Canonisations of Popes

magister343 said:
I kind of wish they had canonized Pope John XXII instead of Pope John XXIII.

In addition to explicitly condemning the doctrine of Papal Infallibility (which the Roman Catholic Church accepted as a dogma only in the late 19th century) as not only false but a "doctrine of demons," he also taught that souls are not conscious between death and the bodily resurrection in the last days and cannot receive the beatific vision before Jesus returns. The implication of course is that the intercession of the saints (at least of dead ones) is completely worthless and the church organization has no business canonizing anyone.

It would be amusingly ironic to declare that he is in heaven and enjoying the beatific vision now even though he believed that was impossible.

(John XXII is not considered a heretic, despite disagreeing with modern Catholic dogmas, because the Church had not yet formally defined any of the doctrines which he questioned. It was his immediate successor who first imposed as dogma the view that Saints are conscious in heaven and able to intercede to God to perform miracles. This view was already popular among the superstitious but never had much biblical support, so the more rational Christians had been free to reject it well into the 14th century. Having a Pope speak against it though was unprofitable for an organization that made so much of its money off of pilgrims traveling to visit the relics of saints. Pope Benedict XII's position was much better for business.)
Click to expand...

Dude, extreme bias much?

I'll remind you that the Roman Catholic Church is based upon tradition, at best the bible and tradition, but refering to the bible, even if you refer to the RCC canon, ie the compelte canon, and not the partial canons adopted by the various protestant congregations and so called "bible christians", alone isnt RCC practice.

The tradition produced the bible and, theoretically, could even survive the bible, if the religious faith is synomynous with and reduceable to the bible then it is a dead religion and not a living faith at all.

The dichotomy of "superstitious" believers in Saintly intercession and "rational" Christians, I presume professors in the absurd doctrine of solo scripture, isnt one I could or would accept as fact either, you're entitled to your opinion but dont suggest its anything other than that, even biblical exegesis, which is something I can accept and may consider Saintly intercession as among other dubious supernatural or arcane beliefs, isnt keen to employ dichotomies like that.
 
the said:
Both of your action are both ultimately benefiting our reptilian shapechanging masters. You spread fear, they spread fear, you spread little in solutions, they spread thier solutions to problems that are post mortem and so aren't a solution for here and now. Etc.
Click to expand...

Dude you came so close there to actually revealing him as one of the reptilian shape shifting masonic marxist-fortune five hundred conspirators himself there, I bet he's relieved you merely said he was complicit.
 
The only tradition the vatican is based on is the babylonian tradition

[video=youtube;WJCiZkyegBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJCiZkyegBE[/video]
 
Last edited:
the said:
Both of your action are both ultimately benefiting our reptilian shapechanging masters. You spread fear, they spread fear, you spread little in solutions, they spread thier solutions to problems that are post mortem and so aren't a solution for here and now. Etc.
Click to expand...

You should visit my solutions thread to see that isn't true

Also there are two types of fear

There is the type of fear where you see lots of crazy shit going on in the world but you have no idea why its all happening

and then there is the fear where you see lots of crazy shit going on in the world but you understand why it is happening

I prefer the second kind

Part of the solution is moving people from the first kind to the second kind so that they can then begin making informed decisions
 
Last edited:
Lark said:
Dude you came so close there to actually revealing him as one of the reptilian shape shifting masonic marxist-fortune five hundred conspirators himself there, I bet he's relieved you merely said he was complicit.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that its YOU that is supporting them

You;ve said you're a 'socialist' but what kind of socialist?

are you into centralised government or do you believe the workers should own and control the means of production...that's the litmus test and i notice you have dodged that question again and again

You're also terrified of meeting me in debate because you know i'll expose your real views so you just engage in passive agressive indirect attacks

Questioning if the rothschilds are the bad guys or not? lol...yeah...what side are you on i wonder?
 
It doesn't surprise me that men whose lives are about administering mercy for sin haven't been too reliable at administering justice.

Anyhow, I think the canonisations are more about the Church saying to the faithful that they can pray to these Popes, for their intercession.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
It doesn't surprise me that men whose lives are about administering mercy for sin haven't been too reliable at administering justice.

Anyhow, I think the canonisations are more about the Church saying to the faithful that they can pray to these Popes, for their intercession.
Click to expand...

Do you think the catholic church had priests taking confessions from people in every village, town and city so that they could 'administer mercy' or so that the catholic church would have all the dirt on every person in the land?
 
muir said:
Do you think the catholic church had priests taking confessions from people in every village, town and city so that they could 'administer mercy' or so that the catholic church would have all the dirt on every person in the land?
Click to expand...

Mercy. If the knowledge gained from confessions is used, or divulged in any way excommunication is automatically incurred.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Mercy. If the knowledge gained from confessions is used, or divulged in any way excommunication is automatically incurred.
Click to expand...

No catholic priest has ever been asked for information about someone or some personages in their congregation by their superiors within the church?

Nor has any catholic priest ever volunteered information about person(s) within their congregation to their superiors in the church chain of command?

How many excommunications have resulted from such behaviour? I'm interested to hear the figures
 
muir said:
No catholic priest has ever been asked for information about someone or some personages in their congregation by their superiors within the church?

Nor has any catholic priest ever volunteered information about person(s) within their congregation to their superiors in the church chain of command?

