Discussion:
Charles and the Anglican church of England.
(too old to reply)
martus
2003-11-06 02:59:15 UTC
Permalink
Church releases sexuality guide
From correspondents in London
05nov03

THE Church of England overnight urged a full debate on the issue of
homosexuality, publishing a guide designed to foster unbiased
communication on the contentious issue.

The report, Some Issues in Human Sexuality, said that homosexual,
bisexual and transsexual people should be treated with compassion, but
it stopped short of recommending any new policy for the church.

The guide was designed to be used by study groups at local parishes as
well as at higher levels.

Published by the Church of England House of Bishops, it comes just two
days after the consecration of Canon Gene Robinson, an openly gay man,
as Bishop of New Hampshire. His elevation by the Episcopal Church, the
US branch of Anglicanism, has threatened to split the 77 million
strong worldwide Anglican Communion.

"Recent events have highlighted the need for such a guide, and the
House of Bishops believe it has become timely to publish this study
guide now to help Christian people think through different aspects of
gay, lesbian and transsexual relationships," the Reverend Richard
Harries, the bishop of Oxford, said in London overnight.

The report, compiled by Harries and three other bishops after several
years of research and consultation, said the divisive debate on
sexuality will not go away and Christians must remember that "real
people really do have homosexual and bisexual desires".

Referring to homosexual, bisexual and transsexual people, it said: "It
is likely that they will have encountered misunderstandings or
hostility from members of the Christian Church in the past, and, if
the Christian gospel is to be meaningful to them, it will need to be
incarnated in terms of Christ's love.

"If this is in the context of pastoral care, then that must offer them
understanding, support, and unconditional love as they seek to meet
the challenges to Christian discipleship that their particular form of
sexuality raises," it added.

The guide also questions the "unhealthy obsession" with sexual sin and
asks Christians to explore whether this is preventing them from
focusing on other forms of sin such as commercial greed, poverty and
inequalities of wealth.

But Harries stressed that the document did not seek to change a 1991
statement by the House of Bishops, which essentially forms the current
Church of England policy that heterosexual marriage is the proper
context for sexual activity.

That statement also said that gay people in long-term relationships
should not be excluded from the fellowship of the Christian church,
but gay clergy should remain celibate.

Harries appointed an openly gay clergyman, the Reverend Jeffrey John,
as a bishop earlier this year. John, who said he no longer has a
sexual relationship with his long-term partner, decided not to take up
the post after opposition within the church.

Fellow researcher, Reverend Peter Foster, the bishop of Chester, said
that preparing the guide had reinforced his view that sexual relations
should be confined to the institution of marriage.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams overnight said there is a
"real need" for more studies of the issues raised by sexuality.

Williams has said that the strength of the Anglican faith lies in its
worldwide Communion, indicating that any new position on homosexuality
should come from that source.

But Harries said the issue of sexuality should be debated regardless.
"There is the question of the actual issue itself and the church of
England needs to debate that whatever else happens in the Anglican
Community," he said.



=================================================================================
When he eventually takes over as King and Supreme Governor of the
Anglican Church of England,Charles sees himself as "Defender of Faith"
in a country that is a multicultural mix.

Story by Paul Majendie

(i.e all faiths)


2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 (NRSV)
2 As to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered
together to him, we beg you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to be quickly
shaken in mind or alarmed, either by spirit or by word or by letter,
as though from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already
here. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come
unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the
one destined for destruction.

4 He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object
of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, declaring
himself to be God.



End times:
http://www.geocities.com/mart1963/martsindex.htm
rudimike
2003-11-07 04:44:39 UTC
Permalink
Why debate anything
God says NO
Sin is Sin always has been and always will be.



For Scriptures http://dailylight.net

For Talks http://talkbackradio.net
Post by martus
Church releases sexuality guide
From correspondents in London
05nov03
THE Church of England overnight urged a full debate on the issue of
homosexuality, publishing a guide designed to foster unbiased
communication on the contentious issue.
The report, Some Issues in Human Sexuality, said that homosexual,
bisexual and transsexual people should be treated with compassion, but
it stopped short of recommending any new policy for the church.
The guide was designed to be used by study groups at local parishes as
well as at higher levels.
Published by the Church of England House of Bishops, it comes just two
days after the consecration of Canon Gene Robinson, an openly gay man,
as Bishop of New Hampshire. His elevation by the Episcopal Church, the
US branch of Anglicanism, has threatened to split the 77 million
strong worldwide Anglican Communion.
"Recent events have highlighted the need for such a guide, and the
House of Bishops believe it has become timely to publish this study
guide now to help Christian people think through different aspects of
gay, lesbian and transsexual relationships," the Reverend Richard
Harries, the bishop of Oxford, said in London overnight.
The report, compiled by Harries and three other bishops after several
years of research and consultation, said the divisive debate on
sexuality will not go away and Christians must remember that "real
people really do have homosexual and bisexual desires".
Referring to homosexual, bisexual and transsexual people, it said: "It
is likely that they will have encountered misunderstandings or
hostility from members of the Christian Church in the past, and, if
the Christian gospel is to be meaningful to them, it will need to be
incarnated in terms of Christ's love.
"If this is in the context of pastoral care, then that must offer them
understanding, support, and unconditional love as they seek to meet
the challenges to Christian discipleship that their particular form of
sexuality raises," it added.
The guide also questions the "unhealthy obsession" with sexual sin and
asks Christians to explore whether this is preventing them from
focusing on other forms of sin such as commercial greed, poverty and
inequalities of wealth.
But Harries stressed that the document did not seek to change a 1991
statement by the House of Bishops, which essentially forms the current
Church of England policy that heterosexual marriage is the proper
context for sexual activity.
That statement also said that gay people in long-term relationships
should not be excluded from the fellowship of the Christian church,
but gay clergy should remain celibate.
Harries appointed an openly gay clergyman, the Reverend Jeffrey John,
as a bishop earlier this year. John, who said he no longer has a
sexual relationship with his long-term partner, decided not to take up
the post after opposition within the church.
Fellow researcher, Reverend Peter Foster, the bishop of Chester, said
that preparing the guide had reinforced his view that sexual relations
should be confined to the institution of marriage.
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams overnight said there is a
"real need" for more studies of the issues raised by sexuality.
Williams has said that the strength of the Anglican faith lies in its
worldwide Communion, indicating that any new position on homosexuality
should come from that source.
But Harries said the issue of sexuality should be debated regardless.
"There is the question of the actual issue itself and the church of
England needs to debate that whatever else happens in the Anglican
Community," he said.
============================================================================
=====
Post by martus
When he eventually takes over as King and Supreme Governor of the
Anglican Church of England,Charles sees himself as "Defender of Faith"
in a country that is a multicultural mix.
Story by Paul Majendie
(i.e all faiths)
2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 (NRSV)
2 As to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered
together to him, we beg you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to be quickly
shaken in mind or alarmed, either by spirit or by word or by letter,
as though from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already
here. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come
unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the
one destined for destruction.
4 He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object
of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, declaring
himself to be God.
http://www.geocities.com/mart1963/martsindex.htm
martus
2003-11-10 05:45:34 UTC
Permalink
Daniel 11:37 (KJV)
37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, NOR THE DESIRE OF
WOMEN, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.


Prince Charles flies back into vortex of scandal

John Arlidge and Jessica Hodgson
Sunday November 9, 2003
The Observer

Prince Charles flies back to Britain today after his two-week tour of
India and the Middle East as the scandal over allegations of a sexual
incident involving him and a royal servant(male) reaches new heights.

Internet sites in Europe and the US yesterday published lurid details
of the alleged incident while British newspapers, gagged by a court
injunction, subjected the prince to the worst criticism he has faced.
Clarence House was bracing itself for fresh revelations in today's
newspapers.

(rest cut)

=================================================================================
Pastor Urges Episcopalians to Shun 'Church of Anti-Christ'
Jim Brown and Jody Brown
Agape Press


A best-selling Christian author and pastor is encouraging believers to
separate themselves from the Anglican Episcopal Church.

On Sunday, November 2, the Episcopal Church USA consecrated a
homosexual man, Vicki Gene Robinson, as bishop of New Hampshire. The
ceremony was the culmination of months of heated debate within ECUSA
over Robinson's election to the post -- and likely the catalyst to
what the worldwide leaders of the Anglican Communion have stated will
put the unity of their denomination "in jeopardy" and "tear the fabric
of the communion at its deepest level." The denomination also allows
same-sex "blessing" ceremonies.


Dr. John MacArthur is pastor of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley,
California, a best-selling author, and host of the worldwide radio
program "Grace to You." gty.org) Regarding the recent steps taken by
the Episcopal Church, MacArthur minces no words, saying the church is
not the Church of Jesus Christ but "the church of Anti-Christ. The
denomination, he says, should be shunned because of its unbiblical
actions.

"This is not the true Church. Their theology is aberrant, their
conduct is aberrant, and they engage themselves in things that are
utterly ungodly and unbiblical," MacArthur says. "I think you have to
see it as the church of Anti-Christ -- and why would a believer want
to be a part of the church of Anti-Christ?"

MacArthur admits he was not surprised to see the Episcopal Church
consecrate an openly homosexual bishop. He says for years the
denomination has reinvented the gospel.

"Their view of Christ is apostate, therefore their view of everything
else is warped and twisted. So this is no stretch for them; this is
normal conduct for an organization that is opposed to Jesus Christ and
the Word of God," he says. "If anybody in it [the Episcopal Church]
is a true believer, they need to get out."

MacArthur says Christians should heed the Apostle Paul's warning to
the Corinthians when he told them not to be "unequally yoked together
with unbelievers" in any spiritual enterprise. In his recent book
Hard to Believe, the author-pastor confronts man-centered theology
being promoted in many evangelical churches.
Post by martus
Story by Paul Majendie
When he eventually takes over as King and Supreme Governor of the
Anglican Church of England,Charles sees himself as "Defender of
Faith"
in a country that is a multicultural mix.

(i.e all faiths)
Post by martus
2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 (NRSV)
2 As to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered
together to him, we beg you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to be quickly
shaken in mind or alarmed, either by spirit or by word or by letter,
as though from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already
here. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come
unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the
one destined for destruction.
4 He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object
of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, declaring
himself to be God.
==================================================================================
Isaiah 14:10-21 (NRSV)


10 All of them will speak and say to you: "You too have become as weak
as we!
You have become like us!"11 Your pomp is brought down to Sheol,and the
sound of your harps; maggots are the bed beneath you,and worms are
your covering.

12 How you are fallen from heaven,O Day Star, son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,you who laid the nations low!
13 You said in your heart,"I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne above the stars of God;I will sit on the mount
of assembly on the heights of Zaphon;

14 I will ascend to the tops of the clouds,I will make myself like the
Most High."15 But you are brought down to Sheol,to the depths of the
Pit.
16 Those who see you will stare at you, and ponder over you:

"Is this the man who made the earth tremble,who shook kingdoms,17 who
made the world like a desert and overthrew its cities,who would not
let his prisoners go home?"

18 All the kings of the nations lie in glory,each in his own tomb;19
but you are cast out, away from your grave,like loathsome
carrion,clothed with the dead, those pierced by the sword,who go down
to the stones of the Pit,like a corpse trampled underfoot.

20 You will not be joined with them in burial,because you have
destroyed your land,you have killed your people. May the descendants
of evildoers nevermore be named!

21 Prepare slaughter for his sons because of the guilt of their
father.
Let them never rise to possess the earth or cover the face of the
world with cities.

UK News(extract)
Royal author Ingrid Seward believes the decision to issue the denial
might have been prompted by concern for Princes William and Harry.

==================================================================================
Post by martus
http://www.geocities.com/mart1963/martsindex.htm
martus
2003-11-11 02:34:00 UTC
Permalink
Britain to give gay couples equal rights

LONDON, Nov. 10 (UPI) -- Next week's Queen's Speech to be read in
British parliament will suggest same-sex couples be given the same
rights as married couples, a report said Monday.

In what amounts to legal recognition of "gay marriage," thousands of
gay couples will be able to register their partnerships and benefit
from inheritance, tax and next-of-kin rights, the Times of London
reported.

The Civil Partnerships Bill would be the most far-reaching change to
British laws relating to homosexuality since gay sex was legalized in
the 1960s, the newspaper said.

Under the proposed legislation, which will also apply in Scotland, gay
couples will be able to sign an official document at a registry office
in front of the registrar and two witnesses, although this would not
be taken as a "marriage ceremony".

The scheme would include "divorce," with maintenance claims. Gay
couples who split would have access to legal aid to sort out disputes
over contact with children or finances.

(**suprise suprise**)

=====================================================================================
Post by martus
Daniel 11:37 (KJV)
37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, NOR THE DESIRE OF
WOMEN, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.
Prince Charles flies back into vortex of scandal
John Arlidge and Jessica Hodgson
Sunday November 9, 2003
The Observer
Prince Charles flies back to Britain today after his two-week tour of
India and the Middle East as the scandal over allegations of a sexual
incident involving him and a royal servant(male) reaches new heights.
Internet sites in Europe and the US yesterday published lurid details
of the alleged incident while British newspapers, gagged by a court
injunction, subjected the prince to the worst criticism he has faced.
Clarence House was bracing itself for fresh revelations in today's
newspapers.
(rest cut)
=================================================================================
Pastor Urges Episcopalians to Shun 'Church of Anti-Christ'
Jim Brown and Jody Brown
Agape Press
A best-selling Christian author and pastor is encouraging believers to
separate themselves from the Anglican Episcopal Church.
On Sunday, November 2, the Episcopal Church USA consecrated a
homosexual man, Vicki Gene Robinson, as bishop of New Hampshire. The
ceremony was the culmination of months of heated debate within ECUSA
over Robinson's election to the post -- and likely the catalyst to
what the worldwide leaders of the Anglican Communion have stated will
put the unity of their denomination "in jeopardy" and "tear the fabric
of the communion at its deepest level." The denomination also allows
same-sex "blessing" ceremonies.
Dr. John MacArthur is pastor of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley,
California, a best-selling author, and host of the worldwide radio
program "Grace to You." gty.org) Regarding the recent steps taken by
the Episcopal Church, MacArthur minces no words, saying the church is
not the Church of Jesus Christ but "the church of Anti-Christ. The
denomination, he says, should be shunned because of its unbiblical
actions.
"This is not the true Church. Their theology is aberrant, their
conduct is aberrant, and they engage themselves in things that are
utterly ungodly and unbiblical," MacArthur says. "I think you have to
see it as the church of Anti-Christ -- and why would a believer want
to be a part of the church of Anti-Christ?"
MacArthur admits he was not surprised to see the Episcopal Church
consecrate an openly homosexual bishop. He says for years the
denomination has reinvented the gospel.
"Their view of Christ is apostate, therefore their view of everything
else is warped and twisted. So this is no stretch for them; this is
normal conduct for an organization that is opposed to Jesus Christ and
the Word of God," he says. "If anybody in it [the Episcopal Church]
is a true believer, they need to get out."
MacArthur says Christians should heed the Apostle Paul's warning to
the Corinthians when he told them not to be "unequally yoked together
with unbelievers" in any spiritual enterprise. In his recent book
Hard to Believe, the author-pastor confronts man-centered theology
being promoted in many evangelical churches.
Post by martus
Story by Paul Majendie
When he eventually takes over as King and Supreme Governor of the
Anglican Church of England,Charles sees himself as "Defender of Faith"
in a country that is a multicultural mix.
(i.e all faiths)
Post by martus
2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 (NRSV)
2 As to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered
together to him, we beg you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to be quickly
shaken in mind or alarmed, either by spirit or by word or by letter,
as though from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already
here. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come
unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the
one destined for destruction.
4 He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object
of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, declaring
himself to be God.
==================================================================================
Isaiah 14:10-21 (NRSV)
10 All of them will speak and say to you: "You too have become as weak
as we!
You have become like us!"11 Your pomp is brought down to Sheol,and the
sound of your harps; maggots are the bed beneath you,and worms are
your covering.
12 How you are fallen from heaven,O Day Star, son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,you who laid the nations low!
13 You said in your heart,"I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne above the stars of God;I will sit on the mount
of assembly on the heights of Zaphon;
14 I will ascend to the tops of the clouds,I will make myself like the
Most High."15 But you are brought down to Sheol,to the depths of the
Pit.
"Is this the man who made the earth tremble,who shook kingdoms,17 who
made the world like a desert and overthrew its cities,who would not
let his prisoners go home?"
18 All the kings of the nations lie in glory,each in his own tomb;19
but you are cast out, away from your grave,like loathsome
carrion,clothed with the dead, those pierced by the sword,who go down
to the stones of the Pit,like a corpse trampled underfoot.
20 You will not be joined with them in burial,because you have
destroyed your land,you have killed your people. May the descendants
of evildoers nevermore be named!
21 Prepare slaughter for his sons because of the guilt of their
father.
Let them never rise to possess the earth or cover the face of the
world with cities.
UK News(extract)
Royal author Ingrid Seward believes the decision to issue the denial
might have been prompted by concern for Princes William and Harry.
==================================================================================
Post by martus
http://www.geocities.com/mart1963/martsindex.htm
martus
2003-11-11 02:58:40 UTC
Permalink
AFTER JOHN PAUL II ARE WE FACING THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ANTIPOPE?


