Awol Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 Excellent? I think not. I did, and do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted September 19, 2010 Moderator Share Posted September 19, 2010 Don't often disagree with you Awol but I do on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddy Posted September 19, 2010 Author Share Posted September 19, 2010 Went up on the hill behind my house to look out over the mass today. Couldn't really see much, just the big screen, some food stands and some people. So I went up on the hill on the other side of the road... and there was a clear view of the stage. No police around at all. A sniper could have had a completely slear shot at him. Was amazed that they'd spent so much on security yet managed to miss this prime spot. Luckily (for them) no-one wsas up there with a gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 Unluckily for the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 Not quite sure what to make of that article, it's right in some ways (the vast majority of catholics I know aren't as nuts as the pope, and most of them don't follow the bible strictly, most of them embrace scientific theories, but simply say those theories are further evidence of a higher intelligence etc) but it is also quite wrong in presuming complete tolerance = a good thing. If complete tolerance of the Popes actions (or lack of actions, rather) leads to hundreds of damaged children around the world, then it's wrong. If it leads to paedophile priests getting on with their lives in a new parish, then it's wrong. You can't set aside fellow humans welfare, or more importantly the law, simply because you want to be tolerant and liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted September 19, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted September 19, 2010 The past hour or so has seen about 5 large police vans head towards where the Pope currently is, going past our house. And for some reason my brother, who lives closer, has gone down too. Tried to take a photo but his camera is playing up. I have no idea why he wants a picture of the pope because he sure as hell isn't Catholic and isn't even religious, but apparently he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddy Posted September 19, 2010 Author Share Posted September 19, 2010 I like the way they're saying it's his first visit since 1983 or whatever it was. They do realise it's not the same bloke right? It's like saying that when David Cameron went to Afghanistan it wasn't the first time as Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had been there before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R.I.C.O. Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 Towards the end of my long sunday run I stopped at the corner of Hagley Rd and Bearwood Rd to see what all the fuss was about. A large convoy of police cars and large people carriers passed, mainly with blacked-out windows. Joe Ratzinger was in one of them, but if you'd blinked you could have missed him. I feel sorry for the idiots that were there from 7am this morning. Its like the nutters who stand outside Buckingham Palace for hours trying to get a view of the queen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 I've hardly watched any of it - read more about it on VT!!.... just switched Sky News on & had no idea he was leaving from Brum airport with David Cameron there to wave goodbye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 Good riddance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted September 19, 2010 Moderator Share Posted September 19, 2010 Couldn't agree more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 I like the way they're saying it's his first visit since 1983 or whatever it was. They do realise it's not the same bloke right? It's like saying that when David Cameron went to Afghanistan it wasn't the first time as Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had been there before. Maybe he's Dr Who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 I feel sorry for the idiots that were there from 7am this morning. Its like the nutters who stand outside Buckingham Palace for hours trying to get a view of the queen. Buy a stamp and you can lick her head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 I feel sorry for the idiots that were there from 7am this morning. Its like the nutters who stand outside Buckingham Palace for hours trying to get a view of the queen. Buy a stamp and you can lick her head Haven't self adhesive stamps made their way as far as Derbyshire?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 :-) - Bugger that explains the taste ............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted September 19, 2010 Administrator Share Posted September 19, 2010 Can anyone find a devout Catholic who can explain which part of their holy book grants the pope his power? Or why they appear to be worshipping an idol? Thought not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soprano Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 Is it safe to come out of hiding yet? Has he really gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 Can anyone find a devout Catholic who can explain which part of their holy book grants the pope his power? Or why they appear to be worshipping an idol? Thought not. It doesn't .... nor does it mention celibacy amongst a priesthood. In fact it says the opposite that a man who wants to serve a congregation should be husband to one wife... Peter who was supposedly the first Pope actually had a mother-in-law. Jesus particularly counselled according to Matthew "do not call anyone YOUR father on earth" Little wonder that the Church in Rome fought bitterly & committed heinous acts of murder in the Dark Ages to keep the Bible from being translated into the common languages of the day, preferring instead to keep the writings in Latin, a language only understood by the Priesthood. Men & women were tortured, burnt at the stake, drawn & quartered for daring to even read the Bible. Thousands of copies of the Bible translations were burnt as books of heracy.. Men like William Tyndale who famously told a cleric.. If God spare my life ere many years, I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the Scripture than thou doest.”—Actes and Monuments, by John Foxe, London, 1563, p. 514. Thomas More promoted the burning of “heretics,” which led to Tyndale’s being strangled and his body burned at the stake in October 1536. The Pagan Roman's had a priesthood who were Eunuchs and were consequently celibate..so it wasn't hard again to introduce this practice as it was already ingrained in converts to the new Roman Catholisim......however as Sky reports.. the celibate priesthood rule appears to have been adopted to protect Church property. No wife, no kids to support or stake claim, therefore ever increasing Vatican assets would remain in the hands of where they wanted... in the hands of the Vatican, solely! Celibacy was not taught by the early Christians at all...in fact (1 Timothy 4:1-3) 4 However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances .............. by the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, marked in their conscience as with a branding iron; 3 forbidding to marry, . . ...." And so it turned out to be...celibacy became a requirement of a seperate hierachial Priesthood, that the early Christians would have just not recognised as having any place in the simple faith taught by Jesus and the apostles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jondaken Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 Can anyone find a devout Catholic who can explain which part of their holy book grants the pope his power? Or why they appear to be worshipping an idol? Thought not. Thought it was a rhetorical question tbh, else I would have answered no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regular_john Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 JulieB - it comes as no surprise. The catholic church has a long and storied history of acting like a collective bunch of dicks, whilst at all times claiming to be pious and holy. Then again, there is no such thing as a religion without blood on its hands. Whoever thought a fictional tale could cause so much bother! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts