Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Nov 11th 2012 new

This is copied from an article in the Wall Street Journal today (Sunday 11/11/12). See the full article at the URL below:

"Top officials signed off on the interviews (between the FBI and Broadwell), which occurred in late September and October, just before the U.S. presidential election. During Ms. Broadwell's first interview in September (2012), she admitted to the affair and turned over her computer, the officials said. On her computer, investigators found classified documents, the U.S. officials said, a discovery that raised new concerns."....

online.wsj.com



It is still unclear how she came to have classified documents on her computer, but this was/is certainly a security risk.


Ed

Nov 11th 2012 new

(Quote) Karis-410918 said: Vic, do not take your self too seriously. Thia is a clown colony. I am just having some...
(Quote) Karis-410918 said:



Vic, do not take your self too seriously. Thia is a clown colony. I am just having some funny.


--hide--


Yeah, well, I'm watching the demise of the country I love unfold before my very eyes, and I take that very seriously. However, I'm glad to see that you're enjoying the ride.


theheart

Nov 11th 2012 new

(Quote) Victor-544727 said: Yeah, well, I'm watching the demise of the country I love unfold before my very...
(Quote) Victor-544727 said:


Yeah, well, I'm watching the demise of the country I love unfold before my very eyes, and I take that very seriously. However, I'm glad to see that you're enjoying the ride.

--hide--




The demise of the country since Obama became president? Only since Obama became president?

Nov 12th 2012 new

(Quote) Sean-851370 said:Paul, you're naive. I don't get it. My grandfather is older than you are but believes GW Bush ...
(Quote) Sean-851370 said:
Paul, you're naive. I don't get it. My grandfather is older than you are but believes GW Bush knowingly lied about WMDs in Iraq and questions who profits from all our wars. You seem to believe everything that comes out of an authority figure. I don't hate all authority, but I question the decisions of our government and president. I understand that some people need to follow authority blindly. That is their decision to make. What I don't understand is why people who accuse foreign governments of disseminating propaganda never acuse their own of doing the same.

--hide--

You are absolutely amazing. Why do you feel the need to accuse of saying something I never said. Point to anything I have ever written that would lead someone who reads and understands basic English to believe I said any words that imply I don't believe our Government uses propaganda. Gee, I know it was before your time, but all the Radio Frees; Europe, Asia, etc. had as their only purpose to promulgate propaganda. To even imply that someone is so naive is the height of arrogance.

I just keep pointing out every cockamanie consiparcy you spout. You even, to prove a point, referred everyone to a web site whose very name included words to the effect that it was a site to expose all kinds of conspiracies.

Conspiracies do exist, but not to the extent you believe in them. So many of the conspiracies you talk about have so many people involved in them that it would be absolutely impossible for them to be a conspiracy.

Conspiracies, by their very nature are secret. If they are not secret, they are no longer a conspiracy. You blather about the Bilderbergers. That conspiracy is so secret they publish the names of the "members" where and when they meet and publish the results of their meetings. Hardly a conspiracy by any rational definition.The whole Bilderberger conspiracy story was first published in "Playboy," that hard hitting news journal that merely entertained its readers with some pictures of naked women to relief the stress of reading their serious news. What a joke.

I know you must really feel left out because the Bilderbergers don't invite you to sit with them. After all the would so benefit from your depth of knowledge and insightfulness. Hate to tell you to closest you would ever get to those kinds of weighty meetings would be as a waiter filling their water glasses.l

Its like Dan Brown, in his silly novels labeling Opus Dei as a Church Conspiracy. What a conspiracy, any Catholic may join. There are even no-catholic offshoots of it. NO secret handshakes. Its whole trust is for its members to pray and show the world they as individual they try to live in manner that Christ's light is evident living in them. To sanctify their workplace, the people around them, etc. And he promulgates this as some kind of conspiracy

According to you every rich man is a socialist, every bank steals from their customers, every corporation is an abomination, and on and on.

You claim to be a conservative but are, by your own admission a registered Democrat. Even Democrats who are not part of the wacky left of that party, would blanch that a fellow Democrat would describe themselves as Conservative.

