(Continued from page 308)How many popes 'self ex-communicated' by becoming Freemasons?
Three 'popes' - but only Gregory XII is still an official pope - the other two are now 'anti-popes'!
You write: 'The Revolters Luther (a Rosicrucian), Zwingli (a Freemason) and, Calvin (Bnai Brith Freemason), disagreed with each other on core issues of Faith and doctrine. They have their own views on scripture. Since they forsook the Church, they are heretical ...'.
TCE: Disregarding, for now, the fact that you have failed to provide any kind of proof regarding your claims against these men (and the links we have discovered are based more on unprovable allegations than real facts!), it should be obvious to you that your 'popes' and 'antipopes' have easily outstripped the worst excesses of those you criticise, both in their personal lives and in their heretical teachings. Regarding 'Freemasonry' - this is another obvious contradiction from Rome! While a series of Popes condemned 'Freemasonry' in encyclicals and excommunicated some Roman Catholics who adhered to it, Freemasonry clearly invaded the Church and even infected the supposedly 'infallible ones'! Popes decreed the death penalty for deviation from 'the faith,' not only through the Inquisitions in religious matters, but as part of their civil rule over the vast territories known as the papal states and Clement XII (1730-40) specifically prescribed the death penalty for membership in the Freemasons, or even for 'rendering aid, succour, counsel, or a retreat to one of its members.' (Cormenin, History of the Popes, p243, as cited in R.W. Thompson, The Papacy and the Civil Power, New York, 1876, p206).
However, when we consider the careers of the two versions of 'John XXIII' we find an unmitigated story of corruption and heresy. The late John XXIII was reportedly admitted (in 1935) into 'the Sect of the Temple' (ref. Pier Carpi, Prophecies of John XXIII, p52) and the 'Antipope' John XIII (depending on which Papal Roman Catholic Church sect you belong to!) who, it appears, was a Deist and Rationalist who did not believe in miracles or veneration of the sacred, thus contrived to make himself a candidate for self-ex-communication by the act of becoming a Freemason!
Historical records show that many popes attained the office through military might, the support of 'madames' and prostitutes, bought the title, or made use of the patronage of emperors and every other kind of machination, including mob violence. These facts prove that claims that the papacy has come down from Peter by an unbroken line of 'apostolic succession' are no more than a papal pipe dream. More than one pope occupied 'Peter's Chair' at various times and each claimed to be the one true, infallible pope, supreme head of the Church while attempting to use this alleged power to excommunicate the others! Early in the fifteenth century there were three men who each claimed to be pope:
Gregory XII (1406-15) - whose first pontifical act was to pawn his tiara for 6000 florins to pay his gambling debts;
Benedict XIII (1394-1423) of Avignon (one of a number of popes who resided in Avignon's papal palace during a schism that lasted more than 100 years, with rivals in Rome and Avignon each claiming to be the true pope and excommunicating each other);
Alexander V (1409-10) whose chief pastime was feasting and who had 400 servants, all females, at his regal palace and then met his end when Baldassare Cossa poisoned him (so much for another 'apostolic succession' of being un-poisonable re. Mark 16:18: 'They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover') and then snatched the pontificate in his place as John XXIII (1410-15).
These three 'popes/anti-popes' were all deposed by the Council of Constance, a council made up of 300 bishops, 300 'doctors', and the 'deputies' of 15 universities (again, all thoroughly un-Biblical, as it is painfully easy to prove). Although John XXIII is now shown as an 'antipope,' it was as Pope that he formally opened the Council on All Saints' Day 1414 - and somehow about 500 men who opposed him in any way were discovered as corpses floating in nearby Lake Constance during the four-year course of that 'council' while 1200 prostitutes were 'employed' by bishops and cardinals and their servants!
Of these three 'popes' - each claiming to be the one true vicar of Christ - only Gregory XII is now shown on official lists as a legitimate pope (even though he was actually deposed by this infamous Council) and the other two are now 'anti-popes'. History is unforgiving so, when Pope Pius XII's successor took the name John XXIII in 1958, Catholic organisations had to amend their list of popes which already contained 'a Pope John XXIII' who is remembered by historians in these terms:
' ... former pirate, mass-murderer, mass-fornicator with a partiality for nuns, adulterer on a scale unknown outside fables, simoniac par excellence, blackmailer, pimp, master of dirty tricks.' (Peter de Rosa, Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy, Crown Publishers, 1988, p93-94).
Ironically, the same Pope John XXIII who had opened the Council as its 'Pope' was condemned by it to prison, but the original 54 charges against him were reduced to a mere five and he was 'only' found guilty of 'piracy, murder, rape, sodomy and incest' (Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, quoted in de Rosa, p132).
The irony thickens for, after Cardinal Oddo Colonna was named the new pope by the Council of Constance (a.k.a. Martin V - 1417-31) he showed his own predilection for farce when 'Pope John XXIII' was released from prison and 'Martin V' re-instated the killer criminal as Bishop of Frascati and Cardinal of Tusculum!
An even grander irony? How come the Council of Constance could assert its own un-Biblical authority over the 'triple papacy' (all of them also fake-fakes!)? This Council unanimously voted that every lawfully convoked Ecumenical Council representing the Church derives its authority immediately from Christ, and every one, the Pope included, is subject to it in matters of faith, in the healing of schism, and the reformation of the Church! If 'papal infallibility' had really been in vogue in those days then, obviously, the Council would have been incapable of solving the 'triple pope' dilemma of three rival popes. The truth is that the dogma of 'papal infallibility' was not officially established until the First Vatican Council of 1870 and obviously must be a denial of the authority which the Council of Constance had asserted over 'popes' in order to save the Church! These mass contradictions are unexplainable for the Papal Roman Catholic Church - and all its adherents can resort to is hopeful waffle and bluster!
You write: 'Papal Infallibility is inseparable from Papal Supremacy (St. Luke 22:31-32, St. John 21:15-17, St. Matthew 16:18-19, St. Luke 10:16, St. Matthew 18:17, Isaiah 22:20 -22)
TCE: Bearing in mind we have already refuted this claim under the title::
Scripture warns not to 'lord it over others' while Popes have been 'lording it over' their sheep for centuries!
Do these verses support your claims?
St. Luke 22:31-32: 'Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.'
Does this prayer by the Lord Jesus Christ ensure the infallibility of Peter and his successors in protecting the faith? We are familiar with the oft-repeated Papal claim that 'St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of his disciples: 'I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.' ' (Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 'Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils,' electronic media, Harmony Media Inc.). We have already seen by examining Galatians 2 that this Papal claim of Peter's infallibility is utter fiction! This verse has nothing to do with papal infallibility and Christ's words clearly relate only to the one issue of Peter's denial of Christ (Luke 22:34). There is nothing in the verse to even remotely suggest that Christ was making some veiled promise relating to the infallibility of Peter. Here we have the wonderful lesson - for all Christians - of the Lord Jesus praying for Peter's restoration after his impending fall. Jesus prayed that Peter's faith would not fail following his dismal failure as a disciple and was fully in keeping with His general intercessory ministry for all believers (cf. Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25; John 17:15):
St. John 21:15-17 - 'So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?' He said to Him, 'Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.' He said to him, 'Tend My lambs.' He said to him again a second time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love Me?' He said to Him, 'Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.' He said to him, 'Shepherd My sheep.' He said to him the third time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love Me?' Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, 'Do you love Me?' And he said to Him, 'Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.' Jesus said to him, 'Tend My sheep''.
To claim that Christ's instruction to Peter to 'tend My lambs' and 'shepherd My sheep' proves that Jesus was putting Peter in a position of authority over the church is another false claim for, while the word 'shepherd' is a particular term of authority, it is not uniquely addressed to one apostle - as we shall soon see. A Manual of Dogmatic Theology by A. Tanquerey (New York: Desclee Company, 1959, vol. 1, p. 120) claims: 'Since this authority is given only to Peter, then Peter holds the true primacy through which he performs the offices of the supreme pastor of Christ's church.' However, there is not even a hint in this passage that Jesus was elevating Peter to a position of supremacy but, rather, that Jesus exacts a threefold confession of love from Peter to make up for his threefold denial of Christ. The Lord wonderfully restores a fallen, fallible, apostle and, sadly, Peter was singled out here because he is the single apostle that denied Christ and, far from Jesus exalting Peter above the other apostles, our Wonderful Lord and Saviour brings him back up to their level.
Find kissing the foot of the 'pope' in Scripture if you can!
The danger of reading verses of Scripture in isolation from the whole Bible is revealed easily, for we find that the other apostles are also called to feed and watch out for the 'sheep' of the church (see Acts 20:28); so Peter was not given some unique calling over and against the other apostles. As Peter himself wrote:
Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory (1 Peter 5:1-4, emphasis added).
1) Peter indicates that others besides himself shepherd the flock of God, thereby showing that he is not unique;
2) Peter also refers to himself as a 'fellow elder,' thereby putting himself on the same level as other elders and showing that he definitely did not view himself as supreme;
3) since other elders besides Peter shepherd the flock of God it is clear that Peter does not see himself in a position of supremacy;
4) we even have the clear warning not to 'lord it over those allotted to your charge' while, by contrast, Popes have been 'lording it over' the sheep for the major history of Rome!
Papal Rome insults Jesus, the Everlasting High-priest, by installing a fake priesthood!
Find kissing the foot of the 'pope' in Scripture if you can - or that of any other Christian! - and, while you are so employed, record the behaviour of the Lord Jesus Christ in washing feet (John 13:5-17) and having His feet washed (Luke 7:36ff.; John 11:2; 12:3); and then consider the many, many 'popes' who have certainly 'proved [NOT] to be examples to the flock'!
As we have proven from earlier writings, Ephesians 2:20 affirms that the church is 'built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. Clearly, first, all the apostles - and not just Peter - are the foundation of the church; second, the only one who was given a place of uniqueness or prominence was Christ, the capstone. As we have shown, Peter himself referred to Christ as 'the cornerstone' of the church (1 Peter 2:7), and the rest of believers as 'living stones' (verse 5) in the superstructure of the church. Further, Colossians 1:17-18 affirms that Christ alone is the head of the church and Christ is called a 'Rock' in Romans 9:33 and in 1 Corinthians 10:4 - and not forgetting the inspired words of Peter who, you say, is the 'Rock' while he wrote:
1 Peter 2:4-10 (NASB) - '4 And coming to Him (Jesus!) as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For this is contained in Scripture: 'BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.' 7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve, 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone,' 8 and, 'A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE'; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed. 9 But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY'.
Therefore, both the immediate context of Matthew 16:18 and the broader context of all of Scripture point away from Peter being 'the rock' and never away from the proven 'Rock' summarised by: 'No man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ' (1 Corinthians 3:11).
And as we have also proven on our pages we, as living stones (both men and women - all believers!), are 'a spiritual house for a holy priesthood ... A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION.
Did Peter ever claim to be 'The Rock'?
As we have also proven, this 'priesthood of all believers' is spelt out clearly and the false 'priesthood' of cults, such as Papal Rome, the Anglican 'church' (which they kept after splitting from Rome, while allowing their 'priests' to marry), and the Mormon cult (who retained both the Aaronic and the Melchizedek 'priesthood'), ALL insult the Lord Jesus Christ by trying to continue a priesthood which has been replaced by the one, everlasting, priesthood held by Him alone!
The falsehood of 'transubstantiation' also insults the Lord Jesus Christ when the false priests of Papal Rome (and Anglicanism) claim He is literally present (both blood and body) and therefore being 'crucified again' - which they re-enact through their false sacraments and which is emphatically warned against in the same book of Scripture:
Hebrews 6:6 - If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify [Greek: ἀνασταυρóω - anastauróō - to recrucify (figuratively), crucify afresh] to themselves the Son of God afresh [Greek: ἀνασταυρóω - anastauróō - to recrucify (figuratively), crucify afresh] , and put him to an open shame [Greek: παραδειγματίζω - paradeigmatízō - to show alongside (the public), i.e. expose to infamy, make a public example, put to an open shame].
It is no coincidence that the same Book of Hebrews emphasises, more emphatically than any other book of the Bible, the difference between the Lord Jesus Christ, our One High Priest, and the Old Testament priesthood that passed away with His death at Calvary:
Hebrews 5:6 - as he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever After the order of Melchizedek.
Hebrews 5:10 - named of God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.
Hebrews 6:20 - whither as a forerunner Jesus entered for us, having become a high priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
Hebrews 7:11-28 (NASB) - '11 Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also. 13 For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. 15 And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek, 16 who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is attested of Him, 'YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.' 18 For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness 19 (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. 20 And inasmuch as it was not without an oath 21 (for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him, 'THE LORD HAS SWORN AND WILL NOT CHANGE HIS MIND, 'YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER''); 22 so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. 23 The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, 24 but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. 25 Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. 26 For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. 28 For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever '.
We have explained this in detail on our pages and proven the vital teachings that come out of the Book of Hebrews, thus refuting the claims of all who claim to hold a distinctive priesthood not shared by all Christians, or who try and usurp the Lord Jesus Christ who 'continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently ... always lives to make intercession for ... us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens ... who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself ... For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever '.
The ignorance you have already demonstrated makes it highly unlikely that you will be able to understand the plain reasoning that proves what we have written but, God willing, someone drawn to the Son by the Holy Spirit will recognise this clear truth and be saved - and this is why we spend so many hours writing and tolerating your insults, not to win arguments or prove ourselves smarter than Papal Roman Catholics. It is the Word of God that matters, not our frail, finite, lives and feeble acts.
St. Matthew 16:18-19 - we have already discussed these verses and shown that they do not prove the Papal claims - see this page:
'Binding and Loosing'
We would hope that careful Bible scholars notice that the entire context of Matthew 16:13-20 is about Jesus' identity - and not about Peter! Jesus clearly asked the disciples 'who do people say' He is (verse 13) and Peter declared, correctly, that Jesus is the Christ (verse 16). To prevent a premature disclosure of His identity, Jesus warned them (verse 20) not to tell anyone that He was the Christ. Clearly - throughout this entire passage - Jesus is the theme and not Peter.