Dangerous business it is for prophets to foresee the coming of an evil
"anti-pope." Can it happen? Certainly. It has happened. Through the
centuries, especially when dukes and other aristocrats were the ones
who chose the pontiff, Catholicism has been saddled on occasion with
outright disasters. There were popes who were accused of adultery and
even sexual assault. One, it was claimed (in the 10th century),
toasted to the devil, or at least the pagan deities.

So, yes, there is such a thing as an anti-pope. With John Paul II's
health in question, and the Church uneasy about its future, there is
currency to certain predictions that the next Pope will be a
spiritually dark figure who will lead the flock astray. Many are those
who point to an alleged apparition hinting that there would be only
two more popes after Paul VI (meaning that John Paul II is the last
legitimate one, or the last before some apocalyptic event). Others
adhere to a reputed prophecy from St. Malachy -- who they claim once
listed 112 popes and indicated that there would be two more after John
Paul II.

Obviously, both prophecies cannot be correct. The question is whether
either is accurate. Notes the Catholic Encyclopedia: "The most famous
and best known prophecies about the popes are those attributed to St.
Malachy. In 1139 he went to Rome to give an account of the affairs of
his diocese to the pope, Innocent II, who promised him two palliums
for the metropolitan Sees of Armagh and Cashel. While at Rome,
according to the Abbe Cucherat, he received the strange vision of the
future wherein was unfolded before his mind the long list of
illustrious pontiffs who were to rule the Church until the end of
time. The same author tells us the St. Malachy gave his manuscript to
Innocent II to console him in the midst of his tribulations, and the
document remained unknown in the Roman Archives until its discovery in
1590 (Cucherat, "Proph. de la succession des papes" ).

"They were first published by Arnold de Wyon, and ever since there has
been much discussion as to whether they are genuine predictions of St.
Malachy or forgeries. The silence of 400 years on the part of so many
learned authors who had written about the popes, and the silence of
St. Bernard especially, who wrote The Life Of St. Malachy, is strong
argument against their authenticity, but it is not conclusive if we
adopt Cucherat's theory that they were hidden in the Archives during
those 400 years."

According to St Malachy's list, Pope John Paul II is the third to last
pope. He is referred to as "ab labore solis" -- from the labor of the
sun. Therefore, the remaining popes are: gloria olivae (second to last
pope) and petrus romanus (Peter the Roman, the last).

"I watched EWTN Thursday evening to hear the pope read the Gospel
readings in what some say could be a farewell speech," writes one
viewer. "He read John 10-11 instead of Luke 11-47, which was the
Gospel for the day according to my Word Among Us daily Mass reading
book which is always accurate. John 10-11 says... "I am the good
Shepherd. A good Shepard lays down his life for the sheep. A hired
man, who is not a Shepard and whose sheep are not his own, sees a wolf
coming and leaves the sheep and runs away, and the wolf catches and
scatters them.... Why would he change it if indeed he did and could it
mean I am the good Pope but following me is the bad pope with which
you the Christian sheep will be scattered?"
Of course, in the past several weeks, John Paul II has famously moved
to prevent just this from happening, choosing new cardinals who will
vote in the next papal election. A good number of them share his
orthodox viewpoint. Careful we must be in prejudging the next
election, and in expecting a false or bad pope. That can be very
unfair. The cardinals have free will and God will allow them to use
that free will when the time comes to pick a new pontiff -- while
meanwhile we can spend time praying for the right decision and
appreciating the incredible Pope we now have. We do believe that when
John Paul II goes, a great storm will break upon mankind. We believe
the Pope's greatest mission has been preparing us for that. And he has
done all that is humanly possible. Is he in charge? Yes. He may be
physically disabled, but those who visit with him say that he is aware
of what is going on around him, and has kept his sense of humor. When
asked recently by a visiting cardinal how he felt, John Paul II
replied: "I don't know. I haven't read the newspapers yet."


==================================================================================
The antipope seems to be here already, most are not looking.
Post by martus
Post by martus
Story by Paul Majendie
When he eventually takes over as King and Supreme Governor of the
Anglican Church of England,Charles sees himself as "Defender of Faith"
in a country that is a multicultural mix.
(i.e all faiths)
Post by martus
2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 (NRSV)
2 As to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered
together to him, we beg you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to be quickly
shaken in mind or alarmed, either by spirit or by word or by letter,
as though from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already
here. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come
unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the
one destined for destruction.
4 He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object
of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, declaring
himself to be God.
==================================================================================
Who is richer, who sees more influential leaders, who is part of many
different organisations of the wealthy?


End times:
http://www.geocities.com/mart1963/martsindex.htm
oz
2003-11-12 00:42:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by martus
AFTER JOHN PAUL II ARE WE FACING THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ANTIPOPE?
seems to me that is precisely what we have now
Cy cit le Rot
2003-11-12 09:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by oz
Post by martus
AFTER JOHN PAUL II ARE WE FACING THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ANTIPOPE?
seems to me that is precisely what we have now
Agree. Protest-Ants are antipope. LOL.
Doc Watson
2003-11-12 15:41:42 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 04:08:35 -0500, "Cy cit le Rot"
Post by Cy cit le Rot
Post by oz
Post by martus
AFTER JOHN PAUL II ARE WE FACING THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ANTIPOPE?
seems to me that is precisely what we have now
Agree. Protest-Ants are antipope. LOL.
at least we 'PROTEST_ants' are CHRISTIAN.


--


===================================================================
No wonder they call the DOG 'man's best friend' ...
a DOG wags his tail instead of his tongue.
Please visit: http://tinyurl.com/lzxm
==================================================================
Scout Lady
2003-11-12 15:59:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc Watson
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 04:08:35 -0500, "Cy cit le Rot"
Post by Cy cit le Rot
Post by oz
Post by martus
AFTER JOHN PAUL II ARE WE FACING THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ANTIPOPE?
seems to me that is precisely what we have now
Agree. Protest-Ants are antipope. LOL.
at least we 'PROTEST_ants' are CHRISTIAN.
Some are and some just think they are. By their fruit you will know them. I
seen more than a few rotten apples coming from you today Elaine.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.538 / Virus Database: 333 - Release Date: 11/11/03
Pastor Winter JNAHC
2003-11-12 18:35:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc Watson
at least we 'PROTEST_ants' are CHRISTIAN.
Actually Merle Elaine Matthews is a false-christian scum who
worships the SAME trinity idol that the pope does.

The protestants worship the same three headed idol from Rome that
the Catholics do. All trinitarians are daughters of the RCC.

The false church is following a manmade Romish teaching. They
have to go to "denominal opinions of men" that originated in the
2nd and 3rd century to explain and discuss their beliefs. It is
also interesting that the same bunch at Rome that dreamed up the
trinity, also ushered in the dark ages by killing people for
possessing Bibles. It is important to realize that the Catholic
Church is the "Great Whore" in the book of Rev. and the "mother
of harlots" (the harlots being the denominations that retain the
trinity heresy). The harlot wants relationship with man, but
will not "take the man's name" and will not forsake her
worldly loves for her husband. Just as the harlot churches will
not use Jesus name in baptism, and will not forsake the sins of
the world.

Revelation 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written,
MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND
ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Here I will show some of the apostles writing that exposes
certain of the false doctrines taught by the harlot churches.:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of
sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The harlot trinity churches use the titles of their 3 gods if
they even baptise at all. They ignore Matt 28:19 in which Jesus
said to use a "name," and they just "parrot" the command instead
of obeying it.

Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be
preached in his NAME among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy
and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments
of the world, and not after Christ.
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth ALL the fulness of the Godhead
bodily.

The harlot trinity church doesn't believe that the fulness is in
Jesus, they don't believe that "ye are complete in him", they
teach the tradition of men from the 2nd and 3rd century.

Colossians 2:10 And ye are complete in HIM, which is the head of
all principality and power: Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation
in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given
among men, whereby we must be saved. Also Acts 8:16, 10:48,
10:43, 19:5, Col 3:17

Also here are some historical references showing where tradition
replaced apostolic truth.:

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th Ed. Vol. 3 Page 365-366, "The
baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to
the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost by the Catholic Church in
the 2nd Century." Vol. 3 Page 82 "Everywhere in the oldest
sources it states that baptism took place in the Name of Jesus
Christ."

CANNEY ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, Page 53 -- "The early church
always baptized in the Name of Lord Jesus until the development
of the trinity doctrine in the 2nd Century."

HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, Vol. 2 pages 377-378-389, "The
Christian baptism was administered using the Name of Jesus. The
use of the trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in
the early church history, baptism was always in the Name of the
Lord Jesus, until the time of Justin Martyr when the trinity
formula was used." Hastings also said in Vol. 2 Page 377,
commenting on Acts 2:38, "NAME was an ancient synonym for person.
Payment was always made in the name of some person referring to
ownership. Therefore one being baptized in Jesus Name became his
personal property." "Ye are Christ's." I Cor. 3:23.

NEW INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA, Vol. 22 Page 477, "The term
"trinity" was originated by Tertullain, Roman Catholic Church
father."

TYNDALE NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARIES: "... the true explanation why
the early church did not at once administer baptism in the
threefold name is that the words of Mat 28:19 were not meant as a
baptismal formula. [Jesus] was not giving instructions about the
actual words to be used in the service of baptism, but, as has
already been suggested, was indicating that the baptized person
would by baptism pass into the possession of the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost."

THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION AND ETHICS, James Hastings, p.384,
"there is no evidence [in early church history] for the use of
the triune name."

Pastor Steve Winter
--
Apostolic Oneness Pentecostal /*/ PreRapture Ministry
http://www.pentecostal.biz for Bible studies (text and audio)
Have you obeyed Acts 2:38 as Paul taught in Acts 19:4-6?
Email adwords-***@google.com to let them know how you feel about
their blatant religious discrimination against www.prerapture.org
Doc Watson
2003-11-12 19:57:20 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 13:35:27 -0500, Pastor Winter JNAHC
<steve.NO-***@prime.org> done went and wrote as Gospel Truth in these
here little old Usenet News'FROUPS:


Aw, gee--- littl old man Stevie WHINER Winter is back with his usual
lies....

Hey old boy- have you tried to sign my guest book AGAIN lately?
hahahaha!!!!!!!!!


--


===================================================================
No wonder they call the DOG 'man's best friend' ...
a DOG wags his tail instead of his tongue.
Please visit: http://tinyurl.com/lzxm
==================================================================
Pastor Winter JNAHC
2003-11-13 06:05:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc Watson
Aw, gee--- littl old man Stevie WHINER Winter is back with his usual
lies.
Does the filthy false-christian scum Merle Elaine Matthews (I
understand why she is so ashamed of her name, eh?) now
deny that she worships the trinity?

Am I lying when I point out that Merle Elaine Matthews is
a trinitarian?

Are you denying the trinity now, Merle? Or is Merle the liar yet
again?

Pastor Winter
--
Apostolic Oneness Pentecostal /*/ PreRapture Ministry
http://www.pentecostal.biz for Bible studies (text and audio)
Have you obeyed Acts 2:38 as Paul taught in Acts 19:4-6?
Email adwords-***@google.com to let them know how you feel about
their blatant religious discrimination against www.prerapture.org
Doc Watson
2003-11-13 14:52:34 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 01:05:54 -0500, Pastor Winter JNAHC
Post by Pastor Winter JNAHC
(I
understand why she is so ashamed of her name, eh?)
Whiner, in NO WAY am I 'ashamed' of my name, and WHY would I be? I
have done nothing to be ashamed of.

You, OTOH, are a complete blubbering, boo-hooing, belligerent,
boastful baboon, and a total arrogane JACKASS.

And those are your GOOD points....

Need I say any more WHINER??

How many court houses have you taken advantage of this week, Whiner?

Tried to sign any GUEST BOOKS lateyl old boy?! LOL!!

and by the way, Whiner...
alt.christnet.public,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.religion.christian,alt.christnet,alt.bible.prophecy

was ALL added back.
Your stupid 'follow-up-to' little game won't work with me. I'm too
smart for you.

Now -- in response to your stupid question, NO, NIX, NADA.........

I DO NOT DENY THE TRINITY. The TRINITY IS BIBLICAL.

Learn it.
Stop behaving like a fool for once in your life.

MERLE ELAINE MATTHEWS (who most decidedly is NOT ashamed of the name)


--


===================================================================
No wonder they call the DOG 'man's best friend' ...
a DOG wags his tail instead of his tongue.
Please visit: http://tinyurl.com/lzxm
==================================================================
Pastor Winter JNAHC
2003-11-13 18:59:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc Watson
I DO NOT DENY THE TRINITY. The TRINITY IS BIBLICAL.
Well, Merle, if you admit that you believe in the trinity
how am I a liar for pointing out that you are trinitarian?

Is Merle Elaine Matthews (not a "doc" and never was) stupid as a
rock or simply dishonest?

Merle, you are false-christian trinity scum who worships the
same trinity that the pope does.

Pastor Winter
--
Apostolic Oneness Pentecostal /*/ PreRapture Ministry
http://www.pentecostal.biz for Bible studies (text and audio)
Have you obeyed Acts 2:38 as Paul taught in Acts 19:4-6?
Email adwords-***@google.com to let them know how you feel about
their blatant religious discrimination against www.prerapture.org
Stephen M. Adams
2003-11-12 20:05:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pastor Winter JNAHC
Post by Doc Watson
at least we 'PROTEST_ants' are CHRISTIAN.
Actually Merle Elaine Matthews is a false-christian scum who
worships the SAME trinity idol that the pope does.
The protestants worship the same three headed idol from Rome that
the Catholics do. All trinitarians are daughters of the RCC.
No, they are not. A reading of basic history will show this to
be patently false. First off all, there was no "RCC" prior to
the 11th century (at least as it is knownn now). Before then,
there were 5 major churches, centered in Rome, Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The "pope" was ONLY the chief
bishop of the church centered in Rome. He held no sway outside
his territory (Western Europe, parts of N. Africa). The other
churches always were, and still are, independent of Rome, and
have NEVER been her "daughters."

Even if one were to try to trace the "RCC" to Constantine the Great
(which is frankly false, since he was in Constantinple, not Rome),
the problem remains. The doctrine of the Trinity shows up in the
earliest writings (not the mention the Scriptures), albeit not in
a fully Nicene formulation.
Post by Pastor Winter JNAHC
The false church is following a manmade Romish teaching. They
have to go to "denominal opinions of men" that originated in the
2nd and 3rd century to explain and discuss their beliefs.
While it may well be that some do this, the opinions of THOSE men
from the 2nd and 3rd century are based on THE SCRIPTURES, just as
the doctrine of the Trinity developed at Nicea is. For despite
Steve Winter's claims, the Trinity is a *biblical* concept. He
just refuses to believe it, preferring, like Arius, to beleive his
own teachings rather than the full witness of the Scriptures.
Post by Pastor Winter JNAHC
It is
also interesting that the same bunch at Rome that dreamed up the
trinity, also ushered in the dark ages by killing people for
possessing Bibles.
Nobody in Rome "dreamed up the Trinity" - in fact, there were only
a small handful of western Bishops at the Nicea conference. The vast
majority of Bishops were from Asia Minor, the Middle East and Egypt.
The pope had very little to do with this council.

<snip>
Post by Pastor Winter JNAHC
NEW INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA, Vol. 22 Page 477, "The term
"trinity" was originated by Tertullain, Roman Catholic Church
father."
False on its face. The first use of the word "trinity" with reference
to the Christian God was Theopholis, who wrote in "To Autolycus"
(Book II, Chapt 15), stating that the three days in the tomb was a
type (ie symbolic reference to) the Trinity. He wrote this while he
was Bishop of Antioch (AD168 to AD181).

Are your other references equally inaccurate?

