My foundational rule in Xanga is to steadfastly ignore Catholic Crusader. . . I've been violating that rule terribly, and I'm ashamed.

hehe

i downloaded Mozilla through Explorer on my Dell too. Give your Dell a few more years.....But there was a time when you couldn't use MS software unless you used Explorer as the sole browser.....never forget those times!!! who is this? did you go to Mudd?

Wow, it is God's amazing grace that he can work through seriously misguided people like the individual you describe above.

If you continue to call me a racist, I will have to continue deleting your comments, and if you are persistent, I will simply have to block you from commenting on my xanga site. I hope it need not come to that.

neo of the hinter,

Yes, you are right that Wikipedia was very much against the point I was trying to make. The reason I cited it is that even though it was clearly written by someone who was taking your side, it still mentioned that such cannibalism still exists. As I have said all along, I am not trying to prove that it is commonplace but simply that it still exists amongst pagan tribes or tribes that have not accepted the Church founded by Christ Himself, which is none other than the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Moreover, I called what you have been doing a red herring, as what I stated was nothing mroe than trying to disprove the logic of your friend. I could have said any number of things. For example, I could have said: the Incas sacrificed thousands of people to their false gods in the temples in the Americas before the missionaries came (if you prefer that example), but just because a culture does something does not make it right. The argument was that his logic, which was that "since Africans do 'a'; therefore, it is OK", is not good logic. My statement was meant merely to disprove such reasoning. Moreover, as far as me tellin gyou that you are going to hell... I need not do any such thing, and I have not done any such thing. I have outlined principles of belief in who can and who cannot be saved. If you fall amongst the latter (the vast majority of people do), then so be it, but I never said to you: "YOU ARE GOING TO HELL!!" as if there is no hope for conversion or a return to the Lord and His Church. Moreover, outside the Holy Roman Catholic Faith, which is the Faith of Jesus Christ Himself, there is not true faith. You are too stubborn to accept with faith that God could protect His Church from error by the person of the Pope. You are too stubborn to accept many things in faith, being a schismatic. What you call an "accurate name" on a statement I made is far from it. Were I to state that the English who martyred many priests under the anglican religion acted in an evil manner, etc., would you call me a racist against whites for pointing out nothing more than a mere fact of history? If you would, then you are not objective. Moreover, I "threatened" to ban you from my site only if you commit the (mortal) sin of calumny, which would include calling someone a racist without grounds and persisting in that statement even when rebuked by the person.

Matthew

OK, I'm done arguing with you. If you want to discuss circular... it's your argument (that is, it goes in a circle--I answer your points, you bring up others, I answer them, perhaps not to your desire, then you continue back with the first points all over again. I'm done with all of that.) As far as the Pope, I was completely aware of his recent statements about the heretic. Moreover, what I said before was stated before Benedict made this new statement. Nevertheless, I may have been wrong in saying that John Paul II or Benedict said that non-Catholics could be saved even if they were not ignorant. If they said this, it is wrong (just as it is wrong to say a non-Catholic can be saved even in ignorance). You could be right about that. If so, good for you. I clearly don't have any desire to know the personal opinions of this Pope or the previous one on this matter. I stick with the infallible teaching of Holy Church.

There is a difference between circular and complete.  The fact that I am correct in multiple layers of this argument is not a weakness.  I can show that you're wrong on the initial point, and when you try to argue your way out of it I show you how your new statements are wrong, but I can also go back to the ways in which the original statements are wrong as well.  When you're this far from the truth, that's what happens.  I think the fact that no one else supports your arguments in months of arguing is indictative of how little weight they hold. 

The problem is that you can't stick to one point. If you want to thoroughly debate one point, then I would be happy to do so. Moreover, the reason that "no one" agrees with me (at first at least) is that I do not debate with people about a topic about which we already agree. That would be absurd. Nevertheless, as far as people changing their minds, I know at least a few people have. Moreover, there are a lot of people who do believe as I do (without me debating with them), some of whom have xangas. You can browse them, if you'd like. Furthermore, 80% of people who write on here write one thing, to which I reply with what IMHO is a thought-out, logical response (usually with biblical passages, since most of them are feel-good fundamentalists).

But here, since we're done, I'll summarize for you.

You aren't done, clearly, as you are making more debates.

1) the fact that Jesus said to Peter "on this rock I will build my church" does not imply that you must obey the successor of Peter to be saved.

If you'd like to debate this past your biased schismatic ideas, I'd be happy to (as long as you stay off of logical fallacies and on topic).

2) the first council (which occurs in Acts) was obviously led by James and he makes the final decision in the matter.  Following councils were led by Alexandrian and Antiochian patriarchs.

Do you ever read all of a passage before making a statement about it? Acts 15 clearly says that St. Peter was the first to make a decree, and St. James merely built upon what St. Peter said. Nevertheless, it is completely irrelevant who makes a "final decision" (whatever that means) after a discussion, as they all agreed.

3) No one in Peter's lifetime ever said that you must submit to Peter to be saved.  No one in the first 450 years of church history ever said people outside of the Roman diocene must subimt to the Roman bishop to be saved.

No one debated it within the first 450 years. No one said one need not submit to the Holy Roman Pontiff to be saved. Just because, for example, the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ was not defined until Nicea does not mean that this is not true, just because it was not defined at AD 33.

4) The first great schism in the 5th century (where the Roman church broke communion with the Alexandrian, Syrian, Jersusalem, and other churches) was a result of miscommunication and political sinfulness.  This has been agreed upon not only by all Orthodox patriarchs (who were split themselves in the schism), but by Pope John Paul II

This is not the case, regardless of what John Paul II said. If these people do not believe in the Filioque procession of the Holy Ghost, original sin, and the supremacy of the Supreme Pontiff, then they are heretics (not to mention schismatics), regardless of what the case may have been 1500 years ago.

5) The doctrine of infallibility was not laid out anywhere in the Bible, or by any of the Fathers in early church history.  There is no reason to infallibly accept the doctrine of infallibility.

It is not really even necessary to refer to the Bible for proof, for when Christ says that the Holy Ghost will guide the Church to all truth, which requires infallible certitude of doctrine. Nevertheless, the following clearly illustrate the Church's infallibility: St. Matthew xvi. 18, St. Matthew xxviii. 18-20, St. John xiv., xv. & xvi., I St. Timothy iii. 14-15 & Acts xv. 28. Moreover, proof from tradition is clear enough. "It is needless to go on multiplying citations, since the broad fact is indisputable that in the ante-Nicene, no less than in the post-Nicene, period all orthodox Christians attributed to the corporate voice of the Church, speaking through the body of bishops in union with their head and centre, all the fullness of doctrinal authority which the Apostles themselves had possessed; and to question the infallibility of that authority would have been considered equivalent to questioning God's veracity and fidelity" (Catholic Encyclopedia). In fact, I am not going to sit here for hours repeating what is already clearly shown in Catholic Encyclopedia. If you want to continue a debate on this issue, read what it says, and respond to it. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm.

6) The last two popes have repeated stated that non-Catholics can be saved.  This has been true even for protestants who had intimate knowledge of the Catholic church and yet chose to remain in their current denominations.  The catechism of the Catholic Church, which was not even written by the Pope, also agrees that you must not follow the Pope to be saved. 

All of that is irrelevant, as nothing of that is infallible and therefore cannot be an argument against infallible Church dogma. Moreover, John Paul II did not write the CCC.

7) It is completely illogical to suggest that God would send somebody to hell for not following the Pope, when the Pope himself says you don't have to follow him.  It is completely illogical to suggest that God would send somebody to hell for not joining the Catholic church, when the published doctrine of the Catholic Church itself says that the Orthodox church is a sister church.

1) It is illogical that the Pope would teach contrary to Catholic dogma. You are right about that much. That is the solution to what you consider "illogical" about the Church. John Paul II was simply wrong in what he did. Moreover, the "published" (e.g. official) dogma of Holy Church considers your religions nothing other than schismatic.

8) Not a single thing in your argument has anything in common with the character of Christ or the entire body of our recorded statements of Christ.  Nothing I understand about God the Father, Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit would justify the doctrines that you propose.

This is an absurd argument. It's basically saying, "My understanding is better than your understanding." I can (and do) say the exact opposite: Not a single thing in your argument has anything in common with the character of Christ or the entire body of our recorded statements of Christ. Nothing I understand about God the Father, Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost would justify the false doctrines that you propose.

Since this is the end of this discussion, I expect that you will allow this final statement to stand.

Why would I? You clearly don't want me to, otherwise you wouldn't have wasted the time in writing all of this, unless, of course, out of pride, you wanted to show that you are right and I am wrong (whereas I, of course, do not agree that you are right). I will not let your incorrect statements stand as the "final word" when they are false. Silence wouuld indicate that you are correct. Nevertheless, any argument with you seems fruitless, so unless you want to debate a specific topic (take your pick), then the argument will end here. If you prefer, I can delete this statement and your previous one, but I am not going to let your error parade as truth, at least on my xanga.

Matthew