Jack Van Impe Challenging Pope Francis to Debate!!

Phoneman777 · Jun 17, 2019

BreadOfLife said:
Nonsense.
You are adding to what he allegedly said.

Read your dishonest and misleading link: "Pope Francis assures atheists: You don’t have to believe in God to go to heaven"
He never said this. Yet, in all of your anti-Catholic dishonesty - that's what you are trying to convey.
His quote complies with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Outside the Church there is No Salvation, which states CLEARLY:

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too MAY achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

In other words - it's about invincible ignorance. It's the age-old question about those who were never exposed to the truth and what happens to them. We leave them to the mercy of God. Remember what Christ HIMSELF taught:

John 9:41
Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains.

John 15:22
"If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin.

I didn't write the title of the link, but I did correctly analyze Francis' remarks. Anyone but a die hard papist can see that what he said was that unbelievers need only obey their conscience to have mercy extended to them. How long will you deny the teachings of the papacy before you just give up your allegiance and join the Protestants

aspen · Jun 17, 2019

Hasn’t Impe been raptured yet?

BreadOfLife · Jun 17, 2019

Phoneman777 said:
I didn't write the title of the link, but I did correctly analyze Francis' remarks. Anyone but a die hard papist can see that what he said was that unbelievers need only obey their conscience to have mercy extended to them. How long will you deny the teachings of the papacy before you just give up your allegiance and join the Protestants

As usual, you show a woefully-ignorant understanding of Catholic teaching.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus speaks for itself - and Pope Francis was simply agreeing with it.

JohnPaul · Jun 18, 2019

What I don’t understand is that these are educated men who’ve read the Bible and studied it, how do they approve of idolatry and praying to graven images?

Once I started reading the Bible on my own, I started seeing all of these things were wrong, praying to a statue of Virgin Mary and statues of other saints.

What makes these clergymen accept this if it says it’s wrong in the Bible?

epostle · Jun 18, 2019

JohnPaul said:
What I don’t understand is that these are educated men who’ve read the Bible and studied it, how do they approve of idolatry and praying to graven images?

Once I started reading the Bible on my own, I started seeing all of these things were wrong, praying to a statue of Virgin Mary and statues of other saints.

What makes these clergymen accept this if it says it’s wrong in the Bible?

You have been contaminated by fundamentalist propaganda. Catholicism has condemned idolatry since the beginning. We don't pray to graven images or to statues. You can't find one verse in scripture that forbids Scripture in art form.

This meme is a satire on the stupidity of "Bible alone" theology. It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove, using Scripture Alone, that Tradition (properly understood) and the Magisterium (teaching authority, properly understood) is not needed, or won't be needed at some future time.

Earburner · Jun 18, 2019

Phoneman777 said:
"Fire coming down" has got nothing to do with WMDs or anything else in your sensationalist interpretation. It's a symbol for "approval of God" - remember Mount Carmel? Lotsa "fire coming down" nowadays but from the devil, convincing people to ignore the Scriptures and follow lies, right? Benny Hinn, Reinhardt Bonnke, and all the other stuff which originated with the "Toronto Blessing", right?

Your "masculine/feminine" beast criteria is extra-Biblical nonsense. The prophetic timeline is clear and points to the papacy as the Antichrist, the Beast, the Little Horn, the Whore riding the Beast, which is the church controlling the State - textbook example of what is and has always been the papacy.

I'm sorry to say that you don't understand the finite symbolism of "beasts". From Daniel to Revelations, they are always spoken of in the masculine gender.
In Revelations, we see the conglomerate beast, which is made up of the remnants of the three militaristic empires/beasts of the three before it.
Rev. 13[1] And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
[2] And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
In all of Rev. 13, all of the beasts are spoken of as being masculine.
Anything that is spoken of in regards to that which belongs to God, such as churches, whether "fallen"or "holden up", is always in the feminine.
One cannot and best not, confuse the two.
Case in point: Rev. 17[5] And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
[6] And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
[7] And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.
> One should take particular notice that the woman and the beast are two different entities. One is masculine and the other is feminine.
I hope that you are not in the habit of "blurring/blending the lines" of gender, as is the way of many today, concerning the sexes!
.
Although many of the "fake bibles" (newer translations) of today use the word "ride" in describing the woman, the KJV reveals that she is NOT riding the beast, but rather is being carried.
That alone speaks volumes of who is in control of who!
A "rider" controls a beast, but the beast that "carries" is the one who is in control.
.
Never does the Beast become the Woman, nor does the Woman become the Beast!!

JohnPaul · Jun 18, 2019

epostle said:
You have been contaminated by fundamentalist propaganda. Catholicism has condemned idolatry since the beginning. We don't pray to graven images or to statues. You can't find one verse in scripture that forbids Scripture in art form.

This meme is a satire on the stupidity of "Bible alone" theology. It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove, using Scripture Alone, that Tradition (properly understood) and the Magisterium (teaching authority, properly understood) is not needed, or won't be needed at some future time.

You don’t then what do you do to them? Just curious.

Earburner · Jun 18, 2019

Is there any other "church" that "is fallen", but today is being carried by the Beast?
Here is a clue: she lives in the "River Euphrates" region.
However, because of your religious perspective/ indoctrination, you may be hard pressed to accept it!

Earburner · Jun 18, 2019

Phoneman777 said:
"Fire coming down" has got nothing to do with WMDs or anything else in your sensationalist interpretation. It's a symbol for "approval of God" - remember Mount Carmel? Lotsa "fire coming down" nowadays but from the devil, convincing people to ignore the Scriptures and follow lies, right? Benny Hinn, Reinhardt Bonnke, and all the other stuff which originated with the "Toronto Blessing", right?

Your "masculine/feminine" beast criteria is extra-Biblical nonsense. The prophetic timeline is clear and points to the papacy as the Antichrist, the Beast, the Little Horn, the Whore riding the Beast, which is the church controlling the State - textbook example of what is and has always been the papacy.

"Extra biblical nonsense"? The only one here, who is standing on the firm foundation of His words is me!

You however, by blending the lines of gender, are fabricating "religious hocus-pocus"
AGAIN, WHERE in all of the KJV Bible, do you ever see, in your words "THE" Antichrist as being spoken of in the feminine gender? WHERE?
It's not there in the KJV Bible, and neither is the word "THE".
Therefore it is sad to say, that you ARE preaching "hocus-pocus".
.
And never mind that, what "little horn" in Revelations? That also is NOT there!
You have super imposed that past event from Daniel, and inserted it into Revelations!
Again, those words are not found in the NT-KJV Bible!
.
You have much to un-learn, and much to re-learn!

JohnPaul · Jun 18, 2019

epostle said:
You have been contaminated by fundamentalist propaganda. Catholicism has condemned idolatry since the beginning. We don't pray to graven images or to statues. You can't find one verse in scripture that forbids Scripture in art form.

This meme is a satire on the stupidity of "Bible alone" theology. It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove, using Scripture Alone, that Tradition (properly understood) and the Magisterium (teaching authority, properly understood) is not needed, or won't be needed at some future time.

I was baptized and raised Catholic, that’s who we kneeled and prayed to, effigies of Saints the Blessed Mother and Jesus Christ, I don’t know how you can say the Catholic Church is against idolatry.

This Pope is paving the way for the acceptance of homosexuality.

If a man layeth down with another man as he would a woman, may he be put to death and the blood of his own head be put on his hands and vice versa for women he also said who was he to judge against some vile transexual. How is that in keeping the word of God?

This Pope is not the representation of Christ on Earth like the Church claims he is.

One cannot and must not accept the homosexual, lesbian, transgender, transsexual and bisexual filth, next they’ll be pushing for beastiallity, sickos will want to marry and have sex with their dogs because they love them.

Phoneman777 · Jun 18, 2019

BreadOfLife said:
As usual, you show a woefully-ignorant understanding of Catholic teaching.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus speaks for itself - and Pope Francis was simply agreeing with it.

I can assure you and your leader Jorge that those who refuse to believe will not enter the kingdom of God.

Phoneman777 · Jun 18, 2019

Earburner said:
I'm sorry to say that you don't understand the finite symbolism of "beasts". From Daniel to Revelations, they are always spoken of in the masculine gender.
In Revelations, we see the conglomerate beast, which is made up of the remnants of the three militaristic empires/beasts of the three before it.
Rev. 13[1] And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
[2] And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
In all of Rev. 13, all of the beasts are spoken of as being masculine.
Anything that is spoken of in regards to that which belongs to God, such as churches, whether "fallen"or "holden up", is always in the feminine.
One cannot and best not, confuse the two.
Case in point: Rev. 17[5] And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
[6] And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
[7] And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.
> One should take particular notice that the woman and the beast are two different entities. One is masculine and the other is feminine.
I hope that you are not in the habit of "blurring/blending the lines" of gender, as is the way of many today, concerning the sexes!
.
Although many of the "fake bibles" (newer translations) of today use the word "ride" in describing the woman, the KJV reveals that she is NOT riding the beast, but rather is being carried.
That alone speaks volumes of who is in control of who!
A "rider" controls a beast, but the beast that "carries" is the one who is in control.
.
Never does the Beast become the Woman, nor does the Woman become the Beast!!

You seem to think the Beast is the catholic church.

It is not.

The Beast is the UNION of the catholic church and the secular state. That's why Revelation 17, which is the culmination of all Antichrist symbolism given up to this point, depicts a woman riding the beast, just as in the OT when wicked queen Jezebel who worshiped Baal controlled weak, obedient Ahab who was king over the kingdom.

Phoneman777 · Jun 18, 2019

Earburner said:
"Extra biblical nonsense"? The only one here, who is standing on the firm foundation of His words is me!

You however, by blending the lines of gender, are fabricating "religious hocus-pocus"
AGAIN, WHERE in all of the KJV Bible, do you ever see, in your words "THE" Antichrist as being spoken of in the feminine gender? WHERE?
It's not there in the KJV Bible, and neither is the word "THE".
Therefore it is sad to say, that you ARE preaching "hocus-pocus".
.
And never mind that, what "little horn" in Revelations? That also is NOT there!
You have super imposed that past event from Daniel, and inserted it into Revelations!
Again, those words are not found in the NT-KJV Bible!
.
You have much to un-learn, and much to re-learn!

You can't see the parallels between the Little Horn of Daniel and the Antichrist of Revelation? A blind man can see it

epostle · Jun 18, 2019

VATICAN SLAMS GENDER IDEOLOGY
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a new Vatican document on gender ideology:

The Congregation for Catholic Education has published the most brilliant and authoritative document on the sexes that is currently available. It literally tears to pieces the fatuous claims of gender ideology. Fortunately, it does not water down its account by trying to appease its critics.

“Male and Female: He Created Them” is not only the title of this work, it accurately conveys reality. God did not create mere human beings. No, he created two very different, yet complementary, sexes.

The document takes aim at gender theory, which, it says, “denies the difference and reciprocity in nature of a man and a woman and envisages a society without sexual differences, thereby eliminating the anthropological basis of the family.” Such a vision postulates the absurd notion that “human identity becomes the choice of the individual, one which can also change over time.”

The document notes how gender ideology developed in the 20th century. It celebrates the “freedom of the individual,” emphasizing that “the only thing that matters in personal relationships is the affection between the individuals involved, irrespective of sexual difference or procreation which would be seen as irrelevant in the formation of families.” To put it mildly, this position is sociologically illiterate.

This kind of subjectivism allows the gender ideology promoters to separate sex from gender. “This separation is at the root of the distinctions proposed between various ‘sexual orientations’ which are no longer defined by the sexual differences between male and female, and can then assume other forms, determined solely by the individual, who is seen as radically autonomous.” This kind of madness is now being taught in the schools.

The Vatican document rightly notes how gender ideology seeks to separate the body from human will, as if one can will his sex. This nonsense finds expression in the “fictitious construct known as ‘gender neutral’ or ‘third gender,’ which has the effect of obscuring the fact that a person’s sex is a structural determinant of male or female identity.” These theories, which include such wild notions as “intersex” or “transgender,” are, at bottom, attempts to “annihilate the concept of ‘nature.'”

There is so much more to this splendid document. It is written for Catholic educators, but it should be read by everyone. The loss of common sense, as evidenced by many in the humanities and social sciences, is directly challenged in this real-life reading of some eternal truths. [See my new book, Common Sense Catholicism: How to Resolve Our Cultural Crisis, especially the chapter titled, “Sex Equality,” for more on this subject.]

No wonder the gender ideology promoters are furious. This is a cogent take-down of their plainly stupid, indeed pernicious, ideas about man and society. Its timeliness could not be more fortuitous—it is a heady antidote to the many fictions entertained during “Pride” month events.

It cannot be said too emphatically that any Catholic who is at odds with this document is at odds with more than just the Catholic Church. He is at odds with nature, and nature’s God.
VATICAN SLAMS GENDER IDEOLOGY

You are wrong about a lot of other things too, JohnPaul.

BreadOfLife · Jun 18, 2019

Phoneman777 said:
I can assure you and your leader Jorge that those who refuse to believe will not enter the kingdom of God.

This isn't about those who "refuse" to believe - and that's NOT who the Pope was talking about..
Go back and R*E*A*D the text of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus that I presented in post #79.

In your usual stubbornness, you are arguing in circles . . .

aspen · Jun 18, 2019

Impe liked Pope John Paul II

JohnPaul · Jun 19, 2019

epostle said:
VATICAN SLAMS GENDER IDEOLOGY
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a new Vatican document on gender ideology:

The Congregation for Catholic Education has published the most brilliant and authoritative document on the sexes that is currently available. It literally tears to pieces the fatuous claims of gender ideology. Fortunately, it does not water down its account by trying to appease its critics.

“Male and Female: He Created Them” is not only the title of this work, it accurately conveys reality. God did not create mere human beings. No, he created two very different, yet complementary, sexes.

The document takes aim at gender theory, which, it says, “denies the difference and reciprocity in nature of a man and a woman and envisages a society without sexual differences, thereby eliminating the anthropological basis of the family.” Such a vision postulates the absurd notion that “human identity becomes the choice of the individual, one which can also change over time.”

The document notes how gender ideology developed in the 20th century. It celebrates the “freedom of the individual,” emphasizing that “the only thing that matters in personal relationships is the affection between the individuals involved, irrespective of sexual difference or procreation which would be seen as irrelevant in the formation of families.” To put it mildly, this position is sociologically illiterate.

This kind of subjectivism allows the gender ideology promoters to separate sex from gender. “This separation is at the root of the distinctions proposed between various ‘sexual orientations’ which are no longer defined by the sexual differences between male and female, and can then assume other forms, determined solely by the individual, who is seen as radically autonomous.” This kind of madness is now being taught in the schools.

The Vatican document rightly notes how gender ideology seeks to separate the body from human will, as if one can will his sex. This nonsense finds expression in the “fictitious construct known as ‘gender neutral’ or ‘third gender,’ which has the effect of obscuring the fact that a person’s sex is a structural determinant of male or female identity.” These theories, which include such wild notions as “intersex” or “transgender,” are, at bottom, attempts to “annihilate the concept of ‘nature.'”

There is so much more to this splendid document. It is written for Catholic educators, but it should be read by everyone. The loss of common sense, as evidenced by many in the humanities and social sciences, is directly challenged in this real-life reading of some eternal truths. [See my new book, Common Sense Catholicism: How to Resolve Our Cultural Crisis, especially the chapter titled, “Sex Equality,” for more on this subject.]

No wonder the gender ideology promoters are furious. This is a cogent take-down of their plainly stupid, indeed pernicious, ideas about man and society. Its timeliness could not be more fortuitous—it is a heady antidote to the many fictions entertained during “Pride” month events.

It cannot be said too emphatically that any Catholic who is at odds with this document is at odds with more than just the Catholic Church. He is at odds with nature, and nature’s God.
VATICAN SLAMS GENDER IDEOLOGY

You are wrong about a lot of other things too, JohnPaul.

