John Paul The Great!

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Damiano' date='28 January 2010 - 09:07 PM' timestamp='1264734451' post='2046918']
John Paul worked all of his life to bring peace on earth...but the One he claimed to represent had another purpose. Jesus said: "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword" [Matthew 10:34]. Jesus preached one God, one way of salvation---John Paul gave false hopes to those who worship other gods and seek salvation apart from the Lord Jesus Christ, to Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists. Thus he is loved by all, but Christ was hated by all, and crucified!
[/quote]

While in my own estimation I feel that some of JP2's ecumenical efforts went a bit too far, it is both disconcerting and laughable that you are juxtaposing JP2's efforts for peace against Christ's statement that He himself would in ways be a figure of disagreement. Jesus Christ also said "Blessed are the peacemakers." You seem to have forgotten that fact. I am utterly surprised by the hubris with which you have approached posting on this phorum. There is room for debate about the merit of JP2's legacy.

And for the record, JP2 is not in fact loved by all.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Veridicus

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Damiano' date='28 January 2010 - 09:07 PM' timestamp='1264734451' post='2046918']
***Catholics and non-Catholics alike praise and admire Pope John Paul II. Now he appears before God to be judged according to the truth. Man's praise will not influence or impress the Divine Judge, the true Head of the Church: "Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets" [Luke 6:26].

John Paul worked all of his life to bring peace on earth...but the One he claimed to represent had another purpose. Jesus said: "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword" [Matthew 10:34]. Jesus preached one God, one way of salvation---John Paul gave false hopes to those who worship other gods and seek salvation apart from the Lord Jesus Christ, to Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists. Thus he is loved by all, but Christ was hated by all, and crucified!

He claimed to be the successor of St. Peter...but unlike Peter, John Paul taught others to trust in Mary and to surrender the hour of death wholly to her care. The apostle Peter taught people to call on the only name given by God for our salvation, the blessed name of Jesus the Messiah: "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" [Acts 4:12].

BOTTOM LINE: John Paul II was a false prophet who did not trust in Jesus Christ at the hour of his death but in Mary (i.e., a born sinner) who confessed her need of a savior herself [Luke 1:46-56].

Damiano
[/quote]
Word of advice........... Catholics get really heated when you diss our Mother.

[Lil Red]

+JMJ+
btw, Catholics are the original "Biblical Christians"

[Damiano]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='28 January 2010 - 09:27 PM' timestamp='1264739271' post='2047038']
Word of advice........... Catholics get really heated when you diss our Mother.
[/quote]

***What I said about your "mother" is supported by the Bible. However, nowhere in the Bible is what you believe about your "mother" supported there.

Damiano

[Damiano]

[quote name='Lil Red' date='28 January 2010 - 09:48 PM' timestamp='1264740519' post='2047061']
+JMJ+
btw, Catholics are the original "Biblical Christians" [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/smokey.gif[/img]
[/quote]

***Not so. Roman Catholicism does not believe in the Bible as the supreme authority for it's doctrines. In point of fact, most of your doctrines are in direct opposition to the dicates of the Bible and are only supported by the dictates of your Traditions, teachings of the Magesterium and pronouncements of the various Councils such as Trent, etc...NONE of which are inspired of God. Only the Scriptures are INSPIRED of God [2 Timothy 3:16].

Damiano

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Damiano' date='29 January 2010 - 02:49 AM' timestamp='1264747745' post='2047162']
***Not so. Roman Catholicism does not believe in the Bible as the supreme authority for it's doctrines. In point of fact, most of your doctrines are in direct opposition to the dicates of the Bible and are only supported by the dictates of your Traditions, teachings of the Magesterium and pronouncements of the various Councils such as Trent, etc...NONE of which are inspired of God. Only the Scriptures are INSPIRED of God [2 Timothy 3:16].