But that's not even the first clear reference! Ignatius, another
bishop of Antioch (who died no later than AD107), wrote about the
Trinity quite clearly, and quite clearly denies Mr. Winter's views.

Citation available on request.

-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
***@AMadamsemail.net (remove SPAM to reply)
Scout Lady
2003-11-12 20:41:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Pastor Winter JNAHC
Post by Doc Watson
at least we 'PROTEST_ants' are CHRISTIAN.
Actually Merle Elaine Matthews is a false-christian scum who
worships the SAME trinity idol that the pope does.
The protestants worship the same three headed idol from Rome that
the Catholics do. All trinitarians are daughters of the RCC.
No, they are not. A reading of basic history will show this to
be patently false. First off all, there was no "RCC" prior to
the 11th century (at least as it is knownn now). Before then,
there were 5 major churches, centered in Rome, Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The "pope" was ONLY the chief
bishop of the church centered in Rome. He held no sway outside
his territory (Western Europe, parts of N. Africa). The other
churches always were, and still are, independent of Rome, and
have NEVER been her "daughters."
St. Peter, Bishop of Alexandria (306-311 A.D.):
Head of the catechetical school in Alexandria, he became bishop around A.D.
300, reigning for about eleven years, and dying a martyr's death.

Peter, set above the Apostles. (Peter of Alexandria, Canon. ix, Galland, iv.
p. 98)

St. Anthony of Egypt (330 A.D.):

Peter, the Prince of the Apostles (Anthony, Epist. xvii. Galland, iv p.
687).

St. Athanasius (362 A.D.):

Rome is called the Apostolic throne. (Athanasius, Hist. Arian, ad Monach. n.
35).

The Chief, Peter. (Athan, In Ps. xv. 8, tom. iii. p. 106, Migne)

St. Macarius of Egypt (371 A.D.):

The Chief, Peter. (Macarius, De Patientia, n. 3, p. 180)

Moses was succeeded by Peter, who had committed to his hands the new Church
of Christ, and the true priesthood. (Macarius, Hom. xxvi. n. 23, p. 101)

St. Cyril of Alexandria (c. 424):

He suffers him no longer to be called Simon, exercising authority and rule
over him already having become His own. By a title suitable to the thing, He
changed his name into Peter, from the word 'petra' (rock); for on him He was
afterwards to found His Church. (Cyril, T. iv. Comm. in Joan., p. 131)

He (Christ) promises to found the Church, assigning immovableness to it, as
He is the Lord of strength, and over this He sets Peter as shepherd. (Cyril,
Comm. on Matt., ad loc.)

Therefore, when the Lord had hinted at the disciple's denial in the words
that He used, 'I have prayed for thee that thy faith not fail,' He at once
introduced a word of consolation, and said (to Peter): 'And do thou, when
once thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.' That is, 'Be thou a
support and a teacher of those who through faith come to me.' Again, marvel
also at the insight of that saying and at the completeness of the Divine
gentleness of spirit. For so that He should not reduce the disciple to
despair at the thought that after his denial he would have to be debarred
from the glorious distinction of being an Apostle, He fills him with good
hope, that he will attain the good things promised. ...O loving kindness!
The sin was not yet committed, and He already extends His pardon and sets
him (Peter) again in his Apostolic office. (Cyril Comm. on Luke's Gospel)

For the wonderous Peter, overcome by uncontrollable fear, denied the Lord
three times. Christ heals the error done, and demands in various ways the
threefold confession ... For although all the holy disciples fled, ...still
Peter's fault in the threefold denial was in addition, special and peculiar
to himself. Therefore, by the threefold confession of blessed Peter, the
fault of the triple denial was done away. Further, by the Lord's saying,
Feed my lambs, we must understand a renewal as it were of the Apostleship
already given to him, washing away the intervening disgrace of his fall, and
the littleness of human infirmity. (Cyril, Comm. on John's Gospel).

They (the Apostles) strove to learn through one, that preeminent one, Peter.
(Cyril, Ib. 1. ix. p. 736).

And even blessed Peter, though set over the holy disciples, says 'Lord, be
it far from Thee, this shall be done to Thee. (Cyril, Ibid. 924).

If Peter himself, that prince of the holy disciples, was, upon an occassion,
scandalized, so as suddenly to exclaim, 'Lord, be it far from Thee,' what
wonder that the tender mind of woman should be carried away? (Cyril, Ibid,
p. 1064)

That the Spirit is God we shall also learn hence. That the prince of the
Apostles, to whom 'flesh and blood,' as the Savior says, 'did not reveal'
the Divine mystery, says to Ananias, 'Why hath satan tempted thy heart, &c.'
(Cyril, T. v. Par. 1. Thesaur. p. 340)

Besides all these, let there come forward that leader of the holy disciples,
Peter, who, when the Lord, on a certain occassion, asked him, 'Whom do men
say that the Son of man is?' instantly cried out, 'Thou art the Christ, the
Son of the living God.' (Cyril, T. v. P.2, Hom. viii. De Fest. Pasch. p.
105)

'If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me.' When the Coryphaeus
(Peter) had heard these words, he began to change. (Cyril, Ib. Hom.)

This bold man (Julian), besides all this, cavils at Peter, the chosen one of
the holy Apostles. (Cyril, T. vi.l. ix. Contr. Julian. p. 325).

Eulogius of Alexandria (581 A.D.):

Born in Syria, he became the abbot of the Mother of God monastery at
Antioch. In 579, he was made Patriarch of Alexandria; and became an
associate of St. Gregory the Great while visiting Constantinople. Much of
their subsequent correspondence is still extant.

Neither to John, nor to any other of the disciples, did our Savior say, 'I
will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,' but only to Peter.
(Eulogius, Lib. ii. Cont. Novatian. ap. Photium, Biblioth, cod. 280)


ANTIOCH
Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450):

A native of Antioch, Theodoret ruled under the Antiochean Patriarch.

The great foundation of the Church was shaken, and confirmed by the Divine
grace. And the Lord commanded him to apply that same care to the brethren.
'And thou,' He says, 'converted, confirm thy brethren.' (Theodoret, Tom. iv.
Haeret. Fab. lib. v.c. 28)

'For as I,' He says, 'did not despise thee when tossed, so be thou a support
to thy brethren in trouble, and the help by which thou was saved do thou
thyself impart to others, and exhort them not while they are tottering, but
raise them up in their peril. For this reason I suffer thee also to slip,
but do not permit thee to fall, thus through thee gaining steadfastness for
those who are tossed.' So this great pillar supported the tossing and
sinking world, and permitted it not to fall entirely and gave it back
stability, having been ordered to feed God's sheep. (Theodoret, Oratio de
Caritate in J. P. Minge, ed., Partrologiae Curses Completus: Series Graeca).

I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed
bishop (Pope Leo) to use his Apostolic power, and to order me to hasten to
your Council. For that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the
churches throughout the universe on many grounds. (Theodoret, Tom. iv.
Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197).

If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened
to the great Peter, to convey from him the solution to those in Antioch, who
were at issue about living under the law, how much more do we, poor and
humble, run to the Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope Leo)
healing for wounds of the the Churches. For it pertains to you to have
primacy in all things; for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives.
(Theodoret Ibid, Epistle Leoni)


CONSTANTINOPLE
St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387):

Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church,
the Friend of Christ, who received a revelation, not from man, but from the
Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, 'Blessed art thou, &c.'
This very Peter and when I name Peter I name that unbroken Rock, that firm
Foundation, the Great Apostle, First of the disciples, the First called, and
the First who obeyed he was guilty ...even denying the Lord." (Chrysostom,
T. ii. Hom)

Peter, the Leader of the choir of Apostles, the Mouth of the disciples, the
Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the faith, the Foundation of the
confession, the Fisherman of the universe. (Chrysostom, T. iii Hom).

Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles,
that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that
Foundation of the Church. (Chrys. In illud hoc Scitote)

(Peter), the foundation of the Church, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the
Apostles, the vehement lover of Christ ...he who ran throughout the whole
world, who fished the whole world; this holy Coryphaeus of the blessed
choir; the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who
received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the
head of that company, the ruler of the whole world. (De Eleemos, iii. 4;
Hom. de decem mille tal. 3)

In those days Peter rose up in the midst of the disciples (Acts 15), both as
being ardent, and as intrusted by Christ with the flock ...he first acts
with authority in the matter, as having all put into his hands ; for to him
Christ said, 'And thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren. (Chrysostom,
Hom. iii Act Apost. tom. ix.)

He passed over his fall, and appointed him first of the Apostles; wherefore
He said: ' 'Simon, Simon,' etc. (in Ps. cxxix. 2). God allowed him to fall,
because He meant to make him ruler over the whole world, that, remembering
his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future. And that
what I have said is no guess, listen to Christ Himself saying: 'Simon,
Simon, etc.' (Chrys, Hom. quod frequenter conveniendum sit 5, cf. Hom 73 in
Joan 5).

And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these
things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth
of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also
went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And
withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the
denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the
brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what
had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren, ...and the
third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets
the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, 'How then did
James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He
appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole
world. (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

St. Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople (434):

A disciple of St. John Chrysostom,...

Peter, the coryphaeus of the disciples, and the one set over (or chief of)
the Apostles. Art not thou he that didst say, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son
of the living God'? Thou Bar-Jonas (son of the dove) hast thou seen so many
miracles, and art thou still but Simon (a hearer)? He appointed thee the
key-bearer of Heaven, and has though not yet layed aside thy fisherman's
clothing? (Proclus, Or. viii In Dom. Transfig. t. ix. Galland)

John Cassian, Monk (c. 430):

That great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who
wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the principle
authority in faith and in priesthood. Tell us, therefore, we beg of you,
Peter, prince of Apostles, tell us how the Churches must believe in God
(Cassian, Contra Nestorium, III, 12, CSEL, vol. 17, p. 276).

St. Nilus of Constantinople (448):

A disciple of St. John Chrysostom, ....

Peter, Head of the choir of Apostles. (Nilus, Lib. ii Epistl.)

Peter, who was foremost in the choir of Apostles and always ruled amongst
them. (Nilus, Tract. ad. Magnam.)

Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople (466-516)

Macedonius declared, when desired by the Emperor Anastasius to condemn the
Council of Chalcedon, that 'such a step without an Ecumenical Synod presided
over by the Pope of Rome is impossible.' (Macedonius, Patr. Graec. 108: 360a
(Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 234-346 seq.)

Emperor Justinian (520-533)

Writing to the Pope, ...

Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your
Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all
the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of
your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and
indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being
brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all
the holy Churches. (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I.
tit. 1).

Let your Apostleship show that you have worthily succeeded to the Apostle
Peter, since the Lord will work through you, as Surpreme Pastor, the
salvation of all. (Coll. Avell. Ep. 196, July 9th, 520, Justinian to Pope
Hormisdas).

St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650)

A celebrated theologian and a native of Constantinople, ...

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely
and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman
Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting
from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers,
according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and
piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all
the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone
to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of
Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never pre ail against her, that
she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she
opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety,
and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the
Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec.
vol. 90)

How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from
old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having
surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles,
as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in
their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical
documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate .....even as in all
these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according
to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and
becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and
immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome.
(Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a
heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who
have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he
anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates
himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the
Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the
Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and
orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or
entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed
Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic
See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the
holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received
universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing
over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus,
Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople (715):

The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the
Lord commanded to confirm his brethren. (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap.
ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.)

St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828):

Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine
brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical
decrees and by ecclesiastical usuage, ever obtain full approval or currency.
For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in
sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of
headship among the Apostles. (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25
[Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826):

Writing to Pope Leo III ....

Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after
entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his
successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be
referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd
of the Church of Heaven. (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

Writing to Pope Paschal, ...

Hear, O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed Shepherd of Christ's sheep,
keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon whom the Catholic
Church is built. For Peter art thou, who adornest and governest the Chair of
Peter. Hither, then, from the West, imitator of Christ, arise and repel not
for ever (Ps. xliii. 23). To thee spake Christ our Lord: 'And thou being one
day converted, shalt strengthen thy brethren.' Behold the hour and the
place. Help us, thou that art set by God for this. Stretch forth thy hand so
far as thou canst. Thou hast strength with God, through being the first of
all. (Letter of St. Theodore and four other Abbots to Pope Paschal, Bk. ii
Ep. 12, Patr. Graec. 99, 1152-3)

Writing to Emperor Michael, ...

Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by
Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O
Emperor, is the highests of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held
the Chair, to whom the Lord said: Thou art Peter ...and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it. (Theodore, Bk. II. Ep. 86)

I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the
Body of Christ, from the Surpreme See (Rome), in which Christ placed the
keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of
heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation,
according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie. Let the blessed and
Apostolic Paschal (Pope St. Paschal I) rejoice therefore, for he has
fulfilled the work of Peter. (Theodore Bk. II. Ep. 63).

In truth we have seen that a manifest successor of the prince of the
Apostles presides over the Roman Church. We truly believe that Christ has
not deserted the Church here (Constantinople), for assistance from you has
been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the
providence of God in the critical times. You are, indeed the untroubled and
pure fount of orthodoxy from the beginning, you the calm harbor of the whole
Church, far removed from the waves of heresy, you the God-chosen city of
refuge. (Letter of St. Theodor & Four Abbots to Pope Paschal).

Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those
with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives
of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be
if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be
present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him
make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the
First See. (Theodore the Studite, Patr. Graec. 99, 1420)


JERUSALEM
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Patriarch (363):

Our Lord Jesus Christ then became a man, but by the many He was not known.
But wishing to teach that which was not known, having assembled the
disciples, He asked, 'Whom do men say that the Son of man is?' ...And all
being silent (for it was beyond man to learn) Peter, the Foremost of the
Apostles, the Chief Herald of the Church, not using the language of his own
finding, nor persuaded by human reasoning, but having his mind enlightened
by the Father, says to Him, 'Thou art the Christ,' not simply that, but 'the
Son of the living God.' (Cyril, Catech. xi. n. 3)

For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven. (Cyril, Catechetical
Lectures A.D. 350).

Peter, the chief and foremost leader of the Apostles, before a little maid
thrice denied the Lord, but moved to penitence, he wept bitterly. (Cyril,
Catech ii. n. 15)

In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, also the foremost of the
Apostles and the key-bearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, healed Aeneas the
paralytic in the name of Christ. (Cyril, Catech. xviii. n. 27)

St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (c. 638):

Teaching us all orthodoxy and destroying all heresy and driving it away from
the God-protected halls of our holy Catholic Church. And together with these
inspired syllables and characters, I accept all his (the pope's) letters and
teachings as proceeding from the mouth of Peter the Coryphaeus, and I kiss
them and salute them and embrace them with all my soul ... I recognize the
latter as definitions of Peter and the former as those of Mark, and besides,
all the heaven-taught teachings of all the chosen mystagogues of our
Catholic Church. (Sophronius, Mansi, xi. 461)

Transverse quickly all the world from one end to the other until you come to
the Apostolic See (Rome), where are the foundations of the orthodox
doctrine. Make clearly known to the most holy personages of that throne the
questions agitated among us. Cease not to pray and to beg them until their
apostolic and Divine wisdom shall have pronounced the victorious judgement
and destroyed from the foundation ...the new heresy. (Sophronius,[quoted by
Bishop Stephen of Dora to Pope Martin I at the Lateran Council], Mansi, x.,
893)

Stephen, Bishop of Dora in Palestine (645):

And for this cause, sometimes we ask for water to our head and to our eyes a
fountain of tears, sometimes the wings of a dove, according to holy David,
that we might fly away and announce these things to the Chair (the Chair of
Peter at Rome) which rules and presides over all, I mean to yours, the head
and highest, for the healing of the whole wound. For this it has been
accustomed to do from old and from the beginning with power by its canonical
or apostolic authority, because the truly great Peter, head of the Apostles,
was clearly thought worthy not only to be trusted with the keys of heaven,
alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or to close it
justly to those who disbelieve the Gospel of grace, but because he was also
commissioned to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for 'Peter,'
saith He, 'lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.' And again, because he had in a
manner peculiar and special, a faith in the Lord stronger than all and
unchangeable, to be converted and to confirm his fellows and spiritual
brethren when tossed about, as having been adorned by God Himself incarnate
for us with power and sacerdotal authority .....And Sophronius of blessed
memory, who was Patriarch of the holy city of Christ our God, and under whom
I was bishop, conferring not with flesh and blood, but caring only for the
things of Christ with respect to your Holiness, hastened to send my
nothingness without delay about this matter alone to this Apostolic see,
where are the foundations of holy doctrine.


