorer convened the Diet of Worms. This proceeding was not under the authority of the Catholic Church. Luther was adjudged guilty of heresy, but was permitted safe passage to and from the Diet, even though the Diet of Worms essentially indicated that Luther could thereafter be killed without punishment by anyone. Again, that judgment, which is frequently and falsely attributed to the Catholic Church, was the act of the Empire.

Church and state were one in the same, Joe. You're a fountain of excuses and half-truths.

[D1B]

I never said there were not bad popes. I said that many of the allegations asserted against the popes are Protestant canards started around the period of the Reformation, in order to discredit Catholicism. I was specifically referring to much of the "information" contained in FCSPatriots link.

Also, Luther pre-dated the Enlightenment. Luther was actually invited to discuss his position with leaders of the Catholic Inquisition prior to the Diet of Worms, and he attended those sessions. The end result of that process was that Luther was excommunicated. Period. He wasn't tortured by the Catholic Inquisition; he was not executed.

In 1521, the Holy Roman Emperorer convened the Diet of Worms. This proceeding was not under the authority of the Catholic Church. Luther was adjudged guilty of heresy, but was permitted safe passage to and from the Diet, even though the Diet of Worms essentially indicated that Luther could thereafter be killed without punishment by anyone. Again, that judgment, which is frequently and falsely attributed to the Catholic Church, was the act of the Empire.

I understand Luther Pre-dated the enlightenment. I was referring more to what was going on in science etc. I was also not referring to Luther being tortured by the inquisition. It was more of a general statement. and believe me, I don't really want to get into the debate with you. you are far to educated on the subject and besides, I am still trying to wash the fundamentalist slime off of me from my childhood

Pussy. SMFH

You bought Liar Joe's bullshit that the state was separate from the Church.

[D1B]

Hey I'm just checking in

have you guys solved whether or not there's a god yet?

Hey, JSO1990, the consensus here is in favor of the existence of god.

The recurring debate here is the existence/plausibility of the Christian god(s). Our resident excuse makers, liars and dipshits have failed to prove this so far.