markomalley

2 stories: At the visitor center for Naval Station Indian Island (I have to deal with a contracting officer there), they have a big sign on the door that says, "If you are talking on the cell phone, you are obviously too busy to deal with us. We'll be happy to serve you when you are done with your conversation." Loved the sign. #2, They make cell phone jammers over in Israel. They are illegal in this country, but, apparently can be found. See I've heard of them being used in churches over in Europe. Sounds like a good idea to me! btw, the Japanese have a different method that might not be illegal. See here.

(deleted due to being an ignorant response. My apologies to all)

Galen, It was intended as humor. Geez.

HCW, People who consider themselves "free thinkers" consider any religion to be a cult. But they do not recognize that their rabid, evangelical atheism makes them as much of a cultie as the worst wayfer. It is just that instead of being involved in the cult of VPW, or the cult of Roman Catholicism, or the cult of Stalin, they are involved with the cult of atheism. Of course, if confronted with this, they will vigorously deny that they have any religion. But, in doing so, they are simply affirming a key article of their religion's creed. Having said that, I think that your idea of considering any "waybrain" logic as simply a crazy thought and disregarding it as one of the healthiest thoughts I've ever heard expressed on this board.

This interpretation (a bit of a stretch I know) would project the papacy of J2P2 as the last one before the world's descent into the darkness of the Great Tribulation. So if ole St Malachy was "tuned in" Pope Benedict will preside over the advent of the Great Tribulation. And who better to usher in an age of unprecedented darkness than a former Nazi?? Isn't this fun? :-) Fore more information on the Prophecies of St Malachy, CLICK HERE Peace JerryB P.S. My wife thinks this is all nonsense. She rolls her eyes whenever I mention it. She's probably right. Well, as a point of interest, JPII was born at a solar eclipse. He died at a partial solar eclipse. For centuries, the Benedictine Order of monks has claimed that the 265th will be a Benedictine. And so this guy picks the name Benedict? (The Benedictines claimed this because they have a sub-group, called the Olivetans. (BTW, Ratzinger is not a Benedictine--he was a diocesan priest rather than a religious).I just consider this, btw, to be interesting coincidence...but if the next Pope takes on the name Petrus, watch out!

It very well may be, but maybe you should say that the passing of the mantle is a rip off from this. After all, this is the 264th time this one has happened over 2,000 years. You will find a lot of people that aren't thrilled with the choice. They have a choice. Nobody forces them to make their pledge before God. He has referred to the pedophilia scandal as "filth," while in his previous job. That may give an indication.

Yes, if you're willing to leave it behind.

As for me, I am absolutely overjoyed at the choice. I would have not thought that the Cardinals would have ever chosen him, for a number of reasons. Frankly, I would have been even more thrilled had they chosen Arinze, because that would have blown peoples' minds and we would still have ended up with a good, orthodox pope. However, frankly, I was terrified that they would have appointed somebody like Tettamanzi, Martino, or Re. I've heard some interviews with Ratzinger (Benedict), while he was running the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I truly believe that there will be a lot of people surprised by him, some pleasantly and some, not so pleasantly.

Choosing the name of Benedict sends an interesting message out there. The last pope with the name Benedict served during WWI. He was known as a peacemaker. He also attempted to resolve many differences between modernist and traditionalist forces within the Church during his pontificate. Although his name may sound ridiculous to you, it is very interesting to one who can understand a little bit of Church history.

mstar: the only African who was deemed a candidate was Cardinal Arinze. He would be extremely conservative and plain spoken in his approach. Likewise, all of the potentials from Latin America would have been pretty orthodox, as well. Remember that JPII appointed all of these people, with the exception of two.

I understand that sometimes women have a hard time understanding men. Hopefully the following will help you a bit: presented as a public service to the fairer sex

Exc, please check your PTs

White Dove, I think we may be in violent agreement here.