CYPRUS
St. Epiphanius, Archbishop of Salamis (385):

Holy men are therefore called the temple of God, because the Holy Spirit
dwells in them; as that Chief of the Apostles testifies, he that was found
to be blessed by the Lord, because the Father had revealed unto him. To him
then did the Father reveal His true Son; and the same (Peter) furthermore
reveals the Holy Spirit. This was befitting in the First of the Apostles,
that firm Rock upon which the Church of God is built, and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it. The gates of hell are heretics and
heresiarchs. For in every way was the faith confirmed in him who received
the keys of heaven; who looses on earth and binds in heaven. For in him are
found all subtle questions of faith. He was aided by the Father so as to be
(or lay) the Foundation of the security (firmness) of the faith. He (Peter)
heard from the same God, 'feed my lambs'; to him He entrusted the flock; he
leads the way admirably in the power of his own Master. (Epiphanius, T. ii.
in Anchor).

Sergius, Metropolitain of Cyprus (649 A.D.)

He writes to Pope Theodore, ....

O Holy Head, Christ our God hath destined thy Apostolic See to be an
immovable foundation and a pillar of the Faith. For thou art, as the Divine
Word truly saith, Peter, and on thee as a foundation-stone have the pillars
of the Church been fixed. (Sergius Ep. ad Theod. lecta in Sess. ii. Concil.
Lat. anno 649)

http://web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm

You were saying........
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Even if one were to try to trace the "RCC" to Constantine the Great
(which is frankly false, since he was in Constantinple, not Rome),
the problem remains. The doctrine of the Trinity shows up in the
earliest writings (not the mention the Scriptures), albeit not in
a fully Nicene formulation.
Post by Pastor Winter JNAHC
The false church is following a manmade Romish teaching. They
have to go to "denominal opinions of men" that originated in the
2nd and 3rd century to explain and discuss their beliefs.
While it may well be that some do this, the opinions of THOSE men
from the 2nd and 3rd century are based on THE SCRIPTURES, just as
the doctrine of the Trinity developed at Nicea is. For despite
Steve Winter's claims, the Trinity is a *biblical* concept. He
just refuses to believe it, preferring, like Arius, to beleive his
own teachings rather than the full witness of the Scriptures.
Post by Pastor Winter JNAHC
It is
also interesting that the same bunch at Rome that dreamed up the
trinity, also ushered in the dark ages by killing people for
possessing Bibles.
Nobody in Rome "dreamed up the Trinity" - in fact, there were only
a small handful of western Bishops at the Nicea conference. The vast
majority of Bishops were from Asia Minor, the Middle East and Egypt.
The pope had very little to do with this council.
<snip>
Post by Pastor Winter JNAHC
NEW INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA, Vol. 22 Page 477, "The term
"trinity" was originated by Tertullain, Roman Catholic Church
father."
False on its face. The first use of the word "trinity" with reference
to the Christian God was Theopholis, who wrote in "To Autolycus"
(Book II, Chapt 15), stating that the three days in the tomb was a
type (ie symbolic reference to) the Trinity. He wrote this while he
was Bishop of Antioch (AD168 to AD181).
Are your other references equally inaccurate?
But that's not even the first clear reference! Ignatius, another
bishop of Antioch (who died no later than AD107), wrote about the
Trinity quite clearly, and quite clearly denies Mr. Winter's views.
Citation available on request.
-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.538 / Virus Database: 333 - Release Date: 11/11/03
Stephen M. Adams
2003-11-12 21:12:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Pastor Winter JNAHC
Post by Doc Watson
at least we 'PROTEST_ants' are CHRISTIAN.
Actually Merle Elaine Matthews is a false-christian scum who
worships the SAME trinity idol that the pope does.
The protestants worship the same three headed idol from Rome that
the Catholics do. All trinitarians are daughters of the RCC.
No, they are not. A reading of basic history will show this to
be patently false. First off all, there was no "RCC" prior to
the 11th century (at least as it is knownn now). Before then,
there were 5 major churches, centered in Rome, Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The "pope" was ONLY the chief
bishop of the church centered in Rome. He held no sway outside
his territory (Western Europe, parts of N. Africa). The other
churches always were, and still are, independent of Rome, and
have NEVER been her "daughters."
<snip>
Post by Scout Lady
http://web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm
You were saying........
That NONE of the other 4 Patriarchates accepted ANYTHING other than
Rome having the first place of honor. Check with the Orthodox churches,
they can provide even MORE material than you posted showing that the
Bishop of Rome was never accepted as a *universal* bishop, nor did he
ever have immidate, ordinary jurisdiction in any diocese except his
own.

-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
***@AMadamsemail.net (remove SPAM to reply)
Scout Lady
2003-11-13 04:25:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Pastor Winter JNAHC
Post by Doc Watson
at least we 'PROTEST_ants' are CHRISTIAN.
Actually Merle Elaine Matthews is a false-christian scum who
worships the SAME trinity idol that the pope does.
The protestants worship the same three headed idol from Rome that
the Catholics do. All trinitarians are daughters of the RCC.
No, they are not. A reading of basic history will show this to
be patently false. First off all, there was no "RCC" prior to
the 11th century (at least as it is knownn now). Before then,
there were 5 major churches, centered in Rome, Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The "pope" was ONLY the chief
bishop of the church centered in Rome. He held no sway outside
his territory (Western Europe, parts of N. Africa). The other
churches always were, and still are, independent of Rome, and
have NEVER been her "daughters."
<snip>
Post by Scout Lady
http://web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm
You were saying........
That NONE of the other 4 Patriarchates accepted ANYTHING other than
Rome having the first place of honor. Check with the Orthodox churches,
they can provide even MORE material than you posted showing that the
Bishop of Rome was never accepted as a *universal* bishop, nor did he
ever have immidate, ordinary jurisdiction in any diocese except his
own.
I'm sorry but you are simply in error, there is plently of evidence to the
contrary as evidenced in my response. The bottom line is after the schism
the Orthodox denied the very concept their own bishops supported and many ea
stern Catholics remained with the western Church. The assertion that there
was no RCC prior to the 11th century is even more riduculous than the
Protestants asserting there was no Catholic Church before Constantine,
academically it simply doesn't hold water. I have no problem with the
Orthodox Church but I rejected Orthodoxy based on the writings of their own
Church fathers, revisionist history has never sat well with me. Orthodoxy
is basically ancient Catholicism and since they have cut themselves off from
the living Church they are stuck in the eleventh century forever. It
certainly isn't universal and outside of Orthodoxy very few even know it
exists.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.538 / Virus Database: 333 - Release Date: 11/10/03
Doc Watson
2003-11-13 14:54:07 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:25:35 -0500, "Scout Lady"
Post by Scout Lady
Orthodoxy
is basically ancient Catholicism and since they have cut themselves off from
the living Church they are stuck in the eleventh century forever. It
certainly isn't universal and outside of Orthodoxy very few even know it
exists.
Next you'll probably try to claim it was you romanists who invented
the toilet???
Now THAT, I would believe.......... for obvious reasons...


--


===================================================================
No wonder they call the DOG 'man's best friend' ...
a DOG wags his tail instead of his tongue.
Please visit: http://tinyurl.com/lzxm
==================================================================
Scout Lady
2003-11-13 15:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc Watson
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:25:35 -0500, "Scout Lady"
Post by Scout Lady
Orthodoxy
is basically ancient Catholicism and since they have cut themselves off from
the living Church they are stuck in the eleventh century forever. It
certainly isn't universal and outside of Orthodoxy very few even know it
exists.
Next you'll probably try to claim it was you romanists who invented
the toilet???
Now THAT, I would believe.......... for obvious reasons...
Look at this, Elaine has nothing to add but potty talk.......how surprising.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.538 / Virus Database: 333 - Release Date: 11/11/03
Doc Watson
2003-11-13 16:55:01 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:01:30 -0500, "Scout Lady"
Post by Scout Lady
Look at this, Elaine has nothing to add but potty talk.......how surprising.
Now now, madam - be silent. As usual, your mind is in the gutter.


--


===================================================================
No wonder they call the DOG 'man's best friend' ...
a DOG wags his tail instead of his tongue.
Please visit: http://tinyurl.com/lzxm
==================================================================
Scout Lady
2003-11-13 17:01:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc Watson
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:01:30 -0500, "Scout Lady"
Post by Scout Lady
Look at this, Elaine has nothing to add but potty talk.......how surprising.
Now now, madam - be silent. As usual, your mind is in the gutter.
This from a woman that announced in a Christian newsgroup that she actually
watches a kinky show and yet declares she is not interested in sex.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.538 / Virus Database: 333 - Release Date: 11/11/03
Doc Watson
2003-11-13 20:17:11 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:01:10 -0500, "Scout Lady"
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Doc Watson
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:01:30 -0500, "Scout Lady"
Post by Scout Lady
Look at this, Elaine has nothing to add but potty talk.......how
surprising.
Post by Doc Watson
Now now, madam - be silent. As usual, your mind is in the gutter.
This from a woman that announced in a Christian newsgroup that she actually
watches a kinky show and yet declares she is not interested in sex.
---
1. I watch it once in awhile, because it IS comical.

Any idiot who would go on a television show like that HAS to be a
comedian.

2. I am not interested in sex, so imagine whatever you like, madam.

3. What you think of me is of no concern.

4. Once in a while does not mean 'every day'.

Dream on, madam Cathy Hall, Miss Perfect.......... imagine whatever
you like, because I KNOW the difference between the truth and the CRAP
you are posting about me.



--


===================================================================
No wonder they call the DOG 'man's best friend' ...
a DOG wags his tail instead of his tongue.
Please visit: http://tinyurl.com/lzxm
==================================================================
Scout Lady
2003-11-13 20:56:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc Watson
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:01:10 -0500, "Scout Lady"
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Doc Watson
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:01:30 -0500, "Scout Lady"
Post by Scout Lady
Look at this, Elaine has nothing to add but potty talk.......how
surprising.
Post by Doc Watson
Now now, madam - be silent. As usual, your mind is in the gutter.
This from a woman that announced in a Christian newsgroup that she actually
watches a kinky show and yet declares she is not interested in sex.
---
1. I watch it once in awhile, because it IS comical.
There is nothing comical about S&M Elaine.
Post by Doc Watson
Any idiot who would go on a television show like that HAS to be a
comedian.
I take it you have never seen the Jerry Springer show.
Post by Doc Watson
2. I am not interested in sex, so imagine whatever you like, madam.
I can't help you with that Elaine, I suggest you see a physican to determine
whether your lack of interest in sex is due to an organic problem or has
psychological causes.
Post by Doc Watson
3. What you think of me is of no concern.
Evidently it is as you keep trying to justify watching a kinky show.
Post by Doc Watson
4. Once in a while does not mean 'every day'.
Never said it did. However, thanks for the clarification, I was under the
impression that you watched the sex show once, not more than once.
Post by Doc Watson
Dream on, madam Cathy Hall, Miss Perfect.......... imagine whatever
you like, because I KNOW the difference between the truth and the CRAP
you are posting about me.
I have posted no crap about you Elaine. You freely and publicly announced
that you watch a kinky show and then tried to project both the behavior of
the show's participants and your own sleazy viewing habits onto me.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.538 / Virus Database: 333 - Release Date: 11/11/03
Doc Watson
2003-11-14 14:26:09 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:56:30 -0500, "Scout Lady"
Post by Scout Lady
I can't help you with that Elaine, I suggest you see a physican to determine
whether your lack of interest in sex is due to an organic problem or has
psychological causes.
Moron. I'm single and celibate, therefore, I have no 'un-natural'
problem like you would dearly love to think.
You're really a sicko.
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Doc Watson
3. What you think of me is of no concern.
Evidently it is as you keep trying to justify watching a kinky show.
I don't have to justify anything. If I want to watch that stupid show
and have a few laughs, I will. I don't need to justify anything to
you, madam. I merely spoke about what the show was about, and as
usual, you tried to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Try it elsewhere, loser.
It won't work with me.
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Doc Watson
4. Once in a while does not mean 'every day'.
Never said it did. However, thanks for the clarification, I was under the
impression that you watched the sex show once, not more than once.
Oh dear me----- my, my- how terrible.
Too bad, madam, but I have seen it several times now, and I roar
laughing every time I do, knowing that these idiots are classed as
'sane' and are still out on the streets....... something like you....
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Doc Watson
Dream on, madam Cathy Hall, Miss Perfect.......... imagine whatever
you like, because I KNOW the difference between the truth and the CRAP
you are posting about me.
I have posted no crap about you Elaine. You freely and publicly announced
that you watch a kinky show and then tried to project both the behavior of
the show's participants and your own sleazy viewing habits onto me.
haha!! Nice try madam, but it ain't gonna wash.


--


===================================================================
No wonder they call the DOG 'man's best friend' ...
a DOG wags his tail instead of his tongue.
Please visit: http://tinyurl.com/lzxm
==================================================================
Scout Lady
2003-11-14 15:13:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc Watson
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:56:30 -0500, "Scout Lady"
Post by Scout Lady
I can't help you with that Elaine, I suggest you see a physican to determine
whether your lack of interest in sex is due to an organic problem or has
psychological causes.
Moron. I'm single and celibate, therefore, I have no 'un-natural'
problem like you would dearly love to think.
You're really a sicko.
What does being single and "celibate" have to do with your lack of interest
in sex? There are people that are happily married and have no interest in
sex so one's marital status has nothing to do with it.
Post by Doc Watson
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Doc Watson
3. What you think of me is of no concern.
Evidently it is as you keep trying to justify watching a kinky show.
I don't have to justify anything. If I want to watch that stupid show
and have a few laughs, I will. I don't need to justify anything to
you, madam. I merely spoke about what the show was about, and as
usual, you tried to make a mountain out of a molehill.
No Elaine, if you hadn't projected your viewing habits onto me I would have
just grouped you with John W, the one who looks at incest and bestiality
porn and calls it research. You watch it and call it comedy. I say its all
trash and something a Christian should avoid as it provides a near occassin
of sin.

When I was in college I saw more than a few porno movies, the guys in the
dorm rented them all the time. I use to laugh simply because 1) I had no
sexual experience and just knew that it couldn't be that way, I knew even
back then the chances of me ever saying give it to me up my ___ were zero to
none, and 2) it was embarassing for me and laughter helped cover up my
embarassment. As an adult woman I now understand that there was nothing
funny about those movies and they degraded those in them as well as those
watching them. If you had an adult understanding of sexuality you wouldn't
find it funny at all either.

The other night I was working alone with a male that is the same age as I
am. He is married to the minister's daughter of a local church and by all
appearances (he reads his bible when we aren't busy and seems even more
conservative than I am) and he turned on a local radio station on the radio
he had brought with him. A caller announced that when she first married her
husband asked her to pleasure herself and let him watch. She was too
inhibited at that time and refused. Three years later she has found herself
comfortable enough to fulfill this fantasy of his and then he becomes
furious that she has been pleasuring herself without him. At this point I
really expected him to change the station. He didn't and what followed was
sexually explicit talk and I asked him to change the station because it was
making me feel uncomfortable. He told me to relax because its only harmless
entertainment. It wasn't harmless entertainment, and as far as I am
concerned no Christian man would refuse to turn off such a program when a
female was present and stated directly that she felt uncomfortable about the
subject matter and the comments. Of course in the morning when the day shift
came in he had the radio tuned to a local Christian station because he is
just another hypocrite that talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.
Post by Doc Watson
Try it elsewhere, loser.
It won't work with me.
Try what?
Post by Doc Watson
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Doc Watson
4. Once in a while does not mean 'every day'.
Never said it did. However, thanks for the clarification, I was under the
impression that you watched the sex show once, not more than once.
Oh dear me----- my, my- how terrible.
Too bad, madam, but I have seen it several times now, and I roar
laughing every time I do, knowing that these idiots are classed as
'sane' and are still out on the streets....... something like you....
See above Elaine. Perhaps because you have failed to enter into an intimate
adult relationship you are unable to comphrehend that there is nothing funny
about sex being used as entertainment. You want a comedy, go rent one.
Furthermore I see you are still unable to discuss anything without 3rd grade
name calling.
Post by Doc Watson
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Doc Watson
Dream on, madam Cathy Hall, Miss Perfect.......... imagine whatever
you like, because I KNOW the difference between the truth and the CRAP
you are posting about me.
I have posted no crap about you Elaine. You freely and publicly announced
that you watch a kinky show and then tried to project both the behavior of
the show's participants and your own sleazy viewing habits onto me.
haha!! Nice try madam, but it ain't gonna wash.
Actually Elaine I have stated nothing but the truth. You freely announced
that you watch a kinky sex show and then went on to say after I brought it
up, "You are most likely comparing your own WEAKNESS against my watching
the stupid thing and having a good laugh. I wonder- do you or your third
husband subscribe to 'PRIDE-TV' or the 'Playboy channel'???" implying that I
share your weakness for watching sex shows. In one place you claim you have
no interest in my sex life and yet here you were "wondering" about it.

