John Paul The Great!

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='31 January 2010 - 06:09 PM' timestamp='1264979399' post='2048527']
"Few hate the Catholic Catholic Church, but millions hate what they [i]mistakenly [/i]think the Catholic Church is." ~Fulton J. Sheen

It's unfortunate Damiano didn't address my most recent scriptural refutations. I felt they were appropraite citations to address his self-assured statements. I guess his radar is keyed in on Skinzo.
[/quote]

For someone who considers the Church evil, he picked a great name to represent himself. Damiano, focusing on the version Damian, "Damien" being the French version - the kid in The Omen. I mean hey, this might be his real name, but the irony is not lost.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='31 January 2010 - 07:27 PM' timestamp='1264980475' post='2048538']
For someone who considers the Church evil, he picked a great name to represent himself. Damiano, focusing on the version Damian, "Damien" being the French version - the kid in The Omen. I mean hey, this might be his real name, but the irony is not lost.
[/quote]

And if you google "Damiano" one of the first things you find is "Gerard Damiano" director of "Deep Throat". Oops, let's not go there.
Off topic again.

S.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Skinzo' date='31 January 2010 - 08:04 PM' timestamp='1264986244' post='2048584']
And if you google "Damiano" one of the first things you find is "Gerard Damiano" director of "Deep Throat". Oops, let's not go there.
Off topic again.

S.
[/quote]

Yeah I saw the first sentence of the "Gerard Damiano" Wikipedia page and

[Veridicus]

Deepthroat aside, I wish this guy would address one issue at a time, use [i]less [/i]capitalization and use [i]more [/i]concision.

[cmotherofpirl]

Behave people. This is the debate board and if you cannot be polite in talking with Dammy go elsewhere. Dammy manners go both ways.
Dammy if you want to discuss Catholicism feel free, but start a new thread and pick ONE topic at a time. However, after 2000 years of Q and A we can answer, explain and define and defend just about anything you can come up with
Please however refrain from trying to [i]tell us what our own Church teaches [/i]because you have been wrong just about every time. Remember MANY people here are former protestants, generic christian etc, so they already know everything you will toss out.
Enjoy

[Damiano]

*["Dude, you're so annoying. This is why nobody likes Christians."]

***It is not I who is annoying to you---it is WHAT I am SAYING that is annoying. Too, the "nobody(s)" that do not like Christians are the UNSAVED---who HATE those who preach the Bible and rebel against them. Why?..."For the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" [Hebrews 4:12]. The Bible exposes the true heart condition of you and others like you on this thread...and you don't like to hear it and rebel against it. The solution to your problem is given in {Hebrews 4:13-16].

Damiano

[Damiano]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='31 January 2010 - 04:27 PM' timestamp='1264980475' post='2048538']
For someone who considers the Church evil, he picked a great name to represent himself. Damiano, focusing on the version Damian, "Damien" being the French version - the kid in The Omen. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif[/img] I mean hey, this might be his real name, but the irony is not lost.
[/quote]

***My parents are Italian...and they gave me the name that I have---the Catholic church had nothing to do with it for it is a common name in Italy.

Damiano

[Damiano]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='31 January 2010 - 07:40 PM' timestamp='1264992022' post='2048608']
Behave people. This is the debate board and if you cannot be polite in talking with Dammy go elsewhere. Dammy manners go both ways. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif[/img]
Dammy if you want to discuss Catholicism feel free, but start a new thread and pick ONE topic at a time. However, after 2000 years of Q and A we can answer, explain and define and defend just about anything you can come up with [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif[/img]
Please however refrain from trying to [i]tell us what our own Church teaches [/i]because you have been wrong just about every time. Remember MANY people here are former protestants, generic christian etc, so they already know everything you will toss out.
Enjoy [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/D.gif[/img]
[/quote]

***I know exactly what the Catholic Church teaches for I was raised Catholic and attended Catholic schools through college (Loyola University-Chicago). I converted to Christianity in 1992.

Damiano

[Damiano]

*["Sorry guys I just can't let these statements stand unanswered...2 Thessalonians 2:15 'So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions we passed on to you, [b][u]whether by word of mouth [/u]or by letter[/b].'"]

***The agelong controversy between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism comes to a head regarding the question of AUTHORITY. I believe that in its use of tradition is to be found the Achilles heel of Roman Catholicism.

Protestantism does not reject all traditions, but rather make judicious use of it in so far as it accords with Scripture and is founded on truth. But we do not give any church the right to formulate new doctrine or to make decisions contrary to the teaching of Scripture. The history of the church at large shows all too clearly that church leaders and councils can and do make mistakes, some of them serious. Consequently their decisions should have no authority except as they are based on Scripture.

Protestants differ from Catholics in that we keep these standards strictly subordinate to Scripture, and in that we are ever ready to re-examine them for that purpose. In other words we insist that in the life of the church Scripture is primary and the denominational standards are subordinate or secondary. We thus use our traditions with one controlling caution: we continually ask if this or that aspect of our belief and practice is true to the Bible. We subject every statement of tradition to that test, and we are willing to CHANGE any element that fails to meet that test.

In contrast with this, Roman Catholics hold that there are two sources of authority: Scripture and DEVELOPING tradition, with the church being the judge of Scripture and therefore able to say AUTHORITATIVELY what the RIGHT interpretation of Scripture is. This, in effect, gives THREE authorities: The Bible, tradition, and the church. The primacy is in the hands of the church since it controls both tradition and the interpretation of Scripture. This, therefore, is the basis on which your Catholic system rests. Then...if this can be shown to be erroneous, it will be seen that the WHOLE system rests on a FALSE basis.

In actual practice, the traditions of the Catholic church at any time are what the church says they are, Scripture means what the church says it means, and the people are permitted to read the Bible only in an approved version and within the limits of a predetermined interpretation. But when the Christian message is thus shackled by tradition and ecclesiastically dictated interpretation it ceases to be free grace of God offered to repentant sinners, and becomes an instrument in the hands of the clergy for the control of the people. In professing to interpret the Bible in the light of tradition, the Roman Catholic Church in reality places tradition ABOVE the Bible, so that the Roman Catholic is governed, NOT by the Bible, nor by the Bible and tradition...but by the church ITSELF which sets up the tradition and says what it means.

Theoretically, the Catholic church accepts the Bible; but in practice she does NOT leave her members free to follow it. The errors that are found in her traditions obscure and nullify much of the truth she professes to hold. To cite but one example of what this means in actual practice...while the Roman Catholic church in professing allegiance to the Bible, must agree with the Protestant churches that there is "one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus" [1 Timothy 2:5], she introduces a host of other mediators--the Virgin Mary, the priests, and hundreds of saints and angels---which effectively sets aside the truth contained in the Scripture statement.


*["Matthew 16: 17-19 Jesus replied, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; [u]whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven[/u].'"]

***The authority to bind and to loose was NOT given EXCLUSIVELY to Peter. In the eighteenth chapter of Matthew the SAME power is given to ALL of the disciples...to wit: "At that hour the disciples came to Jesus...Amen I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven" [Matthew 1:18].

Consequently Matthew 16:19 does NOT prove any superiority on Peter's part. Even the scribes and Pharisees had this SAME power, for Jesus said to them: "But woe upon you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye shut the Kingdom of heaven against men: for ye enter NOT in yourselves, neither suffer them that are entering in to enter" [Matthew 23:13]. And on another occasion He said: "The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat: all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe: but do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not. Yes, they BIND heavy burdens and grievous to be born, and they lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger" [Matthew 23:2-4].

Here the expression clearly means that the scribes and Pharisees, in that the Word of God was in their hands, thereby had the power, in declaring that Word to the people, to open the Kingdom of heaven to them; and in withholding that Word they SHUT the Kingdom of heaven against people. That was Moses' function in giving the law. It was, therefore, a DECLARATORY power, the authority to ANNOUNCE THE TERMS on which God would grant salvation, NOT an ABSOLUTE power to ADMIT or to EXCLUDE from the Kingdom of heaven. Only GOD can DO that; and He NEVER delegates that AUTHORITY to MEN!!!

Possession of the keys, therefore, did NOT mean that Peter had SOVEREIGNLY within his own person the AUTHORITY to determine who should be admitted to heaven and who should be excluded, as your church now attempts to confer that authority on the pope and priests. Ultimate authority is in the hands of Christ ALONE---it is He "that openeth and none shall shut, and that shutteth and none openeth" [Revelation 3:7]. But it did mean that Peter, and later apostles, being in possession of the Gospel message, truly did open the door and present the OPPORTUNITY to enter in as they proclaimed the message before the people. This same privilege of opening the door or of closing the door of salvation to others is given to EVERY CHRISTIAN, for the command that Christ gave His Church (i.e., the body of "born-again" believers--John 3:1-21] was to go and make disciples of all nations. Thus "the power of the keys" is a DECLARATIVE power ONLY!


*["Acts 8: 29-31 The Spirit told Philip, 'Go to that chariot and stay near it. Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked. "How can I," he said, "[u]unless someone explains it to me[/u]?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him."]

***The Ethiopian eunuch was from the court of Candace and came to Jerusalem to worship. He was reading from the Book of Isaiah (i.e., Isaiah 53) which prophesied the death of Jesus Christ. He was a devout (but unredeemed) Jew and knew nothing of the coming Messiah as evidenced by his ignorance of what the scriptures were saying. The Holy Spirit sent Philip (a redeemed sinner) who explained the scriptures to the eunuch...and the eunuch (who was called of God for redemption) believed and declared with his mouth the Lord Jesus [Acts 8:37] and was REDEEMED...gloriously REDEEMED!!!

Here is what we learned from these verses [Acts 8:29-31]:

(1)God called the eunuch to salvation according to the SOVEREIGNTY of His own will...He sent the Spirit of God to Philip so that the eunuch would be redeemed.
(2)The eunuch could not understand the Scripture because he was not REDEEMED (i.e., He was UNCONVERTED...spiritually DEAD). No one can understand the Scriptures if they are UNSAVED (Unconverted...spiritually DEAD) because they are NATURAL men: "But the natural man receiveth NOT the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" [1 Corinthians 2:14].
(3)Philip was a "born-again" [John 3:1-21] believer and possessed the Holy Spirit (as do ALL believers) and thoroughly understood the OT Scriptures and able to explain them to the eunuch. ALL true believers have this ability to do what Philip did because we "have the mind of Christ" [1 Corinthians 2:16;Luke 24:45].
(4)The eunuch was REDEEMED instantaneously when he opened up his mouth and answered, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" [Acts 8:37]...for the Scripture says, "For with the HEART man believeth unto righteousness; and with the MOUTH confession is made unto salvation" [Romans 10:10].
(5)The eunuch was NOT baptised until AFTER he made his "confession unto salvation" in [Acts 8:37]...for Philip clearly says, "...If thou believest with all thine heart, thou MAYEST..." [Acts 8:37]. Baptism is for believers ONLY.


Damiano

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Damiano' date='01 February 2010 - 01:04 AM' timestamp='1265007848' post='2048754']
*["Dude, you're so annoying. This is why nobody likes Christians."]

***It is not I who is annoying to you---it is WHAT I am SAYING that is annoying. Too, the "nobody(s)" that do not like Christians are the UNSAVED---who HATE those who preach the Bible and rebel against them. Why?..."For the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" [Hebrews 4:12]. The Bible exposes the true heart condition of you and others like you on this thread...and you don't like to hear it and rebel against it. The solution to your problem is given in {Hebrews 4:13-16].

Damiano
[/quote]
Wrong.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Damiano' date='01 February 2010 - 07:07 AM' timestamp='1265026046' post='2048777']
and becomes an instrument in the hands of the clergy for the control of the people.
[/quote]

Yet I can think of nothing more dangerous than the subjective interpretation of Scriptures, because man can bend the Scriptures to mean anything he'd like.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Damiano' date='01 February 2010 - 07:07 AM' timestamp='1265026046' post='2048777']
In actual practice, the traditions of the Catholic church at any time are what the church says they are, Scripture means what the church says it means, and the people are permitted to read the Bible only in an approved version and within the limits of a predetermined interpretation. [/quote]

The Tradition of now is the Tradition of then.

[quote] Theoretically, the Catholic church accepts the Bible; but in practice she does NOT leave her members free to follow it.[/quote]

Then why is there the Liturgy of the Word in Mass?

[Veridicus]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='01 February 2010 - 10:16 AM' timestamp='1265041003' post='2048885']
Then why is there the Liturgy of the Word in Mass?
[/quote]

An excellent point. Attendees of daily Mass will have heard proclaimed a great chunk of the New Testament (over 70% of the total verses) throughout the liturgical cycle...a similar end could be achieved outside of Mass by following the suggested readings in a Daily Missal. The coverage of the Old Testament is admittedly less extensive, but could easily be increased by also following the Psalms in the Liturgy of the Hours. Individual study outside of what is covered in public worship would easily allow for the coverage of the entirety of the Scriptures in a reasonable course of time. In my own experience discussing with Protestant friends, they admit that there is no way that this coverage of proclaimed scripture is achieved in protestant services...which over a year typically results in the same stale prooftexts & citations by a minister. I am sure there are exceptions to this reality, but this is what has been intimated to me. While private study and reflection of Scripture is of obvious value, the Word of God was written to be [i]proclaimed in assembly[/i]. I would say in this latter aspect, Catholicism currently does an adequate job relative to other opportunities for hearing the Word proclaimed in assembly.

And John Paul II was a good guy.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Veridicus

[Damiano]

*["Then why is there the Liturgy of the Word in Mass?"]

***There is no liturgy of the Word in the Mass. In point of fact the Mass is a REPUDIATION of the Word and an abomination in the eyes of God. It makes the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice of no effect. Roman Catholics who depend on the Mass to save them will perish because it denies that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient.

Damiano

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Damiano' date='01 February 2010 - 11:21 PM' timestamp='1265088075' post='2049513']
*["Then why is there the Liturgy of the Word in Mass?"]

***There is no liturgy of the Word in the Mass. In point of fact the Mass is a REPUDIATION of the Word and an abomination in the eyes of God. It makes the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice of no effect. Roman Catholics who depend on the Mass to save them will perish because it denies that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient.

Damiano
[/quote]
No.