CM: Here's a few sites that have some good information on early Christian manuscripts: Christian Classics Ethereal Library New Advent: The Fathers of the Church I think that everybody should consider what has been written by the Church Fathers, in particular those that were alive during the Apostles' lifetimes. Not to replace scripture, but to supplement it. Face it, there are HUGE differences between many different groups, all of which calling themselves Christian. Wouldn't it be nice to know what was believed and practiced by those who knew Christ, who knew the Apostles, etc.? All denominations claim to do what is actually meant by Holy Scripture, right? Well, if you can read what the Apostles, or people who knew the Apostles, wrote, you'd likely get a chance to know what they thought scripture meant. Take, for example, Baptism. (Now I don't want this to turn into a debate on Baptism, I'm just trying to illustrate my point here) - There are some groups who say that a valid Baptism must involve the complete immersion of the body. - There are some groups who say that a valid baptism can consist of pouring water over the head of the person - There are some that say that water baptism itself is not necessary, rather God baptizes with the Holy Spirit The Bible says baptize. Each of these groups uses the Bible to justify their beliefs. So, what did the early Church practice? A document called the Didache, written in the first century (likely between 65 and 80 AD), says the following: Again, to repeat, I have no intention on engaging in a debate on baptism or any other theological study. The sole reason for putting this example up here was simply to illustrate the utility of being familiar with the teachings of the Church Fathers. FWIW

LG, Understood. I just don't want somebody to think that I was giving JPII the credit for that change at the beginning of his papacy in my other post. It could simply be serendipity. Now I believe that there have been changes made that he should be credited with that will minimize the potential of recurrence, but, that's a different issue entirely. But I appreciate what you're saying though and your ability to look at the facts.

White Dove, In the book of Deuteronomy, it says: "At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; [but] at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death." (Deut 17:6 AV) "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established." (Deut 19:15 AV) This principle is re-iterated in Matthew, 2 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, and Hebrews. There is a good reason for this principle. A person's observations may not be objectively correct. A person's memory may not be objectively correct. Subjectively, the person sees what he sees; he hears what he hears. But those sights and those sounds are processed through the filter of the person's past experiences, prejudices, and learning. While you are right, truth is fairly simple, making sure you are dealing with truth, rather than somebody's individual, and potentially flawed, observation, is a little more complex. After all, if observation was perfect, illusionists would be out of business. BTW, if you can get a title and author for that book, I'd be interested in learning it so that I can try to track it down for myself.

Long Gone, One thing here. That John Jay study was literally the ONLY study I've seen on the subject that used empirical methods, looking at the situation as a whole. Also, I AM NOT giving credit to JPII for this. He had not been in the papacy long enough to effect that dramatic a change, starting in 1979. The only thing that he could do would be to appoint bishops and change canon law. Well, as I recall, canon law wasn't changed until 1983. And, I don't seem to recall a huge quantity of new bishop appointments in 1979. He did publish an "apostolic constitution" called in 1979 that dealt with ecclesiastical universities and faculties. While this document might have a role in the long term, I can't see how it would impact already-ordained clergy. So, I don't see anything that JPII did to warrant his being given credit for that dramatic drop that occurred starting in 1979. There may be something taht wasn't published that I'm not aware of, but... One thing about discussing the causes and what happened, though. Proposals were solicited for a study to look at a lot of the why's of this phenomenon. The grant is supposed to be awarded sometime this month; the "Causes and Context Study" should be completed and on the streets some months afterwards. The grantee will be given complete access to records, in a similar fashion as the John Jay study group was granted access. So the report should be fairly authoritative. And, again, if somebody is aware of a good empirical study that either corroborates or challenges the John Jay study, please let me know. I'd be interested to read it.

You know when Loy will have lost his power in TWI? When we stop even wondering about him. Right now, it appears like he's the bogey-man who is hiding in the closet or under the bed.

White Dove, you said: And that, sir, is ultimately your choice. And as long as you're happy with that choice, it is certainly not my place to question that opinion. Nor is it my place to question the choices you've made in your life. My purpose in responding to your earlier posts was simply to correct, or to place into context, some items identified as "facts." Once facts are brought out and placed into context, then we are all entitled to draw the appropriate conclusions and form our own opinions based upon those facts. As I said in an earlier post (not addressed to you), there are always a minimum of three versions of truth when dealing with people. One version of truth each active participant sincere observations, more versions for the sincere observations of outside observers (eyewitnesses), and then the "objective" truth, which is formed through a synthesis of all of those observations and the forensic physical remnants gathered regarding the situation. Pax

Well, we could probably agree that this particular conspiracy theory linking Freemasonry and Catholicism in some grand cabal is a bunch of crap. That's got to count for something!

He managed to hold firm to his views without being insulting and, to the best of my knowledge, was never implicated in any kind of scandal.

Galen: :D--> Yeah, he produced comic strip tracts. He also produced a lot of other stuff too. The section focusing on Catholicism is not quite as sophisticated and subtle as, say, Babylon Mystery Religion. He also had a small section of Freemasonry, as well. Bottom line for him is that if you don't subscribe to his particular views (the KJV is the inspired Word of God, ya know), you are instantly going to h3ll. Bottom line is that, in a Jack Chick world, there is a grave conspiracy where Catholics and Masons are working together with Islamists to rule the world and cast all Christians into the pit of hell. So, when I see some virulent anti-Catholic garbage, I simply identify it as a Jack Chick "truth." Usually I do it only in my own thinking, but decided to do so publically this time.

White Dove: OK, and, the point is that what you quoted was off of some geocities page. I am assuming you likely went to Catholic High School back in the 60s or 70s...a long, long time ago. It wouldn't surprise me that after how many years in TWI and (then what?), you'd remember portions of that history that were the ugly. Yes, White Dove, there has been ugly. I'm not denying that. I would find it very hard to believe that you would have licensed teacher (ordained?) of Church History present the history of the papacy in the way that this geocities page presented it. I'm not trying to insult you, but, face it, 25-40 years ago is a long, long time to depend upon memory of a boring class that you probably hated at the time. And, likewise, I am not saying that your teacher didn't present it in just the way you expressed it in your initial post...but I'd more likely attribute it to other things. Hey, I'll grant you that 2 or 3 of those on your list were pretty ugly. You will note that a minority of popes were identified as "Pope Blessed" or "Pope Saint" after their deaths. All of them were human, with human weaknesses. A few out of the 263 were just downright evil. There have been some real "winners" elected as President of the United States. Does that mean that the presidency should be abolished? Or that the United States itself should be abolished? Or that the United States itself is an evil entity?

I don't know, Galen. Which version of anti-Masonic, Illuminadi, New World Order, documentation should we accept? For me, I try, before going with something that violates common sense, I generally try to follow fairly common academic criteria for judging the reliability of the document...Does the author cite his sources, does he/she depend mostly upon primary sources or secondary sources? Is what is being alleged at least consistent with past history...or does it diverge? (Not to say that divergent views aren't acceptable, but their documentation and logic need to be flawless if they are the case) Has the document been peer reviewed? A bunch of criteria. Encyclopedia Brittanica is generally pretty well documented. Some Wikipedia documents are pretty good, others were written with some fairly apparent bias (fortunately, the Wikipedia accepts challenges to articles and those articles that are in dispute are so identified). Believe it or not, the Catholic Encyclopedia is a remarkably good source. They identify the good, the bad, and the ugly. Galen, its not that I won't accept something that I personally don't agree with; I just want to check it for myself to make sure it makes sense. Having said that, though, Jack Chick tracts (and other documents of that ilk) really don't meet that standard.

When you quote something that resembles a Chick tract and don't put it in quotes or don't give it credit, what am I supposed to say? As to "getting a few dates right" and "spelling errors", the stuff you posted about Pius XI was factually scandalous and inaccurate. Not missed dates or misspelt names (not like I dogged you for spelling it PIOS XI). Clement VII was not this "Robert of Geneva." So whatever "Robert of Geneva" did had nothing to do with Clement VII. Sorry, I am not being the spelling police here, but the fact is that if you have the fundamental facts wrong, why should I concern myself with the rest of the stuff you say? As I said to Trefor, As to your question, "Does that make the truth that it happened any less valid?" I don't see any truth in there to be valid or invalid. Frankly, I just see garbage in that tract you quoted. Even where some facts are accurate, the context is simply wrong. For example, Pope Stephen VI, who ordered the trial of Pope Formosus, was killed by strangulation only a few months later. His papacy was extremely brief and all actions taken during that papacy were undone by a successor, Pope Theodore II. Benedict IX was an SOB...he was named Pope at age 20, btw, not 12, fortunately he resigned and spent the rest of his days in penance from within an abbey. It really gets to be more interesting when you deal in facts and not in "Jack Chick" history.