PDA

View Full Version : Congressman steals Pope's water



KDawg
09-26-2015, 06:36 PM
A congressman stole the water glass Pope Francis was drinking out of during his address at the White House on Thursday.Representative Bob Brady, a devout Catholic and Democrat from Pennsylvania immediately made his way to the podium after Pope Francis finished speaking and grabbed the glass that was still filled with water.
He then drank the water, gave some of the water to his wife Debra, and saved the rest for his grandchildren.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3249286/Holy-water-Congressman-steals-Pope-Francis-glass-White-House-address-sip-remaining-liquid-wife-saves-sprinkle-grandchildren.html


The article says he's devout, but this is just weird.

BFLPE
09-26-2015, 07:20 PM
Brady then walked back to his office, carrying the glass and water and accompanied by his wife, Debra, and two staffers.

(It may be significant to note here that Brady had pulled the same stunt at President Obama's first inauguration.)


Once he was safely in his office, Brady told the People Paper, "I took a sip out of it." So did Debra and the two staffers, who snapped pictures to commemorate the event...

Brady also spread the holy-water joy to other legislators. He called U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., into his office, and Casey brought along his wife and mother. The three dipped their fingers into the glass. Pictures were taken, joy was in the air.

Brady said he then poured the rest of the water into a bottle and will use it to bless his four grandchildren, who range in age from 7 to 18, and his 1-year-old great-granddaughter.

Where's the glass, you may ask? Brady is keeping it in a brown paper bag. After the papal visit, he will give it to Philadelphia police to dust it for fingerprints to prove its authenticity, he said Thursday night.

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pope/20150924_Holy_water__U_S__Rep__Brady_helps_himself _to_popes_glass.html#VDZyRgxjBBFrR9Lm.99Strange indeed.

Are the Pope's fingerprints available to compare for authenticity?

RWGR
09-30-2015, 03:17 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3249286/Holy-water-Congressman-steals-Pope-Francis-glass-White-House-address-sip-remaining-liquid-wife-saves-sprinkle-grandchildren.html


The article says he's devout, but this is just weird.

very...

...let's scour Revelation and see if we can fit this in with ***** of Babylon prophecy!

Barry Morris
09-30-2015, 03:40 PM
Why not? Didn't Ribera do that??

RWGR
09-30-2015, 04:33 PM
I'm not sure, can you find a fake story to back it up?? :) :) :)

Barry Morris
09-30-2015, 11:09 PM
I'm not sure, can you find a fake story to back it up?? :) :) :)

We went into "Jesuit futurism" before. You didn't like it.

RWGR
10-18-2015, 05:19 PM
Sadly, with your track record lately we must first confirm a story is even real before beginning to discuss it.

Barry Morris
10-18-2015, 06:03 PM
Sadly, with your track record lately we must first confirm a story is even real before beginning to discuss it.

If you choose to blindly condemn others, that is your choice.

Jesuit Futurism, as it is called now, is part of your church history. If you would like to discuss it, that would be nice.

RWGR
10-19-2015, 03:13 PM
Sure, start

Barry Morris
10-19-2015, 10:38 PM
You should know something about it.

"Rome quickly adopted this viewpoint as the Church’s official position on the Antichrist. "

http://amazingdiscoveries.org/RT_encyclopedia_Futurism_Jesuit_Ribera

Barry Morris
10-19-2015, 10:43 PM
http://www.reformation.org/left-behind-by-jesuits.html

How amusing that "Left Behind" should have it's roots in the RCC!!

RWGR
10-20-2015, 09:26 AM
That's a legitimate source?

Please, we're all adults here.

Barry Morris
10-20-2015, 09:46 AM
That's a legitimate source?

Please, we're all adults here.

As anyone can clearly see, you don't really want to discuss anything. All you want to do is "win".

As we see, you'd deny your own history to do it!!

RWGR
10-20-2015, 11:54 AM
I'm not discussing anything based on such flimsy 'evidence'

Why can't you find a legitimate, scholarly source? Because none exists to back up your ill-informed views and lightly-veiled agenda.

Bring your level of discourse up a few notches, starting with the sources you use, then we can begin.

Barry Morris
10-20-2015, 06:01 PM
I'm not discussing anything based on such flimsy 'evidence'

Why can't you find a legitimate, scholarly source? Because none exists to back up your ill-informed views and lightly-veiled agenda.

Bring your level of discourse up a few notches, starting with the sources you use, then we can begin.

Odd you didn't take this tack the last time we discussed this.

Hmmm, scholarly source?? You mean a Roman Catholic approved website?? :) :) :)

Barry Morris
10-20-2015, 06:11 PM
A search for Jesuit Futurism turns up 32,000 hits. Here's just a few.

http://amazingdiscoveries.org/RT_encyclopedia_Futurism_Jesuit_Ribera

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Ribera

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/antichrist.htm

http://www.hope-of-israel.org/futurism.html

http://www.bibleprophesy.org/jesuitrapture.htm

Why you would deny this ever happened is certainly odd. Also difficult to find and such denial on the web.

Barry Morris
10-20-2015, 09:50 PM
http://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/society-of-jesus#A._Jesuits_are_fallible

"...these form a group of unsurpassed brilliance, and there are quite a number of others almost equally remarkable.......In Scripture, ......., Francisco Ribera (1591)

"...there are a number of others of the first class...... Between Bellarmine (d. 1621)...of note in theology.."

I suppose we should be happy that the RCC at least acknowledges their existence, but since it rejected their work, the church certainly wouldn't show it to us today.

RWGR
10-21-2015, 05:02 PM
but since it rejected their work...

Thank you

What's next?

Want to talk about why some Protestants took a rejected pseudo-theology and based their entire eschatological view around it?

RWGR
10-21-2015, 05:16 PM
Barry Caught Posting Mis-Information, part 1,488

:) :) :)

Barry Morris
10-21-2015, 09:44 PM
Thank you

What's next?

Want to talk about why some Protestants took a rejected pseudo-theology and based their entire eschatological view around it?

Sure.

Because they actually read and interpret the bible, instead of having a magisterium translate the Word of God for their own ends.

Barry Morris
10-21-2015, 09:45 PM
Barry Caught Posting Mis-Information, part 1,488

:) :) :)

Naturally. If your magisterium doesn't say it, it never happened. I understand completely.

Barry Morris
10-21-2015, 09:56 PM
Seems to me you don't believe in the Second Coming.

Barry Morris
10-23-2015, 09:48 PM
This is kinda funny considering how many beliefs of the RCC RWGR has claimed went back to the days of the early church fathers, when there was no biblical reference.

RWGR
10-26-2015, 04:12 PM
I suppose we should be happy that the RCC at least acknowledges their existence, but since it rejected their work...

Game over.


NEXT!!

Barry Morris
10-26-2015, 06:22 PM
Game over.


NEXT!!

Oh, this is something you won't live down.

Many times you claimed that the man made doctrines of the RCC went right back to the early church.

Now some doctrines come to light that the church no longer accepts. I'm finding that to be very revealing.

Cafeteria style, one might say.

Barry Morris
10-26-2015, 09:57 PM
I wonder what other beliefs they have dropped.....

RWGR
10-27-2015, 08:25 AM
Oh, this is something you won't live down.

Many times you claimed that the man made doctrines of the RCC went right back to the early church.

Now some doctrines come to light that the church no longer accepts. I'm finding that to be very revealing.

Cafeteria style, one might say.

I still stand by my earlier comment, because it's true.

Whatever it is you believe you are proving right now is apparently clear to only you.

RWGR
10-27-2015, 08:25 AM
I wonder what other beliefs they have dropped.....

None.

Why?

Because we're not Protestant (see birth control, gay marriage, etc)

Barry Morris
10-27-2015, 10:49 AM
None.

Why?

Because we're not Protestant (see birth control, gay marriage, etc)

None?? Really?? It's been an interesting look into the RCC researching this.

In one instance, Vatican 11 changed an ex cathedra statement of a Pope, even when backed up by another.

BTW, as usual, you like to lump all Protestants together re gay marriage. Don't you worry, God know what's going on. True believers don't accept gay marriage.

As a matter of fact, it wouldn't surprise me to see a church that puts its own practices above what Scripture says reverse their beliefs and accept gay marriage. After all, the magisterium would be right, right??? :) :) :)

RWGR
10-27-2015, 11:40 AM
None?? Really?? It's been an interesting look into the RCC researching this.

Have it it.

You won't lift a finger, but have at it.

In one instance, Vatican 11 changed an ex cathedra statement of a Pope, even when backed up by another.

Where? Do you have a link? Proof?

BTW, as usual, you like to lump all Protestants together re gay marriage. Don't you worry, God know what's going on. True believers don't accept gay marriage.

So protestants who believe in gay marriage are not true believers? That is a lot of Protestant souls that will be lost.

And what does it say about the denominations that accept gay marriage? Surely they feel they are being led by the Holy Spirit, just as you do. Surely they believe Sola Scriptura will lead to truth, just as you do.

They are wrong, and you are right...so what does that say about how you guys go about things?


As a matter of fact, it wouldn't surprise me to see a church that puts its own practices above what Scripture says reverse their beliefs and accept gay marriage.

All you need to do is read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It's easily accessible online.

And where could I find an online source on what all Protestants believe?

Well, we all know I can't, because you're not "one", As Jesus asked the Father to keep us.

RWGR
10-27-2015, 11:42 AM
...and let me be the first to say "Hello, Blue, you've been missed"

:) :) :)

Barry Morris
10-27-2015, 11:45 AM
"All you need to do is read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It's easily accessible online."

Easily changeable too!!!

Back soon, with the link you asked for, (but won't address)!!! :) :) :)

RWGR
10-27-2015, 11:54 AM
There's not much more to do, Barry, than to pray for you. You seem incredibly angry and emotional.

Barry Morris
10-27-2015, 12:43 PM
There's not much more to do, Barry, than to pray for you. You seem incredibly angry and emotional.

Ah, there it is again.

Do you know what projection is???

Barry Morris
10-27-2015, 12:43 PM
"In one instance, Vatican 11 changed an ex cathedra statement of a Pope, even when backed up by another.

Where? Do you have a link? Proof?"

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/papal.htm

"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved" (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff" (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

"[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only Pagans, but Jews, heretics and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire 'prepared for the devil, and his angels' (Mt. xxv. 41), unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church; also that the unity of the Ecclesiastical body is such that the Church's Sacraments avail only those abiding in that Church, and that fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of piety which play their part in the Christian combat are in her alone productive of eternal rewards; moreover, that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Mansi, Concilia, xxxi, 1739.) (Pope Eugene IV, The Bull Cantate Domino, 1441).

So said the Popes.


http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/passages-vatican-ii-every-catholic-know
Vatican II

"Vatican II admitted to the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics (Lumen Gentium, #14-16). This created a firestorm both within and without the Church, as it seemed to reverse the Church’s perennial teaching of “outside the Church there is no salvation.” The result was that many questioned the necessity of the missionary endeavors of the Church, because if non-Catholics could be saved, why bother trying to convert them? And one hardly need to mention the fact that now practically every funeral is a mini-canonization ceremony."


The term "separated bretheren" also makes little sense in light of the words of three different Popes.


Discuss.

RWGR
10-27-2015, 04:24 PM
Ah, there it is again.

Do you know what projection is???

Sure do, and few engage in it to the level you do.

RWGR
10-27-2015, 04:41 PM
See, Barry, there you go again. You try to confuse a Papal Bull (as in "bulletin") with an Ex Cathedra statement.

See why it's so difficult to engage you in conversation? Your knowledge of the other side's views is often very poor. Now admittedly, some of this can get confusing, especially when talking of Ex Cathedra and a Bull. But at the same time, don't wade into waters you know nothing about. You look foolish, uninformed, and like you're tripping all over yourself, just trying to make some cheap point, a point that can only be made if the people reading your stuff have little or no knowledge of the issue at hand.

It's amateur night when you do that.

Only two Papal Bulls are considered Ex Cathedra. Most infallible teachings come from councils. And, as anyone should now have guessed, they weren't the two you posted. So, again, your argument kills itself.

You try to defend Protestantism by attacking the Roman Catholic Church;the problem is, you're not even attacking the Church! Lord knows what monstrosity it is you attack, because you use lies, misunderstandings, and misrepresentations to attack some phantom YOU created.

My god, man, know a little about the subject you're trying to debate.

Even your Protestant friends leave the conversation with you quickly. It's of your own making. Ignorance, mis-representations, and lies are no way to get people to engage you here.

You are better than this, Barry.

You have to be.

Discuss.

Barry Morris
10-27-2015, 06:55 PM
See, Barry, there you go again. You try to confuse a Papal Bull (as in "bulletin") with an Ex Cathedra statement.

See why it's so difficult to engage you in conversation? Your knowledge of the other side's views is often very poor. Now admittedly, some of this can get confusing, especially when talking of Ex Cathedra and a Bull. But at the same time, don't wade into waters you know nothing about. You look foolish, uninformed, and like you're tripping all over yourself, just trying to make some cheap point, a point that can only be made if the people reading your stuff have little or no knowledge of the issue at hand.

It's amateur night when you do that.

Only two Papal Bulls are considered Ex Cathedra. Most infallible teachings come from councils. And, as anyone should now have guessed, they weren't the two you posted. So, again, your argument kills itself.

You try to defend Protestantism by attacking the Roman Catholic Church;the problem is, you're not even attacking the Church! Lord knows what monstrosity it is you attack, because you use lies, misunderstandings, and misrepresentations to attack some phantom YOU created.

My god, man, know a little about the subject you're trying to debate.

Even your Protestant friends leave the conversation with you quickly. It's of your own making. Ignorance, mis-representations, and lies are no way to get people to engage you here.

You are better than this, Barry.

You have to be.

Discuss.

Here's my thought on this. It's simple.

Three different Popes agreed together on a doctrine that Vatican II contradicted. And as stated, it created a firestorm within the church. If this happened in a protestant church, you'd go bananas.

Explain.

RWGR
10-28-2015, 10:38 AM
I'm not going to entertain your lies and misrepresentations anymore, it's just not worth it.

Sadly, I seem to be the last person here to take that stance. Everyone else has been ignoring you, a lesson I should have learned a while ago.

Barry Morris
10-28-2015, 05:12 PM
I'm not going to entertain your lies and misrepresentations anymore, it's just not worth it.

Sadly, I seem to be the last person here to take that stance. Everyone else has been ignoring you, a lesson I should have learned a while ago.

I knew you would not answer.

You have faith in an institution, not in God.

Good luck with that.

Of course, I remind you that I don't believe in luck.

RWGR
10-29-2015, 10:33 AM
Continued prayers for you, my friend.

Barry Morris
10-29-2015, 10:48 AM
Continued prayers for you, my friend.

Sure.

It would be so simple to counter my information with truth.

Unfortunately, there is no such "truth". My information is correct. The RCC HAS changed over the years, just like any other man-made institution, especially one that is struggling to maintain their authority. And bible truth is one of the victims.

Too bad.

RWGR
10-29-2015, 10:51 AM
I've proven you use mis-information and lies to make your 'points'. It is quite clear to anyone.

Sadly, you lose.

Barry Morris
10-29-2015, 12:52 PM
I've proven you use mis-information and lies to make your 'points'. It is quite clear to anyone.

Sadly, you lose.

You've proven it to yourself alone.

Real proof should be easy. But you have none.

As to who loses, you know who decides that.