RELIGION....(part 2)

[mannyamador]

---

By default, the Scriptures can stand on their own. And give the truths that are doctrinal, moral and event-chronicled that we may have Eternal Life. (John 20: 31), so that those who have eternal life may know it. (1 John 5: 13)....... We can be fully equipped (2 Tim. 3: 17 TEV) even with just the Documents.

For salvation ONLY, you don't even need the "documents". You only have to hear the message of Christ. Most early Christians couldn't read and the Bible did NOT exist in the first centuries, and yet they were saved.

But your claim that the Scrioptures can stand on their own is patently false. You seem to forget that the scriptures themselves do not contain any complete canonical listing whatsover. None. Zero Zilch. How then can anyone know what is part of scripture using scripture alone? You CAN'T.

Therefore, for the scriptures to stand at all, they needed an authority to determine the canon. But no complete canon ever existed until the Catholic Church defined it.

You continue to claim otherwise, but to this day you have been unable to funrish me with any complete canon pre-dating the definition of it by the Cathoic Church. Your claim has ZERO evidence.

You disagree? Please show me that pre-existing canon -- from the "natives of Russia and Greece" (what claptrap!). Can't do it? I thought so.

By the way, the very fact that there are over 25,000 conflicting interpretations of the same bible by christian churches proves that the scriptures CANNOT stand on their own. They need an authoritative interpreter. Only one body was ever given that auhtority: the Catholic Church.

It is a historical fact that natives of Russia and Greece.... and Christians in Egypt.... and Semitic nomads had the DOCUMENTS before or on the 1st century...

If it is a historical fact, then show me that complete, pre-existing canon defined with at least some Chrisitan authority. I've asked you over a dozen times for it. But for some reason you just can't seem to produce it. I am not the least bit surprised.

Historical fact my butt! More like your insane fantasies.

[mannyamador]

what you say is irrelevant because the Pope HAS made an official declaration about Mary's sinlessness....It is NOT a doctrine about the Guadalupe apparition per se, but certainly it is NOT unfounded to say that the Pope, speaking ex cathedra declared that since it is fitting that Mary was without sin, she was immune to the pains of childbirth,<snip>

"Immune to the pains of childbirth"? You are putting words into the Church's mouth. You are imposing YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of Genesis onto the Church's teaching. That is where your error lies.

On December 8, 1854, in the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius IX on the Immaculate Conception (Ineffabilis Deus), the Pope Pius IX NEVER dogmatically declared that Mary did not, and could not, experience pain. That is YOUR made-up, personal interpretation of the Pope's declaration. In other words, you are again MISREPRESENTING Catholic doctrine.

Below is the explicit declaration and definition of the doctrine of hte Imaculate Conception in Ineffabilis Deus:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed
Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege
granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human
race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and
therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

It says NOTHING about Mary not having pain in childbirth.

The full text of Ineffabilis Deus can be found at the URL below:
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm

An exposition of the doctrine (Immaculate Conception)is at the URL below:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

The second article states quite explicitly:

The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin,
was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions,
passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she
was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam -- from sorrow, bodily
infirmities, and death.

As for your error, you are reading Genesis literally, which is the WRONG way to read it. Pain in childbirth is a physical reality. It is NOT solely caused by sin. The same goes with all pain. Christ Himself suffered pain. It is our imperfection that is caused by sin. And because we live in a sinful world, we have pain. But Christ experienced pain. Does that mean He was sinful? No. he lived in the same sinful world.

If we follow your absurd logic, then Christ should not have died, since death came through sin. But He DID die for us. Was Christ, therefore, not sinless? Your logic is flawed.

In other words, all you have is WACKO YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of Genesis. And why should your wacko interpetations hane any authority whatsoever?

Cardinalbunal has been caught once more MISREPRESENTING Catholic doctrine.
Such dishonesty is sinful. Sabi ni mommy: "Liars go to hell."
And you think you serve Christ with your lies? Spare us the hypocrisy...

[Cardinal Bunal]

For salvation ONLY, you don't even need the "documents". You only have to hear the message of Christ. Most early Christians couldn't read and the Bible did NOT exist in the first centuries, and yet they were saved.

Yes, but only because the message was so simple! And how much more then can a person be refined with the Documents!
Well if they couldn't read, there were remedies. 1 Thes. 5: 27, Col. 4: 16 hence the term "by written letter or by word of mouth."

You disagree? Please show me that pre-existing canon -- from the "natives of Russia and Greece" (what claptrap!). Can't do it? I thought so

2 Pet. 3: 15 - 16

The 12 apostles had the authority. The Catholic Church doesn't have it...... they only RE-affirmed that which was already widely accepted..... Greek Orthodox, Arameans, Coptics. They knew which parts of the Documents were SCRIPTURE. Even before the last Book was written...