How many excommunications have resulted from such behaviour? I'm interested to hear the figures
Click to expand...

I think the onus of proving guilt lies with the accuser. That would be you.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
I think the onus of proving guilt lies with the accuser. That would be you.
Click to expand...

Ok i made a claim that the catholic church has the dirt on every person in the lands where it is prevalent and gets regular confessions from people

So answer me this...does the catholic church have or not have the dirt on all the people in its congregations?
 
muir said:
Ok i made a claim that the catholic church has the dirt on every person in the lands where it is prevalent and gets regular confessions from people

So answer me this...does the catholic church have or not have the dirt on all the people in its congregations?
Click to expand...
I can only speak of my own experience of confession. I go into a very bare room, which resembles a plain wooden box with a door, meshed window (covered with a curtain), a crucifix and a bare lightbulb. I confess my sins in their species, ie. expressing anger unjustly, etc. If I start to go into specifics, the priest reminds me that I only need to name the sin, not describe the situation, or people involved. He give me some counsel and encouragement to overcome the sins I have confessed, gives me a penance to perform, such as prayers. I make an act of contrition and he grants absolution. I walk out, say some prayers and leave the Church.

Even if the priest knew who I am, which I doubt he could, given that confession is made in a whisper, he would not know why I was angry, to whom I was angry, or in what manner I expressed anger.

Basically, the priest knows what sins I am guilty of, but would not know anything of my life, contacts, or activities.


I travel a lot and have been to confession in more countries and cities than I can even begin to count. The format described above has been the same everywhere without exception, even when there has been some difficulty because of language barriers.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
I can only speak of my own experience of confession. I go into a very bare room, which resembles a plain wooden box with a door, meshed window (covered with a curtain), a crucifix and a bare lightbulb. I confess my sins in their species, ie. expressing anger unjustly, etc. If I start to go into specifics, the priest reminds me that I only need to name the sin, not describe the situation, or people involved. He give me some counsel and encouragement to overcome the sins I have confessed, gives me a penance to perform, such as prayers. I make an act of contrition and he grants absolution. I walk out, say some prayers and leave the Church.

Even if the priest knew who I am, which I doubt he could, given that confession is made in a whisper, he would not know why I was angry, to whom I was angry, or in what manner I expressed anger.

Basically, the priest knows what sins I am guilty of, but would not know anything of my life, contacts, or activities.


I travel a lot and have been to confession in more countries and cities than I can even begin to count. The format described above has been the same everywhere without exception, even when there has been some difficulty because of language barriers.
Click to expand...

That's a very modern expression of the confessional experience

if you go back to its roots though it was taking place in communities where the preist would know every member of the community by name, sight and sound and possibly even by smell!

So when trying to understand why an organisation began a practice it might be worth looking back to when it was begun

In scientology people go through a process called 'auditing' where they tell their auditor many personal things so that they can identify emotional blockages. These sessions are recorded and kept by the church

The skull and bones society get initiates to confess their secrets in order to join the order. This way they always have some leverage against members
 
muir said:
That's a very modern expression of the confessional experience

if you go back to its roots though it was taking place in communities where the preist would know every member of the community by name, sight and sound and possibly even by smell!
Click to expand...

I believe such communities exist even today, in less urbanised areas/countries. In such places everyone knows eveyone else's business, including the priest's. If a priest used confessional knowledge, it would become widely known quickly, I suspect, even by inference from a marked change in a penitent's dealings. In such cases, I suspect no one would continue to go to that priest for confession, given that participation is entirely voluntary.

Indeed, I would stop going to confession to a particular priest, if his integrity was beyond doubt. However, no one who actually goes to confession has ever had any complaint that I've been aware of. It is only conspiracy theorists who trot out imaginary scenarios, which are entirely dismissible insofar as my attendance at confession goes.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
I believe such communities exist even today, in less urbanised areas/countries. In such places everyone knows eveyone else's business, including the priest's. If a priest used confessional knowledge, it would become widely known quickly, I suspect, even by inference from a marked change in a penitent's dealings. In such cases, I suspect no one would continue to go to that priest for confession, given that participation is entirely voluntary.

Indeed, I would stop going to confession to a particular priest, if his integrity was beyond doubt. However, no one who actually goes to confession has ever had any complaint that I've been aware of. It is only conspiracy theorists who trot out imaginary scenarios, which are entirely dismissible insofar as my attendance at confession goes.
Click to expand...

So nobody in the catholic church ever conspires?

have you ever heard of 'gods banker' and what happened to him?
 
muir said:
So nobody in the catholic church ever conspires?

have you ever heard of 'gods banker' and what happened to him?
Click to expand...
Haven't heard of him, but given that you raise him, knowing what kind of topics interest you, I expect he was probably a communist, freemason, or something of the like. Anyhow, what has that to do with confession? Or canonisation?

As to whether there is conspiracy in the Church, I expect that wherever there are people, there could be conspiracy. So, if there are people in the Church, then there could be conspiracy.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Haven't heard of him, but given that you raise him, knowing what kind of topics interest you, I expect he was probably a communist, freemason, or something of the like. Anyhow, what has that to do with confession? Or canonisation?

As to whether there is conspiracy in the Church, I expect that wherever there are people, there could be conspiracy. So, if there are people in the Church, then there could be conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Conspiracies....indeed
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top