You repeated the same behavior in this post by asserting "Too bad, madam,
but I have seen it several times now, and I roar laughing every time I do,
knowing that these idiots are classed as 'sane' and are still out on the
streets....... something like you...." Thanks for illustrating my point so
quickly.

Why not get off the sex talk Elaine, you clearly haven't a clue as to what
you are talking about. Sexuality is a gift and like other gifts can be
abused. Using sex as entertainment is one such abuse, it is sinful for those
using it to make money and it is sinful for those who get a kick out of
watching the abuse of one of God's gifts. You should be praying for those
involved in such a program instead of laughing at them and supporting them
by being a viewer. I suggest you turn off the TV and start trying to discern
the theology of the body.
Post by Doc Watson
--
===================================================================
No wonder they call the DOG 'man's best friend' ...
a DOG wags his tail instead of his tongue.
Please visit: http://tinyurl.com/lzxm
==================================================================
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.538 / Virus Database: 333 - Release Date: 11/11/03
Stephen M. Adams
2003-11-13 19:27:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
No, they are not. A reading of basic history will show this to
be patently false. First off all, there was no "RCC" prior to
the 11th century (at least as it is knownn now). Before then,
there were 5 major churches, centered in Rome, Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The "pope" was ONLY the chief
bishop of the church centered in Rome. He held no sway outside
his territory (Western Europe, parts of N. Africa). The other
churches always were, and still are, independent of Rome, and
have NEVER been her "daughters."
<snip>
Post by Scout Lady
http://web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm
You were saying........
That NONE of the other 4 Patriarchates accepted ANYTHING other than
Rome having the first place of honor. Check with the Orthodox churches,
they can provide even MORE material than you posted showing that the
Bishop of Rome was never accepted as a *universal* bishop, nor did he
ever have immidate, ordinary jurisdiction in any diocese except his
own.
I'm sorry but you are simply in error, there is plently of evidence to the
contrary as evidenced in my response.
No, there simply is not. While you can certainly dig up individual
statements by various Christians in various places, what you can not
do, is show where the powers claimed by the Pope were actually in force
in areas outside the Patriarchate of Rome.

Rome had no say in the nomination or enthronement of Bishops in the other
Patriarchates. Rome had no say in the nomination or enthronement of the
other Patriarchs. Rome had no say in day-to-day operations of the other
Patriachates. Rome was subject to the decrees of Eccumenical Councils,
while having minority representation at them.

Rome did have the right of primacy of honor (ie sitting in the seat of
honor at a council), the right to hear appeals from bishops in other
Patriarchates if they did not get a fair hearing, and was often called
upon to settle disputes. BUT, this is nothing like ordinary, universal
jurisdiction claimed by the Pope.

Please, from all your piles of "evidence", provide examples of Rome
acting as you say *prior* to the schism.
Post by Scout Lady
The bottom line is after the schism
the Orthodox denied the very concept their own bishops supported and many ea
stern Catholics remained with the western Church.
You are sadly mistaken. There were exactly NO christians in the East
under the authority of Rome, except for those who emmigrated from the
West and insisted on maintainng their ties to Rome, or those others where
Rome imposed by military force her rule.

I challenge you to show evidence to the contrary.
Post by Scout Lady
The assertion that there
was no RCC prior to the 11th century is even more riduculous than the
Protestants asserting there was no Catholic Church before Constantine,
academically it simply doesn't hold water.
Yes, it does. Rome, AS IT EXISTS TODAY, is a creation of the 9th to 12th
centuries, and the theology held by Rome has diverged from that of the
ancient church in such a way as to render Rome no longer in communion with
the Orthodox churches. Again, I challenge you to show Rome acting with her
current claimed authority in the East, at any time, except in those areas
where her armies imposed Latin Patriarchs and/or practices.
Post by Scout Lady
I have no problem with the
Orthodox Church but I rejected Orthodoxy based on the writings of their own
Church fathers, revisionist history has never sat well with me.
Funny, but the revered Christian theological scholar Jaroslav Pelikan,
perhaps the most important historical theology writer of the 20th century,
begs to disagree. It is Rome who is writing revisionist history. Which
comes as no surprise to Protestants or Orthodox.
Post by Scout Lady
Orthodoxy
is basically ancient Catholicism
In other words, it is the ancient faith, preserved. Thank you.
Post by Scout Lady
and since they have cut themselves off from
the living Church they are stuck in the eleventh century forever.
The Roman Church is NOT the living church, for they have abandoned the
faith the universal councils.
Post by Scout Lady
It
certainly isn't universal and outside of Orthodoxy very few even know it
exists.
Catholic does NOT mean universal - that's a Roman corruption. It means
"whole" (kata-holou == according to the whole). To be Catholic does not
mean to be universal, it means to be complete.

-Stepehn
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
***@AMadamsemail.net (remove SPAM to reply)
Scout Lady
2003-11-13 20:23:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
No, they are not. A reading of basic history will show this to
be patently false. First off all, there was no "RCC" prior to
the 11th century (at least as it is knownn now). Before then,
there were 5 major churches, centered in Rome, Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The "pope" was ONLY the chief
bishop of the church centered in Rome. He held no sway outside
his territory (Western Europe, parts of N. Africa). The other
churches always were, and still are, independent of Rome, and
have NEVER been her "daughters."
<snip>
Post by Scout Lady
http://web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm
You were saying........
That NONE of the other 4 Patriarchates accepted ANYTHING other than
Rome having the first place of honor. Check with the Orthodox churches,
they can provide even MORE material than you posted showing that the
Bishop of Rome was never accepted as a *universal* bishop, nor did he
ever have immidate, ordinary jurisdiction in any diocese except his
own.
I'm sorry but you are simply in error, there is plently of evidence to the
contrary as evidenced in my response.
No, there simply is not. While you can certainly dig up individual
statements by various Christians in various places, what you can not
do, is show where the powers claimed by the Pope were actually in force
in areas outside the Patriarchate of Rome.
Rome had no say in the nomination or enthronement of Bishops in the other
Patriarchates. Rome had no say in the nomination or enthronement of the
other Patriarchs. Rome had no say in day-to-day operations of the other
Patriachates. Rome was subject to the decrees of Eccumenical Councils,
while having minority representation at them.
Rome did have the right of primacy of honor (ie sitting in the seat of
honor at a council), the right to hear appeals from bishops in other
Patriarchates if they did not get a fair hearing, and was often called
upon to settle disputes. BUT, this is nothing like ordinary, universal
jurisdiction claimed by the Pope.
The Pope does not get involved in day to day business of the other bishops
even today. However, you made my point for me, conflicts were settled in
Rome. The Pope even today is subject to the decree's of Eccumenical Council
that strawman is not needed.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Please, from all your piles of "evidence", provide examples of Rome
acting as you say *prior* to the schism.
I already have. The Pope was considered the first among the bishops and
occupied the chair of Peter.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
The bottom line is after the schism
the Orthodox denied the very concept their own bishops supported and many ea
stern Catholics remained with the western Church.
You are sadly mistaken. There were exactly NO christians in the East
under the authority of Rome, except for those who emmigrated from the
West and insisted on maintainng their ties to Rome, or those others where
Rome imposed by military force her rule.
Sorry but you are incorrect.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
I challenge you to show evidence to the contrary.
See http://credo.stormloader.com/easterca.htm
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
The assertion that there
was no RCC prior to the 11th century is even more riduculous than the
Protestants asserting there was no Catholic Church before Constantine,
academically it simply doesn't hold water.
Yes, it does. Rome, AS IT EXISTS TODAY, is a creation of the 9th to 12th
centuries, and the theology held by Rome has diverged from that of the
ancient church in such a way as to render Rome no longer in communion with
the Orthodox churches. Again, I challenge you to show Rome acting with her
current claimed authority in the East, at any time, except in those areas
where her armies imposed Latin Patriarchs and/or practices.
Nonsense. The Catholic Church was founded in 33AD with Jesus making Peter
the head of His Church here on earth. The Orthodox got their panties in a
bunch and went into schism thereby cutting themselves off from the universal
Church and surviving primary through the creation of state churches and the
charity of Muslims.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
I have no problem with the
Orthodox Church but I rejected Orthodoxy based on the writings of their own
Church fathers, revisionist history has never sat well with me.
Funny, but the revered Christian theological scholar Jaroslav Pelikan,
perhaps the most important historical theology writer of the 20th century,
begs to disagree. It is Rome who is writing revisionist history. Which
comes as no surprise to Protestants or Orthodox.
Jaroslav Pelikan is a convert to Orthodoxy, what do you expect him to
write...that the Orthodox are pretending that they never were united to Rome
through the chair of Peter?
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Orthodoxy
is basically ancient Catholicism
In other words, it is the ancient faith, preserved. Thank you.
Like I said, I have no problem with Orthodoxy and consider it part of the
Church in that they have held on to the deposit of faith.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
and since they have cut themselves off from
the living Church they are stuck in the eleventh century forever.
The Roman Church is NOT the living church, for they have abandoned the
faith the universal councils.
The Catholic Church is not the church that stagnated in the 11th century
forever being forced to stand still. We still have councils, when the Pope
speaks the world listens......when one oif your Patriarchs speaks if it is
even noticed outside of Orthodoxy the world says who the hell is that guy.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
It
certainly isn't universal and outside of Orthodoxy very few even know it
exists.
Catholic does NOT mean universal - that's a Roman corruption. It means
"whole" (kata-holou == according to the whole). To be Catholic does not
mean to be universal, it means to be complete.
Catholicism is complete and it is universal. Orthodoxy is neither.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
-Stepehn
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.538 / Virus Database: 333 - Release Date: 11/11/03
Stephen M. Adams
2003-11-14 00:17:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
I'm sorry but you are simply in error, there is plently of evidence to the
contrary as evidenced in my response.
No, there simply is not. While you can certainly dig up individual
statements by various Christians in various places, what you can not
do, is show where the powers claimed by the Pope were actually in force
in areas outside the Patriarchate of Rome.
Rome had no say in the nomination or enthronement of Bishops in the other
Patriarchates. Rome had no say in the nomination or enthronement of the
other Patriarchs. Rome had no say in day-to-day operations of the other
Patriachates. Rome was subject to the decrees of Eccumenical Councils,
while having minority representation at them.
Rome did have the right of primacy of honor (ie sitting in the seat of
honor at a council), the right to hear appeals from bishops in other
Patriarchates if they did not get a fair hearing, and was often called
upon to settle disputes. BUT, this is nothing like ordinary, universal
jurisdiction claimed by the Pope.
The Pope does not get involved in day to day business of the other bishops
even today.
Hogwash. The Pope on a regular basis commands bishops to heed him. And
they do. Or face the consequences. The pope exerts what he is pleased to
call "ordinary, universal jurisdiction."
Post by Scout Lady
However, you made my point for me, conflicts were settled in Rome.
Nice stretch. But it fails. I said that Rome settled some disputes.
Not all. Not even the majority. But you made my point when you failed
to show ANY evidence that the pope exerted anything even remotely
resembling "ordinary, universal jurisdiction" in the East.
Post by Scout Lady
The Pope even today is subject to the decree's of Eccumenical Council
that strawman is not needed.
How do you reconcile your statements with the Pope claiming to not be
subject to the councils?
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Please, from all your piles of "evidence", provide examples of Rome
acting as you say *prior* to the schism.
I already have. The Pope was considered the first among the bishops and
occupied the chair of Peter.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
The bottom line is after the schism
the Orthodox denied the very concept their own bishops supported and many
ea
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
stern Catholics remained with the western Church.
You are sadly mistaken. There were exactly NO christians in the East
under the authority of Rome, except for those who emmigrated from the
West and insisted on maintainng their ties to Rome, or those others where
Rome imposed by military force her rule.
Sorry but you are incorrect.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
I challenge you to show evidence to the contrary.
See http://credo.stormloader.com/easterca.htm
?? Your site proves MY point!

It says "They are the heirs of the partial unions with the Holy See made
by Eastern Bishops from the 12th-16th centuries who sought to restore
their ancient unity with the See of Peter."

Sought to restore. In other words, they were NOT as you say "remaining"
in the church. My point is proven. Thank you.
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Yes, it does. Rome, AS IT EXISTS TODAY, is a creation of the 9th to 12th
centuries, and the theology held by Rome has diverged from that of the
ancient church in such a way as to render Rome no longer in communion with
the Orthodox churches. Again, I challenge you to show Rome acting with
her
Post by Stephen M. Adams
current claimed authority in the East, at any time, except in those areas
where her armies imposed Latin Patriarchs and/or practices.
Nonsense. The Catholic Church was founded in 33AD with Jesus making Peter
the head of His Church here on earth.
I agree. The *Catholic* Church was founded then. Just not the *Roman*
schism. That came later.
Post by Scout Lady
The Orthodox got their panties in a bunch and went into schism
Rome schismed. It's quite clear. All one has to do is examine who
changed their doctrine, who believed that they could, on their own
say, reject the credal statements of the entire church.

Read, among other things, "Church, Papacy and Schism" by Sherrard and
"The Mystgogy of the Holy Spirit" by Patriarch +PHOTIOS.
Post by Scout Lady
thereby cutting themselves off from the universal Church and
It was Rome who left. Check your facts.
Post by Scout Lady
surviving primary through the creation of state churches and the
charity of Muslims.
Regional churches existed long before the schism by Rome. Rome itself
is such a *regional* church. It has simply violated the canons by
expanding far beyond its permitted area.
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
I have no problem with the
Orthodox Church but I rejected Orthodoxy based on the writings of their
own
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Church fathers, revisionist history has never sat well with me.
Funny, but the revered Christian theological scholar Jaroslav Pelikan,
perhaps the most important historical theology writer of the 20th century,
begs to disagree. It is Rome who is writing revisionist history. Which
comes as no surprise to Protestants or Orthodox.
Jaroslav Pelikan is a convert to Orthodoxy, what do you expect him to
write...
Uhm, he wrote his seminal work while he was a Lutheran. It was his study
for that work that convinced him of the truth of Orthodoxy Again, you
need to check your facts before you write. He converted based on his
work, not the other way around.
Post by Scout Lady
that the Orthodox are pretending that they never were united to Rome
through the chair of Peter?
Nobody is pretending that there was not unity. Only that unity was NOT
based in Rome, but in the common faith of each individual bishop. You
have read WAY too much Roman propaganda. Unity was based in each bishop
holding to a common faith, NOT in Rome.
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Orthodoxy is basically ancient Catholicism
In other words, it is the ancient faith, preserved. Thank you.
Like I said, I have no problem with Orthodoxy and consider it part of the
Church in that they have held on to the deposit of faith.
The "branch" or "sister" church theory. The Orthodox insist you are
heretics. You accept their sacraments. They reject yours.

Sounds to me like you agree that they have a legit claim. Which means
that the pope really DOESN'T have the power you claim. Thanks.
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
and since they have cut themselves off from
the living Church they are stuck in the eleventh century forever.
The Roman Church is NOT the living church, for they have abandoned the
faith the universal councils.
The Catholic Church is not the church that stagnated in the 11th century
forever being forced to stand still. We still have councils, when the Pope
speaks the world listens......when one oif your Patriarchs speaks if it is
even noticed outside of Orthodoxy the world says who the hell is that guy.
Being noticed by men has nothing to do with teaching the truth. And I
daresay Orthodox has hardly stood still. Have you read Schmeman, Lossky,
et al?
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
It
certainly isn't universal and outside of Orthodoxy very few even know it
exists.
Catholic does NOT mean universal - that's a Roman corruption. It means
"whole" (kata-holou == according to the whole). To be Catholic does not
mean to be universal, it means to be complete.
Catholicism is complete and it is universal. Orthodoxy is neither.
Orthodox is Catholic because it is the complete faith. What is taught in
Rome is not catholic, because it is not complete.

