Cringeworthy Debate between James White and Jose Ventilacion

[MichaelP3]

Just choose one, and then we can chat.

I personally think your objection to Catholicism is an emotional one, not an intellectual one.

Someone hurt you in the Church, and that’s why you’ve come to a Catholic forum to talk about Catholicism.

WOW

I guess I can tell you my whole story some day but in short, I married a very Catholic Polish woman( googled some “weird” Catholic stuff and got to CAF) saw it’s free (free things intrigue me in this day and age) and here I am. Oh and it turned out my very catholic wife is today even more Protestant than I am, yet I still have a very Catholic family in law living in Poland.

Never even wondered about Catholicism before that, considering we maybe have 2% Catholics here, So good idea there.

Anyway

Chat again on that topic you asked

 

[PRmerger]

WOW

I guess I can tell you my whole story some day but in short, I married a very Catholic Polish woman( googled some “weird” Catholic stuff and got to CAF) saw it’s free (free things intrigue me in this day and age) and here I am. Oh and it turned out my very catholic wife is today even more Protestant than I am, yet I still have a very Catholic family in law living in Poland.

Never even wondered about Catholicism before that, considering we maybe have 2% Catholics here, So good idea there.

Anyway

Chat again on that topic you asked

Fair enough.

Still waiting for an example of what you object to.

And please be specific. Something like, “The Catholic Church worships Mary and I think that’s wrong” or “The Catholic Church says you can’t divorce and re-marry, or else it’s adultery, and I think that’s bogus”.

 

[dronald]

Fair enough.

Still waiting for an example of what you object to.

And please be specific. Something like, “The Catholic Church worships Mary and I think that’s wrong” or “The Catholic Church says you can’t divorce and re-marry, or else it’s adultery, and I think that’s bogus”.

PR, it’s been a while. I’ll give it a shot because this is on my mind atm.

Do you agree with this statement in Exsurge Domine. A bull by Pope Leo X?

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:

1. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

 

[PRmerger]

PR, it’s been a while. I’ll give it a shot because this is on my mind atm.

Do you agree with this statement in Exsurge Domine. A bull by Pope Leo X?

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:

1. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

I’ve discussed this already on this thread–maybe if you read over that thread then come back and we can chat here with any refutations you have about Catholic apologia on Exsurge?

 

[MichaelP3]

Fair enough.

Still waiting for an example of what you object to.

And please be specific. Something like, “The Catholic Church worships Mary and I think that’s wrong” or “The Catholic Church says you can’t divorce and re-marry, or else it’s adultery, and I think that’s bogus”.

The shrugg emoji was pretty mean. You had an opinion about my personal life. I mearly corrected you

Well anyway. Finally work has calmed down a bit and I could take some time on this.

The examples you used were pretty basic Catholic 101 and I meant some things more intricate. Although I think some Catholics fail to draw a clear line on Mary I am pretty aware of Hyperdulia and so forth. We can talk about the annulment process (and changes) maybe later, that is also an interesting one

I would rather want your opinion on the Council of Carthage 419 Canon 17. relating this back to Council of Niceae Canon 4,5,6,7. The historicity surrounding this event and what it could mean? Historically that would be one of the top 20 that comes to mind. With history I really meant history

Regards

 

[MichaelP3]

The shrugg emoji was pretty mean. You had an opinion about my personal life. I mearly corrected you

Well anyway. Finally work has calmed down a bit and I could take some time on this.

The examples you used were pretty basic Catholic 101 and I meant some things more intricate. Although I think some Catholics fail to draw a clear line on Mary I am pretty aware of Hyperdulia and so forth. We can talk about the annulment process (and changes) maybe later, that is also an interesting one

I would rather want your opinion on the Council of Carthage 419 Canon 17. relating this back to Council of Niceae Canon 4,5,6,7. The historicity surrounding this event and what it could mean? Historically that would be one of the top 20 that comes to mind. With history I really meant history

Regards

On the specific request. Well this regards “Universal Jurisdiction” by the Bishop of Rome. How it was seen, believed and practised. Like to hear your thoughts. But please take the circumstances into account. you will find it to be quite interesting!

If this one is boring we can go to the next one…

 

[PRmerger]

We can talk about the annulment process (and changes) maybe later, that is also an interesting one

Ok. Good.

Let’s talk about your objection to the annulment process.

What specifically do you find objectionable here?

 

[MichaelP3]

Ok. Good.

Let’s talk about your objection to the annulment process.

What specifically do you find objectionable here?

I gave you my request as asked. Would you like to change? I did say later and gave an extensive point to go on further.

 

[PRmerger]

I gave you my request as asked. Would you like to change? I did say later and gave an extensive point to go on further.

I don’t understand what your objection is.

Could you be specific?

 

[MichaelP3]

I don’t understand what your objection is.

Could you be specific?

Not sure what you mean.

Is this objection to your wanting to debate Catholic annulments or my original point as requested?

 

[pablope]

On the specific request. Well this regards “Universal Jurisdiction”. How it was seen, believed and practised. Like to hear your thoughts.

How about starting with actual historical events:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1355

On the other hand, Pope Leo, in his anxiety to preserve the privileges of his See, seems to have overlooked the fact that the Easterners still looked upon Rome as the Imperial city, as is evident from declarations made by some of the Bishops at Chalcedon. To them, the fact that Rome was the first capital and the foundation of the Empire was sufficient proof that the primacy in the Church belonged to her Bishops, and it would so remain as long as the Roman Empire, of which Constantinople was now the Imperial residence, endured.

One thing is securely established, namely, that the Byzantine Church did not intend to question the primacy of Rome in the Church. In spite of what happened, Rome continued to be regarded as the superior of Constantinople and as the first See in the Church.

 

[MichaelP3]

How about starting with actual historical events:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1355

On the other hand, Pope Leo, in his anxiety to preserve the privileges of his See, seems to have overlooked the fact that the Easterners still looked upon Rome as the Imperial city, as is evident from declarations made by some of the Bishops at Chalcedon. To them, the fact that Rome was the first capital and the foundation of the Empire was sufficient proof that the primacy in the Church belonged to her Bishops, and it would so remain as long as the Roman Empire, of which Constantinople was now the Imperial residence, endured.

One thing is securely established, namely, that the Byzantine Church did not intend to question the primacy of Rome in the Church. In spite of what happened, Rome continued to be regarded as the superior of Constantinople and as the first See in the Church.

I really appreciate your post.

But how do you relate this to the canons I mentioned? And also the source? We are talking about a council who made a decree. Maybe local in that sense but still very much a part of Christianity and how it was understood.

And I am aware of the historical events. Would like to go deeper into that!

 

[PRmerger]

Not sure what you mean.

Is this objection to your wanting to debate Catholic annulments or my original point as requested?

Yes. I’d like to debate Catholic annulments, now that you’ve brought it up as something you find objectionable about Catholicism.

What do you find wrong with the idea of annulments?

 

[PRmerger]

I would rather want your opinion on the Council of Carthage 419 Canon 17. relating this back to Council of Niceae Canon 4,5,6,7.

I’m going to answer in the same way that you answered my question about annulments.

And when you can offer something meaty for continuing the discussion on your objections to Catholicism, then I will, in return, offer something meaty for continuing this discussion on Nicea and Carthage.

So…in the same vein as your annulment answer: my opinion on the Council of Carthage 419 Canon 17, relating this to Nicea Canon 4, 5, 6, 7 is that this was something done historically by Catholic bishops that are part of my Church.

How’s that?

 

[MichaelP3]

I’m going to answer in the same way that you answered my question about annulments.

And when you can offer something meaty for continuing the discussion on your objections to Catholicism, then I will, in return, offer something meaty for continuing this discussion on Nicea and Carthage.

So…in the same vein as your annulment answer: my opinion on the Council of Carthage 419 Canon 17, relating this to Nicea Canon 4, 5, 6, 7 is that this was something done historically by Catholic bishops that are part of my Church.

How’s that?

