John Paul The Great!

[Apotheoun]

Wow, this thread has now morphed into a debate about the utterly useless Reformation doctrine of [i]sola scriptura[/i].

[Apotheoun]

Perhaps the posts on [i]sola scriptura[/i] should be made into a new thread, so that that debate does not become the focus of whether or not an honorific title should given to Pope John Paul II.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Apotheoun

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='30 January 2010 - 08:46 AM' timestamp='1264855566' post='2047680']
Perhaps the posts on [i]sola scriptura[/i] should be made into a new thread, so that that debate does not become the focus of whether or not an honorific title should given to Pope John Paul II.
[/quote]

Apotheoun,
Well said and I second that motion. Of course, beautiful things sometimes happened in threads that are hijacked. It happened in the thread I started on Cardinal Mahony.

S.

[Ed Normile]

I voted yes, I feel he was a great man and a great shepherd. He was a prolific writer. Personally I doubt he would have wanted this title as he was a humble man, probably another reason why he deserves it.

ed

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='30 January 2010 - 01:58 PM' timestamp='1264874295' post='2047768']
I voted yes, I feel he was a great man and a great shepherd. He was a prolific writer. Personally I doubt he would have wanted this title as he was a humble man, probably another reason why he deserves it.

ed
[/quote]

Thanks, Ed, for getting us back on topic!

S.

[Damiano]

*["Catholics are encouraged to read the Scriptures..."]

***That is a LIE! Up until the time of the Reformation the Bible had been a book for priests only. Too, it was written in Latin, and the Catholic Church refused to allow it to be translated into languages of the common people. But when the Reformers came on the scene all of that was changed. Luther translated the entire Bible into German for the people of his native land, and within 25 years of its appearance hundreds of editions of the German Bible came off the press...and it was soon translated into most of the venacular tongues of Europe, and wherever the light of the Reformation went it became the book of the common people.

It is virtually axiomatic that where there is an open Bible, men will NOT long remain in BONDAGE...but at the same token where the Bible is a closed book men soon find themselves in DARKNESS and SERVITUDE---which was characteristic of the Dark Ages of the Inquisition when the Whore of Rome held sway and refused the Scriptures to its congregants---keeping them in darkness and servitude. In every land where its free and unrestrained reading has been encouraged it has dispelled ignorance, idolatry, and superstition.


*["...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..."]

***This, of course, is a fraudulent claim propagated by the Knights of Columbus in a series of newspaper and magazine ads designed to appeal to Protestants and others that it was the Catholic Church who produced the Bible and that we received it from her. They attempted to say that the canon of the Bible was established in the 4th century by the pope and council of Carthage in 397 A.D. But that statement is ERRONEOUS on two counts: (1)There was no pope as such in 397 A.D. It was not until the Council of Chalcedon, in 451 A.D., that the bishop of Rome was designated pope, and the authority of the bishop of Rome NEVER has been acknowledged by the Eastern Churches. Previous to that time ALL priests and bishops were called popes (Latin, papa), and in the Eastern churches that title is applied to ORDINARY priests even to the PRESENT DAY!!! The Council of Chalcedon attempted to RESTRICT the title exclusively to the bishop of Rome, who at that time was LEO 1, and conferred it posthumously on ALL previous bishops of Rome in order to make it APPEAR that an UNBROKEN succession of popes had proceeded from Peter.

And (2) the New Testament was produced during the 1st century of the Christian era and had assumed its PRESENT form centuries BEFORE the Roman Catholic Church developed its distinctive characteristics. At that time the Eastern Churches were dominant in Christian affairs...and the Church in Rome was relatively INSIGNIFICANT. Gregory I, called Gregory the Great, who was consecrated pope in 590 A.D. and died in 604 A.D., was in effect the FOUNDER of the PAPAL system. He reorganized the church, revised the ritual, restored monastic discipline, attempted to enforce celibacy among the clergy and extended the authority of the Catholic Church into many countries adjacent to Italy.

Furthermore, looooog before the Council of Carthage the particular books now found in the New Testament...and only those...had come to be looked upon by the church at large as the INSPIRED and INFALLIBLE Word of God on the basis of their genuineness and authority as we read them...and the Council of Carthage did NOT so much choose the books that were to be accepted in the New Testament...but rather placed its STAMP OF APPROVAL on the selection that by that time (under the providential control of the Holy Spirit) had come to be looked upon by the church as the New Testament canon. The Old Testament canon was completed and had assumed its present form long before the coming of Christ. The Roman Church, of course, had NOTHING whatsoever to do with that.


*["...Martin Luther's Augsburg Confession holds to THREE sacraments, not two. So who should anyone believe; you or Luther?..."]

***Martin Luther came out of Roman Catholicism...BUT Roman Catholicism did NOT completely "come out" of Martin Luther...to wit: Luther believed in "baptismal regeneration" (as do Roman Catholics)...Luther believed in the "real presence" in the eucharist...Luther worshipped the Virgin Mary (as do Roman Catholics)...Lutheranism has a liturgy in all aspects similar to Roman Catholicism...Luther wrote a Catechism which Lutherans follow along side the Bible (as do Roman Catholics).

BOTTOM LINE: Martin Luther was a "diet Catholic"...he SHED a few of the Catholic doctrines BUT he was STILL fat (RETAINED many Catholic practices and doctrines)!! The Christian should believe NO MAN but search the Scriptures for there only will the seeker find the TRUTH.


*["...The seven sacraments are instituted by Jesus and are plain from the Scriptures..."]

***Really? Would you please show me these "plain" citations in the Word of God for the FIVE other "sacraments" that the Catholic church ADDED to the TWO (Baptism and Lord's Supper) instituted by Christ?


*["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."]

***Well, we need only read church history to discover that when another source of authority is placed alongside Scripture as of equal importance...Scripture eventually becomes relegated to the background. Whether that other source be reason, emotion, or tradition, the inevitable result is that it supplants Scripture and causes it gradually to fade away. If that other source is reason, we get RATIONALISM...if it is emotion, we get MYSTICISM...and if it is tradition, we get ECCLESIASTICAL DICTATION or CLERICALISM. In each case the Bible, while still given lip service, is effectually superseded.

A person who has not been "born again" [John 3:1-21]...that is, the one who has NOT been the object of the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit and who therefore is NOT a Christian...is NOT able to understand spiritual truth. This is clearly taught in Scripture: "Now the NATURAL MAN receiveth NOT the things of the Spirit of God: for they are FOOLISHNESS unto him; and he CANNOT know them, because they are spiritually judged" [1 Corinthians 2:14]. But every "born again" Christian has the GIFT of the Holy Spirit, and is therefore ABLE to UNDERSTAND the basic essentials of what God has written. It is also true that many people, even among born again believers, differ on minor points. But that is because they have not read the Scriptures carefully enough and compared the various parts. The remedy for that is more devoted, patient, diligent Bible study. In any event there is no reference whatever in the Bible that even hints that God has delegated the interpretation of Scripture to any one individual or group of individuals.

Biblical Christianity does not deny that much of what Jesus said and did is not recorded in the Gospels. John says plainly: "Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book: BUT these things are written that ye may BELIEVE that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that BELIEVING ye may have LIFE in His NAME" [John 20:30-31]. But we DO maintain that THAT which is WRITTEN IS SUFFICIENT!!! It is Protestant doctrine that the Bible contains ALL THAT IS NECESSARY to SALVATION...and NO OTHER WRITINGS or CHURCH PRONOUNCEMENTS are to be REGARDED as having DIVINE AUTHORITY.

Numerous references set forth the SUFFICIENCY of Scripture. NOWHERE do we find a hint that these need to be supplemented by church councils or papal decrees of any kind. Some of these are as follows:
(1)"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" [Isaiah 8:20].
(2)"Ye search the Scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me" [John 5:39].
(3)Our Lord proclaimed the infallibility of Scripture, for He said: "The Scriptures cannot be broken" [John 10:35].
(4)Jesus' rebuke to the Sadducees was, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures" [Matthew 22:29].
(5)Paul repeatedly appealed to Scripture, as when he asks: "For what saith the scripture?" [Romans 4:3]. And to Timothy he wrote: "From a babe thou hast known the sacred writings which are able to make thee wise unto salvation" [2 Timothy 3:15].

Thus the SUFFICIENCY of Scripture is everywhere assumed. In all these cases our Lord and the New Testament writers referred to Scripture as clear...authoritative...and FINAL!!! Never once did they say or imply that EXTRA-SCRIPTURAL TRADITION was needed to SUPPLEMENT Scripture...or that ANY MAN or GROUP of MEN was authorized to give authoritative interpretations of Scripture.


Damiano

[Skinzo]

Look, kid, this is a thread about John Paul II. It's important to stay on topic. If you want to post your stuff in seperate threads go ahead. I can respond and show you that you're wrong again. There are probably a couple of dozen people here who can refute you better than I can assuming they want to be bothered. You're just one nasty little troll.
I'd answer you by PM, but you're not allowed to use the system.

S.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Skinzo

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Skinzo' date='31 January 2010 - 10:03 AM' timestamp='1264953796' post='2048248']
Look, kid, this is a thread about John Paul II. It's important to stay on topic. If you want to post your stuff in seperate threads go ahead. I can respond and show you that you're wrong again. There are probably a couple of dozen people here who can refute you better than I can assuming they want to be bothered. You're just one nasty little troll.
I'd answer you by PM, but you're not allowed to use the system.

S.
[/quote]
In two posts he'll be allowed, until he gets his special little triangle tag.

[Veridicus]

Sorry guys I just can't let these statements stand unanswered...


[quote name='Damiano' date='31 January 2010 - 08:05 AM' timestamp='1264946731' post='2048192']
Never once did they say or imply that EXTRA-SCRIPTURAL TRADITION was needed to SUPPLEMENT Scripture...
[/quote]
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]."



[quote name='Damiano' date='31 January 2010 - 08:05 AM' timestamp='1264946731' post='2048192']
...or that ANY MAN or GROUP of MEN was authorized to give authoritative interpretations of Scripture.
[/quote]
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].”

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.





And you should start a new thread if it is your desire to keep arguing these points with such verbosity despite their irrelevance to this topic.

[Damiano]

*["...Look, kid, this is a thread about John Paul II. It's important to stay on topic..."]

***I am only responding to your postings.


*["...If you want to post your stuff in seperate threads go ahead..."]

***How nice of you.


*["...I can respond and show you that you're wrong again..."]

***Again? You've never proven a thing. All you've ever done is DENY the Word of God and regurgitate the same old papist falsehoods and blasphemies that you and other papists have done through out the centuries. The REAL reason you and your satanic religious system hates Bible believing Christians is that you cannot support your blasphemous doctrines in the light of the Scriptures. In point of fact--the Scriptures reveal what you really are--->a pagan CULT of epic proportions...a COUNTERFEIT political-religious system clothed in splendid religious regalia and vomiting blasphemies against the ONE TRUE God and His Son Jesus Christ...and you attempt to do it by demeaning the Inspiration of the Scriptures and replacing it with your traditions that NULLIFY the Word of God [Matthew 15:6]. Nice try...but NO CIGAR.


*["...There are probably a couple of dozen people here who can refute you better than I can assuming they want to be bothered..."]

***Nah...They're just as ignorant and blind as you are.


*["You're just one nasty little troll."]

***TRANSLATION: I don't know how to handle this guy.

Damiano

[Nihil Obstat]

Dude, you're so annoying.

This is why nobody likes Christians.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Damiano' date='31 January 2010 - 04:25 PM' timestamp='1264973136' post='2048422']
All you've ever done is DENY the Word of God and regurgitate the same old papist falsehoods and blasphemies that you and other papists have done through out the centuries. The REAL reason you and your satanic religious system hates Bible believing Christians is that you cannot support your blasphemous doctrines in the light of the Scriptures. In point of fact--the Scriptures reveal what you really are--->a pagan CULT of epic proportions...a COUNTERFEIT political-religious system clothed in splendid religious regalia and vomiting blasphemies against the ONE TRUE God and His Son Jesus Christ...and you attempt to do it by demeaning the Inspiration of the Scriptures and replacing it with your traditions that NULLIFY the Word of God [Matthew 15:6]. Nice try...but NO CIGAR.
[/quote]

First of all, the quote function is your friend.

Second of all, what an absolutely disrespectful post. Your hatred against the Catholic Church is appalling, and I actually feel sorry for you (and whoever it was that put these ideas in your head). You should knock it off with the insults and browse this website/forum, because you clearly have no idea what the Church really is or what the Church really teaches. Just relax, okay?

[Nihil Obstat]

I wonder if he knows Jack Chick.......

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='31 January 2010 - 04:46 PM' timestamp='1264974383' post='2048432']
I wonder if he knows Jack Chick.......
[/quote]

Or Tony Alamo, whose community is convinced the Church controls school books and warfare. Very, very sad.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='31 January 2010 - 03:42 PM' timestamp='1264974125' post='2048429']
Second of all, what an absolutely disrespectful post. Your hatred against the Catholic Church is appalling, and I actually feel sorry for you (and whoever it was that put these ideas in your head). You should knock it off with the insults and browse this website/forum, because you clearly have no idea what the Church really is or what the Church really teaches. Just relax, okay?
[/quote]

"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.