-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
***@AMadamsemail.net (remove SPAM to reply)
Scout Lady
2003-11-14 12:47:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
I'm sorry but you are simply in error, there is plently of evidence to the
contrary as evidenced in my response.
No, there simply is not. While you can certainly dig up individual
statements by various Christians in various places, what you can not
do, is show where the powers claimed by the Pope were actually in force
in areas outside the Patriarchate of Rome.
Rome had no say in the nomination or enthronement of Bishops in the other
Patriarchates. Rome had no say in the nomination or enthronement of the
other Patriarchs. Rome had no say in day-to-day operations of the other
Patriachates. Rome was subject to the decrees of Eccumenical Councils,
while having minority representation at them.
Rome did have the right of primacy of honor (ie sitting in the seat of
honor at a council), the right to hear appeals from bishops in other
Patriarchates if they did not get a fair hearing, and was often called
upon to settle disputes. BUT, this is nothing like ordinary, universal
jurisdiction claimed by the Pope.
The Pope does not get involved in day to day business of the other bishops
even today.
Hogwash. The Pope on a regular basis commands bishops to heed him. And
they do. Or face the consequences. The pope exerts what he is pleased to
call "ordinary, universal jurisdiction."
LOL....yes that is why we have bishops ordaining homosexuals, bishops
failing to teach the Pope's views on birth control and abortion, etc. We
have bishops that ignore clear Church teachings and teach their own version.
As soon as the Pope says something the opposition goes to work telling
exactly why the Pope is wrong.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
However, you made my point for me, conflicts were settled in Rome.
Nice stretch. But it fails. I said that Rome settled some disputes.
Not all. Not even the majority. But you made my point when you failed
to show ANY evidence that the pope exerted anything even remotely
resembling "ordinary, universal jurisdiction" in the East.
It was a different time. Messages weren't faxed or emailed. There was not
the kind of communication we have today.

Pope Celestine I most certainly exerted oridinary universal jusrisdiction
over the entire Church, east and west. Cyril and Nestoruis both appealed to
Celestine and he condemned the heresy of Nestorius who was excommunicated as
a result. He reinstated a priest the bishops of Africa had excommunicated to
show his jursidiction extended beyond Rome, then he instructed the bishops
of Illyria to to treat the bishop of Thessalonica as his vicar.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/1327/0910focus.html
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
The Pope even today is subject to the decree's of Eccumenical Council
that strawman is not needed.
How do you reconcile your statements with the Pope claiming to not be
subject to the councils?
Give me a quote and a source and we'll look at it in context.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Please, from all your piles of "evidence", provide examples of Rome
acting as you say *prior* to the schism.
I already have. The Pope was considered the first among the bishops and
occupied the chair of Peter.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
The bottom line is after the schism
the Orthodox denied the very concept their own bishops supported and many
ea
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
stern Catholics remained with the western Church.
You are sadly mistaken. There were exactly NO christians in the East
under the authority of Rome, except for those who emmigrated from the
West and insisted on maintainng their ties to Rome, or those others where
Rome imposed by military force her rule.
Sorry but you are incorrect.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
I challenge you to show evidence to the contrary.
See http://credo.stormloader.com/easterca.htm
?? Your site proves MY point!
It says "They are the heirs of the partial unions with the Holy See made
by Eastern Bishops from the 12th-16th centuries who sought to restore
their ancient unity with the See of Peter."
Sought to restore. In other words, they were NOT as you say "remaining"
in the church. My point is proven. Thank you.
Not quite. In order to restore they had to be under the authority of the See
of Peter before the Orthodox went into schism. People didn't get to chose
they simply had no choice. Here we are in the 21st century and the Russian
Patriarch is having a fit over the thought of allowing a Catholic bishop in
Russia, evidently he fears that Orthodoxy can't handle any competition.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Yes, it does. Rome, AS IT EXISTS TODAY, is a creation of the 9th to 12th
centuries, and the theology held by Rome has diverged from that of the
ancient church in such a way as to render Rome no longer in communion with
the Orthodox churches. Again, I challenge you to show Rome acting with
her
Post by Stephen M. Adams
current claimed authority in the East, at any time, except in those areas
where her armies imposed Latin Patriarchs and/or practices.
Nonsense. The Catholic Church was founded in 33AD with Jesus making Peter
the head of His Church here on earth.
I agree. The *Catholic* Church was founded then. Just not the *Roman*
schism. That came later.
We could argue to the second coming. I believe the Orthodox went into schism
and you the Catholics.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
The Orthodox got their panties in a bunch and went into schism
Rome schismed. It's quite clear. All one has to do is examine who
changed their doctrine, who believed that they could, on their own
say, reject the credal statements of the entire church.
See above.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Read, among other things, "Church, Papacy and Schism" by Sherrard and
"The Mystgogy of the Holy Spirit" by Patriarch +PHOTIOS.
Why? I believe it would be as objective as reading Dave Hunts "The Woman who
rides the beast".
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
thereby cutting themselves off from the universal Church and
It was Rome who left. Check your facts.
I have, it was the words of the eastern Church fathers that convinced me
that the Orthodox separated from then Holy See.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
surviving primary through the creation of state churches and the
charity of Muslims.
Regional churches existed long before the schism by Rome. Rome itself
is such a *regional* church. It has simply violated the canons by
expanding far beyond its permitted area.
There is a difference between regional churches and state churches. Jesus
instructed to go out and spread the Good News and He didn't place
geographical boundaries on where and to whom, men who feared the loss of
their power base did. Face it, Rome won the match and all you can do at this
point is spit at her and complained it isn't fair.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
I have no problem with the
Orthodox Church but I rejected Orthodoxy based on the writings of their
own
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Church fathers, revisionist history has never sat well with me.
Funny, but the revered Christian theological scholar Jaroslav Pelikan,
perhaps the most important historical theology writer of the 20th century,
begs to disagree. It is Rome who is writing revisionist history.
Which
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
comes as no surprise to Protestants or Orthodox.
Jaroslav Pelikan is a convert to Orthodoxy, what do you expect him to
write...
Uhm, he wrote his seminal work while he was a Lutheran. It was his study
for that work that convinced him of the truth of Orthodoxy Again, you
need to check your facts before you write. He converted based on his
work, not the other way around.
Actually I have done my work, as a Lutheran he already had a bias against
the Papacy so it stands to reason that he would chose a pope-less church.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
that the Orthodox are pretending that they never were united to Rome
through the chair of Peter?
Nobody is pretending that there was not unity. Only that unity was NOT
based in Rome, but in the common faith of each individual bishop. You
have read WAY too much Roman propaganda. Unity was based in each bishop
holding to a common faith, NOT in Rome.
Do you have a crystal ball that shows you what I read and what I don't read?
The early Church fathers tell a different story than you are telling here.
Sorry but I will take their word over yours.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Orthodoxy is basically ancient Catholicism
In other words, it is the ancient faith, preserved. Thank you.
Like I said, I have no problem with Orthodoxy and consider it part of the
Church in that they have held on to the deposit of faith.
The "branch" or "sister" church theory. The Orthodox insist you are
heretics. You accept their sacraments. They reject yours.
One of the biggest reasons I embraced Catholicism and rejected Orthodoxy,
theologically there is absolutely no justification for the stand the
Orthodox have taken, it just human pride.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Sounds to me like you agree that they have a legit claim. Which means
that the pope really DOESN'T have the power you claim. Thanks.
You misunderstand. While the rest of Christianity tries to eliminate one
another, the Catholic Church seeks to bind all believers as one in the Body
of Christ. For the most part the attitude of the Orthodox is more disgusting
than even that of Christian fundamentalists, to those who are given more,
more is expected. The Orthodox (and not all of them but many that post to
usenet) are a hateful group filled with deadly pride. Orthodoxy has failed
in the great commision and it has failed due to pride and nothing else.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
and since they have cut themselves off from
the living Church they are stuck in the eleventh century forever.
The Roman Church is NOT the living church, for they have abandoned the
faith the universal councils.
The Catholic Church is not the church that stagnated in the 11th century
forever being forced to stand still. We still have councils, when the Pope
speaks the world listens......when one oif your Patriarchs speaks if it is
even noticed outside of Orthodoxy the world says who the hell is that guy.
Being noticed by men has nothing to do with teaching the truth. And I
daresay Orthodox has hardly stood still. Have you read Schmeman, Lossky,
et al?
I have no interest in reading their work. I do know that Christ's Church
should be a beacon and Orthodoxy fails in that respect, in order to spread
the Gospel you have to go to those who need to hear it. Orthodoxy is an
ethnic religion not a universal one.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
It
certainly isn't universal and outside of Orthodoxy very few even know it
exists.
Catholic does NOT mean universal - that's a Roman corruption. It means
"whole" (kata-holou == according to the whole). To be Catholic does not
mean to be universal, it means to be complete.
Catholicism is complete and it is universal. Orthodoxy is neither.
Orthodox is Catholic because it is the complete faith. What is taught in
Rome is not catholic, because it is not complete.
Brillant.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.538 / Virus Database: 333 - Release Date: 11/11/03
Stephen M. Adams
2003-11-18 21:27:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout Lady
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/1327/0910focus.html
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
The Pope even today is subject to the decree's of Eccumenical Council
that strawman is not needed.
How do you reconcile your statements with the Pope claiming to not be
subject to the councils?
Give me a quote and a source and we'll look at it in context.
Pius IX. "The Pope is not subject to any council"
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
You are sadly mistaken. There were exactly NO christians in the East
under the authority of Rome, except for those who emmigrated from the
West and insisted on maintainng their ties to Rome, or those others
where
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Rome imposed by military force her rule.
Sorry but you are incorrect.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
I challenge you to show evidence to the contrary.
See http://credo.stormloader.com/easterca.htm
?? Your site proves MY point!
It says "They are the heirs of the partial unions with the Holy See made
by Eastern Bishops from the 12th-16th centuries who sought to restore
their ancient unity with the See of Peter."
Sought to restore. In other words, they were NOT as you say "remaining"
in the church. My point is proven. Thank you.
Not quite. In order to restore they had to be under the authority of the See
of Peter before the Orthodox went into schism. People didn't get to chose
they simply had no choice. Here we are in the 21st century and the Russian
Patriarch is having a fit over the thought of allowing a Catholic bishop in
Russia, evidently he fears that Orthodoxy can't handle any competition.
Excuse me, but being in *communion* with someone (what you call unity)
does NOT give them authority over you. Not even close. And all one has
to do is look at the treatment of Uniate priests by the Vatican and we
see that MANY of them rue the reunion, and some of them have gone back
to the Orthodox fold.
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Nonsense. The Catholic Church was founded in 33AD with Jesus making Peter
the head of His Church here on earth.
I agree. The *Catholic* Church was founded then. Just not the *Roman*
schism. That came later.
We could argue to the second coming. I believe the Orthodox went into schism
and you the Catholics.
Orthodox didn't change their doctrine. Thus, it was Rome who broke from
the faith once delivered to the saints. Pretty clear.
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Read, among other things, "Church, Papacy and Schism" by Sherrard and
"The Mystgogy of the Holy Spirit" by Patriarch +PHOTIOS.
Why? I believe it would be as objective as reading Dave Hunts "The Woman who
rides the beast".
Having read them both, I say you are sadly mistaken. Reading them would
do you good.
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
thereby cutting themselves off from the universal Church and
It was Rome who left. Check your facts.
I have, it was the words of the eastern Church fathers that convinced me
that the Orthodox separated from then Holy See.
When read *out of context* you could come to that conclusion. As I
stated, please show ONE incident where Rome exercised ordinary, universal
jurisdiction in the sees of the other Patriarchs, except when backed by
military occupation.
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
surviving primary through the creation of state churches and the
charity of Muslims.
Regional churches existed long before the schism by Rome. Rome itself
is such a *regional* church. It has simply violated the canons by
expanding far beyond its permitted area.
There is a difference between regional churches and state churches. Jesus
instructed to go out and spread the Good News and He didn't place
geographical boundaries on where and to whom, men who feared the loss of
their power base did. Face it, Rome won the match and all you can do at this
point is spit at her and complained it isn't fair.
Rome violated the canons of the councils which set the boundries. And
continues to violate them today. As I said, the pope does not think he
is subject to the rulings of councils. THAT alone makes him a heretic.
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Jaroslav Pelikan is a convert to Orthodoxy, what do you expect him to
write...
Uhm, he wrote his seminal work while he was a Lutheran. It was his study
for that work that convinced him of the truth of Orthodoxy Again, you
need to check your facts before you write. He converted based on his
work, not the other way around.
Actually I have done my work, as a Lutheran he already had a bias against
the Papacy so it stands to reason that he would chose a pope-less church.
He followed the truth. And if you read his works, you will NOT see bias
against Rome. Not even close. Have you actually READ his works? I have.
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
that the Orthodox are pretending that they never were united to Rome
through the chair of Peter?
Nobody is pretending that there was not unity. Only that unity was NOT
based in Rome, but in the common faith of each individual bishop. You
have read WAY too much Roman propaganda. Unity was based in each bishop
holding to a common faith, NOT in Rome.
Do you have a crystal ball that shows you what I read and what I don't read?
You were the one refusing to read anything that wasn't *pro* catholic.
Post by Scout Lady
The early Church fathers tell a different story than you are telling here.
No, they don't. You spin them that way.
Post by Scout Lady
Sorry but I will take their word over yours.
All you have to do is show me that the pope actually exercised the
authority he now claims during the first 10 centuries *outside* his
jurisdictional area (ie Western Roman Empire).
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
The "branch" or "sister" church theory. The Orthodox insist you are
heretics. You accept their sacraments. They reject yours.
One of the biggest reasons I embraced Catholicism and rejected Orthodoxy,
theologically there is absolutely no justification for the stand the
Orthodox have taken, it just human pride.
Truth. That's what matters. If they are right about the faith, then
the Orthodox position is NOT pride, but truth.
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Sounds to me like you agree that they have a legit claim. Which means
that the pope really DOESN'T have the power you claim. Thanks.
You misunderstand. While the rest of Christianity tries to eliminate one
another, the Catholic Church seeks to bind all believers as one in the Body
of Christ.
The pope wants more power. Yep.
Post by Scout Lady
For the most part the attitude of the Orthodox is more disgusting
than even that of Christian fundamentalists, to those who are given more,
more is expected. The Orthodox (and not all of them but many that post to
usenet) are a hateful group filled with deadly pride. Orthodoxy has failed
in the great commision and it has failed due to pride and nothing else.
I suggest you check the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America.
In 20 years they have gone from 60 parishs to nearly 300. And they are
gaining converts at a speedy clip.

To judge ANY group by the internet is dishonest, at best.
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Being noticed by men has nothing to do with teaching the truth. And I
daresay Orthodox has hardly stood still. Have you read Schmeman, Lossky,
et al?
I have no interest in reading their work.
So I was right. You only read pro-roman propaganda, as opposed to seeking
the truth.
Post by Scout Lady
I do know that Christ's Church
should be a beacon and Orthodoxy fails in that respect, in order to spread
the Gospel you have to go to those who need to hear it. Orthodoxy is an
ethnic religion not a universal one.
Hardly. Again, check the Antiochian archdiocese.
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Catholicism is complete and it is universal. Orthodoxy is neither.
Orthodoxy is Catholic because it is the complete faith. What is taught in
Rome is not catholic, because it is not complete.
Brillant.
Thanks. I know you meant it to be sarcastic, but it's true nonetheless.