Even more, all the bilge you spout is exactly the same bilge spilled out by those on the wacky left.

I have challenged you several times to name any bad popes in the last 100 years. The best you have been able to do is to say John XXIII and (your words) his silly Council and Paul VI. Yet you have yet to show why either Pope is bad or why Vatican II was silly.

But that statement shows any knowledgeable Catholic that you know absolutely nothing about Vatican II or either Pope. On Paul VI you referred us to a Rome newspaper article. Yet the newspaper cited is the Italian equivalent of our supermarket tabloids The Sun and the Enquirer. And you expect us to take this seriously?

Get real!

And you have the unmitigated gall to call me naive.

Nov 12th 2012 new

Jeez, I don't know, Paul, the Church is falling apart everywhere and you don't think bad popes had a hand in this? It's not as though the Catholic Church put out a book explaining in detail its own demise. You seem to dismiss the abuse scandals, as though most of the sordid mess were made up or exaggerated. Basically anything you don't want to accept or that hasn't appeared in mainstream news sources is dismissed as a "conspiracy." Dan Brown's novel is ridiculous. One could tell that from the beginning because Opus Dei "monks" don't exist.

Sure, anybody can join Opus Dei. The rank-and-file usually don't know what goes on the top. I'm sure there are many fine members of Opus Dei.

What do you know about Vatican II, Paul? Have you sat down and read Congar, Kueng, Rahner, and about the liturgical movement? You go on and on about the "wacky left" but never about the "wacky right." What is your definition of wackiness anyway? Surely there are older people who have wisdom, but you're not one of them.



(Quote) Paul-866591 said: You are absolutely amazing. Why do you feel the need to accuse of saying something I neve...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

You are absolutely amazing. Why do you feel the need to accuse of saying something I never said. Point to anything I have ever written that would lead someone who reads and understands basic English to believe I said any words that imply I don't believe our Government uses propaganda. Gee, I know it was before your time, but all the Radio Frees; Europe, Asia, etc. had as their only purpose to promulgate propaganda. To even imply that someone is so naive is the height of arrogance.

I just keep pointing out every cockamanie consiparcy you spout. You even, to prove a point, referred everyone to a web site whose very name included words to the effect that it was a site to expose all kinds of conspiracies.

Conspiracies do exist, but not to the extent you believe in them. So many of the conspiracies you talk about have so many people involved in them that it would be absolutely impossible for them to be a conspiracy.

Conspiracies, by their very nature are secret. If they are not secret, they are no longer a conspiracy. You blather about the Bilderbergers. That conspiracy is so secret they publish the names of the "members" where and when they meet and publish the results of their meetings. Hardly a conspiracy by any rational definition.The whole Bilderberger conspiracy story was first published in "Playboy," that hard hitting news journal that merely entertained its readers with some pictures of naked women to relief the stress of reading their serious news. What a joke.

I know you must really feel left out because the Bilderbergers don't invite you to sit with them. After all the would so benefit from your depth of knowledge and insightfulness. Hate to tell you to closest you would ever get to those kinds of weighty meetings would be as a waiter filling their water glasses.l

Its like Dan Brown, in his silly novels labeling Opus Dei as a Church Conspiracy. What a conspiracy, any Catholic may join. There are even no-catholic offshoots of it. NO secret handshakes. Its whole trust is for its members to pray and show the world they as individual they try to live in manner that Christ's light is evident living in them. To sanctify their workplace, the people around them, etc. And he promulgates this as some kind of conspiracy

According to you every rich man is a socialist, every bank steals from their customers, every corporation is an abomination, and on and on.

You claim to be a conservative but are, by your own admission a registered Democrat. Even Democrats who are not part of the wacky left of that party, would blanch that a fellow Democrat would describe themselves as Conservative.

Even more, all the bilge you spout is exactly the same bilge spilled out by those on the wacky left.

I have challenged you several times to name any bad popes in the last 100 years. The best you have been able to do is to say John XXIII and (your words) his silly Council and Paul VI. Yet you have yet to show why either Pope is bad or why Vatican II was silly.

But that statement shows any knowledgeable Catholic that you know absolutely nothing about Vatican II or either Pope. On Paul VI you referred us to a Rome newspaper article. Yet the newspaper cited is the Italian equivalent of our supermarket tabloids The Sun and the Enquirer. And you expect us to take this seriously?

Get real!

And you have the unmitigated gall to call me naive.

--hide--

Nov 12th 2012 new

(Quote) Sean-851370 said: Jeez, I don't know, Paul, the Church is falling apart everywhere and you don't think bad p...
(Quote) Sean-851370 said:

Jeez, I don't know, Paul, the Church is falling apart everywhere and you don't think bad popes had a hand in this? It's not as though the Catholic Church put out a book explaining in detail its own demise. You seem to dismiss the abuse scandals, as though most of the sordid mess were made up or exaggerated. Basically anything you don't want to accept or that hasn't appeared in mainstream news sources is dismissed as a "conspiracy." Dan Brown's novel is ridiculous. One could tell that from the beginning because Opus Dei "monks" don't exist.

Sure, anybody can join Opus Dei. I'm sure there are many fine members of Opus Dei.

What do you know about Vatican II, Paul? Have you sat down and read Congar, Kueng, Rahner, and about the liturgical movement? You go on and on about the "wacky left" but never about the "wacky right." What is your definition of wackiness anyway? Surely there are older people who have wisdom, but you're not one of them.

--hide--

You just can't help yourself. You have nothing substantive to attack me with so you put words in my mouth and attack them.

I don't even listen to the main stream media, nor do I go to conspiracy sites to get my news.

There are many monks who are members of Opus Dei, but don't let facts get in the way of your fantasies.

Look at the words you use, "The rank-and-file usually don't know what goes on the top." Words one expects from someone who suffers from paranoia.

Nowhere have I said one word that any intelligent person could interpret as my being dismissive of the abuse scandal.

And yet you are incapable of seeing that when you attribute that to "bad Popes" (none of which you have proved existed or even named one about whom a credible allegation could be made) all you are doing is passing on another conspiracy story.

I don't particularly care for the current ordinary form of the Mass., the best parts of which could have easily been incorporated into the Old Mass. I Object to the "comic opera staging" or the new gestures and silly parading. At the same time I don't find them so outrageous as to concern myself that somehow Satan has taken over.

I constsantly "rant" about the wacko right. In fact I point out that they, like you, have all gone full circle, and believe and rant and rave about the same thing the wacko lefties do.

I read your gibberish about the Church and laugh because you fail to realize that you destroy your own argument because, in effect, you are claiming that the Gates of Hell have prevailed against it. If you are right, Christ lied and if He lied we are all wasting our time.

Heck, in Religion I know exactly where you are coming from. I am just waiting for you to come out and admit it all. You won't because you know that once you do no one will pay any attention to anything you say.

So do I know anything about Vatican II? I've used the expression before. I know more about it than you do. You can't even substantiate your claim that any VII document contains anything that is contrary to any dogma or teachings the Church has held for 2000+ years.

Get real and get help!

Nov 12th 2012 new

What does it mean to say that the gates of hell will not prevail? Perhaps that they won't prevail but that they could come very, very close to prevailing?
So are Leo XIII and Pius X wacky conspiracy theorists for fearing what was in store for the Church in the future? Even Paul VI himself supposedly said that the smoke of Satan has entered the Church. The real threat isn't outside the Church; it's inside the Church.

I don't doubt that a monk can be involved with Opus Dei. But are there Opus Dei monks? Two different things there.

You never really learned to think. Banks lie and steal from people. Most probably don't, but those at the top have very sketchy histories. Same with our own government. Same with the Church. People see all these entities as monolithic structures. That conception of the Church perhaps goes back to the days of the Enlightenment or the Reformation. But that conception does not correspond with reality. The Church is made up of people, some of whom have anything but noble intentions. That has been shown throughout history. Today is no different.

Sure, you've been dismissive of the abuse scandal. You point out the serious problem of abuse in schools as a means to direct attention away from that same problem in the Church. Vatican II has more than a share of problems with the teachings of the Church. The whole conception of a "pilgrim Church" is problematic, i.e., the notion that the Church doesn't have the truth and always searching for the truth. After Vatican II, the Church was cast adrift on a sea of uncertainty, where something could be true at one point in time but not in another. That's historicism and modernism. Will you ever see that? I doubt so, because I don't think you have the ability to look much past the face of things. There is a lot below the surface in everything.









