Sola Scriptura--now I get

[Douay-Rheims]

VII.
In the sixteenth century Protestantism did away with the authority of the Church and constituted every man his own judge of the Bible, and what was the consequence? Religion upon religion, church upon church, sprang into existence, and has never stopped springing up new churches, to this day. When I gave my Mission in Flint, Michigan, I invited, as I have done here, my Protestant friends to come and see me. A good and intelligent man came to me and said:

I will avail myself of this opportunity to converse with you."

“What Church do you belong to, my friend,” said I.

“To the Church of the Twelve Apostles,” said he.

“Ha! ha!” said I, “I belong to that Church too. But, tell me, my friend, where was your Church started?”

“In Terre Haute, Indiana,” says he.

“Who started the Church, and who were the Twelve Apostles, my friend?” said I.

“They were twelve farmers,” said he; “we all belonged to the same Church, the Presbyterian, but we quarreled with our preacher, separated from him, and started a Church of our own.”

“And that,” said I, “is the Twelve Apostles you belonged to, twelve farmers of Indiana! The Church came into existence about thirty years ago.”

A few years ago, when I was in Terre Haute, I asked to be shown the Church of the Twelve Apostles. I was taken to a window and it was pointed out to me, “but it is not in existence any more,” said my informant, “it is used as a wagonmaker’s shop now.”

Again, St. Paul, in his Epistles to the Galatians, says: “Though we Apostles, or even an angel from heaven were to come and preach to you a different Gospel from what we have preached, let him be anathema.” That is the language of St. Paul, because, my dearly beloved people, religion must come from God, not from man. No man has a right to establish a religion. No man has a right to dictate to his fellow-man what he shall believe and what he shall do to save his soul. Religion must come from God, and any religion that is not established by God is a false religion, a human institution, and not an institution of God. And therefore did St. Paul say in his Epistles to the Galatians, “Though we Apostles or even an angel from heaven were to come and preach to you a new Gospel, a new religion, let them be anathema.”

VIII.
You see, then, my dearly beloved people, from the text of the Scripture I have quoted that, if the Catholic Church has been once the true Church, then she is still the true Church.

You have also seen from what I have said that the Catholic Church is the institution of God, and not of man, and this is a fact, a fact of history, and no fact of history so well supported, so well proved, as that the Catholic Church is the first, the Church established by Jesus Christ.

So, in like manner, it is an historical fact that all the Protestant churches are the institutions of man, every one of them. And I will give you their dates, and the names of their founders or institutors.

In the year 1520, 368 years ago, the first Protestant came into the world. Before that one, there was not a Protestant in the world, not one on the face of the whole earth. And that one, as all history tells us, was Martin Luther. He was a Catholic priest, who fell away from the Church through pride, and married a nun. He was excommunicated from the Church, cut off, banished, and made a new religion of his own.

Before Martin Luther there was not a Protestant in the world. He was the first to raise the standard of rebellion and revolt against the Church of God. He said to his disciples that they should take the Bible for their guide, and they did so. But they soon quarreled with him, Zuinglius, and a number of others, and every one of them started a new religion of his own.

After the disciples of Martin Luther came John Calvin, who in Geneva established the Presbyterian religion, and hence, almost all of those religions go by the name of their founder.

I ask the Protestant, “Why are you a Lutheran, my friend?”

“Well,” says he, “because I believe in the doctrine of good Martin Luther.”

Hence, not of Christ, but of man, Martin Luther. And what kind of a man was he? A man who had broken the solemn oath he had made at the altar of God, at his ordination, ever to lead a pure, single, and virginal life. He broke that solemn oath, and married a Sister Catherine, who had also taken the same oath of chastity and virtue. And this is the first founder of Protestantism in the world. The very name by which they are known tells you they came from Martin Luther.

So the Presbyterians are sometimes called Calvinists because they come from, or profess to believe in, John Calvin.

 

[Douay-Rheims]

IX.
After them came Henry VIII. He was a Catholic, and defended the Catholic religion. He wrote a book against Martin Luther in defense of the Catholic doctrine. That book, I have seen in the library of the Vatican at Rome a few years ago. Henry VIII. defended the religion, and for doing so was titled by the Pope, “Defender of the Faith.” It came down with his successors and Queen Victoria inherits it today. He was married to Catherine of Aragon, but there was at his court a maid of honor to the Queen, named Ann Boleyn, who was a beautiful woman and captivating in appearance. Henry was determined to have her, but he was a married man. He sent a petition to the Pope asking to be allowed to marry her, and a foolish petition it was, for the Pope had no power to grant the prayer of it. The Pope and all the bishops in the world cannot go against the will of God. Christ says: “If a man putteth away his wife and marrieth another, he commiteth adultery, and he that marrieth her who is put away committeth adultery also.”

As the Pope would not grant the prayer of Henry’s petition, he took Ann Boleyn, anyhow, and was excommunicated from the Church.

After a while there was another maid of honor, prettier than the first, more beautiful and charming in the eyes of Henry, and he said he must have her too. He took the third wife, and a fourth, fifth and sixth followed. Now this is the founder of the Anglican Church, the Church of England.

Our Episcopalian friends are making great efforts, nowadays, to call themselves Catholic, but they shall never come to it. They admit that the name Catholic is a glorious one and they would like to possess it. The Apostles said, “I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church.” They never said, in the Anglican Church. The Anglicans deny their religion, for they say they believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church. Ask them, are they Catholics, and they say, “Yes, but not Roman Catholics. We are English Catholics.” What is the meaning of the word Catholic? It comes from the Greek word Catholicus, universal, spread all over the earth, and everywhere the same. Now, first of all, the Anglican Church is not spread all over the earth. It only exists in a few countries, and chiefly only where the English language is spoken. Secondly, they are not the same all over the earth, for there are now four different Anglican churches: The Low Church, the High Church, the Ritualist Church and the Puseyite Church. Catholicus means more than this, not only spread all over the earth and everywhere the same, but it means, moreover, at all times the same, from Christ up to the present day. Now, then, they have not been in existence from the time of Christ. There never was an Episcopalian Church or an Anglican Church before Henry VIII. The Catholic Church had already existed fifteen hundred years before the Episcopal came into the world.

After Episcopalianism, different other churches sprang up. Next came the Methodist, about one hundred and fifty years ago. It was started by John Wesley, who was at first a member of the Episcopalian Church. Subsequently, he joined the Moravian Brethren, but not liking them, he made a religion of his own, the Methodist Church.

After John Wesley several others sprang up, and finally, came the Campbellites, about sixty years ago. This Church was established by Alexander Campbell, a Scotchman.

 

[Douay-Rheims]

X.
Well, now, my dear beloved people, you may think that the act of the twelve apostles of Indiana was a ridiculous one, but they had as much right to establish a church as had Henry VIII, or Martin Luther, or John Calvin. They had no right at all, and neither had Henry VIII, nor the rest of them, no right whatsoever.

Christ had established His Church and given His solemn oath that His Church should stand to the end of time. He promised that He had built it upon rock, and that the gates of hell should never prevail against it. Hence, my dear people, all those different denominations of religion are the inventions of man. And I ask you, can man save the soul of his fellow-man by any institution he can make? Must not religion come from God?

When I gave my Mission in Brooklyn several Protestants became Catholics. Among them there was a very highly educated and intelligent Virginian. He was a Presbyterian. After he had listened to my lecture he went to see his minister, and he asked him to be kind enough to explain a text of the Bible. The minister gave him the meaning. “Well now,” said the gentleman, “are you positive and sure that is the meaning of the text, for several other Protestants explain it differently?” “Why, my dear young man,” says the preacher, “we never can be certain of our faith.” “Well then,” says the young man, “good-bye to you. If I cannot be sure of my faith in the Protestant Church, I will go where I can,” and he became a Catholic.

We are sure of our faith in the Catholic Church, and if our faith is not true, Christ has deceived us. I would, therefore, beg you, my separated brethren, to procure yourselves Catholic books. You have read a great deal against the Catholic Church, now read something in favor of it. You can never pass an impartial sentence if you do not hear both sides of the question.

What would you think of a judge, before whom, a policeman would bring a poor offender. And who on the charge of the policeman, without hearing the prisoner, would order him to be hung? “Give me a hearing,” says the poor man, “and I will prove my innocence. I am not guilty,” says he. The policeman says he is guilty. “Well, hang him anyhow,” says the judge. What would you say of that judge? Criminal judge, unfair man, you are guilty of the blood of the innocent! Would not you say that? Of course you would.

Well now, my dearly beloved Protestant friends, that is that is what you have been doing all along. You have been hearing one side of the question and condemning us Catholics, as a superstitious lot of people, poor ignorant people, idolatrous people, non-sensical people, going and telling their sins to the priest. And what, after all, is the priest more than any other man? My dear friends, have you examined the other side of the question?

No, you do not think it worth your while. But this is the way the Jews dealt with Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And this is the way the Pagans and Jews dealt with the Apostles, the ministers of the Church, and with the primitive Christians.

Allow me to tell you, my friends, that you have been treating us precisely in the same way the Jews and Pagans treated Jesus Christ and His Apostles. I have said this evening hard things, but if St. Paul were here tonight, in this pulpit, he would have said harder things still. I have said them, however, not through a spirit of unkindness, but through a spirit of love, and a spirit of charity, in the hope of opening your eyes that your souls may be saved. It is love for your salvation, my dearly beloved Protestant brethren, for which I would gladly give my heart’s blood, my love for your salvation that has made me preach to you as I have done.

XI.
“Well,” say my Protestant friends, “if a man thinks he is right would not he be right?” Let us suppose now a man in Ottawa, who wants to go to Chicago, but takes a car for New York. The conductor asks for his ticket, and he at once says, “You are in the wrong car, your ticket is for Chicago, but you are going to New York.” “Well, what of that?” says the passenger, “I mean well.” “Your meaning will not go well with you in the end,” says the conductor, “for you will come out at New York instead of Chicago.”

You say you mean well, my dear friends, but your meaning will not take you to heaven. You must do well also. “He that doeth the will of My Father,” says Jesus, “he alone shall be saved.” There are millions in hell who meant well.

You must do well, and be sure you are doing well, to be saved. I thank my separated brethren for their kindness in coming to these controversial lectures. I hope I have said nothing to offend them. Of course, it would be nonsense for me not to preach Catholic doctrines.

 

[kujo313]

Angainor:

Funny, “arrogance” is one for the first words that come to mind when I think of Catholicism. You know, it knows everything and all.Sorry, I don’t see how lack of assurance of certain knowlege necessarily leads to arrogance, or cavalier attitude.

When I lack assurance or not too keen on a subject, I look it up in the Bible. It’s in there.

 

[Eden]

kujo313:

When I lack assurance or not too keen on a subject, I look it up in the Bible. It’s in there.

2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one’s own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of “public” interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.

2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul’s letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter’s use of the word “ignorant” means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.

2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.

www.scripturecatholic.com

Hey, I just realized this thread has come back to the original topic! :dancing:

 

[kujo313]

XI.
“Well,” say my Protestant friends, “if a man thinks he is right would not he be right?” Let us suppose now a man in Ottawa, who wants to go to Chicago, but takes a car for New York. The conductor asks for his ticket, and he at once says, “You are in the wrong car, your ticket is for Chicago, but you are going to New York.” “Well, what of that?” says the passenger, “I mean well.” “Your meaning will not go well with you in the end,” says the conductor, “for you will come out at New York instead of Chicago.”

Some people have been on the Protestant side and have been with some rotten apples. There is bad fruit in EVERY denomination, including Catholics.
But there are some of us that have been on BOTH sides of the fence.
So, with that, let us suppose that man, driving to New York, gets into an auto accident. Witnesses call 911 on their cell phones and ambulances are on their way. (I bet you know where this is going)
When the paramedics get there, the dying man says “I’ll ask your mother if you can save me.” The medic’s mother knows nothing about medicine except for giving medicines and a hug.
“My son, here, is a medic. He can save you”, she says.
“No,” says the dying man, “you gave birth to him, so you can save me too.”
The mother was not a medic, she could only give comfort. Her son, however, answered his calling to save people.

Years later, the Chief of Police and the Fire Chief decided to make the mother an official member of the paramedic team. A plaque displayed on a shelf.
Suddenly, her neighbor knocks on the door frantically. “Quick! It’s my husband! He’s having a heart attack!”
“I don’t know how to save him,” says the woman.
The shaken woman points to the plaque on the wall. “But you’re a medic!”
“No I’m not,” says the woman, “somebody else said that I was.”

In wasting precious time, the man died. If only his wife would’ve gone directly to the son.

 

[Eden]

kujo313:

In wasting precious time, the man died. If only his wife would’ve gone directly to the son.

You continue to perpetuate the idea that Christ is not central to our faith. Why is it that you are not getting this?

 

[kujo313]

2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one’s own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of “public” interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.

2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul’s letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter’s use of the word “ignorant” means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.

2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.

www.scripturecatholic.com

Hey, I just realized this thread has come back to the original topic! :dancing:

So that must mean that only the Catholic church knows how to interpret the Scriptures. How arrogant, coming from a Catholic.
I guess, then, according to what you think, Billy Graham don’t know squat.

 

[auhsoj88]

What if every American was allowed to interpret the Constitution for himself. As long as the abided by their own interpretation that was OK. No harm no foul.

Do you think there would be chaos???

Thank God for the Supreme Courts (even though they are not perfect). Otherwise we would be in deep doo doo…

God bless

 

[mmortal03]

kujo313:

So that must mean that only the Catholic church knows how to interpret the Scriptures. How arrogant, coming from a Catholic.
I guess, then, according to what you think, Billy Graham don’t know squat.

Did you read what I said above about arrogance?

 

[kujo313]

Eden:

You continue to perpetuate the idea that Christ is not central to our faith. Why is it that you are not getting this?

Christ may or may not be the center of your faith, but when there are tangents placed on the “straight and narrow”. Such tangents are in tradition but contradict, or take place of, Scripture.
If a denomination says it’s foundation is in Christ, and has the Bible verses to prove it, then how can you say it is wrong just because it’s not the denomination you belong to?
Let’s not go to whoever said in whatever year. Let’s go back to The Foundation, God’s Word, spoken through the prophets of old, came to life and fulfillment in Jesus Christ, and written and spoken by actual, first-hand eyewitnesses.

 

[Douay-Rheims]

Please read my above posts. I know it’s long but it covers all these issues completely.

 

[kujo313]

auhsoj88:

What if every American was allowed to interpret the Constitution for himself. As long as the abided by their own interpretation that was OK. No harm no foul.

Do you think there would be chaos???

Thank God for the Supreme Courts (even though they are not perfect). Otherwise we would be in deep doo doo…

God bless

I’m not interpreting the Constitution for myself. But both you and I can see what it says. The SAME words in both of our eyes.
So does Scripture.
Catholics believe that the Pope is infallible. Yet Peter, your first “Pope”, had to be rebuked by Paul. How DARE Paul rebuke the Pope! WHO does he think he is?? How can Paul interpret Scripture?

Nonsense. Peter was fallible, but yet, a witness. He could preach it, but not live it. He needed a Savior.
Nobody can live it fully. Nobody. We all have sinned and fallen short. We all need a Savior.

If I were you, I’d fear the traditions that are not Scriptually based.

Almost 10pm, guys! I have to get some sleep. Good night.

 

[Eden]

kujo313:

So that must mean that only the Catholic church knows how to interpret the Scriptures. How arrogant, coming from a Catholic.
I guess, then, according to what you think, Billy Graham don’t know squat.

If what he preaches is in contradiction with the “deposit of faith”, then Billy Graham would be in error with his interpretations.

By the way, Billy Graham does not have apostolic authority handed down through the bishops. He was not ordained with the laying of hands by an apostolic bishop.

 

[Eden]

**Scripture is not Subject to Private Interpretation **

“True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]." *Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4,33:8 (inter A.D. 180-199). *

"But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men - a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind…” *Tertullian, On Prescription against the Heretics, 32 (c. A.D. 200). *

“To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith." *Tertullian, On Prescription against the Heretics, 32 (c. A.D. 200). *

“For those are slothful who, having it in their power to provide themselves with proper proofs for the divine Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, select only what contributes to their own pleasures. And those have a craving for glory who voluntarily evade, by arguments of a diverse sort, the things delivered by the blessed apostles and teachers, which are wedded to inspired words; opposing the divine tradition by human teachings, in order to establish the heresy.” *Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 7:16 (post A.D. 202). *

“When heretics show us the canonical Scriptures, in which every Christian believes and trusts, they seem to be saying: 'Lo, he is in the inner rooms [the word of truth] ’ (Matt 24.6). But we must not believe them, nor leave the original tradition of the Church, nor believe otherwise than we have been taught by the succession in the Church of God.” *Origen, Homilies on Matthew, Homily 46, PG 13:1667 (ante A.D. 254). *

 

[kujo313]

Eden:

If what he preaches is in contradiction with the “deposit of faith”, then Billy Graham would be in error with his interpretations.

By the way, Billy Graham does not have apostolic authority handed down through the bishops. He was not ordained with the laying of hands by an apostolic bishop.

Billy Graham was called directly by an infallible God. He preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[auhsoj88]

kujo313:

So that must mean that only the Catholic church knows how to interpret the Scriptures. How arrogant, coming from a Catholic.
I guess, then, according to what you think, Billy Graham don’t know squat.

Protestants do carry Truth, but it is only the Catholic Church that carries the fullness of the Truth.

If it is not possible for a Church to carry the Fullness, then Christ is an lier.

What is binded on Earth is loosened in Heaven, and since error can not exist in Heaven, therefore the Church must contain only the fullness. Right! Think carefully if you answer is no!

The true Church is the Body of Christ, with Jesus as its head. Does your head lead your body??? Can Jesus lead 30,000 seperate bodies into seperate truths??. I don’t think so!

God Bless…

 

[Eden]

“A most precious possession therefore is the knowledge of doctrines: also there is need of a wakeful soul, since there are many that make spoil through philosophy and vain deceit. The Greeks on the one hand draw men away by their smooth tongue, for honey droppeth from a harlot’s lips: whereas they of the Circumcision deceive those who come to them by means of the Divine Scriptures, which they miserably misinterpret though studying them from childhood to all age, and growing old in ignorance. But the children of heretics, by their good words and smooth tongue, deceive the hearts of the innocent, disguising with the name of Christ as it were with honey the poisoned arrows of their impious doctrines: concerning all of whom together the Lord saith, Take heed lest any man mislead you. This is the reason for the teaching of the Creed and for expositions upon it.” *Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4:2 (A.D. 350). *

“And, O wretched heretic! You turn the weapons granted to the Church against the Synagogue, against belief in the Church’s preaching, and distort against the common salvation of all the sure meaning of a saving doctrine.” *Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 12:36 (inter A.D. 356-359). *“But since they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation, according to their private sense, it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to vindicate these passages, and to show that they bear an orthodox sense, and that our opponents are in error.” *Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians, I:37 (A.D. 362). *

“To refuse to follow the Fathers, not holding their declaration of more authority than one’s own opinion, is conduct worthy of blame, as being brimful of self-sufficiency.” *Basil, EpistleTo the Canonicae, 52:1 (A.D. 370). *

“While (the sects) mutually refute and condemn each other, it has happened to truth as to Gideon; that is, while they fight against each other, and fall under wounds mutually inflicted, they crown her. All the heretics acknowledge that there is a true Scripture. Had they all falsely believed that none existed, some one might reply that such Scripture was unknown to them. But now that have themselves taken away the force of such plea, from the fact that they have mutilated the very Scriptures. For they have corrupted the sacred copies; and words which ought to have but one interpretation, they have wrested to strange significations. Whilst, when one of them attempts this, and cuts off a member of his own body, the rest demand and claim back the severed limb…It is the church which perfect truth perfects. The church of believers is great, and its bosom most ample; it embraces the fulness (or, the whole) of the two Testaments.” *Ephraem, Adv. Haeres (ante A.D. 373). *

“Who knows not that what separates the Church from heresy is this term, 'product of creation, ’ applied to the Son? Accordingly, the doctrinal difference being universally acknowledged, what would be the reasonable course for a man to take who endeavors to show that his opinions are more true than ours?” *Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 4:6 (inter A.D. 380-384). *
www.scripturecatholic.com

 

[montanaman]

kujo313:

Billy Graham was called directly by an infallible God. He preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Heh. Not quite. One must be sent. Billy Graham may been called, but he went his own way.

 

[Eden]

kujo313:

Billy Graham was called directly by an infallible God. He preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Billy Graham was raised as a Presbyterian, but he converted to become a Southern Baptist He has always had friendly relations with Catholics. But when his teachings reflect Southern Baptist beliefs in contradiction to the “deposit of faith” protected by the Holy Spirit in the Catholic Church, he is in error.

Religion:Baptist

Year Founded: 1609

Founder: John Smyth

Place: Amsterdam