If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   Remember Padre Pio, who claimed his stigmata which was observed and studied for 50 years provided UNDISPUTABLE PROOF of the existence of Christ? Um yeah, about that   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 225
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

19400 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Nov 2011 at 10:05 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



225 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-11-22 10:55:32 AM
img.photobucket.com

To be made a saint in-a the catholic church, you have to have-a four miracles. That's-a the rules, you know. It's-a always been that-a. Four miracles, and-a to prove it. Well, this-a Mother Seton-now they could only prove-a three miracles. But the Pope-he just waved the fourth one. He just waved it! And do you know why? It's-a because she was American. It's all-a politics. We got-a some Italian-a people, they got-a forty, fifty, sixty miracles to their name. They can't-a get in just cause they say there's already too many Italian saints, and this woman comes along with-a three lousy miracles.

I understand that-a two of them was-a card tricks.
 
2011-11-22 10:56:18 AM
I thought it was established that the guy was not a "Fake" per se but that stigmata could be produced by an emotional state in some people, The church USED to teach that this guy's stigmata was not necessarily proof of a miracle. Interesting that now saints can be ordained by popular demand.
 
2011-11-22 10:56:25 AM

gilgigamesh: PainInTheASP: gilgigamesh: PainInTheASP: Don't be a douchebag.

/Paraphrased.
//Trolling doesn't count ;-)

That's like saying: "I don't drink. Except for tequila Everclear rubbing alcohol."


Carbolic acid.

His claims were dismissed by the Catholic Anti-Defamation League in 2007.

Pietro Siffi, the president of the League, said at the time: "We would like to remind Mr Luzzatto that according to Catholic doctrine, canonisation carries with it papal infallibility.

"We would like to suggest to Mr Luzzatto that he dedicates his energies to studying religion properly."

Fugging hug it, Pietro. You suck and should die.
 
2011-11-22 10:57:29 AM

halfof33: StoPPeRmobile: are at teaching tolerance.

Think of it as the Jewish sky god's test for you.

lulz. Thanks.

Welcome to the Neo-Know Nothing Party.

/Catholic threads on Fark sound one hell of a lot like Chick tracts and Westboro Baptist revivals. Good company!


Well, we do a lot less telling people that they're going to hell. Which is a good thing, unless you happen to like barbeque.

/"Devil's got a charcoal pit and a good fire down below" -Robert Earl Keen
 
2011-11-22 11:00:48 AM
Also, keeping with tradition, Pietro Siffi is up to eyeballs in papal commissions. His company produces all the fancy clothes for the pope and his pals:

http://www.tridentinum.com/en.html


Man, I have GOT to get a job!
 
2011-11-22 11:02:34 AM
Member of the Catholic church found to be a big fat liar. Is anyone shocked by this? Really?

From the same church that claims to be bankrupt to avoid paying damages to abuse victims.
Link (new window)
 
2011-11-22 11:02:45 AM
Why do stigmata give religious people an erection?
 
2011-11-22 11:06:38 AM

TravisBickle62: Why do stigmata give religious people an erection?


... it's a new and different hole to try out?

/I'm so, so sorry
 
2011-11-22 11:06:48 AM

Spiralmonkey: Member of the Catholic church found to be a big fat liar. Is anyone shocked by this? Really?


Know Nothing blindly accepts objectively unreasonable theory in a book, applies blanket condemnation to all members of Church.

/stupidevilbastard dot com?
 
2011-11-22 11:07:24 AM

Daniwould: If it helps people sleep at night or makes them be better to their fellow man, live and let live. You don't need to discredit someone's beliefs, that just tends to make people stabby.


This is a combination of "people need religion to be good people" and "what's the harm," with a dash of "I'm afraid of what people would do with no religion" for good measure. Fear, control, and apathy are not good justifications for accepting a philosophy.
 
2011-11-22 11:08:45 AM
Need a wake up? How about a little STIGMATA by Ministry?
 
2011-11-22 11:11:14 AM

BurnShrike: "We didn't make a mistake because according to our beliefs, we don't make mistakes"

What a bunch of crooks and frauds.


Don't forget boyfarkers. Crooks, frauds, and boyfarkers.

Q. What's the best part about stigmata?
A. Not having to spit in your hand before jerking off.
 
2011-11-22 11:12:04 AM

halfof33: Humean_Nature: First, it's carBOLic acid. Second, from the wiki:
It is only mildly acidic but requires careful handling due to its propensity to cause burns.

Correction cheerfully noted!

Burns? Defatted tissue? But not bleeding?

Thanks for backing me up.

/I'm not saying that it could not cause bleeding, but it would be about as effective as using a match to take a blood sample.


A little twice a day every day........yeah that'd work. Perhaps a litle manual aggravation on the skin. Hurt? Sure, but that's all good punishment for being gay.
 
2011-11-22 11:12:36 AM
I've decided to believe everything in a silly 2000 year-old book, but THIS is gonna make me think.
 
2011-11-22 11:14:37 AM
"UNDISPUTABLE"? Why is English so hard for English speakers?

If the Pope says he's a saint, he's a saint. If the pope says the sun revolves around the earth, it does until the pope says otherwise. There's you indisputable proof.
 
2011-11-22 11:16:01 AM

halfof33: Humean_Nature: First, it's carBOLic acid. Second, from the wiki:
It is only mildly acidic but requires careful handling due to its propensity to cause burns.

Correction cheerfully noted!

Burns? Defatted tissue? But not bleeding?

Thanks for backing me up.

/I'm not saying that it could not cause bleeding, but it would be about as effective as using a match to take a blood sample.


Have you ever had a 2nd or 3rd degree burn? They certainly do bleed and weep fluid, 'specially if you don't protect them. And the thing is, an acid burn isn't really the same as a... fire burn. Is that the right thing to call it? I feel silly saying "fire burn."
 
2011-11-22 11:18:18 AM

error 303: Garm: "We would like to remind Mr Luzzatto that according to Catholic doctrine, canonisation carries with it papal infallibility."

That settles it.

I thought papal infallibility only applies when the pope is directly addressing matters of church doctrine? Though I suppose canonisation COULD fall under a broad interpretation of that. But individual Sainthood seems like a very specific instance where infallibility wouldn't apply. I could see maybe new procedures for cannonising Saints being a decree which could be infallible?


You're more correct than the head of the Catholic League, as best I can tell. Per the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most theologians answer in the affirmative." The Catholic League spokesman quoted in the article seems to think that this infallible declaration extends to all aspects of the decision to canonize. But the CE goes on to explain:

"What is the object of this infallible judgment of the pope? Does he define that the person canonized is in heaven or only that he has practiced Christian virtues in an heroic degree? I have never seen this question discussed; my own opinion is that nothing else is defined than that the person canonized is in heaven. . . This view seems all the more certain if we reflect that all the arguments of theologians for papal infallibility in the canonization of saints are based on the fact that on such occasions the popes believe and assert that the decision which they publish is infallible."

That says the decision to canonize is infallible, but not really anything else. I suppose, logically, if the decision to canonize is infallible, any findings that must be made in order to canonize are also cloaked with infallibility. But the Catholic League guy seems to misunderstand what it takes to be canonized. It is necessary that the putative saint have interceded to produce at least 2 miracles. If Padre Pio's "miracles" included the appearance of stigmata, then the Catholic League guy would be right -- canonization = a finding of 2 miracles = a finding that the stigmata was genuine.

But Padre Pio's attributed miracles were not based on the appearance of stigmata -- rather, he was found to have interceded to have cured a sick woman during his lifetime and to have done so again after his death. So canonizing Pio does not constitute a Papal endorsement of his claims of stigmata.
 
2011-11-22 11:19:13 AM

halfof33: Hey you know what carbonic acid was really used for? Antiseptic properties. It is as about effective as CAUSING bleeding as Spittle Soaked Atheists are at teaching tolerance.


Once again, willful ignorance shows its face.

There is a difference between carbonic acid (new window), otherwise known as carbon dioxide, and carbolic acid (new window), which, although mild as acids go, can still cause skin burns.

But hey, when you are in a hurry because you have to be at the gym in 26 minutes, a little reading miscomprehension is excusable, no?
 
2011-11-22 11:19:43 AM
That was one HELL of an a-hole response from the Catholic ADL. Is there no depth they won't sink to in order to simply pretend that the church is infallible?

Besides whitewashing up the decades and decades of an absolute litany of child molestation all over the world... they can't even handle this shiat? Wow. Their belief in their mythology of choice is AWFULLY fragile.

Pietro Siffi, the president of the League, said at the time: "We would like to remind Mr Luzzatto that according to Catholic doctrine, canonisation carries with it papal infallibility.

In other words, "STFU because the church is infallible because we SAY it's infallible." Besides the blatant circular reasoning, I think he's actually factually wrong about the papal infallibility here.

"We would like to suggest to Mr Luzzatto that he dedicates his energies to studying religion properly."

In other words, you STFU and tell people what WE want you to tell them. Critical thinking is not an option.

Golly gee, where do I sign up for that bullshiat?
 
2011-11-22 11:20:42 AM

halfof33: StoPPeRmobile: are at teaching tolerance.

Think of it as the Jewish sky god's test for you.

lulz. Thanks.

Welcome to the Neo-Know Nothing Party.

/Catholic threads on Fark sound one hell of a lot like Chick tracts and Westboro Baptist revivals. Good company!


But the zombie lord told me I'm special.
 
2011-11-22 11:22:23 AM
You know how I know halfof33 is a scientist
 
2011-11-22 11:23:09 AM

RexTalionis: kingoomieiii: Papal infallibility is considered retroactive? How can they possibly believe that, by the decree of a council, that a man who was once a german youngster, has NEVER EVER BEEN WRONG ABOUT ANYTHING?

Oh yeah, willful, pathetic ignorance. That's the answer.

Not for anything, but isn't the doctrine of papal infallibility limited to matters of ecclesiastical proclamation?


Surprisingly, no.

LIttle-Known Fact: Las Vegas casinos have a standing prohibition from the Pope betting on anything. Evar.
 
2011-11-22 11:23:10 AM

halfof33: BurnShrike: Came here to say exactly that.
"We didn't make a mistake because according to our beliefs, we don't make mistakes"

What a bunch of crooks and frauds.

Ring ring ring!

Church thread on Fark, virulent Know Nothings power activate!

Ring ring ring!

Hey you know what carbonic acid was really used for? Antiseptic properties. It is as about effective as CAUSING bleeding as Spittle Soaked Atheists are at teaching tolerance.


Causing bleeding? Hah. I would be happy to provide you with a bucket of carbolic acid, if you would be willing to dip your hand in it. I do not recommend it though.


I May Be Crazy But...: thought it was just what you get when you dissolve carbon dioxide in water, like fizzy water or in your blood.


You are thinking of carbonic acid. Carbolic acid is phenol.
 
2011-11-22 11:23:39 AM

I May Be Crazy But...: halfof33: Humean_Nature: First, it's carBOLic acid. Second, from the wiki:
It is only mildly acidic but requires careful handling due to its propensity to cause burns.

Correction cheerfully noted!

Burns? Defatted tissue? But not bleeding?

Thanks for backing me up.

/I'm not saying that it could not cause bleeding, but it would be about as effective as using a match to take a blood sample.

Have you ever had a 2nd or 3rd degree burn? They certainly do bleed and weep fluid, 'specially if you don't protect them. And the thing is, an acid burn isn't really the same as a... fire burn. Is that the right thing to call it? I feel silly saying "fire burn."


Thermal burn, Frank.

ez-reader: If the Pope says he's a saint, he's a saint. If the pope says the sun revolves around the earth, it does until the pope says otherwise. There's you indisputable proof.


One of those things is not like the other... If the Pope says that the catholic church says that he is a Saint of the Catholic Church, he is a Saint of the Catholic Church, kind of a self defining thing, ya know?
 
2011-11-22 11:24:15 AM
So they canonized him, and they know that the primary reason that they canonized him wasn't a result of him lying because canonized people don't lie. Yup, that holds together pretty well.
 
2011-11-22 11:24:52 AM
Practicing R.C. here:

Couple of thoughts on the issue:

1) kingoomieiii : Canonisation took place under John Paul II, a Pole not a German. Benedict XVI had nothing to do with this one. Even at the point of Canonisation for Padre Pio, Benedict XVI was the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, not the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. Different offices within the Roman Curia.

2) As for infalibility, it seems to me that this claim is based on a couple of things:
A: Doctrinal teachings of the Church
B: Dogmatic Issues of the Church
C: Teaching of the Gospel of Christ
D: Papal infalibility which is explained thusly: "[...] Roman pontiff when he teaches ex cathedra "enjoys, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith and morals." (Link (new window)) {I hope my HTML-fu is strong this morning, if not, all apologies.}

Further, Papal infalibility is limited to the extent that the Pope is speaking ex cathedra or "from the throne/chair" and is addressing the church as a whole. An example of this would be through an official form of communication such as an Encyclical, a Papal Bull, or an Urbi et Orbi address. Further, it seems that it is limited to the teachings of faith, morals, and spirtuality and is not a cover for all things that the Pope says (going to the absurd, if the Pope says that my shot-glass chili is the best he has ever had, it doesn't mean that my chili is entitled to carry the stamp of "best ever", it just means that of the chili the Pope has tried, he likes mine the best {probably because I cook with bourbon, but thats another story}) otherwise, there is some serious weirdness that can occur.

3) I'm not offering a defense of my church or my belief system, just some thoughts I had while reading this.

4) I'm aware I might have fallen victim to the trolls. Oh well, I'm on Fark and the interwebz, I know the risk.

/"church" refers to the global community of belivers as evidenced in the Nicene Creed ("I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church"
//"Church" refers to the Roman Church
///Cathedra is the proper name of the chair/throne of a Bishop and is a symbol of his teaching authoirity. We get the name "Cathedral" from this word, which is why the home church of a Bishop is called a "Cathedral"- it is the church that houses his throne
//// The Cathedral and Diocesan Seat of the Diocese of Rome is actually the ArchBasilica of St. John Lateran, not St. Peter's Basilica. The Archbasilica of St. John Lateran houses the Cathedra of the Bishop of Rome
\I'm done now.
 
2011-11-22 11:25:38 AM

BurnShrike: Garm: "We would like to remind Mr Luzzatto that according to Catholic doctrine, canonisation carries with it papal infallibility."

That settles it.

Came here to say exactly that.
"We didn't make a mistake because according to our beliefs, we don't make mistakes"


It's less far-reaching than that. It's basically a tautology anyway.

You can't be wrong when changing dogma because you're the one who makes it dogma. By announcing it, you've made it dogma.
 
2011-11-22 11:25:57 AM

halfof33: Humean_Nature: First, it's carBOLic acid. Second, from the wiki:
It is only mildly acidic but requires careful handling due to its propensity to cause burns.

Correction cheerfully noted!

Burns? Defatted tissue? But not bleeding?

Thanks for backing me up.

/I'm not saying that it could not cause bleeding, but it would be about as effective as using a match to take a blood sample.


Are you saying that the zombie lord couldn't take a blood sample with a match? So much for omnipotence.

I'm going to worship The Teapot now.
 
2011-11-22 11:28:29 AM
I'm not sure if the official responce to someone questioning your beliefs is for them to stick their fingers in their ears and going "LA-AL-LA!" is the best way to bring new people into your church. But hey, whatever.

Thankfully the last I read, religion is on the decline.
 
2011-11-22 11:28:37 AM
While I am a Christian (Lutheran, not Catholic, but trying to remain impartial here) and believe that God can and does work miracles, I don't buy stigmata at all. The Bible is very clear in the area of testing anything that remotely looks like a miracle, and while I know that the Catholic church is usually very methodical when it comes to verifying these claims (they tend to start out very skeptical in these matters), I believe the Padre Pio canonization was done to cave to pressure from Italians and probably hurts the church more than helps it.
 
2011-11-22 11:28:38 AM

halfof33: BurnShrike: Came here to say exactly that.
"We didn't make a mistake because according to our beliefs, we don't make mistakes"

What a bunch of crooks and frauds.

Ring ring ring!

Church thread on Fark, virulent Know Nothings power activate!

Ring ring ring!

Hey you know what carbonic acid was really used for? Antiseptic properties. It is as about effective as CAUSING bleeding as Spittle Soaked Atheists are at teaching tolerance.


This post is just rich. First, calling me "Know Nothing" for rephrasing exactly what the guy said, and secondly proving to the world that perhaps you should read a book once in a while (No, not that book).

Thanks for putting a smile on my face.
 
2011-11-22 11:30:56 AM

halfof33: One of those things is not like the other... If the Pope says that the catholic church says that he is a Saint of the Catholic Church, he is a Saint of the Catholic Church, kind of a self defining thing, ya know?


Of course this is from an organization dumb enough to believe in miracles, so take its importance with a grain of salt.
 
2011-11-22 11:31:07 AM

Chucklz: I May Be Crazy But...: thought it was just what you get when you dissolve carbon dioxide in water, like fizzy water or in your blood.

You are thinking of carbonic acid. Carbolic acid is phenol.


I'm no chemist, but I did stay at a Motel 6 last night.
 
2011-11-22 11:31:27 AM

I May Be Crazy But...: halfof33: Humean_Nature: First, it's carBOLic acid. Second, from the wiki:
It is only mildly acidic but requires careful handling due to its propensity to cause burns.

Correction cheerfully noted!

Burns? Defatted tissue? But not bleeding?

Thanks for backing me up.

/I'm not saying that it could not cause bleeding, but it would be about as effective as using a match to take a blood sample.

Have you ever had a 2nd or 3rd degree burn? They certainly do bleed and weep fluid, 'specially if you don't protect them. And the thing is, an acid burn isn't really the same as a... fire burn. Is that the right thing to call it? I feel silly saying "fire burn."


That's because it's, "fire, burn."
thedroidyourelookingfor.files.wordpress.com
 
2011-11-22 11:31:49 AM

The correct answer is...: Once again, willful ignorance shows its face.


Yes, I cheerfully noted that I had erroneously typed the wrong letter. I believe that you will find that the other comments I made were fully consistent with Phenol.

However, if you have some basis to assert that mildly corrosive acid was useful to cause localized bleeding, like the hack claims in the book he is selling, I am ALL EARS!
 
2011-11-22 11:32:03 AM

Uzzah: error 303: Garm: "We would like to remind Mr Luzzatto that according to Catholic doctrine, canonisation carries with it papal infallibility."

That settles it.

I thought papal infallibility only applies when the pope is directly addressing matters of church doctrine? Though I suppose canonisation COULD fall under a broad interpretation of that. But individual Sainthood seems like a very specific instance where infallibility wouldn't apply. I could see maybe new procedures for cannonising Saints being a decree which could be infallible?

You're more correct than the head of the Catholic League, as best I can tell. Per the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most theologians answer in the affirmative." The Catholic League spokesman quoted in the article seems to think that this infallible declaration extends to all aspects of the decision to canonize. But the CE goes on to explain:

"What is the object of this infallible judgment of the pope? Does he define that the person canonized is in heaven or only that he has practiced Christian virtues in an heroic degree? I have never seen this question discussed; my own opinion is that nothing else is defined than that the person canonized is in heaven. . . This view seems all the more certain if we reflect that all the arguments of theologians for papal infallibility in the canonization of saints are based on the fact that on such occasions the popes believe and assert that the decision which they publish is infallible."

That says the decision to canonize is infallible, but not really anything else. I suppose, logically, if the decision to canonize is infallible, any findings that must be made in order to canonize are also cloaked with infallibility. But the Catholic League guy seems to misunderstand what it takes to be canonized. It is necessary that the putative saint have interceded to produce at least 2 miracles. If Padre Pio's "miracles" included the appearance of stigmata, then the Catholic League guy would be right -- canonization = a finding of 2 miracles = a finding that the stigmata was genuine.

But Padre Pio's attributed miracles were not based on the appearance of stigmata -- rather, he was found to have interceded to have cured a sick woman during his lifetime and to have done so again after his death. So canonizing Pio does not constitute a Papal endorsement of his claims of stigmata.


Thanks for spelling that out. That's my understanding as well. Unless the Pope explicitly cannonized him via Papal decree to bypass the Vatican process, I would not think infallibility would apply.
 
2011-11-22 11:32:11 AM
It never fails to AMAZE me how BUTT HURT non Catholics can get over stuff that doesn't even "Concern" them. OOOO just have to be be guys kickin around the latest story for the hell of it.

Well good for you internet tough guys! You can now go back to the water cooler and let your co-workers know you showed them!

Kudos to you good buddy for a job well done!
 
2011-11-22 11:35:01 AM

halfof33: Spittle Soaked Atheists are at teaching tolerance


Yea, we should be tolerant, like you are
do unto others right ?
 
2011-11-22 11:35:50 AM

attention span of a retarded fruit fly: It never fails to AMAZE me how BUTT HURT non Catholics can get over stuff that doesn't even "Concern" them people questioning their beliefs. OOOO just have to be be guys kickin around the latest story for the hell of it.

Well good for you internet tough guys! You can now go back to the water cooler and let your co-workers know you showed them!

Kudos to you good buddy for a job well done!


FTFY
 
2011-11-22 11:36:11 AM

BurnShrike: Garm: "We would like to remind Mr Luzzatto that according to Catholic doctrine, canonisation carries with it papal infallibility."

That settles it.

Came here to say exactly that.
"We didn't make a mistake because according to our beliefs, we don't make mistakes"

What a bunch of crooks and frauds.


It is a brilliantly simple line of reasoning.
 
2011-11-22 11:38:55 AM
a.abcnews.go.com

Who told Padre Pio to put on the balm?
 
2011-11-22 11:38:55 AM

halfof33: The correct answer is...: Once again, willful ignorance shows its face.

Yes, I cheerfully noted that I had erroneously typed the wrong letter. I believe that you will find that the other comments I made were fully consistent with Phenol.

However, if you have some basis to assert that mildly corrosive acid was useful to cause localized bleeding, like the hack claims in the book he is selling, I am ALL EARS!


Phenol and its vapors are corrosive to the eyes, the skin, and the respiratory tract. Repeated or prolonged skin contact with phenol may cause dermatitis, or even second and third-degree burns due to phenol's caustic and defatting properties. Inhalation of phenol vapor may cause lung edema. The substance may cause harmful effects on the central nervous system and heart, resulting in dysrhythmia, seizures, and coma. The kidneys may be affected as well. Exposure may result in death and the effects may be delayed. Long-term or repeated exposure of the substance may have harmful effects on the liver and kidneys. There is no evidence to believe that phenol causes cancer in humans. Besides its hydrophobic effects, another mechanism for the toxicity of phenol may be the formation of phenoxyl radicals.

Chemical burns from skin exposures can be decontaminated by washing with polyethylene glycol, isopropyl alcohol, or perhaps even copious amounts of water. Removal of contaminated clothing is required, as well as immediate hospital treatment for large splashes. This is particularly important if the phenol is mixed with chloroform (a commonly-used mixture in molecular biology for DNA & RNA purification from proteins).
 
2011-11-22 11:42:15 AM

GBmanNC: Daniwould: I was at the Vatican the day Padre Pio was canonized; it was an amazing upheaval of emotions for most people there. If it helps people sleep at night or makes them be better to their fellow man, live and let live. You don't need to discredit someone's beliefs, that just tends to make people stabby.

If you need a lie to make you a better person, instead of doing it because it's the right thing to do, you are probably a bad person.


Then why do so many give MLK a pass?
 
2011-11-22 11:50:50 AM
FTA: He also said many Popes had expressed doubts and suggested the Vatican only canonised Pio - real name Francesco Forgione - because of public pressure.

If you need any further proof that religion is a friggin' sham, realize that, in Catholicism, you can use peer pressure to force the Church to declare a person a saint. I always love the Church's one dodge when this happens, too:

Canonization, whether formal or informal, does not make someone a saint: it is only a declaration that the person is a saint and was a saint even before canonization.

The man was no saint. He was "an ignorant and self-mutilating psychopath who exploited people's credulity." But, because enough morons pushed the Church into it, he's now a recognized saint.
 
2011-11-22 11:55:14 AM

BurnShrike: Garm: "We would like to remind Mr Luzzatto that according to Catholic doctrine, canonisation carries with it papal infallibility."

That settles it.

Came here to say exactly that.
"We didn't make a mistake because according to our beliefs, we don't make mistakes"

What a bunch of crooks and frauds.


actually it does absolutely no such thing. In the hundred-odd years since the doctrine has even exited it has been used twice, and that's it. Mr Garm may wish to look at what happened to even a heavy-hitter Like St. Christopher (de-sainted after the Church decided that there was no evidence he ever existed.)
 
2011-11-22 11:55:28 AM

FormlessOne: The man was no saint. He was "an ignorant and self-mutilating psychopath who exploited people's credulity." But, because enough morons pushed the Church into it, he's now a recognized saint.


"I'm not saying that we made him a saint. I'm just saying that we said he's a saint. But he's totally a saint."
 
2011-11-22 11:55:43 AM

halfof33: However, if you have some basis to assert that mildly corrosive acid was useful to cause localized bleeding, like the hack claims in the book he is selling, I am ALL EARS!



Yeah, it's not like anyone has ever lost any blood when they got second or third degree burns from an acid

But 2nd and 3rd degree burns aren't REAL burns, right? They're sekrit socialist, muslim burns from Kenya. 2nd and 3rd degree burns are more like a freedom tickle, and no one could ever lose blood after burning away part of their skin intentionally like that.

WTF is this guy's problem, challenging something the church said like that? Doesn't he know that the church never ever EVER lies, ever, and is also never wrong? So obviously this couldn't be true, because the church says it's not. Case closed.
 
2011-11-22 11:58:14 AM
Holy shiat do I love watching halfof33 get seriously bent out of shape trying to defend lying, cock sucking priests in these threads...although he isn't that worked up because he hasn't called anyone "champ" - yet!



/c'mon smarty, don't let me down
 
2011-11-22 12:00:36 PM

FormlessOne: FTA: He also said many Popes had expressed doubts and suggested the Vatican only canonised Pio - real name Francesco Forgione - because of public pressure.

If you need any further proof that religion is a friggin' sham, realize that, in Catholicism, you can use peer pressure to force the Church to declare a person a saint. I always love the Church's one dodge when this happens, too:

Canonization, whether formal or informal, does not make someone a saint: it is only a declaration that the person is a saint and was a saint even before canonization.

The man was no saint. He was "an ignorant and self-mutilating psychopath who exploited people's credulity." But, because enough morons pushed the Church into it, he's now a recognized saint.



If you haven't already, read up on Mother Teresa some time. It's.... eye opening. She's had this amazing PR campaign which has venerated her to the status of being synonymous with good behavior, yet she was a pretty farking terrible excuse for a human being.

And a closet atheist to boot, which makes the horrendous suffering she intentionally put so many poor and vulnerable people through all that much more shocking and disgusting.
 
2011-11-22 12:02:12 PM

BurnShrike: This post is just rich. First, calling me "Know Nothing" for rephrasing exactly what the guy said, and secondly proving to the world that perhaps you should read a book once in a while (No, not that book).


Oh no friend, I called you a Know Nothing for two reasons: 1. because this ain't EXACTLY your first anti-Catholic rodeo is it; 2. How exactly did you miss the "crooks and frauds" thing in your very OWN POST?

I mean what the fark dude, you claim I should read a book, and you can't even read your own post?

A couple books for you would include histories of the Know Nothing Party and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan.
 
Displayed 50 of 225 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report