Damiano
[/quote]

Protestants can't agree on biblical interpretation, that's why there are about 7,000 Protestant churches, and more almost every day. There's only one Catholic Church. Jesus said to the Apostles "he who hears you hears Me". Our bishops are the successors of the Apostles.
You seem to be posing yourself as a supreme authority in this thread, but I think you lack infallibility. If we go back to the early centuries we find the Fathers of the Church teaching Catholic doctrines about the Bible and the sacraments. Where does Protestantism derive its "authority" or teachings? And why weren't you around before the Protestant "reformation".

S.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Skinzo

[Damiano]

*["...laughable that you are juxtaposing JP2's efforts for peace against Christ's statement that He himself would in ways be a figure of disagreement..."]

***The Lord Jesus Christ is, indeed, a figure of disagreement. There are those of us who believe that He [Jesus] is the ONLY name under heaven given among man whereby we must be saved [Acts 4:12;Romans 10:13;John 14:6]...and then there are those like JP2 and you who entrust yourselves to Mary, surrendering "the hour of your death" wholly "to her care" as stipulated in your Catechism (#2677). By your refusal to acknowledge Jesus Christ as the ONLY provision for your salvation you have made Him a Liar for He says: "...I am the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE: no man cometh unto the Father, but BY ME" [John 14:6].


*["Jesus Christ also said 'Blessed are the peacemakers'...."]

***The scripture that you cite [Matthew 5:9] pertains to peace with God, which comes with salvation, and all who proclaim such are called "peacemakers." What is interesting is that you neglected to post the rest of the verse which says "...for they shall be called the children of God"---which expresses the "peacemaker" and the one who has received the "peace"...and, as such, is a child of God.


*["...There is room for debate about the merit of JP2's legacy..."]

***JP2 had no legacy...he was a deceiver who knew not God...and at "the hour of his death" DENIED the ONLY savior [Jesus Christ]...and trusted "totally" in Mary [Totus Tuus].


*["...And for the record, JP2 is not in fact loved by all..."]

***The only ones who did not esteem JP2 were a segment of the Catholic Church who thought he was an anti-pope because of his "innovations" within the Church. Most of the world was "ga-ga" over the "holy father" especially the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Your denial of this is just a crock.


BOTTOM LINE: There is NO salvation apart from the Lord Jesus Christ...and all who deny this are false prophets and deceivers.


Damiano

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Damiano' date='29 January 2010 - 05:48 AM' timestamp='1264765705' post='2047197']
NONE of which are inspired of God. Only the Scriptures are INSPIRED of God [2 Timothy 3:16].
[/quote]

Your claims that the Catholic Church is uninspired by God are without merit and belie more vitriol than than anything. 2 Tim 3:16 does indeed state that Scripture is inspired by God (although incidentally it doesn't give us the Table of Contents which renders too empowering of an interpretation impotent). I would also like to demonstrate a rather typical protestant twisting of scripture here: 2 Tim 3:16 does NOT say that "ONLY" the scriptures are inspired. In fact, if you flip to 1 Tim 3:15 you'll see that the Church is the "pillar & foundation of all Truth." An extension of your eisegetical principles would then lead to the conclusion that ONLY the Church is the foundation of all truth.


[quote name='Damiano' date='29 January 2010 - 05:48 AM' timestamp='1264765705' post='2047197']
***The scripture that you cite [Matthew 5:9] pertains to peace with God, which comes with salvation, and all who proclaim such are called "peacemakers." What is interesting is that you neglected to post the rest of the verse which says "...for they shall be called the children of God"---which expresses the "peacemaker" and the one who has received the "peace"...and, as such, is a child of God.
[/quote]
Eisegesis.

[quote name='Damiano' date='29 January 2010 - 05:48 AM' timestamp='1264765705' post='2047197']
***The only ones who did not esteem JP2 were a segment of the Catholic Church who thought he was an anti-pope because of his "innovations" within the Church. Most of the world was "ga-ga" over the "holy father" especially the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Your denial of this is just a crock.
[/quote]

There were many across all denominations and creeds who disliked JP2. Many people in the world thought he wasn't liberal enough in his ecumenism or social teaching on contraception. You are purporting a quite spurious claim that most of the world was 'ga-ga' over JP2 and loved him without reservation. I reject your reality. It is obvious we will not come to conclusions regarding the proper interpretation of scripture, but you are offering broad generalizations about topics for which a retort should not even be necessary.

Perhaps you should use the word "only" a bit less and live in the real world where our prejudiced opinions don't dictate reality.

It is in fact you, sir, who are a crock.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Veridicus

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Damiano' date='29 January 2010 - 07:48 AM' timestamp='1264765705' post='2047197']

***The Lord Jesus Christ is, indeed, a figure of disagreement. There are those of us who believe that He [Jesus] is the ONLY name under heaven given among man whereby we must be saved [Acts 4:12;Romans 10:13;John 14:6]...and then there are those like JP2 and you who entrust yourselves to Mary, surrendering "the hour of your death" wholly "to her care" as stipulated in your Catechism (#2677). By your refusal to acknowledge Jesus Christ as the ONLY provision for your salvation you have made Him a Liar for He says: "...I am the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE: no man cometh unto the Father, but BY ME" [John 14:6].


If you are going to quote the catechism to us, try to do so accurately. The passage you are referring to as "#2677" is as follows:

2677 Holy Mary, Mother of God: With Elizabeth we marvel, "And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" 36 Because she gives us Jesus, her son, Mary is Mother of God and our mother; we can entrust all our cares and petitions to her: she prays for us as she prayed for herself: "Let it be to me according to your word." 37 By entrusting ourselves to her prayer, we abandon ourselves to the will of God together with her: "Thy will be done."

As is obvious, your version is a distortion. We trust to Mary to PRAY for us only. JPII spent his whole life proclaiming Christ as the one Redeemer. In any event, Mary leads people to her Son. JP II's last words in fact were "Let me go the Lord".

As to "Totus tuus" he explained that as : "In repeating every day 'Totus tuus,' and living in harmony with her," he said, "one can attain to the experience of the Father in limitless confidence and love, to docility to the Holy Spirit, and to the transformation of self according to the image of Christ."
Our prayers and devotion to Mary lead us to God. Where else would the mother of the Savior guide those who call on her?

S.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Skinzo

[Damiano]

[quote name='Skinzo' date='29 January 2010 - 04:01 PM' timestamp='1264806061' post='2047494']
[quote name='Damiano' date='29 January 2010 - 07:48 AM' timestamp='1264765705' post='2047197']
***The Lord Jesus Christ is, indeed, a figure of disagreement. There are those of us who believe that He [Jesus] is the ONLY name under heaven given among man whereby we must be saved [Acts 4:12;Romans 10:13;John 14:6]...and then there are those like JP2 and you who entrust yourselves to Mary, surrendering "the hour of your death" wholly "to her care" as stipulated in your Catechism (#2677). By your refusal to acknowledge Jesus Christ as the ONLY provision for your salvation you have made Him a Liar for He says: "...I am the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE: no man cometh unto the Father, but BY ME" [John 14:6].


If you are going to quote the catechism to us, try to do so accurately. The passage you are referring to as "#2677" is as follows:

2677 Holy Mary, Mother of God: With Elizabeth we marvel, "And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" 36 Because she gives us Jesus, her son, Mary is Mother of God and our mother; we can entrust all our cares and petitions to her: she prays for us as she prayed for herself: "Let it be to me according to your word." 37 By entrusting ourselves to her prayer, we abandon ourselves to the will of God together with her: "Thy will be done."

As is obvious, your version is a distortion. We trust to Mary to PRAY for us only. JPII spent his whole life proclaiming Christ as the one Redeemer. In any event, Mary leads people to her Son. JP II's last words in fact were "Let me go the Lord".

As to "Totus tuus" he explained that as : "In repeating every day 'Totus tuus,' and living in harmony with her," he said, "one can attain to the experience of the Father in limitless confidence and love, to docility to the Holy Spirit, and to the transformation of self according to the image of Christ."
Our prayers and devotion to Mary lead us to God. Where else would the mother of the Savior guide those who call on her?

S.
[/quote]

***Nothing that you have posted is supported by Scripture. Mary is NOT the "mother of God"...she is only the vessel used by God to bring forth the Messiah (i.e., the HOLY ONE of Israel) as a HUMAN into the world. She is the mother of His HUMANITY (i.e., His flesh). God alone is His FATHER for He (Jesus) is of the EXACT essence and image as His Father [Hebrews 1:3]...that He was God the Son in the BEGINNING with God the Father and Holy Ghost [John 1:1-3]. He is the God-Man...fully God and fully man.

MARY did NOT give us Jesus...it was the FATHER who GAVE us Jesus!!! "For God [the FATHER] so loved the world, that he GAVE His only begotten Son [JESUS], that whosoever believeth in Him [JESUS] should not perish, but have everlasting life" [John 3:16]. Mary had NOTHING to do with salvation...it was ALL of God...and Mary gave her consent to bear His Son because she feared God [Luke 1:30,50]...and obeyed the angel saying: "...Behold the handmaid (i.e., slave/servant) of the Lord; be it unto me ACCORDING TO THY WORD..." [Luke 1:38].

Too, Mary cannot intercede for us to God because there is only one mediator between God and man---the man Christ Jesus [1 Timothy 2:5]..and she is NOT a MEDIATOR between us and Jesus Christ...for Jesus said the following: "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day" [John 6:37-39---See also John 17:2,24]. Mary CANNOT mediate for me with God---and ONLY HE [Jesus Christ] can raise me up again at the last day...with Mary and my other brothers/sisters in Jesus Christ our Lord.

BOTTOM LINE: ALL of your doctrines are the doctrines of unregenerate men and, as such, are FALSE...with no support in Scripture.

Damiano

[Damiano]

*["...2 Tim 3:16 does NOT say that "ONLY" the scriptures are inspired. In fact, if you flip to 1 Tim 3:15 you'll see that the Church is the 'pillar & foundation of all Truth.' An extension of your eisegetical principles would then lead to the conclusion that ONLY the Church is the foundation of all truth..."]

***You are in error...not knowing the Scriptures that you might be saved.

The stated purpose of these instructions is to inform the Ephesian congregation how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household. Paul used the analogy of "household" to refer to the Church [v.5]. This morphs into an architectural image involving the Church as "pillar and foundation of the truth." The idea of the Church as a "building" dedicated to the "living God" is a common one for Paul [1 Corinthians 3:16-17;2 Corinthians 6:16;Ephesians 2:20-22]. Papists like you teach that the Church as the "foundation of the truth" is the SOURCE of God's truth...that no one can know the truth unless he depends on the teaching of some organized church (i.e., in your case the Catholic Church). However, Paul was simply affirming the crucial role of the universal church (i.e., in this case it is the collection of all believers in Ephesus and, by extension, across the world). These believers, each serving and worshipping in their individual churches, are the "pillars and support" of God's truth--NOT the SOURCE--of this truth...rather it functions as the custodian of and witness to the truth.

The ERROR of your Church is that it DENIES the supreme AUTHORITY of the Scriptures and holds, instead, to the HUMANISTIC reasonings of unregenerate men and their Traditions...thereby nullifying the Word of God [Matthew 15:6]. Too, if the Church is the SOURCE of all truth (as you and your church allege)...then you can formulate any doctrine that you want and foist it upon your congregants and declare it as truth because the Church truth is superior to Biblical truth. This is EXACTLY what has happened in the Catholic church...and that is WHY most of your blasphemous doctrines are in direct opposition to the dictates of Scripture and why you rebel against the Inspiration of the Scriptures...because it gives you license to declare ANY DOCTRINE THAT YOU WANT TO PROPAGATE.

Damiano

[Damiano]

*["Protestants can't agree on biblical interpretation, that's why there are about 7,000 Protestant churches, and more almost every day..."]

***Roman Catholics are told that they cannot understand the Bible on their own and that it must be interpreted for them by the Church speaking through the priest. The priests, in turn, are pledged not to interpret the Bible for themselves...but only as the Church interprets it, and according to "the unanimous consent of the fathers." The problem is that the Church has NEVER issued an official commentary giving that interpretation. So then "the unanimous consent of the fathers" is purely a myth...for there is scarcely a point of doctrine on which they do not differ. The doctrine of the "Immaculate Conception," for instance, was DENIED by Anselm, Bonaventura, and Thomas Aquinas---three of the greatest Roman theologians. Yet, your Church presumes to teach Mary was born without sin, and that this is "the unanimous teaching of the fathers."

In your insistence on following an official interpretation you are no different than Christian Scientists who also have the Bible but insist that it must be interpreted by Mary Baker Eddy's book, "Science and Health, with Key to the Scriptures"...and that of the Mormons, who likewise have the Bible but interpret it by the "Book of Mormon."

The result of the priests and Catholic people like you being told that they cannot interpret the Bible for themselves is that you (priests and lay people) read it but very little. Why should you?...after all, you are told that you cannot understand it. Instead you all read your breviaries, books of daily devotions and prayers, as required by the Church---all of which are of HUMAN origin and, as such, are NOT inspired. Only the Scriptures have the SEAL OF INSPIRATION by God [2 Timothy 3:16].


*["...There's only one Catholic Church. Jesus said to the Apostles 'he who hears you hears Me'. Our bishops are the successors of the Apostles..."]

***Yes, indeed, there is only one "c"atholic Church...but it is NOT the Roman Catholic Church. The "c"atholic (i.e., Universal Church) is the Church that the Lord Jesus Christ is building and will be completed when the LAST "born-again" [John 3:1-21] believer is entered in. When it is completed He [Jesus] will "rapture" it [1 Corinthians 15:52] in a "twinkling of an eye"...but the Roman Catholic Church will still be here on earth and go through the Great Tribulation...and then be thrown in the Lake of Fire with the Antichrist at the Second Coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Your church's claim that Peter was the first bishop in Rome and that the later popes are his successors is a LIE. Does Peter claim to be a pope or have primacy over the other apostles? Fortunately, he wrote two epistles which gives his position and certain instructions as to how others in the SAME POSITION are to perform their duties...to wit: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus christ...The elders therefore among you, I exhort, who am a fellow-elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, who am also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not of constraint, but willingly, according to the will of God; nor yet for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as lording it over the charge alotted to you, but making yourselves ensamples to the flock" [1 Peter 1:1;5:1-3].

Here Peter refers to himself as: (1)an apostle of Jesus Christ, (2)an elder--which has NOTHING to do with a sacrificing priesthood. (3)He does not claim the highest place in the Church and (4)assumes no ecclesiastical superiority--but with profound humility puts himself on a level with those whom he exhorts. (5)He makes it clear that the Church must be democratic---NOT authoritarian. He forbids the leaders to lord it over the people or (6)to take money unjustly...(7)He says that they are to serve the people willingly and their lives are to make themselves examples for the people.

But the fact is that the Catholic Church acts directly contrary to these instructions. Peter refused to accept homage from men---as evidenced when Cornelius fell down at his feet and would have worshipped him...but Peter protested quickly and said, "Stand up; I myself also am a man" [Acts 10:25,26]. Yet the popes not only accept, but demand such homage...even the highest cardinals protrate themselves on the floor before a newly elected pope or when making ordination vows before him. Too, the popes accept the blasphemous title of "HOLY Father" as theirs as a matter of right...but is a title belonging to God ALONE.

BOTTOM LINE: Peter was not the head of the Church and NEVER claimed to be. Instead Peter refers to himself only as an apostle (of which there were eleven others), and as an elder, that is, simply as a minister of Christ.


*["...You seem to be posing yourself as a supreme authority in this thread, but I think you lack infallibility..."]

***I am just a man and not infallible. However, the authority (the Bible) that I cite is infallible.


*["...If we go back to the early centuries we find the Fathers of the Church teaching Catholic doctrines about the Bible and the sacraments..."]

***According to the NT, and according to the teaching of the Protestant churches, two sacraments and only two, were instituted by Jesus Christ. These are Baptism and the Lord's Supper. In the upper room during the last night with His disciples Jesus instituted the Lord's supper when He said: "This do in remembrance of me" [Luke 22:19]. Baptism was practiced from the time of John the Baptist, and after His resurrection Christ specifically instituted it as a sacrament when He said: "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptising them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost..." [Matthew 28:19].

It is important to notice that no author for more than a thousand years after Christ...taught that there were seven sacraments. It was not until the Council of Florence, in the year 1439, that the seven sacraments were formally decreed. Later the Council of Trent declared: "If any one saith that the sacraments of the New Law were not instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or that they are more, or less, than seven, to wit, baptism, confirmation, the eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament, let him be anathema."

That five sacraments added by the Catholic Church are spurious should be clear beyond doubt for they are not mentioned in Scripture and therefore without authority.


*["...Where does Protestantism derive its 'authority' or teachings?..."]

***From the ultimate "authority" itself...the Scriptures: "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous light: which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy" [1 Peter 2:9-10].

Damiano

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Damiano' date='30 January 2010 - 02:52 AM' timestamp='1264834362' post='2047637']
ame='Skinzo' date='29 January 2010 - 04:01 PM' timestamp='1264806061' post='2047494']


***Nothing that you have posted is supported by Scripture. Mary is NOT the "mother of God"...she is only the vessel used by God to bring forth the Messiah (i.e., the HOLY ONE of Israel) as a HUMAN into the world. She is the mother of His HUMANITY (i.e., His flesh). God alone is His FATHER for He (Jesus) is of the EXACT essence and image as His Father [Hebrews 1:3]...that He was God the Son in the BEGINNING with God the Father and Holy Ghost [John 1:1-3]. He is the God-Man...fully God and fully man.

MARY did NOT give us Jesus...it was the FATHER who GAVE us Jesus!!! "For God [the FATHER] so loved the world, that he GAVE His only begotten Son [JESUS], that whosoever believeth in Him [JESUS] should not perish, but have everlasting life" [John 3:16]. Mary had NOTHING to do with salvation...it was ALL of God...and Mary gave her consent to bear His Son because she feared God [Luke 1:30,50]...and obeyed the angel saying: "...Behold the handmaid (i.e., slave/servant) of the Lord; be it unto me ACCORDING TO THY WORD..." [Luke 1:38].

Too, Mary cannot intercede for us to God because there is only one mediator between God and man---the man Christ Jesus [1 Timothy 2:5]..and she is NOT a MEDIATOR between us and Jesus Christ...for Jesus said the following: "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day" [John 6:37-39---See also John 17:2,24]. Mary CANNOT mediate for me with God---and ONLY HE [Jesus Christ] can raise me up again at the last day...with Mary and my other brothers/sisters in Jesus Christ our Lord.

BOTTOM LINE: ALL of your doctrines are the doctrines of unregenerate men and, as such, are FALSE...with no support in Scripture.

Damiano
[/quote]

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit,
whom the Father will send in my name,
he shall teach you all things,
and bring all things to your remembrance,
whatsoever I have said unto you.
John 14:26

"He shall teach you all things..." The Holy Spirit has led the Church to all truths as Jesus promised whether that truth is the doctrine of Mother of God or any other. To believe as you do one would have to believe the entire Church was in darkness until Martin Luther and John Calvin came along. That is simply not credible.
Of course, Jesus comes from the Father, but Mary by her consent becomes the Mother of God.
Christ is the one Mediator but that does not mean Mary and other saints cannot pray for us.
They can and do.
Your bottom line again is one you cannot make or bind anyone else to as you hold no position of authority. Another Protestant can just as easily contest your point, and again that is why Protestants have founded so many churches, over 7,000 of them in fact. Without a central teaching authority as Christ instituted the only consequence is disunity.

S.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Damiano' date='30 January 2010 - 06:37 AM' timestamp='1264847862' post='2047665']
*["Protestants can't agree on biblical interpretation, that's why there are about 7,000 Protestant churches, and more almost every day..."]

***Roman Catholics are told that they cannot understand the Bible on their own and that it must be interpreted for them by the Church speaking through the priest. The priests, in turn, are pledged not to interpret the Bible for themselves...but only as the Church interprets it, and according to "the unanimous consent of the fathers." The problem is that the Church has NEVER issued an official commentary giving that interpretation. So then "the unanimous consent of the fathers" is purely a myth...for there is scarcely a point of doctrine on which they do not differ. The doctrine of the "Immaculate Conception," for instance, was DENIED by Anselm, Bonaventura, and Thomas Aquinas---three of the greatest Roman theologians. Yet, your Church presumes to teach Mary was born without sin, and that this is "the unanimous teaching of the fathers."

In your insistence on following an official interpretation you are no different than Christian Scientists who also have the Bible but insist that it must be interpreted by Mary Baker Eddy's book, "Science and Health, with Key to the Scriptures"...and that of the Mormons, who likewise have the Bible but interpret it by the "Book of Mormon."

The result of the priests and Catholic people like you being told that they cannot interpret the Bible for themselves is that you (priests and lay people) read it but very little. Why should you?...after all, you are told that you cannot understand it. Instead you all read your breviaries, books of daily devotions and prayers, as required by the Church---all of which are of HUMAN origin and, as such, are NOT inspired. Only the Scriptures have the SEAL OF INSPIRATION by God [2 Timothy 3:16].


*["...There's only one Catholic Church. Jesus said to the Apostles 'he who hears you hears Me'. Our bishops are the successors of the Apostles..."]

***Yes, indeed, there is only one "c"atholic Church...but it is NOT the Roman Catholic Church. The "c"atholic (i.e., Universal Church) is the Church that the Lord Jesus Christ is building and will be completed when the LAST "born-again" [John 3:1-21] believer is entered in. When it is completed He [Jesus] will "rapture" it [1 Corinthians 15:52] in a "twinkling of an eye"...but the Roman Catholic Church will still be here on earth and go through the Great Tribulation...and then be thrown in the Lake of Fire with the Antichrist at the Second Coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Your church's claim that Peter was the first bishop in Rome and that the later popes are his successors is a LIE. Does Peter claim to be a pope or have primacy over the other apostles? Fortunately, he wrote two epistles which gives his position and certain instructions as to how others in the SAME POSITION are to perform their duties...to wit: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus christ...The elders therefore among you, I exhort, who am a fellow-elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, who am also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not of constraint, but willingly, according to the will of God; nor yet for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as lording it over the charge alotted to you, but making yourselves ensamples to the flock" [1 Peter 1:1;5:1-3].

Here Peter refers to himself as: (1)an apostle of Jesus Christ, (2)an elder--which has NOTHING to do with a sacrificing priesthood. (3)He does not claim the highest place in the Church and (4)assumes no ecclesiastical superiority--but with profound humility puts himself on a level with those whom he exhorts. (5)He makes it clear that the Church must be democratic---NOT authoritarian. He forbids the leaders to lord it over the people or (6)to take money unjustly...(7)He says that they are to serve the people willingly and their lives are to make themselves examples for the people.

But the fact is that the Catholic Church acts directly contrary to these instructions. Peter refused to accept homage from men---as evidenced when Cornelius fell down at his feet and would have worshipped him...but Peter protested quickly and said, "Stand up; I myself also am a man" [Acts 10:25,26]. Yet the popes not only accept, but demand such homage...even the highest cardinals protrate themselves on the floor before a newly elected pope or when making ordination vows before him. Too, the popes accept the blasphemous title of "HOLY Father" as theirs as a matter of right...but is a title belonging to God ALONE.

BOTTOM LINE: Peter was not the head of the Church and NEVER claimed to be. Instead Peter refers to himself only as an apostle (of which there were eleven others), and as an elder, that is, simply as a minister of Christ.


*["...You seem to be posing yourself as a supreme authority in this thread, but I think you lack infallibility..."]

***I am just a man and not infallible. However, the authority (the Bible) that I cite is infallible.


*["...If we go back to the early centuries we find the Fathers of the Church teaching Catholic doctrines about the Bible and the sacraments..."]

***According to the NT, and according to the teaching of the Protestant churches, two sacraments and only two, were instituted by Jesus Christ. These are Baptism and the Lord's Supper. In the upper room during the last night with His disciples Jesus instituted the Lord's supper when He said: "This do in remembrance of me" [Luke 22:19]. Baptism was practiced from the time of John the Baptist, and after His resurrection Christ specifically instituted it as a sacrament when He said: "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptising them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost..." [Matthew 28:19].

It is important to notice that no author for more than a thousand years after Christ...taught that there were seven sacraments. It was not until the Council of Florence, in the year 1439, that the seven sacraments were formally decreed. Later the Council of Trent declared: "If any one saith that the sacraments of the New Law were not instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or that they are more, or less, than seven, to wit, baptism, confirmation, the eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament, let him be anathema."

That five sacraments added by the Catholic Church are spurious should be clear beyond doubt for they are not mentioned in Scripture and therefore without authority.


*["...Where does Protestantism derive its 'authority' or teachings?..."]

***From the ultimate "authority" itself...the Scriptures: "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous light: which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy" [1 Peter 2:9-10].

Damiano
[/quote]

Catholics are encouraged to read the Scriptures. That is simply not true. It was in fact the Catholic Church which compiled and edited the Bible. Without the Catholic Church, Protestants would have no bible. The Church is the ultimate interpreter of the Bible, as it has the assistance of the Holy Spirit as promised by Jesus. Without that we would have the same result as we see in Protestantism, a multitude of "churches".
Martin Luther's Augsburg Confession holds to THREE sacraments, not two. So who should anyone believe; you or Luther? Both of you lack the authority to teach. And again, we see that Protestants cannot agree on the interpretation of Scripture.
The Holy Spirit guides the Church to all truths as Christ promised. He therefore implied the Church's understanding would grow and develop. The seven sacraments are instituted by Jesus and are plain from the Scriptures.
Pretending Scripture to be an ultimate authority still leaves us with the problem of who is going to reliably interpret it, and that only leads to the cacaphony of disagreement that we see in Protestantism.

The Fathers of the Church wrote of the sacraments. It is too much to include here but you will find it at this link: http://www.catholic.com/library/sacraments.asp

As to Peter's primacy that is plain from Scripture. This is not something Protestants agree among themselves either, as Father William Most points out:
"The ‘Anchor Bible’ commentary on Matthew by W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, two good Protestants, rejects the interpolation charge flatly, and admits a Catholic interpretation of the words about the rock: . . "one must dismiss as confessional interpretation [based on denominational views] an attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession of Peter." The evangelical ‘Expositor's Bible Commentary’ agrees with Albright and Mann, but then tries to claim ( pp. 373-74) that Peter was not given special authority - all Christians had the same. And it asserts that "binding and loosing" meant merely preaching the Lutheran error on justification by faith - that would forgive sins. (similar comments by many Protestants on the grant of power to forgive in John 20)."
Peter indeed held a pre-eminent place among the Apostles, the passages of Jesus confirming him alone as the "rock" leave little doubt.
The gestures that cardinals make to the authority of the pope are simply pledges of obedience. There is no worship involved at all.

S.

[Skinzo]

There are many problems encountered in relying on "Scripture alone". I have already mentioned the many divisions in Protestantism. Another problem is that Scripture itself does not say anything about "sola scriptura". You will find a good summary of Catholic arguments here:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea3.asp

The Apostles relied on oral tradition as did Jesus himself.

S.