-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
***@AMadamsemail.net (remove SPAM to reply)
Scout Lady
2003-11-19 00:41:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/1327/0910focus.html
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
The Pope even today is subject to the decree's of Eccumenical Council
that strawman is not needed.
How do you reconcile your statements with the Pope claiming to not be
subject to the councils?
Give me a quote and a source and we'll look at it in context.
Pius IX. "The Pope is not subject to any council"
You gave me a quote but no information as to where one can read it in
context. What is your reference?
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
You are sadly mistaken. There were exactly NO christians in the East
under the authority of Rome, except for those who emmigrated from the
West and insisted on maintainng their ties to Rome, or those others
where
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Rome imposed by military force her rule.
Sorry but you are incorrect.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
I challenge you to show evidence to the contrary.
See http://credo.stormloader.com/easterca.htm
?? Your site proves MY point!
It says "They are the heirs of the partial unions with the Holy See made
by Eastern Bishops from the 12th-16th centuries who sought to restore
their ancient unity with the See of Peter."
Sought to restore. In other words, they were NOT as you say "remaining"
in the church. My point is proven. Thank you.
Not quite. In order to restore they had to be under the authority of the See
of Peter before the Orthodox went into schism. People didn't get to chose
they simply had no choice. Here we are in the 21st century and the Russian
Patriarch is having a fit over the thought of allowing a Catholic bishop in
Russia, evidently he fears that Orthodoxy can't handle any competition.
Excuse me, but being in *communion* with someone (what you call unity)
does NOT give them authority over you. Not even close. And all one has
to do is look at the treatment of Uniate priests by the Vatican and we
see that MANY of them rue the reunion, and some of them have gone back
to the Orthodox fold.
Nevertheless, all bishops were united and under the Pope before the Orthodox
went into schism. You have done nothing but repeat the same things and
haven't begun to even try to spin away the primary sources I offered that
show your bishops were most certainly under the bishop of Rome.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Nonsense. The Catholic Church was founded in 33AD with Jesus making Peter
the head of His Church here on earth.
I agree. The *Catholic* Church was founded then. Just not the *Roman*
schism. That came later.
There was no Roman schism, the eastern branch was unable to gain the power
they sought and separated. As a result very few people even know Orthodoxy
exists, so much for the great commision.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
We could argue to the second coming. I believe the Orthodox went into schism
and you the Catholics.
Orthodox didn't change their doctrine. Thus, it was Rome who broke from
the faith once delivered to the saints. Pretty clear.
Only to someone biased toward Orthodoxy. If you didn't believe that you
would be Roman Catholic and if believed it I would be Orthodox.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Read, among other things, "Church, Papacy and Schism" by Sherrard and
"The Mystgogy of the Holy Spirit" by Patriarch +PHOTIOS.
Why? I believe it would be as objective as reading Dave Hunts "The Woman who
rides the beast".
Having read them both, I say you are sadly mistaken. Reading them would
do you good.
That's your opinion, you don't even know me.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
thereby cutting themselves off from the universal Church and
It was Rome who left. Check your facts.
I have, like I said it was the eastern Church fathers that convinced me.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
I have, it was the words of the eastern Church fathers that convinced me
that the Orthodox separated from then Holy See.
When read *out of context* you could come to that conclusion.
Yet you offered absolutely no rebuttal. Why is that?

As I
Post by Stephen M. Adams
stated, please show ONE incident where Rome exercised ordinary, universal
jurisdiction in the sees of the other Patriarchs, except when backed by
military occupation.
Your Patriarchs came to Rome when they had a problem. The Pope gave a
decision and off they went.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
surviving primary through the creation of state churches and the
charity of Muslims.
Regional churches existed long before the schism by Rome. Rome itself
is such a *regional* church. It has simply violated the canons by
expanding far beyond its permitted area.
So you say.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
There is a difference between regional churches and state churches. Jesus
instructed to go out and spread the Good News and He didn't place
geographical boundaries on where and to whom, men who feared the loss of
their power base did. Face it, Rome won the match and all you can do at this
point is spit at her and complained it isn't fair.
Rome violated the canons of the councils which set the boundries. And
continues to violate them today. As I said, the pope does not think he
is subject to the rulings of councils. THAT alone makes him a heretic.
So you say. Funny that you haven't quoted a single canon law though. Are you
just repeating things that others have told you or do actually have any
evidence complete with references to offer?
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Jaroslav Pelikan is a convert to Orthodoxy, what do you expect him to
write...
Uhm, he wrote his seminal work while he was a Lutheran. It was his study
for that work that convinced him of the truth of Orthodoxy Again, you
need to check your facts before you write. He converted based on his
work, not the other way around.
Actually I have done my work, as a Lutheran he already had a bias against
the Papacy so it stands to reason that he would chose a pope-less church.
He followed the truth. And if you read his works, you will NOT see bias
against Rome. Not even close. Have you actually READ his works? I have.
So you say.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
that the Orthodox are pretending that they never were united to Rome
through the chair of Peter?
Nobody is pretending that there was not unity. Only that unity was NOT
based in Rome, but in the common faith of each individual bishop. You
have read WAY too much Roman propaganda. Unity was based in each bishop
holding to a common faith, NOT in Rome.
Do you have a crystal ball that shows you what I read and what I don't read?
You were the one refusing to read anything that wasn't *pro* catholic.
Excuse me but I if you can't make your case without requiring that I go read
a book to get your point, you had better study more.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
The early Church fathers tell a different story than you are telling here.
No, they don't. You spin them that way.
Yet you offered not a single rebuttal to a single quote I offered.
Considering I have you the reference so you could see it in context,
methinks you are being just a bit dishonest here.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Sorry but I will take their word over yours.
All you have to do is show me that the pope actually exercised the
authority he now claims during the first 10 centuries *outside* his
jurisdictional area (ie Western Roman Empire).
I have to do nothing of the sort. You are arguing and making demands when
you haven't even addressed the quotes I offered yet. Methinks you are
unprepared. It's okay, you are not the first.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
The "branch" or "sister" church theory. The Orthodox insist you are
heretics. You accept their sacraments. They reject yours.
One of the biggest reasons I embraced Catholicism and rejected Orthodoxy,
theologically there is absolutely no justification for the stand the
Orthodox have taken, it just human pride.
Truth. That's what matters. If they are right about the faith, then
the Orthodox position is NOT pride, but truth.
No, the truth is both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church have valid
Sacraments. The Orthodox do such out of spite for things that happened about
1000 years ago. Aside from keeping the faith delivered from the Apostles,
the Church has to be administered and that's where politics come in. The
West won and that hasn't be forgiven or forgotten.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Sounds to me like you agree that they have a legit claim. Which means
that the pope really DOESN'T have the power you claim. Thanks.
How dishonest of you. First you build a strawman and then you thank me for
some imaginery victory you feel you won. Knock yourself out....LOL
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
You misunderstand. While the rest of Christianity tries to eliminate one
another, the Catholic Church seeks to bind all believers as one in the Body
of Christ.
The pope wants more power. Yep.
The Pope is the most powerful Christian leader in the world today. He does
not need anymore power, and Pope John Paul II has done more to promote unity
than any other religious leader in centuries. Let's compare that to your
Patriarchs that wet their pants over the thought of the Pope visiting
Russia......waaaaaaaa he is going to convert the Orthodox.........
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
For the most part the attitude of the Orthodox is more disgusting
than even that of Christian fundamentalists, to those who are given more,
more is expected. The Orthodox (and not all of them but many that post to
usenet) are a hateful group filled with deadly pride. Orthodoxy has failed
in the great commision and it has failed due to pride and nothing else.
I suggest you check the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America.
In 20 years they have gone from 60 parishs to nearly 300. And they are
gaining converts at a speedy clip.
We have that many parishes in a 50 mile radius of here. Unless you are born
into Orthodoxy, the only converts you get are Protestants, they are
attracted to what Orthodoxy has to offer but has been raised to hate the
Pope, we call it Catholic lite. From there they do not drop that Protestant
behavior of trying to prove that they are in the right church to themselves
more than anyonew else by complaining about other religions. To be honest, I
can usually spot a convert to Orthodoxy from a mile awhile, cradle Orthodox
are like cradle Catholics, they are secure in their faith and not out to
prove anything.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
To judge ANY group by the internet is dishonest, at best.
I don't need the internet to tell me that Orthodoxy is not universal, it is
a fact. 300 parishes in the US huh? How many are located in areas with large
numbers of Greeks and Russian families? How many Irish or Hispanics or
Italians are in your parish?
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Being noticed by men has nothing to do with teaching the truth. And I
daresay Orthodox has hardly stood still. Have you read Schmeman, Lossky,
et al?
I have no interest in reading their work.
So I was right. You only read pro-roman propaganda, as opposed to seeking
the truth.
No, I have no interest in reading their work because it doesn't interest me.
You are quite wrong with your "pro-roman propaganda" allegation as I read a
variety of authors from all different religions. And you should more like a
fundamentalist by the post, keep in mind it is your opinion that it is the
truth and that's all it is.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
I do know that Christ's Church
should be a beacon and Orthodoxy fails in that respect, in order to spread
the Gospel you have to go to those who need to hear it. Orthodoxy is an
ethnic religion not a universal one.
Hardly. Again, check the Antiochian archdiocese.
Yes 300 parishes.....be still my heart. At this rate you might have a dozen
parishes in every state by the turn of the century.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Scout Lady
Catholicism is complete and it is universal. Orthodoxy is neither.
Orthodoxy is Catholic because it is the complete faith. What is taught in
Rome is not catholic, because it is not complete.
Brillant.
Thanks. I know you meant it to be sarcastic, but it's true nonetheless.
Hey what can I say, you are a legend in your own mind.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.538 / Virus Database: 333 - Release Date: 11/10/03

Doc Watson
2003-11-14 17:40:52 UTC
Permalink
On 14 Nov 2003 00:17:25 GMT, Stephen M. Adams <***@no.spam> done
went and wrote as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Hogwash. The Pope on a regular basis commands bishops to heed him. And
they do. Or face the consequences. The pope exerts what he is pleased to
call "ordinary, universal jurisdiction."
Oh, my!!!!! 'Face the consequences' -- whooooooooopeeee!!! So they
get ex-co'd from the romanist cult. That would be the biggest BLESSING
they could ever receive, for then they would be FREE to worship the
Lord properly, in a REAL Christian Church once they leave that thing.




--


===================================================================
No wonder they call the DOG 'man's best friend' ...
a DOG wags his tail instead of his tongue.
Please visit: http://tinyurl.com/lzxm
==================================================================
Doc Watson
2003-11-14 17:30:38 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:23:47 -0500, "Scout Lady"
Post by Scout Lady
Nonsense. The Catholic Church was founded in 33AD with Jesus making Peter
the head of His Church here on earth. The Orthodox got their panties in a
bunch and went into schism thereby cutting themselves off from the universal
Church and surviving primary through the creation of state churches and the
charity of Muslims.
Bull roar, Cathy Hall........ pure BULL ROAR...
Jesus had nothing to DO with the founding of that accursed thing you
call the 'roman catholic church'.

Knowing its disgusting, arrogant, sordid, tortuous, murderous, greedy,
lust-filled history, and knowing that Jesus was a HUMBLE man when He
walked this earth, He would most certainly have never created the RCc.
Peter also had no special authority, as ALL the Disciples were given
equal.
As for this 'papal throne' garbage, it is pure myth and conjecture.
Jesus said nothing about a so-called 'pope' .

If you must tout romanism, kindly do it on the romanist group and
leave these groups alone.

I'm sure if you ask NICELY they will allow you to post there
again......


--


===================================================================
No wonder they call the DOG 'man's best friend' ...
a DOG wags his tail instead of his tongue.
Please visit: http://tinyurl.com/lzxm
==================================================================
Scout Lady
2003-11-14 17:03:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc Watson
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:23:47 -0500, "Scout Lady"
Post by Scout Lady
Nonsense. The Catholic Church was founded in 33AD with Jesus making Peter
the head of His Church here on earth. The Orthodox got their panties in a
bunch and went into schism thereby cutting themselves off from the universal
Church and surviving primary through the creation of state churches and the
charity of Muslims.
Bull roar, Cathy Hall........ pure BULL ROAR...
Jesus had nothing to DO with the founding of that accursed thing you
call the 'roman catholic church'.
So says Elaine which means absolutely nothing.
Post by Doc Watson
Knowing its disgusting, arrogant, sordid, tortuous, murderous, greedy,
lust-filled history, and knowing that Jesus was a HUMBLE man when He
walked this earth, He would most certainly have never created the RCc.
You mean Jesus founded on Church that has sinners in it? Whatever was He
thinking?
Post by Doc Watson
Peter also had no special authority, as ALL the Disciples were given
equal.
All the Apostles (not the disciples) were given the authority to bind and
lose. Peter alone was given the keys. You can intrepret the significance of
it whatever way you feel is true but it is foolish to deny that Jesus didn't
give the keys to Peter. I am also not aware of Jesus changing the names of
any other of the Apostles but He did change Simon's name to Cephas. Jesus
told Peter He was praying for him and that when he turned back to strengthen
the others.

I'm not sure why you hold Peter is such low esteem, our Lord certainly
didn't.
Post by Doc Watson
As for this 'papal throne' garbage, it is pure myth and conjecture.
Jesus said nothing about a so-called 'pope' .
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh
and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I
say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and
the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you
the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound
in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Those are our Lord words Elaine, you are free to accept or reject them.
Post by Doc Watson
If you must tout romanism, kindly do it on the romanist group and
leave these groups alone.
I could resort to using offensive language against your religion Elaine but
it is childish and I will not lower myself to your level. I suggest you
either killfile me along with everyone else who believes something different
than you do because you are too immature to handle differences in opinion.
Post by Doc Watson
I'm sure if you ask NICELY they will allow you to post there
again......
Still repeating that same old tired lie Elaine? If you had any self respect
you wouldn't continue damaging your own credibility.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.538 / Virus Database: 333 - Release Date: 11/11/03
Doc Watson
2003-11-14 17:33:18 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:23:47 -0500, "Scout Lady"
Post by Scout Lady
when the Pope
speaks the world listens......
Not ALL of us. To many of us, we recognize the FACT that your pope
represents nothing in our Christian world. He represents everything to
you, being roman catholic.... his opinions and 'rulings' mean nothing
to those of us who are not roman catholic slaves.
Post by Scout Lady
when one oif your Patriarchs speaks if it is
even noticed outside of Orthodoxy the world says who the hell is that guy.
Funny- I say exactly the same thing when your pope speaks. He's
nothing special; just a mere human. He has nothing to do with MY
faith, and he doesn't rule my roost.


--


===================================================================
No wonder they call the DOG 'man's best friend' ...
a DOG wags his tail instead of his tongue.
Please visit: http://tinyurl.com/lzxm
==================================================================
Scout Lady
2003-11-14 17:18:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc Watson
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:23:47 -0500, "Scout Lady"
Post by Scout Lady
when the Pope
speaks the world listens......
Not ALL of us. To many of us, we recognize the FACT that your pope
represents nothing in our Christian world. He represents everything to
you, being roman catholic.... his opinions and 'rulings' mean nothing
to those of us who are not roman catholic slaves.
Of course you listen, you sit on the edge of your seat looking for
something.....anything to scowl about. The Pope does not represent
everything to me, how you come up with such absurd ideas is beyond me. He is
the head of the Catholic Church, I acknowledge and respect him as such just
as I respect the Orthodox bishops, clergy, and religious and as I would the
pastor in your own church. Unlike you I can respect and listen to others,
without demonizing the clergy and the members of any particular religion. It
all goes back to that lack of self respect that you display Elaine, until
you can respect yourself you will remain incapable of showing respect
towards others.
Post by Doc Watson
Post by Scout Lady
when one oif your Patriarchs speaks if it is
even noticed outside of Orthodoxy the world says who the hell is that guy.
Funny- I say exactly the same thing when your pope speaks. He's
nothing special; just a mere human. He has nothing to do with MY
faith, and he doesn't rule my roost.
You missed the point. You know who the Pope is and if I asked you who the
Archbishop of Constantinople is you wouldn't know without looking it up.
Since I have never asserted that the Pope is anything but a mere human you
are howling at the moon again.
Post by Doc Watson
--
===================================================================
No wonder they call the DOG 'man's best friend' ...
a DOG wags his tail instead of his tongue.
Please visit: http://tinyurl.com/lzxm
==================================================================
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.538 / Virus Database: 333 - Release Date: 11/11/03
Doc Watson
2003-11-14 17:35:18 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:23:47 -0500, "Scout Lady"
Post by Scout Lady
Catholicism is complete and it is universal. Orthodoxy is neither.
I'm not ?Orho, and you certainly know I am not a roman catholic.......
but it's comments like yours that twend to turn people right OFF.

As for the romanist denomination, YOU might call it 'complete and
universal' Christians from other faiths do not.

Like you were previously advised, Cathy Hall--- if you must tout
romanism, kindly do it in a romanist group and leave these other
groups out of your ridiculous argument.


--


===================================================================
No wonder they call the DOG 'man's best friend' ...
a DOG wags his tail instead of his tongue.
Please visit: http://tinyurl.com/lzxm
==================================================================
Scout Lady
2003-11-14 17:35:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc Watson
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:23:47 -0500, "Scout Lady"
Post by Scout Lady
Catholicism is complete and it is universal. Orthodoxy is neither.
I'm not ?Orho, and you certainly know I am not a roman catholic.......
but it's comments like yours that twend to turn people right OFF.
I am not concerned what others may think of my position and I doubt very
much the other poster cares what others think of his. I am almost certain
that neither one of us gives a hoot whether our discussion offends you, you
are not even in the picture.
Post by Doc Watson
As for the romanist denomination, YOU might call it 'complete and
universal' Christians from other faiths do not.
So what? I can live with it, I am not going to throw a hissy fit because
someone see's things differently than I do.
Post by Doc Watson
Like you were previously advised, Cathy Hall--- if you must tout
romanism, kindly do it in a romanist group and leave these other
groups out of your ridiculous argument.
Elaine, let me explain something to you. This Orthodox fellow and I are both
Catholics, I am a Latin Rite Catholic and he is an Orthodox Catholic. It is
my position that the Catholic faith and the Orthodox faith are the right and
left lungs of the Body of Christ so I may push a bit but I will not cross
the line because I can't do so without attacking the universal faith. I'm
sure he disagrees and that is his right. However this is a family squabble
and blood is thicker than water. You do not know enough about Orthodoxy to
even be in this dialogue and it is only a matter of time before you push and
find yourself attacking a belief that we hold in common.

Since it is evident that you are too immature to handle differences in
belief I suggest you killfile me. This is posted to 4 groups and you are not
the moderator of any of them despite your frequent attempts at being a net
nanny.




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.538 / Virus Database: 333 - Release Date: 11/11/03
Tiger
2003-11-14 19:34:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout Lady
I am not concerned what others may think of my position and I
doubt very much the other poster cares what others think of his. I
am almost certain that neither one of us gives a hoot whether our
discussion offends you, you are not even in the picture.
I think you're fooling yourself. Elaine is very much in your
picture...like John W. is with Oz. I think you're obsessed.
--
Tiger

"In the devil's theology, the important thing is to be absolutely right
and prove everyone else is absolutely wrong." - Thomas Merton
Doc Watson
2003-11-13 04:07:53 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:41:03 -0500, "Scout Lady"
Peter
Peter had no more authority than any of the other disciples, Cathy
Hall. Quit trying to promo-your-romo-crap in the Baptist newsgroup.



--


===================================================================
No wonder they call the DOG 'man's best friend' ...
a DOG wags his tail instead of his tongue.
Please visit: http://tinyurl.com/lzxm
==================================================================
Scout Lady
2003-11-13 04:28:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc Watson
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:41:03 -0500, "Scout Lady"
Peter
Peter had no more authority than any of the other disciples, Cathy
Hall. Quit trying to promo-your-romo-crap in the Baptist newsgroup.
If you were not so ignorant you would have realized that the men quoted were
eastern, not Roman Catholics Elaine.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.538 / Virus Database: 333 - Release Date: 11/10/03
Tiger
2003-11-13 05:00:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout Lady
Post by Doc Watson
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:41:03 -0500, "Scout Lady"
Peter
Peter had no more authority than any of the other disciples,
Cathy Hall. Quit trying to promo-your-romo-crap in the Baptist
newsgroup.
If you were not so ignorant you would have realized that the men
quoted were eastern, not Roman Catholics Elaine.
Priceless.
--
Tiger

"In the devil's theology, the important thing is to be absolutely right
and prove everyone else is absolutely wrong." - Thomas Merton
Doc Watson
2003-11-13 04:07:51 UTC
Permalink
On 12 Nov 2003 20:05:11 GMT, Stephen M. Adams <***@no.spam> done
went and wrote as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Citation available on request.
-Stephen
Ola man STEVEN WHINER (Winter) is always coming up for air
intermittently, demanding the limelight with his age-old crappola
about romanism, and other churches supposedly beings its offspring!!

He also hates it when people screw up his 'follow-up' garbage, and
incluse ALL of the ng's he originally posted to!!!!

Say- do you have a website??? If you do, see if you can get the old
moron to try to sign it........ (Without insulting you, that is!!!)

He tried to sign mine, was grossly insulting, and as a result, I
banned him from ever posting there again.

Poor little man Stevie-'wevie!!!! HAH!


--


===================================================================
No wonder they call the DOG 'man's best friend' ...
a DOG wags his tail instead of his tongue.
Please visit: http://tinyurl.com/lzxm
==================================================================
brian
2003-11-13 05:37:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Pastor Winter JNAHC
Post by Doc Watson
at least we 'PROTEST_ants' are CHRISTIAN.
Actually Merle Elaine Matthews is a false-christian scum who
worships the SAME trinity idol that the pope does.
The protestants worship the same three headed idol from Rome that
the Catholics do. All trinitarians are daughters of the RCC.
No, they are not. A reading of basic history
Pfffffffffffff irony meter, Pastor winter reading history. LOL


will show this to
Post by Stephen M. Adams
be patently false. First off all, there was no "RCC" prior to
the 11th century (at least as it is knownn now). Before then,
there were 5 major churches, centered in Rome, Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The "pope" was ONLY the chief
bishop of the church centered in Rome. He held no sway outside
his territory (Western Europe, parts of N. Africa). The other
churches always were, and still are, independent of Rome, and
have NEVER been her "daughters."
Even if one were to try to trace the "RCC" to Constantine the Great
(which is frankly false, since he was in Constantinple, not Rome),
the problem remains. The doctrine of the Trinity shows up in the
earliest writings (not the mention the Scriptures), albeit not in
a fully Nicene formulation.
Post by Pastor Winter JNAHC
The false church is following a manmade Romish teaching. They
have to go to "denominal opinions of men" that originated in the
2nd and 3rd century to explain and discuss their beliefs.
While it may well be that some do this, the opinions of THOSE men
from the 2nd and 3rd century are based on THE SCRIPTURES, just as
the doctrine of the Trinity developed at Nicea is. For despite
Steve Winter's claims, the Trinity is a *biblical* concept. He
just refuses to believe it, preferring, like Arius, to beleive his
own teachings rather than the full witness of the Scriptures.
Post by Pastor Winter JNAHC
It is
also interesting that the same bunch at Rome that dreamed up the
trinity, also ushered in the dark ages by killing people for
possessing Bibles.
Nobody in Rome "dreamed up the Trinity" - in fact, there were only
a small handful of western Bishops at the Nicea conference. The vast
majority of Bishops were from Asia Minor, the Middle East and Egypt.
The pope had very little to do with this council.
<snip>
Post by Pastor Winter JNAHC
NEW INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA, Vol. 22 Page 477, "The term
"trinity" was originated by Tertullain, Roman Catholic Church
father."
False on its face. The first use of the word "trinity" with reference
to the Christian God was Theopholis, who wrote in "To Autolycus"
(Book II, Chapt 15), stating that the three days in the tomb was a
type (ie symbolic reference to) the Trinity. He wrote this while he
was Bishop of Antioch (AD168 to AD181).
Are your other references equally inaccurate?
But that's not even the first clear reference! Ignatius, another
bishop of Antioch (who died no later than AD107), wrote about the
Trinity quite clearly, and quite clearly denies Mr. Winter's views.
Citation available on request.
-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
brian
2003-11-13 05:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Pastor Winter JNAHC
Post by Doc Watson
at least we 'PROTEST_ants' are CHRISTIAN.
Actually Merle Elaine Matthews is a false-christian scum who
worships the SAME trinity idol that the pope does.
The protestants worship the same three headed idol from Rome that
the Catholics do. All trinitarians are daughters of the RCC.
No, they are not. A reading of basic history will show this to
be patently false. First off all, there was no "RCC" prior to
the 11th century (at least as it is knownn now). Before then,
there were 5 major churches, centered in Rome, Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The "pope" was ONLY the chief
bishop of the church centered in Rome. He held no sway outside
his territory (Western Europe, parts of N. Africa). The other
churches always were, and still are, independent of Rome, and
have NEVER been her "daughters."
Even if one were to try to trace the "RCC" to Constantine the Great
(which is frankly false, since he was in Constantinple, not Rome),
the problem remains. The doctrine of the Trinity shows up in the
earliest writings (not the mention the Scriptures), albeit not in
a fully Nicene formulation.
Post by Pastor Winter JNAHC
The false church is following a manmade Romish teaching. They
have to go to "denominal opinions of men" that originated in the
2nd and 3rd century to explain and discuss their beliefs.
While it may well be that some do this, the opinions of THOSE men
from the 2nd and 3rd century are based on THE SCRIPTURES, just as
the doctrine of the Trinity developed at Nicea is. For despite
Steve Winter's claims, the Trinity is a *biblical* concept. He
just refuses to believe it, preferring, like Arius, to beleive his
own teachings rather than the full witness of the Scriptures.
Post by Pastor Winter JNAHC
It is
also interesting that the same bunch at Rome that dreamed up the
trinity, also ushered in the dark ages by killing people for
possessing Bibles.
Nobody in Rome "dreamed up the Trinity" - in fact, there were only
a small handful of western Bishops at the Nicea conference. The vast
majority of Bishops were from Asia Minor, the Middle East and Egypt.
The pope had very little to do with this council.
<snip>
Post by Pastor Winter JNAHC
NEW INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA, Vol. 22 Page 477, "The term
"trinity" was originated by Tertullain, Roman Catholic Church
father."
False on its face. The first use of the word "trinity" with reference
to the Christian God was Theopholis, who wrote in "To Autolycus"
(Book II, Chapt 15), stating that the three days in the tomb was a
type (ie symbolic reference to) the Trinity. He wrote this while he
was Bishop of Antioch (AD168 to AD181).
Are your other references equally inaccurate?
But that's not even the first clear reference! Ignatius, another
bishop of Antioch (who died no later than AD107), wrote about the
Trinity quite clearly, and quite clearly denies Mr. Winter's views.
Citation available on request.
What you have to understand is that the good Pastor is the only Christian
that has ever existed or will ever exist.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
Roger Pearse
2003-11-13 21:43:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen M. Adams
Post by Pastor Winter JNAHC
NEW INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA, Vol. 22 Page 477, "The term
"trinity" was originated by Tertullain, Roman Catholic Church
father."
False on its face. The first use of the word "trinity" with reference
to the Christian God was Theopholis, who wrote in "To Autolycus"
(Book II, Chapt 15), stating that the three days in the tomb was a
type (ie symbolic reference to) the Trinity. He wrote this while he
was Bishop of Antioch (AD168 to AD181).
Ah, let's be a bit careful here. Theophilus used the Greek word
'trias' -- he had no choice --, for this. The first writer to use
the Latin term 'Trinitas' was Tertullian, in his classic exposition of
trinitarianism, Adversus Praxeas. It would have been hard for anyone
before him to use the *word*. Why? Because Tertullian was the first
Latin writer of the church -- those before him were Greeks, and indeed
Tertullian started off writing in Greek also (all those works are
lost, tho).

All these writers are online in English at
<http://www.ccel.org/fathers2>, so you can both see what they say. An
excellent translation of Adv. Praxean by Ernest Evans is online at my
site, the Tertullian Project <http://www.tertullian.org>.

Tertullian did indeed suppose that he was only codifying what
scripture taught.
Post by Stephen M. Adams
But that's not even the first clear reference! Ignatius, another
bishop of Antioch (who died no later than AD107), wrote about the
Trinity quite clearly, and quite clearly denies Mr. Winter's views.
Citation available on request.
I don't recall this -- what is the reference? Ignatius testifies
pretty plainly to the divinity of Christ, of course.

However, the very first Christians believed (a) there is only 1 God
(b) the Father is God (c) Jesus is God (d) the Father and Jesus are
not the same. From that, something like the Trinity is more or less
inevitable, I'd have thought.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Cy cit le Rot
2003-11-12 22:14:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc Watson
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 04:08:35 -0500, "Cy cit le Rot"
Post by Cy cit le Rot
Post by oz
Post by martus
AFTER JOHN PAUL II ARE WE FACING THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ANTIPOPE?
seems to me that is precisely what we have now
Agree. Protest-Ants are antipope. LOL.
at least we 'PROTEST_ants' are CHRISTIAN.
You are not Christian Elaine. You're evil.
Post by Doc Watson
--
===================================================================
No wonder they call the DOG 'man's best friend' ...
a DOG wags his tail instead of his tongue.
Please visit: http://tinyurl.com/lzxm
==================================================================
Doc Watson
2003-11-13 04:07:54 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:14:11 -0500, "Cy cit le Rot"
Post by Cy cit le Rot
You are not Christian Elaine. You're evil.
and you think YOU know anything abut me, 'gilad WHACKO-rami' ????
HAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
Dream on.


--


===================================================================
No wonder they call the DOG 'man's best friend' ...
a DOG wags his tail instead of his tongue.
Please visit: http://tinyurl.com/lzxm
==================================================================
Cy cit le Rot
2003-11-13 07:53:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc Watson
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:14:11 -0500, "Cy cit le Rot"
Post by Cy cit le Rot
You are not Christian Elaine. You're evil.
and you think YOU know anything abut me, 'gilad WHACKO-rami' ????
HAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
Dream on.
If we ignore the lies you told us about yourself, there's nothing much left
to know. I have but despise for you Elaine. You're nothing but a scum.
Post by Doc Watson
--
===================================================================
No wonder they call the DOG 'man's best friend' ...
a DOG wags his tail instead of his tongue.
Please visit: http://tinyurl.com/lzxm
==================================================================
Doc Watson
2003-11-13 14:56:26 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:53:11 -0500, "Cy cit le Rot"
Post by Cy cit le Rot
If we ignore the lies you told us about yourself, there's nothing much left
to know. I have but despise for you Elaine. You're nothing but a scum.
ROTFL! You soud like it's time for you to check back into the
institution for more shockies, 'giladie-me-laddie'..........

You need 'em badly!


--


===================================================================
No wonder they call the DOG 'man's best friend' ...
a DOG wags his tail instead of his tongue.
Please visit: http://tinyurl.com/lzxm
==================================================================
Cy cit le Rot
2003-11-14 00:31:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc Watson
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:53:11 -0500, "Cy cit le Rot"
Post by Cy cit le Rot
If we ignore the lies you told us about yourself, there's nothing much left
to know. I have but despise for you Elaine. You're nothing but a scum.
ROTFL! You soud like it's time for you to check back into the
institution for more shockies, 'giladie-me-laddie'..........
You need 'em badly!
Don't worry about my mental health Elaine. Worry about yours. It seems to me
the only jobs you had were as warden in mental institutions and jails. You
never were a registered nurse. You told us lies, fabricated stories about
yourself and your family. You moved because someone mentioned your home
address in a post? BULLSHIT. Another one of your lies. You're a born liar
Elaine and you cannot be trusted. What a miserable life you must have had.
No wonder there is so much hate in you.
Doc Watson
2003-11-14 17:42:18 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:31:35 -0500,the moron now posting under the
Post by Cy cit le Rot
BULLSHIT
exactly....... so stop posting it and check into that hospital.


--


===================================================================
No wonder they call the DOG 'man's best friend' ...
a DOG wags his tail instead of his tongue.
Please visit: http://tinyurl.com/lzxm
==================================================================
Cy cit le Rot
2003-11-14 19:50:41 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:31:35 -0500, "Cy cit le Rot"
Post by Cy cit le Rot
BULLSHIT
exactly.......
'LYING BITCH'.
--
===================================================================
No wonder they call the DOG 'man's best friend' ...
a DOG wags his tail instead of his tongue.
Please visit: http://tinyurl.com/lzxm
==================================================================
Doc Watson
2003-11-12 15:40:19 UTC
Permalink
On 10 Nov 2003 18:58:40 -0800, ***@hotmail.com (martus) done
went and wrote as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet
Post by martus
With John Paul II's
health in question, and the Church uneasy about its future, there is
currency to certain predictions that the next Pope will be a
spiritually dark figure who will lead the flock astray.
The roman catholic church ALREADY IS led far astray.
Look at its disgusting, sordid past, and look at its disgraceful,
deceitful present.
Post by martus
Many are those
who point to an alleged apparition hinting that there would be only
two more popes after Paul VI (meaning that John Paul II is the last
legitimate one, or the last before some apocalyptic event). Others
adhere to a reputed prophecy from St. Malachy -- who they claim once
listed 112 popes and indicated that there would be two more after John
Paul II.
According to Nostradamus, who has had many accurate predictions, he
claimed that the roman catholic church will be overthrown in 2013.
Time will tell.


--


===================================================================
No wonder they call the DOG 'man's best friend' ...
a DOG wags his tail instead of his tongue.
Please visit: http://tinyurl.com/lzxm
==================================================================
penitent leper
2003-11-12 04:17:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by martus
Daniel 11:37 (KJV)
37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, NOR THE DESIRE OF
WOMEN, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.
Too late. The Antichrist came and went at the end of the first
century. That's how John in his letters defines the antichrist(s):
people who left his community and denied that Jesus came in the flesh.
Any other definition is post-and-anti-biblical. Get real and
familiarize yourself with real Christianity instead of turning into
endtime science fiction.

- pl -
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...