------

Yes, but the Pope teaches that the "wailing out in pain" IS the sword of sorrow that comes AFTER Jesus is born.

[makusama]

The 12 apostles had the authority. The Catholic Church doesn't have it...... they only RE-affirmed that which was already widely accepted..... Greek Orthodox, Arameans, Coptics. They knew which parts of the Documents were SCRIPTURE. Even before the last Book was written...

The Catholic Church's first pope was St. Peter! An Apostle! Which Apostle headed your church?

Please research first... before spreading lies!

[mannyamador]

Yes, but only because the message was so simple! And how much more then can a person be refined with the Documents!
Well if they couldn't read, there were remedies. 1 Thes. 5: 27, Col. 4: 16 hence the term "by written letter or by word of mouth."

And how EVEN MORE if the "documents" have their authorized interpreter: the Catholic Church!

2 Pet. 3: 15 - 16

There's no canon listed in those verses.

The 12 apostles had the authority. The Catholic Church doesn't have it...... they only RE-affirmed that which was already widely accepted.....

Then why can't you show me this "widely-accepted" complete canon?

Let me see... perhaps because there wasn't any until the Catholic Church made it?

By the way, there was no complete canon in the time of the Apostles either. In fact, many of them had already died by the time Revelation was written. And no complete compilation ever existed before they all died. You disagree? Show me that historical document, pretty puhleezz...

Yes, but the Pope teaches that the "wailing out in pain" IS the sword of sorrow that comes AFTER Jesus is born.

No. Please show me the ex-cathedra statement.

Can't find one, eh? I figured as much.

You are again MISREPRESENTING Catholic doctrine. This is the third time I've exposed your lies today.

[makusama]

here is the list of Roman Catholic Popes.. Guess who is on the top list?

http://catholicism.about.com/od/popes/a/cathpopes05.htm


1. St. Peter (32-67)
2. St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-8
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) -- also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus I (217-22)
St. Urban I (222-30)
St. Pontain (230-35)
St. Anterus (235-36)
St. Fabian (236-50)
St. Cornelius (251-53)
St. Lucius I (253-54)
St. Stephen I (254-257)
St. Sixtus II (257-25
St. Dionysius (260-26
St. Felix I (269-274)
St. Eutychian (275-283)
St. Caius (283-296) -- also called Gaius
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)
St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
St. Miltiades (311-14)
33. St. Sylvester I (314-35)
St. Marcus (336)
St. Julius I (337-52)
Liberius (352-66)
St. Damasus I (366-83)
St. Siricius (384-99)
St. Anastasius I (399-401)
St. Innocent I (401-17)
St. Zosimus (417-1
St. Boniface I (418-22)
St. Celestine I (422-32)
St. Sixtus III (432-40)
45. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
St. Hilarius (461-6
St. Simplicius (468-83)
St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
St. Gelasius I (492-96)
Anastasius II (496-9
St. Symmachus (498-514)
St. Hormisdas (514-23)
53. St. John I (523-26)
St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
Boniface II (530-32)
John II (533-35)
St. Agapetus I (535-36) -- also called Agapitus I
St. Silverius (536-37)
Vigilius (537-55)
Pelagius I (556-61)
John III (561-74)
Benedict I (575-79)
Pelagius II (579-90)
St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
Sabinian (604-606)
Boniface III (607)
St. Boniface IV (608-15)
St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-1
Boniface V (619-25)
Honorius I (625-3
Severinus (640)
John IV (640-42)
Theodore I (642-49)
St. Martin I (649-55)
St. Eugene I (655-57)
St. Vitalian (657-72)
Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
Donus (676-7
St. Agatho (678-81)
St. Leo II (682-83)
St. Benedict II (684-85)
John V (685-86)
Conon (686-87)
St. Sergius I (687-701)
John VI (701-05)
John VII (705-07)
Sisinnius (70
Constantine (708-15)
St. Gregory II (715-31)
St. Gregory III (731-41)
St. Zachary (741-52)
Stephen II (752)
Stephen III (752-57)
St. Paul I (757-67)
Stephen IV (767-72)
Adrian I (772-95)
St. Leo III (795-816)
Stephen V (816-17)
St. Paschal I (817-24)
Eugene II (824-27)
Valentine (827)
Gregory IV (827-44)
Sergius II (844-47)
St. Leo IV (847-55)
Benedict III (855-5
St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
Adrian II (867-72)
John VIII (872-82)
Marinus I (882-84)
St. Adrian III (884-85)
Stephen VI (885-91)
Formosus (891-96)
Boniface VI (896)
Stephen VII (896-97)
Romanus (897)
Theodore II (897)
John IX (898-900)
Benedict IV (900-03)
Leo V (903)
Sergius III (904-11)
Anastasius III (911-13)
Lando (913-14)
John X (914-2
Leo VI (92
Stephen VIII (929-31)
John XI (931-35)
Leo VII (936-39)
Stephen IX (939-42)
Marinus II (942-46)
Agapetus II (946-55)
John XII (955-63)
Leo VIII (963-64)
Benedict V (964)
John XIII (965-72)
Benedict VI (973-74)
Benedict VII (974-83)
John XIV (983-84)
John XV (985-96)
Gregory V (996-99)
Sylvester II (999-1003)
John XVII (1003)
John XVIII (1003-09)
Sergius IV (1009-12)
Benedict VIII (1012-24)
John XIX (1024-32)
Benedict IX (1032-45)
Sylvester III (1045)
Benedict IX (1045)
Gregory VI (1045-46)
Clement II (1046-47)
Benedict IX (1047-4
Damasus II (104
St. Leo IX (1049-54)
Victor II (1055-57)
Stephen X (1057-5
Nicholas II (1058-61)
Alexander II (1061-73)
St. Gregory VII (1073-85)
Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
Paschal II (1099-111
Gelasius II (1118-19)
Callistus II (1119-24)
Honorius II (1124-30)
Innocent II (1130-43)
Celestine II (1143-44)
Lucius II (1144-45)
Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
Anastasius IV (1153-54)
Adrian IV (1154-59)
Alexander III (1159-81)
Lucius III (1181-85)
Urban III (1185-87)
Gregory VIII (1187)
Clement III (1187-91)
Celestine III (1191-9
Innocent III (1198-1216)
Honorius III (1216-27)
Gregory IX (1227-41)
Celestine IV (1241)
Innocent IV (1243-54)
Alexander IV (1254-61)
Urban IV (1261-64)
Clement IV (1265-6
Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
Blessed Innocent V (1276)
Adrian V (1276)
John XXI (1276-77)
Nicholas III (1277-80)
Martin IV (1281-85)
Honorius IV (1285-87)
Nicholas IV (1288-92)
St. Celestine V (1294)
Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
Clement V (1305-14)
John XXII (1316-34)
Benedict XII (1334-42)
Clement VI (1342-52)
Innocent VI (1352-62)
Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
Gregory XI (1370-7
Urban VI (1378-89)
Boniface IX (1389-1404)
Innocent VII (1404-06)
Gregory XII (1406-15)
Martin V (1417-31)
Eugene IV (1431-47)
Nicholas V (1447-55)
Callistus III (1455-5
Pius II (1458-64)
Paul II (1464-71)
Sixtus IV (1471-84)
Innocent VIII (1484-92)
Alexander VI (1492-1503)
Pius III (1503)
Julius II (1503-13)
Leo X (1513-21)
Adrian VI (1522-23)
Clement VII (1523-34)
Paul III (1534-49)
Julius III (1550-55)
Marcellus II (1555)
Paul IV (1555-59)
Pius IV (1559-65)
St. Pius V (1566-72)
Gregory XIII (1572-85)
Sixtus V (1585-90)
Urban VII (1590)
Gregory XIV (1590-91)
Innocent IX (1591)
Clement VIII (1592-1605)
Leo XI (1605)
Paul V (1605-21)
Gregory XV (1621-23)
Urban VIII (1623-44)
Innocent X (1644-55)
Alexander VII (1655-67)
Clement IX (1667-69)
Clement X (1670-76)
Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
Alexander VIII (1689-91)
Innocent XII (1691-1700)
Clement XI (1700-21)
Innocent XIII (1721-24)
Benedict XIII (1724-30)
Clement XII (1730-40)
Benedict XIV (1740-5
Clement XIII (1758-69)
Clement XIV (1769-74)
Pius VI (1775-99)
Pius VII (1800-23)
Leo XII (1823-29)
Pius VIII (1829-30)
Gregory XVI (1831-46)
Blessed Pius IX (1846-7
Leo XIII (1878-1903)
St. Pius X (1903-14)
258. Benedict XV (1914-22)
259. Pius XI (1922-39)
260. Pius XII (1939-5
261. Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
262. Paul VI (1963-7
263. John Paul I (197
264. John Paul II (1978—2005)
265. Benedict XVI (2005-)

how bout you guys? got a list of your first pastors? What right do they have to rebel against the Church's Teachings and make their own interpretation?

[mannyamador]

The Catholic Church's first pope was St. Peter! An Apostle! Which Apostle headed your church?
Please research first... before spreading lies!

Touche! Good point. :mrgreen:

But, alas, such reasoning is lost on cardinalbunal. He only seems to be interested in lying. Apparently he thinks he can regain some credibility by doing so since we have already sunk all his arguments.

It's truly amazing how some people can claim to be christians while being so totally dishonest. Misrepresenting another church's doctrines, and then attacking the misrepresentations has no rational value whatsoever. But worse, it is simply another way of lying. Cardinalbunal; is the expert in that, but since he is lying, it's easy enough to expose him. We will make more people realize the truth of the catholic Faith by exposing his lies.

[makusama]

even the orthodox churches had apostles on their roots!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._of_Alexandria

* Mark the Evangelist (43—63) <<< Guess what also an apostle! I guess thats why Orthodox and Roman Catholics have very very very simialr teachings!<< not so sure on this so just correct me if I am wrong
* Anianus (61—82)
* Avilius (83—95)
* Kedron (96—106)
* Primus (106—11
* Justus (118—129)
* Eumenes (131—141)
* Markianos of Alexandria (142—152)
* Celadion (152—166)
* Agrippinus (167—17
* Julian (178—189)
* Demetrius (189—232)
* Heraclas (232—24
* Dionysius (248—264)
* Maximus (265—282)
* Theonas (282—300)
* Peter I (300—311)
* Achillas (312—313)
* Alexander I (313—326)
* vacancy (326--32
* Athanasius I (328—339)
* Gregory of Cappadocia (339—346) (most in the Coptic Church deny his papacy and say Athanasius was the true patriarch)
* Athanasius I (restored) (346—373)
* Peter II (373—380)
* Timothy I (380—385)
* Theophilus I (385—412)
* Cyril I (412—444)
* Dioscorus I (444—451)

Hey where are the apostles on your church? I thought only the Apostles were only the ones who can detemine what is what?

[mannyamador]

I guess thats why Orthodox and Roman Catholics have very very very simialr teachings!<< not so sure on this so just correct me if I am wrong

You are right. In fact, the Catholic Church recognizes the valid orders of the Orthodox Church. The mutual excommunications (which were doubtful anyway) have been lifted. The division is more of a political one than a doctrinal one.

Hey where are the apostles on your church? I thought only the Apostles were only the ones who can detemine what is what?

Right again! Cardinalbunal's "church" has no Apostolic roots or authority. That's why he is left to using wacko personal interpretations that are full of errors -- which is to be expected!

[Cardinal Bunal]

No. Please show me the ex-cathedra statement.

Can't find one, eh? I figured as much.

You are again MISREPRESENTING Catholic doctrine. This is the third time I've exposed your lies today

It is by Pius XII.... it exists. It is in the Munificentissimus Deus.

---------------------------------------------------

ON THIS ROCK


Peter was the first ROCK, the first building block the first one to profess that Jesus was the Son of God, and in context of Eph. 2: 19 - 22 we are all blocks or parts of this spiritual temple that rises up in which God's spirit dwells...... Peter was also the most active in ministry (I will give you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven) if you look at Acts 2 and how Christ reinstated him in John 21.

But Christ is the Chief Cornerstone (see again Eph. 2: 19 - 22)
Jesus Christ is the foundation of the church. (1 Cor. 3: 11)
and the spiritual Rock (Deut. 32: 4, 15, 1 Cor. 10: 4)

Jesus Christ is the Head of the church I go to because I believe in Him through the message of the apostles and the prophets, and all those who do (may they be Catholic, Protestant or unfortunately INK) are part of HIS CHURCH and are One just as the Father and Son are one (John 17: 20, 21) He prayed for us too in His High Priestly prayer.

SUBALTERNS

If one undenominational sector is true, then not all denominations are true either. And if one can be accepted is false then it can be doubtful that it necessarily follows that ALL undenominationals are false. Undenominational Christianity is NOT All-denominational Christianity.

Right again! Cardinalbunal's "church" has no Apostolic roots or authority. That's why he is left to using wacko personal interpretations that are full of errors -- which is to be expected!

BABYLON BACK IN BUSINESS

Neither does the Catholic church, truth be told you can only have apostolic roots if your allegiance is to Jesus Christ and His Gospel as written by the apostles.......Â* After Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece Rome has indeed crushed the whole world and trampled it underfoot as predicted by Daniel long ago. (chapter 7: 23)........ The Roman church has empirical roots NOT Christian origin or apostolic foundations.

The Letter of Ignatius to the Philadelphians

Some Philadelphians stood up against Ignatius, who was at the time preaching rather unorthodox practices ....... They said Unless we find it in the Documents, we will not believe in what is being preached!... Ignatius replied It is written word. And the Philadelphians shot back, That is what is in question.

Such practices might have been that of the profanation of the Lord's Supper and the worship of the bread of the altar. The Lord Jesus Christ applauds the Philadelphians for keeping His words. (Rev. 3: 8 ) and the Philadelphians had no less than their obedience to the admonitions of Paul not to go beyond what is written. (1 Cor. 4: 6 )