Then why did the Pope say who is he to judge concerning a transexual or transgender awhile back? Perhaps I am wrong about a lot of things. He has been the only gay friendly Pope ever.

I don’t like this Pope.

JohnPaul · Jun 19, 2019

aspen said:
Impe liked Pope John Paul II

Pope John Paul II was a good Pope who traveled the world in trying to do good.

epostle · Jun 19, 2019

JohnPaul said:
Then why did the Pope say who is he to judge concerning a transexual or transgender awhile back? Perhaps I am wrong about a lot of things. He has been the only gay friendly Pope ever.

I don’t like this Pope.

The mainstream media made much hay over Pope Francis’ July 2013 remarks in which he said, in response to a reporter’s question about an alleged “gay lobby” within the Vatican, “Who am I to judge?”

The MSM misinterpreted his comment as blanket approval for homosexual acts, and their headlines reflected their misunderstanding. Even now, whenever there’s a news story about the Catholic Church’s stance on homosexuality, reporters are quick to mention that Pope Francis said, “Who am I to judge?” about homosexuals.

However, as is often the case, the media didn’t bother to look at the Pope’s words in context.

Pope Francis said, in full,

A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will — well, who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says one must not marginalize these persons, they must be integrated into society. The problem isn’t this (homosexual) orientation — we must be like brothers and sisters. The problem is something else, the problem is lobbying either for this orientation or a political lobby or a Masonic lobby.

A catechized Catholic who reads these words knows that they are perfectly in line with Church teaching. Pope Francis essentially just restated paragraph 2358 of the Catechism, which says,

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

When Pope Francis said “Who am I to judge him?”, he was referring to paragraph 1861:

Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God. (emphasis mine)

Pope Francis was referring to the judgment of persons with his “Who am I to judge?” comment. He was not saying that a person’s moral acts can’t be judged, because (as he knows) the Catechism says otherwise:

Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil. (CCC 1749)

Scripture is also very clear on the fact that not only can we judge, we are actually called to judge.

“Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. Drive out the wicked person from among you” (1 Cor. 5:12-13)

and

“Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!” (1 Cor. 6:2-3).

When Jesus said “Judge not, lest you be judged,” he wasn’t condemning all judgment. Rather, He was condemning rash or unjust judgment. He was not telling Christians that they could not evaluate acts and behavior of others according to the moral law – because if that was what He meant, He would have been violating his own dictate. To quote blogger and apologist Jimmy Akin, “If it is wrong to make moral judgments regarding the behavior of others then it would be wrong to judge others for judging!”

Many who quote those words from the Sermon on the Mount in order to condemn someone who is judging fail to read the rest of the passage:

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

Notice that Jesus says that one can take the speck out his brother’s eye! However, he cautions that the person doing the judging has to make sure that their judgments are just, because God will judge hold that person to their own standards.

In the same vein, the Church cautions against rash judgment, a form of unjust judgment, which is defined in the Catechism as “assum[ing] as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor.” To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

“Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.”
Yes, Catholics Can Judge! - Catholic Stand

Phoneman777 · Jun 19, 2019

BreadOfLife said:
This isn't about those who "refuse" to believe - and that's NOT who the Pope was talking about..
Go back and R*E*A*D the text of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus that I presented in post #79.

In your usual stubbornness, you are arguing in circles . . .

I don't need any encyclical or papal bull to interpret Jorge's words. He plainly says non-believers just have to worry about not violating their conscience when it comes to the question of whether they can receive mercy - I realize that covering up for the actions/words of priests is intrinsically tied to papal membership, but when it's straight from the "JORGE'S MOUTH" there's no covering up that, right?

Jack Van Impe Challenging Pope Francis to Debate!!

Well-Known Member

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few

Well-Known Member

Soldier of Jehovah and Christ

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Soldier of Jehovah and Christ

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Soldier of Jehovah and Christ

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few

Soldier of Jehovah and Christ

Soldier of Jehovah and Christ

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads