Moratorium on moderation/censorship/general whines.-give it up for lent eh?

[Luke -Jr]

On Saturday 22 March 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
> --- Luke -Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> > On Saturday 22 March 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
> > > The Pope's official apology to Galileo didn't come till the 1990s.
> >
> > There is nothing to apologize for.
> > (nor was the man you're referring to a pope) 
>
> The man who apologized about the Catholic Church's error in its complete and
> unqualified condemnation of Galileo's heliocentrism,

The condemnation was rather Galileo's claim that the Bible was in error, not 
so much Galileo's erroneous heliocentrism itself.

> *Pope John Paul II*, wasn't a Pope?  This may come as a surprise to the
> Roman Catholic Church, since they generally keep very good track of who is
> or is not the Pope. 

John Paul II was an antipope and is recognized as such by at least the 
majority of Catholic bishops.

> > > So since Vatican II is an official part of the Roman Catholic Church, we
> > > can assume you didn't like the way Catholicism was going with Vatican II
> > > so you forked the doctrine and didn't apply any of the Vatican II
> > > updates? 
> >
> > No. Your premise is incorrect, since Vatican II is not part of the Church,
> > but is a fork of it. If you want it in terms of technology, Wireshark
> > (Vat2) is a fork of Ethereal (Catholicism), but took most of the
> > developers and users with it. 
>
> But a doctrine as old as geocentrism is the doctrine that the Pope is the
> head of the Roman Catholic Church, and the official Roman Catholic Church
> Pope at the time of Vatican II chose the Vatican II version of Catholicism. 

Couldn't figure out how to parse that sentence, but...

Geocentrism, not being a matter of faith nor morals, is not something which 
the Church herself has a teaching or doctrine either for or against.

The Vatican II sect split from the Church after Pope Pius XII's death, taking 
advantage of the interrigum to quietly kick the Catholics out of the Vatican 
and assist their antipope-to-be in usurping the location and civil 
authorities traditionally held by the pope.

> If we spoke in terms of the Linux Kernel, then what happened was that there
> was a kernel fork, you went with one version, and Linus Torvalds (the keeper
> of the official kernel) went with the other version. Linus' version is the
> only official version, so all others aren't the official version.

More accurate would be Linus dying and leaving the official kernel in his will 
to Willy Tarreau, but an actively-work-against-binary-modules faction 
supresses this information and makes Greg K-H the new main kernel maintainer.

Greg K-H's branch takes control of kernel.org and other official resources, 
implementing the binary-module-blocker, while Willy Tarreau knows of the will 
and "forks" to continue the de jure official Linux tree, as Linus had planned 
it.

> I realize that you feel strongly about your own theology, but in the end the
> version of Roman Catholicism that has the Pope at the helm really is the
> official version of Roman Catholicism.  This means that no matter how much
> you consider Vatican II to be a falsehood, it is still the official policy
> of the official Roman Catholic Church.

There are about ten people today who claim to be pope of the Catholic Church. 
What makes you think Benedict XVI is the one? Keep in mind that among the 
many guarantees Christ made for His Church, majority was not one of them.

The Catholic Church teaches (as unchangable doctrine) that to become pope, 
someone must first be Catholic, not a heretic as Montini (the more recent 
antipope John XXIII) and his successors have been. The Church also teaches 
that once a new pope is chosen, he must be first consecrated a bishop before 
he is actually the pope (this can also be proven by logic-- since the pope is 
bishop of Rome, he must in fact be a bishop in the first place).
The "consecration" that allegedly made Benedict XVI a bishop was officially 
condemned by Pope Leo XIII in 1896.