Oh Merger! You surprise me on so many levels. At first I made it very clear that I would like to go into history and you accepted that. You asked me for an example. If you are not willing to ;look into my allegation on universal jurisdiction then just admit it. I made a claim AS REQUESTED and I am waiting for a reply… That was the question. If you admit you have no answer (although my claim would take some research on your behalf , maybe) on my claim that that is okay. We can go further. It is simple. You asked a question and I answered. Even how I answered on you intruding on my personal life and corrected you. You didn’t seem faxed. You can also learn while answering the question as requested.

Universal Jurisdiction and the historical points I made. That was first. AS requested? Please follow this?

Again, it’s 2 am here. See you later.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh Merger! You surprise me on so many levels. At first I made it very clear that I would like to go into history and you accepted that. You asked me for an example. If you are not willing to ;look into my allegation on universal jurisdiction then just admit it. I made a claim AS REQUESTED and I am waiting for a reply… That was the question. If you admit you have no answer (although my claim would take some research on your behalf , maybe) on my claim that that is okay. We can go further. It is simple. You asked a question and I answered. Even how I answered on you intruding on my personal life and corrected you. You didn’t seem faxed. You can also learn while answering the question as requested.

Universal Jurisdiction and the historical points I made. That was first. AS requested? Please follow this?

Again, it’s 2 am here. See you later.

sigh

Sadly, I am going to have to take the Scriptural approach and shake off the dust from my feet and leave. (Matthew 10:14)

I urge you to continue to read our Catechism and think about what valid reason you have to reject it.

#seedplanted

[placed on ignore]

 

[Duane1966]

On the specific request. Well this regards “Universal Jurisdiction” by the Bishop of Rome. How it was seen, believed and practised. Like to hear your thoughts. But please take the circumstances into account. you will find it to be quite interesting!

If this one is boring we can go to the next one…

Sure, let’s talk about the canons, and universal jurisdiction. What do you think those canons are saying about universal jurisdiction? I am well informed on the circumstances, and the practices. You will also find it quite interesting.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Sure, let’s talk about the canons, and universal jurisdiction. What do you think those canons are saying about universal jurisdiction? I am well informed on the circumstances, and the practices. You will also find it quite interesting.

 

[MichaelP3]

sigh

Sadly, I am going to have to take the Scriptural approach and shake off the dust from my feet and leave. (Matthew 10:14)

I urge you to continue to read our Catechism and think about what valid reason you have to reject it.

#seedplanted

[placed on ignore]

Hi Merger

I must say I am somewhat disappointed at this but if you are still there, please then tell me what you expected. I would have hoped you would have seen I am not the conventional Catholic opposer. I wasn’t kidding when I said I studied the Catechism extensively. I know what a Catholic should answer to many mainstream debates. And if they don’t I can even tell them citing the Catechism. So I generally don’t like discussions where someone can just copy and paste their answers from the Catechism. So urging me to read the Catechism well I’ve done that in more ways then one.

But anyway, I am not sure what you expected. You very clearly asked for a historical point to chat about. I gave a clear one, even the exact year, place and point of discussion in history but you opted to steer away to annulments because I made the mistake of mentioning it. Firstly it is maybe something you know more about and feel more comfortable with and that is okay. But it wasn’t history related and you requested something from me. Then you rather “dust of your feet” and walk for no apparent reason at all except the obvious that you didn’t actually expect something THAT historical and thought I was joking or something. That is your prerogative but I am still disappointed. Luckily there are other Catholics who would and could take this discussion further.

Again, you did request from me when you accepted the challenge. I complied!

 

[MichaelP3]

Sure, let’s talk about the canons, and universal jurisdiction. What do you think those canons are saying about universal jurisdiction? I am well informed on the circumstances, and the practices. You will also find it quite interesting.

Seeing as one challenger already backed out I really appreciate your acceptance.

I already found it interesting. That is why I brought it up.

So let us start then and move further from there. I say that canon shows that universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome was not accepted by Africa. In other words they told Rome to mind its own business.

Guess that can be the first point for what I expect to become a long discussion