(Quote) Paul-866591 said: You just can't help yourself. You have nothing substantive to attack me with so you p...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

You just can't help yourself. You have nothing substantive to attack me with so you put words in my mouth and attack them.

I don't even listen to the main stream media, nor do I go to conspiracy sites to get my news.

There are many monks who are members of Opus Dei, but don't let facts get in the way of your fantasies.

Look at the words you use, "The rank-and-file usually don't know what goes on the top." Words one expects from someone who suffers from paranoia.

Nowhere have I said one word that any intelligent person could interpret as my being dismissive of the abuse scandal.

And yet you are incapable of seeing that when you attribute that to "bad Popes" (none of which you have proved existed or even named one about whom a credible allegation could be made) all you are doing is passing on another conspiracy story.

I don't particularly care for the current ordinary form of the Mass., the best parts of which could have easily been incorporated into the Old Mass. I Object to the "comic opera staging" or the new gestures and silly parading. At the same time I don't find them so outrageous as to concern myself that somehow Satan has taken over.

I constsantly "rant" about the wacko right. In fact I point out that they, like you, have all gone full circle, and believe and rant and rave about the same thing the wacko lefties do.

I read your gibberish about the Church and laugh because you fail to realize that you destroy your own argument because, in effect, you are claiming that the Gates of Hell have prevailed against it. If you are right, Christ lied and if He lied we are all wasting our time.

Heck, in Religion I know exactly where you are coming from. I am just waiting for you to come out and admit it all. You won't because you know that once you do no one will pay any attention to anything you say.

So do I know anything about Vatican II? I've used the expression before. I know more about it than you do. You can't even substantiate your claim that any VII document contains anything that is contrary to any dogma or teachings the Church has held for 2000+ years.

Get real and get help!

--hide--

Nov 12th 2012 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: You just can't help yourself. You have nothing substantive to attack me with so you p...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

You just can't help yourself. You have nothing substantive to attack me with so you put words in my mouth and attack them.

I don't even listen to the main stream media, nor do I go to conspiracy sites to get my news.

There are many monks who are members of Opus Dei, but don't let facts get in the way of your fantasies.

Look at the words you use, "The rank-and-file usually don't know what goes on the top." Words one expects from someone who suffers from paranoia.

Nowhere have I said one word that any intelligent person could interpret as my being dismissive of the abuse scandal.

And yet you are incapable of seeing that when you attribute that to "bad Popes" (none of which you have proved existed or even named one about whom a credible allegation could be made) all you are doing is passing on another conspiracy story.

I don't particularly care for the current ordinary form of the Mass., the best parts of which could have easily been incorporated into the Old Mass. I Object to the "comic opera staging" or the new gestures and silly parading. At the same time I don't find them so outrageous as to concern myself that somehow Satan has taken over.

I constsantly "rant" about the wacko right. In fact I point out that they, like you, have all gone full circle, and believe and rant and rave about the same thing the wacko lefties do.

I read your gibberish about the Church and laugh because you fail to realize that you destroy your own argument because, in effect, you are claiming that the Gates of Hell have prevailed against it. If you are right, Christ lied and if He lied we are all wasting our time.

Heck, in Religion I know exactly where you are coming from. I am just waiting for you to come out and admit it all. You won't because you know that once you do no one will pay any attention to anything you say.

So do I know anything about Vatican II? I've used the expression before. I know more about it than you do. You can't even substantiate your claim that any VII document contains anything that is contrary to any dogma or teachings the Church has held for 2000+ years.

Get real and get help!

--hide--



The great people of Opus Dei will not defend themselves in these forums....and even if they did they would never reveal themselves here. So, lets please drop some of these topics. They are not helpful to anyone. God Bless.




Nov 12th 2012 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: You are absolutely amazing. Why do you feel the need to accuse of saying something I neve...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

You are absolutely amazing. Why do you feel the need to accuse of saying something I never said. Point to anything I have ever written that would lead someone who reads and understands basic English to believe I said any words that imply I don't believe our Government uses propaganda. Gee, I know it was before your time, but all the Radio Frees; Europe, Asia, etc. had as their only purpose to promulgate propaganda. To even imply that someone is so naive is the height of arrogance.

I just keep pointing out every cockamanie consiparcy you spout. You even, to prove a point, referred everyone to a web site whose very name included words to the effect that it was a site to expose all kinds of conspiracies.

Conspiracies do exist, but not to the extent you believe in them. So many of the conspiracies you talk about have so many people involved in them that it would be absolutely impossible for them to be a conspiracy.

Conspiracies, by their very nature are secret. If they are not secret, they are no longer a conspiracy. You blather about the Bilderbergers. That conspiracy is so secret they publish the names of the "members" where and when they meet and publish the results of their meetings. Hardly a conspiracy by any rational definition.The whole Bilderberger conspiracy story was first published in "Playboy," that hard hitting news journal that merely entertained its readers with some pictures of naked women to relief the stress of reading their serious news. What a joke.

I know you must really feel left out because the Bilderbergers don't invite you to sit with them. After all the would so benefit from your depth of knowledge and insightfulness. Hate to tell you to closest you would ever get to those kinds of weighty meetings would be as a waiter filling their water glasses.l

Its like Dan Brown, in his silly novels labeling Opus Dei as a Church Conspiracy. What a conspiracy, any Catholic may join. There are even no-catholic offshoots of it. NO secret handshakes. Its whole trust is for its members to pray and show the world they as individual they try to live in manner that Christ's light is evident living in them. To sanctify their workplace, the people around them, etc. And he promulgates this as some kind of conspiracy

According to you every rich man is a socialist, every bank steals from their customers, every corporation is an abomination, and on and on.

You claim to be a conservative but are, by your own admission a registered Democrat. Even Democrats who are not part of the wacky left of that party, would blanch that a fellow Democrat would describe themselves as Conservative.

Even more, all the bilge you spout is exactly the same bilge spilled out by those on the wacky left.

I have challenged you several times to name any bad popes in the last 100 years. The best you have been able to do is to say John XXIII and (your words) his silly Council and Paul VI. Yet you have yet to show why either Pope is bad or why Vatican II was silly.

But that statement shows any knowledgeable Catholic that you know absolutely nothing about Vatican II or either Pope. On Paul VI you referred us to a Rome newspaper article. Yet the newspaper cited is the Italian equivalent of our supermarket tabloids The Sun and the Enquirer. And you expect us to take this seriously?

Get real!

And you have the unmitigated gall to call me naive.

--hide--

The difference between the Church and a conspiracy is that while we "breathe together" (Latin: cum spirare) we do so receiving the teaching and mind of the Holy Church guided by the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.

Others who breathe together power plays to fulfil another agenda breath another spirit altogether.

Of course, if a "conspiracy" succeeds, it's no longer a conspiracy for the same reason treason never prospers:

Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?

Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason. - John Harrington (inventor of the flush toilet, BTW) en.wikipedia.org

Nov 12th 2012 new

(Quote) Steven-706921 said: The difference between the Church and a conspiracy is that while we "breathe toget...
(Quote) Steven-706921 said:

The difference between the Church and a conspiracy is that while we "breathe together" (Latin: cum spirare) we do so receiving the teaching and mind of the Holy Church guided by the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.

Others who breathe together power plays to fulfil another agenda breath another spirit altogether.

Of course, if a "conspiracy" succeeds, it's no longer a conspiracy for the same reason treason never prospers:

Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?

Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason. - John Harrington (inventor of the flush toilet, BTW) en.wikipedia.org

--hide--




I'd say the "conspiracy", if that's what one wants to call it, is man's overthrowing of God and apotheosis. The Church is the main spiritual obstacle to the apotheosis of man. Thus, God's laws must be abolished and replaced with laws made by some men. As a result, we have seen the mass dissemination of propaganda favoring abortion, drug abuse, gambling, homosexuality, the occult, usury and a vast array of other nonsense aimed at the subversion of society.

Posts 61 - 70 of 124