Religion
Related: About this forumPractically every Catholic document in the public domain -- patrology, history of the popes,
and goes on for miles:http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/_index.html
Fittingly the site is in Latin, but first of all it's church Latin, and secondly it's a little bit modernish. Worst comes to worst scroll way down to the tabs to read info in some other language that you may prefer.
Apologies if this has been posted before. New to me.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)
dimbear
(6,271 posts)Didn't try to download it as it is 23MB, would take me about a week.
On the Road
(20,783 posts)You can even use Google Translate to make it a bit easier (Latin is included now):
http://bit.ly/LjDWdv
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)before and during WWII?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)in the public domain. We can only imagine all the stuff kept under a tight umbrella of secrecy in the Vatican archives.
rug
(82,333 posts)
edhopper
(33,667 posts)has been nothing but a paragon of virtue for millennium?
rug
(82,333 posts)WWII is part of past millennia.
It's .006% of the past millennium.
You said WWII wasn't part of the past millennium.
It's foolish to speak of a millenium when the topic is a six year period. Unless, of course, one wants to change the topic for a more comfortable subject.
And why are you whispering?
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)I could be wrong, but I think the point was that WWII isn't the only period with a stain on the RCC's record.
rug
(82,333 posts)My point is that rather than imagine evidence regarding WWII, he should produce evidence for whatever point he was trying to make.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)Call it a correction.
rug
(82,333 posts)You, inadvertently I'm sure, misstated in #11 what I said: "You said WWII wasn't part of the past millennium."
I'm sure you innocently overlooked my actual words in #8: "These particular imaginary thoughts were about World War II, not the past millennium."
I'm sure you will understand the distinction on second thought.
Consider it a correction.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)You're an attorney, right? Surely you know that A, not B implies that A and B are separate.
Is it really so hard for you to admit when you made a mistake?
rug
(82,333 posts)Saying a post is about WWII and not the millennium is not saying WWII did not occur during the millennium.
Saying this is about your nose and not your face does not "imply" you do not have a face.
There is no honest implication. I can't say the same for your inference.
Is it really so hard for you to admit you are misstating another's words?
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)The direct implication of that statement is that World War II is not a part of the past millennium, especially when that statement is made in response to a comment about the Church's less-than-stellar record over the past millennium, in which it's actions and attitudes towards Nazi Germany are certainly a part.
I know this, you know this, anyone with a basic understanding of logic knows this, yet you persist.
rug
(82,333 posts)And it's an inference at that.