The Catholic response that Jesus spoke the vital words to Peter in the Aramaic language - 'You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church' - is an attempt to deflect the clear evidence from the Greek (where two different words are used: petros and petra) in order to replace the Word of God so that, since the Aramaic would only involve this one word (kepha), Peter can be 'proven' to be the 'rock' of which Christ spoke.
As already shown, Peter in Matthew 16:18 is referred to in the second person ('you'), but 'this rock' is in the third person, so it is clear that Peter is not the 'rock' upon which the church would be built and appealing to Aramaic is pure conjecture. We do not know what Jesus might have said in Aramaic - and we have absolutely no reason to believe the hopeful eisegesis of 'popes' and their minions who have amply proven to be utterly untrustworthy. We have in our possession many thousands of Greek New Testament manuscripts which use two distinct words: petros and petra and, again, since Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy. 3:16), the exact words God wanted in Matthew 16:18 were placed into this verse by His divine superintendence - unless you can really believe that the Holy Spirit made a mistake in His word choice in Matthew 16:18?!
St. Luke 10:16 - reading this from the start of the chapter shows, again, that Rome has no support for her doctrine:
Luke 10:1-20 (NASB) - 1 Now after this the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them in pairs ahead of Him to every city and place where He Himself was going to come. 2 And He was saying to them, 'The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest. 3 'Go; behold, I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves. 4 'Carry no money belt, no bag, no shoes; and greet no one on the way. 5 'Whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace be to this house.' 6 'If a man of peace is there, your peace will rest on him; but if not, it will return to you. 7 'Stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not keep moving from house to house. 8 'Whatever city you enter and they receive you, eat what is set before you; 9 and heal those in it who are sick, and say to them, 'The kingdom of God has come near to you.' 10 'But whatever city you enter and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, 11 'Even the dust of your city which clings to our feet we wipe off in protest against you; yet be sure of this, that the kingdom of God has come near.' 12 'I say to you, it will be more tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that city. 13 'Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had been performed in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 'But it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the judgment than for you. 15 'And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will be brought down to Hades! 16 'The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.' 17 The seventy returned with joy, saying, 'Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.' 18 And He said to them, 'I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning. 19 'Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will injure you. 20 'Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are recorded in heaven.'
Clearly, the words you have selected from one verse (16) were addressed to 'the seventy' (see verse 1) and, as we have already shown (see Full Menu - under titles such as 'The Heretical Heritage'), it is impossible for Papists to link the early disciples/apostles to their 'papal' line. When you quote verse 16 you are also forgetting that we have the historical evidence of one 'popes' attempt to demonstrate the spiritual 'power' of healing:
'On April 8, 1871, Count Harry von Arnim-Suckow reported to the imperial chancellor, Prince Otto von Bismarck, of Pius IX's attempt to work a miracle ... as he was passing by the church of Trinita dei Monti, the pope bade a cripple who was lying out in front, 'Rise up and walk!' But the experiment failed.' (August Bernhard Hasler, How the Pope Became Infallible, Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1981, p124-127).
There is also the admitted failure by 'popes' to subject 'devils ... through thy name' by the proliferation of bogus 'exorcisms' - based on kabbalistic/theurgistic pagan-occult rituals - which are not carried out by the 'Popes' but by Papal minions (see Full Menu - under the title - 'If the Catholic Church were really a tool of Satan, then its exorcism rite would go against the words of Jesus?!'). These rituals clearly fail all Scriptural tests!
It is difficult, once one has a grasp of the utter corruption of the Papal Cult, to read Scripture and not see how far Rome has fallen from the Gospel of Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. Just reading from the previous chapter reveals the spirit that abides in those who put such men above Jesus - as here, in Luke 9:51-56:
'And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But He turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.'
Reading the history of Rome you quickly lose count of the number of times 'popes' have proven that they are of the same carnal spirit exhibited by these disciples of Jesus - who were not yet filled with the Holy Spirit! If the accounts of 'popes' sending men to war to protect their thrones, or to kill their 'enemies', cannot persuade you then you are surely condemning yourself to the same eternity deserved by these men?
St. Matthew 18:17 - presumably you meant to reference verse 18?:
Matthew 18:17-18 (NASB) - 17 'If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 'Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven'.
Neither verse 17 or 18 support the point you are trying to make, as we have shown in repeated rebuttals under these headings:
'Binding and Loosing - and the Keys'?
Antipope John Paul II was The Final AntiChrist?!
You also quoted:
Isaiah 22:20-22 - 'And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.'
In what way do you think these verses support your dogma? The subject of the first part of the verses is Eliakim, serving as a type of Christ, who would be given 'the key to the house of David'. But (v22) the prophecy looks forward to Christ who, ultimately, possesses the right to reign (v20) as the Holy and True One (cf. Revelation 3:7: 'And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth'). That the Saviour has made use of the same expression to denote the unlimited power conferred on His apostles in His church (Matthew 16:19), and has applied it also to Himself, makes it clear that the keys never refer to a solitary 'pope' - even if we had Biblical evidence to support such an 'office'.
Of Eliakim we know nothing more than the details stated here and in Isaiah 36. It appears from that account that he was prefect of the palace, employed in a negotiation with the leader of the army of the Assyrians, and that he was in all things faithful to the trust reposed in him.
But, doubtlessly, you wish to link the 'key' mentioned here to your papal dogma whereas it again refers to 'keys' given to all of the apostles and, ultimately, to Christ.
Benedict XVI is the great Beast 666 and False Prophet of the Apocalypse?!
You write (third e-mail): 'In the meantime, in order to prevent some confusion; I should probably tell you that what most of the world considers to be the Roman Catholic Church, is not the Roman Catholic Church - but the Novus Ordo Sect. This Counterfeit Catholic Sect (also called New Order Church) was founded by the illuminist Antipope John XIII, and its Protestant religion was promoted by his Antipope successors during their Antipontificates. These hijacked what once used to be the infrastructure, real estate, and buildings of the Catholic Church. Adherents to this false religion of the Novus Ordo Church are heretics and apostates. Antipope John Paul II was The Final AnitChrist [sic] himself. Benedict XVI is the great Beast 666 and False Prophet of the Apocalypse.
These things were foretold in Catholic Prophecy by the Saints and the Popes - and fulfilled to the letter. We live in the times of the Great Apostasy, consequently, The Church has been in an interregnum for over half a century, and the Chair of St. Peter is empty. The Church of the World, headed by Antipope Benedict XVI, is the One World false religion, for all of its adherents, affiliates, and members do not hold to a belief in the absolute necessity of the Our Lord Jesus Christ and a belief in His Dogmas. The Catholic Church has been reduced to a remnant of Faithful, practicing and maintaining the beliefs and Tradition of the Fathers - faithful to the Magisterium'
TCE: We noted some years ago that some members of the Papal Roman Catholic Church had woken up to the idea that the 'contemporary' version of Papal Rome was now clearly astray from its other recent 'versions'! But anyone with a clear and logical mind cannot fail to miss the obvious facts:
the Papal Roman Catholic Church, which includes every version, including the 'two' you name, has consistently claimed that it can never go astray because of the Scriptures it appeals to as proof that this is a fact;you have just argued that 'heretics' could never exist in the 'true church' - yet now they can!;
never mind that we have totally refuted your foolish 'interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:17-19;
the Papal Roman Catholic Church never believed 'Papal Infallibility' but then quoted it and eventually openly 'forced' it upon its adherents (at Vatican II in 1870);
logically, this means that '... the Novus Ordo Sect ... This Counterfeit Catholic Sect (also called New Order Church) ... founded by the illuminist Antipope John XIII, and its Protestant religion ... promoted by his Antipope successors during their Antipontificates' could never, ever, have been formed;
therefore, you really believe that the Word of God made a promised covenant that God would never allow His One, True, 'Church' of Papal Rome to make an error, because you have a protected 'apostolic succession' of 'infallible popes' but then, as 'foretold in Catholic Prophecy by the Saints and the Popes [which has been] fulfilled to the letter ... We [now] live in the times of the Great Apostasy, all of this was overturned over 50 years ago and Papal Rome has become 'The Church of the World, headed by Antipope Benedict XVI ... the One World false religion' led by 'Antipope John Paul II [who] was The Final AnitChrist [sic] while 'Benedict XVI is the great Beast 666 and False Prophet of the Apocalypse'?
yet, while both of these figures are no longer in positions of massive power, John Paul II being dead (which the Bible does not predict because a whole host of other prophecies are to occur first - see 2 Thessalonians 2:3ff.) and Benedict XVI retired, you continue to believe that 'The Catholic Church has been reduced to a remnant of Faithful, practicing and maintaining the beliefs and Tradition of the Fathers - faithful to the Magisterium '? Since they have been robbed of all their property, where do they meet - in your front-room?
First you claim 'It is extremely important to become a Traditional Catholic to be saved. Outside the Catholic Church there is absolutely no Salvation' but now God has supposedly let people down badly by making it impossible to discover 'the true Catholic church' - for you have argued (falsely) that 'Protestants' have so many varied teachings that none of them can be correct!
Logically - and in a nutshell - how can you claim God would preserve these two states just for a set number of centuries - and then, suddenly, allow His supernaturally protected church to fall into the 'Great Apostasy'?! Why would He allow heretical usurpers to take over His supposedly infallible, protected church? And haven't you noticed how the recent incumbents, despite being incapable of explaining the horrendous history of sexual abuse and rampant paedophilia amongst the clergy of Papal Rome, now run a 'church' that does not kill anything like the millions it annihilated during its Inquisitions (when it was following God's instructions as detailed absolutely nowhere in the Bible!).
Francis II now presents a new 'seeker friendly' face to the world while trying to hide the fact that he still hates any 'separated brethren' (because the few of them who do believe in the Bible keep pointing out the horrors of his Cult of Rome) yet still seeks to join any he can to his sad little cult who, collectively, no longer need the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour for you can go to heaven - pretty much no matter what you believe! And he has been correctly identified and named as a heretic!
You claim: 'These things were foretold in Catholic Prophecy by the Saints and the Popes - and fulfilled to the letter. We live in the times of the Great Apostasy ...'.
TCE: If this was true the supposed 'prophecies' would have been well known by Papal Roman Catholics but, apart from the clear Biblical warnings about the Great Apostasy (which Traditional Papal Roman Catholics deny - because they have to in order to support their false doctrines), there is no record of such clear 'fore-tellings' by any 'Saints and the Popes'!
Really, the truth is that you have fallen into the same error perpetrated by all the 'Christian cults.' The Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians etc., also cling to the same sorry belief that they are the only true church and everyone else is in error. When it eventually becomes apparent that their 'organisation' is clearly in error they all have to try and claim that black is white in order to protect the sad fake that they have put up on a pedestal instead of recognising the true state that is made utterly clear by careful Bible study:
Every person on earth can be instantly saved - just as 'the thief on the cross' was (Luke 23v43) when he saw that the truth lay in the One Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. All a person has to do to get to heaven is trust Christ. This means one may believe, be baptized, and get to heaven, or one may believe and not be baptized (although, should you have the opportunity to be baptised, you definitely should be obedient since it is a commandment from God) and still get to heaven. What this passage definitely does not teach is that one must be baptized to receive God's forgiveness - and, of course, the 'thief on the cross' believed (Luke 23:43) - was definitely not baptised after believing - and went to Paradise with Christ that very day! Note that this fact is denied by every false teacher and false prophet of the many 'Christian' cults - including yours!
The 'Great Apostasy' will clearly occur, just as 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 foretold:
Let not any one deceive you in any manner, because it will not be unless the apostasy have first come, and the man of sin have been revealed, the son of perdition; who opposes and exalts himself on high against all called God, or object of veneration; so that he himself sits down in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
But the following Scriptures tell us clearly to guard ourselves against this heretical influence: 1 Timothy. 1:19; 4:1; 2 Timothy. 4:4; Hebrews 3:12; 2 Peter. 3:17. So the apostasy will only deceive those who do not remain grounded in Christ and His Word - as found only in the Bible. That Rome fell into error many centuries ago has already been clearly enunciated on our pages and, while we do not share your opinion of who make up Satan's final 'Evil Trinity' (re. your hypothesis: 'Antipope John Paul II was The Final AnitChrist [sic] himself. Benedict XVI is the great Beast 666 and False Prophet of the Apocalypse'), we can understand why many Papal Roman Catholics have thought the same in recent years!
Can the Papal Roman Catholic Church sink any lower than the many perverts and paedophiles who have littered its false priesthood and even risen to 'pope-hood' - both in the past and present? The Bible says 'Yes', for the 'son of perdition' will claim to be God Himself (2 Thessalonians 2:3):
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposes and exalts himself on high against all called God, or object of veneration; so that he himself sits down in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
Since JPII died without fulfilling the prophecies we presume you are waiting for a future resurrection and then a re-jigged schedule?!
You also wrote (8th March 2012):
The term 'The Vatican' is often employed synonymously in reference to the Catholic Church. This is a common misconception. 'The Vatican' is not synonymous with the Catholic Church. The Vatican is the normal residence and quarters of a Pope when there is one. As history shows, this has not always been the case. That is why his See (wherever it happens to be set up in that particular time of history) is called 'Holy Mother the Church', because he exercises Supreme Jurisdiction over all the Bishops and their particular churches [i.e., diocese].
The Faithful who externally profess the One True Religion (the Catholic Faith) will always remain the visible Church of Christ even when their ranks are reduced to just a handful. The Catholic Church will always remain as the one and only Spiritual Kingdom of Christ (His Mystical Body) and Immaculate Bride to whom all must belong if they entertain any hope of Salvation.
When the heretics frequently style themselves as Catholics/Christians in order to gain a wider following for their corrupt beliefs, it has no bearing whatsoever on the Indefectibility of the Catholic Church. Heretics don't break the unity of the Church, they simply leave it upon embracing heresy. Even when the heretics have massive material resources, they will never penetrate through and corrupt the Indefectible nature of the Catholic Church.
Every time there reigns a Pope, he is the only true representative of God on earth. At the present, He has no representative on the earth (and hasn't for over half a century) as the Supreme Punishment to the world for its sins. Additionally, the apostates altered the sacred rites and ceremonies to the point of invalidity - within what used to be Catholic buildings. Consequently, all their 'priests' are mere laymen playing dress-up - and the buildings are no longer Catholic. They are without the power of the Priesthood (they have been deprived of it) and they are without the Faith. It is the Terrible Chastisement of God as foretold in Catholic Prophecy in Sacred Scripture, by the Saints, and by the Popes.
TCE: When you claim that 'The Vatican is the normal residence and quarters of a Pope when there is one' you are already admitting that 'apostolic succession' and 'papal infallibility' are a nonsense - as we have already proven and you admit by writing: 'As history shows, this has not always been the case.' If you cannot see this then there is clearly little point in our wasting further time responding to you as you have added nothing but your own brand of craziness to the many Papal Roman Catholic arguments that have already been refuted by TCE.
Alas, it is blatantly clear that your adherence to Papal errors leaves you trapped in the thrall of error that has plagued that sad institution for many, many centuries. But, if you care to try and effectively respond to at least one subject - of the many brought up in this dialogue - then we will respond appropriately. However, if you simply respond with a burst of further unproven allegations we will have no compunction in terminating correspondence.
Finally, you should note that your opening claim that 'Outside the Catholic Church there is absolutely no Salvation' has been shown to be ridiculous since the 'man in the street' will always associate 'Catholic Church' with Papal Rome and the current incumbent, 'Francis'. He, and his many equally mentally challenged predecessors, have invited every religion in the world to come into their 'World Church'! Ruled by the anti-Christ in charge at the time the real Anti-Christ appears on earth, millions of duped people will embrace his offer of 'World Peace' and seal their eternity in Hell as a result.
But, incredibly, you also claim that 'Outside the Catholic Church there is absolutely no Salvation' while this wonderful establishment which you believe can bring this salvation:
'At the present ... has no representative on the earth (and hasn't for over half a century)... the[ir] apostates altered the sacred rites and ceremonies to the point of invalidity... all their 'priests' are mere laymen playing dress-up - and the buildings are no longer Catholic... They are without the power of the Priesthood (they have been deprived of it) and they are without the Faith.'
Is it possible that you really cannot see these obvious contradictions?!
In Christ Jesus
Matt writes again: 14th May 2012
I must note that you never addressed many of the issues I brought forward; but rather, you ventured on to evasions, high irrelevancy, and recycled straw men. Your 'citation' of J.H. Ignaz von Döllinger is the commission of the bare assertion fallacy. It is a poor evidence on your part. He was a heretic as you yourself admitted, and heretics do not have any authority to purport to teach on matters Catholic anymore than a Mahometan does on the Religion of the Church - Christianity. It is analogous to going to a Buddhist as an 'authority' to inquire from him the teachings and disciplines of the Church. Your claim of citing alleged 'Catholic' historians is doubtful; by whose authority and subjective criteria are they called 'Catholic historians?' You cite a non-Catholic source for your imagined 'evidence' that the 'great Fathers of the Church' not only rejected the Papacy, but that they allegedly never applied Mat. 16:18 to him. One must say this is a complete fabrication, and that is why you never cited any actual quotes from these Fathers. Actually they all defended the Papacy and you demonstrate a frightening hypocrisy that is so common to all protestants. You reject the exegetical statements and beliefs of the Patristic writers. You allege to accept their beliefs and yet clearly in the same breath outright reject the authority of the Patristic writers. Every attempted reference from you to the Church Fathers is a non sequitur. Your non Catholic source claims that all the Church Councils from Nicaea in the 4th century to Constance allegedly agree that St. Peter is not the Rock. His claim is illogical. He indicates that he accepts these Councils and yet in his profound ignorance he fails to note that these are Catholic Councils that reiterated Catholic dogma in all areas. Consequently, as a result, your claims are weak.
Your source also conveniently never cited the specific Acts of these Councils but alleges bare assertions. It is a fact that these Councils teach St. Peter is the Rock. Your claim that St. Peter is not the Rock of Mat. 16:18 is quite frankly ridiculous in the highest degree. You also allege that the Rock is 'his faith' while at the same time staunchly claiming only Jesus Christ is the Rock - is this not a contradiction? The word 'faith' never appears in the verse, nor in the immediate or extended context. It is a pure invention and protestant corruption of scripture. You understand scriptures according to how you want to believe them, and not what Christianity teaches. You also demonstrate a deficient knowledge in English Grammar and Greek. Jesus Christ says: 'thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' The Greek word for 'this' - as in this rock - is the demonstrative pronoun taute. It means 'this very' rock or 'this same rock.'Taute is used when it is desired to call attention with special emphasis to a designated object, whether in the physical vicinity of the speaker or the literary context of the writer. Even the king James invalid man fabricated so called and alleged 'bible' which is riddled with so many serious errors as the protestants themselves readily and enthusiastically admit, translates taute as 'the same' in 1 Corinthians 7:20 and 'this same' in 2 Corinthians 9:4. Jesus Christ's statement to St. Peter has this meaning: thou art Peter and upon this very Rock I will build my Church. From the context given, 'this rock' naturally refers to Peter. It just so happens that Jesus Christ also changes his name from Simon to a name which means Rock. So the desperate protestant makes a logical disconnect from the obvious Scriptural Teaching, and basic grammar to accommodate their unbiblical man made beliefs and traditions. Even many eminent protestant scholars admit it is so obvious that Peter is the Rock; and that it is futile in the face of the facts to continue denying Peter is the Rock.
David Hill, Presbyterian minister and senior lecturer of biblical studies at the University of Sheffield, writes: 'It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…Attempts to interpret the 'rock' as something other than Peter in person (e.g. his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.' (Quoted from The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary, p.261.)
In the protestant Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. 6:108, which was edited by eminent protestant scholars Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, there is this article by well-known protestant Oscar Cullman: 'But what does Jesus mean when he says: 'On this rock I will build my Church'? The idea of the reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story. For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of 'thou art Rock' and 'on this rock I will build' shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter…to be the foundation of his ecclesia. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.'
Dr. John Broadus (1886), a Reformed Baptist Bible scholar, was forced to admit: 'As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that 'upon this rock' means upon thee. No other explanation would probably at the present day be attempted…But there is a play upon words, understand as you may. It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ: and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter's confession…Let it be observed that Jesus could not here mean himself by the rock, consistently with the image, because he is the builder. To say, 'I will build,' would be a very confused image. The suggestion of some expositors that in saying 'thou art Peter, and on this rock' Jesus pointed at himself, involves an artificiality which to some minds is repulsive.' (John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886, p. 356.)
The Baptist D.A. Carson, professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary, was also forced to acknowledge: 'Although it is true that Petros and Petra can mean 'stone' and 'rock' respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably Kepha was used in both clauses ('you are Kepha and on this Kepha'), since the word was used both for a name and for a rock….The Greek makes the distinction between Petros and Petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in the Greek the feminine Petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.'(Quoted in The Expositors Bible Commentary, Volume 8, p.368)
I went straight to your authorities, the eminent protestant scholars, and it is they whom protestants follow; whomever they take a liking to. You are so thoroughly refuted. You also call the Church Fathers you don't agree with as 'heretical.' Actually, you call them all heretical every time they reject and condemn your protestant errors. The Church Fathers were the closest to Jesus Christ and received his Teachings. The Apostolic Fathers were the direct students of the Apostles themselves and they in turn discipled the Church Fathers. The conclusion is therefore inescapable; you realize that your protestantism is nowhere touted in the Early Fathers and you so rebel and riot against their unanimous Teaching and consent in matters Catholic; by astoundingly calling them heretics!
You fail to realize and note that it is in fact your protestantism that is built on the traditions of men and is constantly evolving into newer and endless pick-and -choose catalogs of man made organized religion. Amazingly, you claim to be a 'bible believer' while disagreeing with 50,000 other denominations in your protestant false religion who tout the same slogan of 'bible believers' and condemn your protestant beliefs; notwithstanding that you don't even have the Bible, but a counterfeit construct man made errant book. In effect, every time you say 'the bible' you are indeed referring to your man made protestant uninspired 'scriptures.' According to the protestant 'bible believer ' fallacy, anyone, even Satan, can enter heaven so long as they shout the slogan that they are a so called true 'bible believer.'
Some of your statements are so superfluous, loquacious, and characterized by so much redundancy that one really has to ask the question if you even know or understand what you are talking about. Your assertion that Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church) originated in St. Cyprian is protestant fantasy. You also called the Church Fathers heretics; if they are heretics (which is false, you are the heretic and corrupt apostate on the road to condemnation) they cannot be Church Fathers at all. You also pathetically alleged that Pope Pius IX taught heresy. You must not understand the meaning of words. A heretic is a person who rejects a dogma of the Catholic Church. Heretics are automatically excommunicated ipso facto from the Church, without any declaration, for denying an authoritative teaching of the Faith. Popes accept the dogmas of the Church and indeed define them, in case you did not know.
All the Church Fathers defended Catholic doctrine and adhered to Papal authority in unison. You seem to reject this, which is absurd, even while rejecting them as heretical. Instead to sticking to the facts of history, you make discredited quotations from your error-riddled protestant fake 'bible' and attach your own corrupted interpretation and notions to your uninspired man made 'scripture', in an irrelevant attempt to escape the question of the origin of the Bible, because you reject the fact that Pope St. Damasus made the Bible in 400 A.D.
You also resorted to protestant mythologies in a weak attempt to reconstruct a chimerical coherent fabricated history for the scriptures. You also violate your own principle in your unbiblical complaint of an alleged'elite' interpreting scripture; for in the false religion of protestantism, instead of all the protestant heretics staying home to read their spurious man faked 'bibles' flowing with errors, they all gather together in a congregation to listen to the protestant fantasies and private interpretation of their protestant 'minister.' The protestants have presidents of their man made federations (sects/denominations) and have a man appointed 'hierarchy' to decide upon the basic slogan for their sect upon which no one can deviate, and they formulate their pick and choose creed to which all must subscribe, under pain of exclusion from their federation. Some of these, if not all, protestant federations and associations are democratic in nature and they vote on doctrine and morality, instead of going to the Word of God which is only found in the Catholic Church. Then when their denominations become too liberal in a couple of years they decry it and form new ones and make up their own creeds of protestant evolution contradicting their break-off denomination and it's so called 'hierarchy.' They also proceed to form their own man made invalid 'hierarchy'/'elite' according to whim.
If you did not know already, the Bible did not decide to fall out of the sky one day fortuitously into the hands of a lucky layman. Nor did it make itself spontaneously as fantasizing Protestants believe. The Council of Rome (382) defined the Canon, and it was reaffirmed by the Council of Hippo (393), the Third and Fourth Councils of Carthage (397, 418) etc and the Council of Trent; all of these affirmed the Catholic canon as we know it today, while none affirmed the Protestant canon. The exact canon as is found in the Catholic Bible has the support of all Church Fathers. It was in 400 A.D. at the Council of Carthage that the sacred scriptures were put into book form after being reaffirmed, and this was called the Bible (the Book) and also Latin Vulgate (the people's Book). Before this there was no such thing as 'the Bible.' There was only a concept of sacred scripture. The term 'the Bible' refers only to the Catholic Canon etymologically, historically and linguistically, and in no way to the protestant man produced errant pagan canon. It comes fro the Council of Carthage.When you say the Pope suppressed the Bible, this can only be understood as made up stories. Even C.S. Lewis was forced to admit that strange it is that the more the Bible is translated, the less it is read. In the past, people were for the most part illiterate and literacy only came by through an expensive education. They depended mainly, and still do, on the Apostolic Tradition and Teaching handed down throughout intact. Even the majority of protestants, who can be termed literate, don't even bother to open and hardly even own a version of their fake 'bible' but sit down and wait for their protestant so called 'minister' to spout his errors and protestant contradictions.
You also error in saying that the Catholic Church says it needs a group of Clergy to interpret scripture. This is false; the infallible Magisterium of the Popes is the Authentic Interpreter and Guardian of Sacred Scripture. The Pope made the Bible and infallibly decided which texts were inspired. The protestant movement incessantly protests against Christianity. The Catholic Church is incapable of error, it is simply perfect. The so-called King James Version of the 'bible' has 33,000 errors. The Revised Version, the Revised Standard Version, and the more recently and the New English Version, among others, are fraught with well too known errors, to deserve comment. The protesters against Christianity battle amongst themselves on the accuracy of their protestant 'bible' versions; Insisting on their brand of protestantism and protestant 'scripture.' Hurling at each other self condemnatory remarks in regard to their 'bible' versions - made according to their whims. You don't have 'the word of God', because it doesn't contradict itself, unlike protestant bibles.
You present Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and others in a positive light; presenting their heresies as acts of unrelieved heroism. John Wyclif believed in ordination and a priesthood that was established by Christ (though he detracts from its dignity). He had many strange theological ideas that not even protestants would believe in, and yet you speak well of him and present him as someone legitimate that is to be followed, and I doubt your theological beliefs are identical in the essential matters with those of Wyclif. You speak positively of Jan Hus. Hus believed in some Catholic teachings that protestants reject, but he detracted from its dignity. One can only call his ideas wacky, but I'm sure you conveniently don't inform your protestant audience on Hus's beliefs. The Wycliffites and Hussites were just strange, I doubt they can be classified as protestants unless the Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses are classified as such. There is an incongruity between what you say and leave unsaid. Wyclif's fabricated so called 'bible' was riddled with grave errors so much so, that error was as easy to find as water is in an ocean. For instance he translated 'let the children come to me' as 'kill the children' in the New Testament. His errors were very serious, depraved, and profound. You must not read history well. Everything else you mention is pretty much protestant mythology, traditional protestant bigotries, false hoods, fabrications of history, and blatant outright lies. A case in point is your protestant falsehood and infantile misunderstanding that because the Synod of Antioch, Council of Nicea, and Council of Laodicea do not make mention of which texts are inspired, that therefore these Councils assumed Catholics knew the precise canon of scripture. That is simply fallacious. You also make reference to the terms 'the ecclesiastical canon', 'the canon' and 'canonized.' In case you did not know, the term canon/ecclesiastical canon/canonized refer to the Church's disciplinary laws. These collections of Canons from the Early Church Councils are today found and retained in the Code of Canon Law. When you look at the Acts of these Councils, you will notice numerous canons/decreed laws, to which all must take heed to and obey. They mention nothing of Sacred Scripture you astounding protestant liar. You've never read the Acts of these Councils but simply used rehashed protestant pre-packaged lies and assumed that the 'history' was accurate. That is the problem of reading protestant mythology and being too lazy to double check the information and actual history. It shows that you are not interested in the truth, but only in constructing lies and confusing undiscerning people; (which protestants generally are).
Additionally, the subjects and adherents to these Councils were Catholics (not protestants) and you reject their teachings and disciplinary decrees/canons. It is analogous to favorably citing and pretending to accept the authority and council of another religion and then rejecting that religion. Your deceit is truly odious, rabid, shocking, and astounding. What you said in regard to the Papacy, and your protestant stipulations and man made fabrications of what Apostolic Succession in St. Peter is, can be beast termed as protestant insanity. Apostolic Succession in the See of Pope St. Peter does not function according to your protestant private interpretation and imagination. It is in the prerogative of the Pope how he'll be succeeded. Your feeble attempt to reference 'the so called laying on of hands' is, quite sadly, a poor desperate attempt. This is a reference to Ordination. I note that you protestants by the way, don't believe in the Priesthood nor have one, or if you do, as the Anglicans, it is invalid and lacking in Apostolic Succession. St. Timothy was ordained a Priest and then Consecrated a Bishop. Because the Papacy is the Supreme Office, assuming this office is not according to the manner of the lower ranks of the Clergy - it is purely an Office of Dignity. Nor is it according to what protestant heretics dictate, because they belong to false religion. It would be as if a protestant went to a Moslem and told him to read 5 chapters out of the false 'scriptures' of the protestants, in order for the Moslem to be a Moslem. The Moslem would immediately look at you and say where did you get your authority to dictate to him. The protestants don't have Apostolic Succession with its accompanying Ordinations and Consecrations. They have no link to Apostolicity and thus no claim to Christianity. That automatically makes you a false religion without going into anything else. The only 2 sides left in the discussion would of course be the Church and the Eastern 'Orthodox' because they both have valid Priests and Bishops who can trace their lineage all the way back to the 12 original Apostles. Both sides profess to recognize the importance of the Priesthood and Bishopric. Apostolicity is one of the Four Marks of the One True Church.Apostolicity is easily proved by the facts of history.
The protestants do not have Scripture. You heretics utilized The Bible (a Catholic Document) as a blueprint in forming your counterfeit construct of Holy Writ. In your 'bible' the (Arch-heretic Martin Luther) threw out 7 books and changed the wording to match his whims. Their so called 'bibles' are riddled with so many errors that there are embarrassing contradictions and missing verses as is befitting a protestant heretic so called 'bible.' The much touted 'king James bible' is plagued with over 33,000 errors that it drove over 50 cooperating denominations to assemble and revise their man corrupted plagiarized 'scriptures.' The errors and mistranslations are so many that the revisions have to be revised continually by caprice. Since they have corrupted 'scriptures' a Christian does not hold them as possessing Scripture. The wording and meanings in their fake 'bibles' is far different from what is contained in The Bible. Consequently what you mentioned regarding what you perceive to be the word of God is what you read in the fake 'scriptures.' I've perused and read the fake 'scriptures' of you heretics and I too found some things unsettling, for instance, missing verses and contradictions. Your so called and self-styled 'biblical scholars' battle among themselves on which 'versions' of their so called 'scriptures' are accurate - and the heretic denominations follow suit.
You also claim the KJV is the 'word of 'god' in English.' King James an Anglican, made the KJV and ordered that it be made in accordance to his belief of an apostolic Priesthood established and especially instituted by Christ. They also claim to be part of the Catholic Church and profess to have valid Apostolic Succession as the Church and the Eastern 'Orthodox.'Why don't you follow Anglican beliefs? It seems utterly illogical if you don't, because they made your dear 'bible' a copycat version of the Roman Church original, but never the less under direction of a man, not God (man inspired). It would be as if I professed to be a Hindu, and then got a Koran and injected my own brand of underlying Hindu belief, while preaching the Koran 'justifies' my Hindu beliefs. (You also said adherents to your 'religion' were killed by the Protestants. The fact of the matter is that Protestants killed each other, in the name of what they deemed to be heretics. They even established state religions, even here in the U.S). They even put aside their differences and ganged up on the Irish Catholics, killed them, and outlawed their Clergy. They feared immigrant allegiance to the King of Rome. Even the protestant heretics Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, and John Calvin recognized the principle that if you claim to have the One True Religion and the One True God, and thus the Only Truth, then the state should and must reflect the truth and the laws of that one true God and that One True Religion. That is why in their theocracies they put to death what they deemed to be heretics frequently, and even had a secret police going in to invade people's homes and foisting their beliefs upon them by the sword, and terrorizing them. Christians were put to death by protestants mercilessly and tortured, in waves of Anti-Catholic hysteria and animosity, especially in the united states; protestant theocracies decreed the death penalty to any Catholic Priest in their state. The Irish were frequently burned and tortured by Anti-Catholic bigots of Protestantism, atheism, and Satanism - and called them 'the Papist.'I have to admit; the term is funny and causes me laughter every time I read it. It just demonstrates your boiling rage towards the beautiful and wondrous mark of unity instituted by Christ in the One and Only True Religion. It is a compliment.
The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible by Oxford Press has the following to say in its preface: 'Yet the King James Version has serious defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of biblical studies and the discovery of many biblical manuscripts more ancient than those on which the King James Version was based made it apparent that these defects were so many as to call for revision.' 'This Bible (RSV) is the product of thirty two scholars assisted by an advisory committee representing fifty cooperating denominations' The Standard KJV has a substantive amount of blatant contradictions with the RSV and all the other versions. The 32 scholars of the 'highest eminence' and their back up 50+ denominations determined the KJV is riddled with severe errors. There you have it, the 32 scholars of the 'highest esteem' declaring the 300+ year old KJV, to be plagued with serious errors and thus fallible. Well, this is proof that it isn't the word of 'God.'They were even funded by 50 cooperating denominations in your false protestant religion.
I guess the top scholars in your protestant false religion have declared the KJV is not inspired. I think that causes a lot of dilemmas for Fundamentalist KJV only idolaters. One look between the Bible and the protestant fake 'bibles' one knows that they have counterfeited their apostate 'scriptures' using the Bible. With the exception of the ( the removed 7 books from protestant 'scripture') and the way the Psalms are numbered - they are numbered a verse forward -, all the verses and chapters of the Bible match exactly with those of the counterfeit protestant 'scriptures.' Some verses even begin in the middle of sentences, demonstrating that you heretics had to use the true Bible the Catholic Bible as a blueprint, in faking your own apocryphal 'scriptures.'It wasn't until the 13th century that chapters, verses, and punctuations were added to the Bible by a Catholic Prelate. The Anglicans even admitted using the Bible (which they called the Vulgate) as a point of reference for their KJV apocrypha. St. Jerome (AD. 347-420) was the biblical scholar of the ancient Church. Even the protestant translators of the 1611 king James apocryphal 'bible' called St. Jerome 'a most learned Father and the best linguist without controversy, of his age, or of any that went before him.' (From the Translators' Preface to the 1611 KJV)
And you said the Bible had error. I guess your own top scholars disagree with you and even call St. Jerome the best and greatest linguist there ever was. Not only that, your own top scholars even say your protestants bibles are always filled with error and need constant changes. You submit to an earthy 'hierarchy' for you corrupt beliefs and corrupt scriptures; but Christians submit to a Heavenly Hierarchy instituted by Jesus Christ Himself. There is no such thing as Popes making mistakes. Such phenomenons occur and are only found in the protestant false religion where you all disagree because obviously you are immersed in protestant fundamentalist errors. Your rants are nonsensical protestant myths. It is interesting that you asked me the proof for the Apostolic Succession of the Bishopric and the Priesthood, I provide the evidence which you specifically requested, then you pretend as if it is of no consequence that you are so totally and thoroughly refuted. This is why protestants are a prime example of obstinate hypocrisy, dishonesty and lying. That is why you can't make converts out of the greater portion of atheists. They recognize the inherent contradictions in your false religion. The belief that one can keep on committing sins as long as they 'believe' they shall be saved is protestant mythology meant to justify your sinful lives. What you mentioned in regard to Pope Honorius and Pope Liberius is protestant fantasy. That is why you offer no evidence but just what some fuming fundamentalist bigot/s constructed from their bigotedly protestant fertile minds. You also attempt to define the term 'heresy' when I already did in a previous communication to you. This is not new information.
Protestants are idolaters that worship a book that is a counterfeit construct of the Bible. They also worship themselves. In addition, they are very superstitious and worship their fallible human knowledge, since they think that, by simply thinking that they worship the One True God, that they worship the One True God. It is only the One True God who can bring out action, just by thinking, not humans. You call Exorcism, which Jesus Christ left the Church, a kabalistic Judaism. The idea is laughable. Nobody believes that Jews pray the Hail Mary and to the Saints and to the Lord Jesus Christ. The Jews are so heavily bigoted towards Mother Mary. You are just like the Christ Rejecter and Christ killing Jews who blasphemed the inner Life of the Lord Jesus Christ by saying that He casts out demons with the power of Devils. The reason you rebel at the Rite of Exorcism is because only the Apostolic Priesthood, that is, the Catholic Priests, can carry it out, and the protestant heretics can't. That is why you heretics come running to the Christians with your possessed family members, so that the Priests may exorcise them.
The protestant is an anti-christ who rejects Christ and His word. The 'Jesus' whom protestants claim to worship is a false Christ. Their 'Christ' did not reveal a religion. He did not found a Church or establish the Papacy. He did not fulfill the old form of worship and provide the new. His words are not truth and can be ignored and denied. He did not tell men what they must do to be saved: the protestant tells men what they need to do to be saved. In their hideous cult of pride which is, nothing more than a hatred of the Christian faith, they put man in the place of God by insisting that everything God has done, man can do better. Yes, it's difficult to describe the righteous indignation one has in hearing a Protestant talk about Scripture and the idea that Catholicism contradicts it. It's an outrage to hear a Protestant talk about the Bible, as if he is on the side of the word of God and the Catholic is lost, when he (the Protestant) is actually an anti-Christ heretic who rejects Christ and His word.
You also label Karl Keating a Catholic. Do you not have understanding? He is a heretic. Heretics do not infrequently misapply to themselves the term Catholic/Christian. You only understand lies and savor the cult of man. However, what he says is correct. The Church has the authority to interpret the inspired text because the texts came from the Church. Also, Christians rightly believe the texts are inspired because the Church says so. He correctly points out that Fundamentalists have no authority in interpreting other than themselves and their private misconceptions. This is true; that is why Fundamentalists (like you) constantly disagree and bicker with other Fundamentalists on the meaning of your errant 'bible.'If it is the 'word of god'- since all protestant sects are never in agreement but ever creating their own inconsistent/contradictory creeds of belief - one wonders what kind of god is this, indeed, that the protestants worship? Since it contradicts itself, it is obviously a false god with a false word. Against a fact there is no argument, and against this fact there is no answer. Your own definition of cult amply describes you. The false religion of protestantism is a cult. Since your continuous multiplication of denominations and the worship of your 'ministers' proves it.
Your relentless childish name-calling of the Popes is a prime example of your grief and sorrow of the fact that you realize there is no unity in your false religion of Protestantism; you realize that this unity is in the Church and you know that unity is a mark of the One True Religion. Your splinter group is one of the many denominations founded in the past century by man. When Fundamentalists condemn each other as bound to perdition, you have no problem with them following themselves, their private interpretation, their mere sentimentality, and their so called protestant leaders. But you rebel at the fact of the Christian following their leader the Pope, who is blessed with Infallibility because the Holy Spirit teaches directly through Him as Jesus Christ promised St. Peter and His Church, which He entrusted to St. Peter. Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum: 'But when we consider what was actually done we find that Jesus Christ did not, in point of fact, institute a Church to embrace several communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct, and lacking those bonds which render the Church unique and indivisible after that manner in which in the symbol of our faith we profess: 'I believe in one Church.' 'The Church in respect of its unity belongs to the category of things indivisible by nature, though heretics try to divide it into many parts...We say, therefore, that the Catholic Church is unique in its essence, in its doctrine, in its origin, and in its excellence...Furthermore, the eminence of the Church arises from its unity, as the principle of its constitution - a unity surpassing all else, and having nothing like unto it or equal to it' (S. Clemens Alexandrinus, Stronmatum lib. viii., c. 17).' There is absolutely No Salvation Outiside of the Catholic Church you heretic see www.vaticancatholic.com
Papal Rome declared Döllinger 'a heretic' - after he exposed the heretic Pope Pius IX
TCE replies: 12th October 2012
You write: I must note that you never addressed many of the issues I brought forward; but rather, you ventured on to evasions, high irrelevancy, and recycled straw men.
TCE: Note that your most bizarre claims have been refuted 100% by the mere passage of time - which is the most obvious enemy of the false prophet - because God has already dealt with the claims He knew were coming from heretics of your ilk! Making claims without giving examples is also a feeble cover for the lack of truth in your supposed replies - as does your admission in the use of the phrase 'many of the issues' which you follow with not one single refutation of what you laughably call 'evasions, high irrelevancy, and recycled straw men'!
newadvent.org can only use the ad hominem method of Papal Rome to try and smear Döllinger
You write: Your 'citation' of J.H. Ignaz von Döllinger is the commission of the bare assertion fallacy. It is a poor evidence on your part. He was a heretic as you yourself admitted, and heretics do not have any authority to purport to teach on matters Catholic anymore than a Mahometan does on the Religion of the Church - Christianity. It is analogous to going to a Buddhist as an 'authority' to inquire from him the teachings and disciplines of the Church. Your claim of citing alleged 'Catholic' historians is doubtful; by whose authority and subjective criteria are they called 'Catholic historians?'
TCE: The obvious answer is that Papal Rome declared Döllinger 'a heretic' after he exposed the truth about their un-Scriptural behaviour while Bible-believers recognised how the facts he exposed supported the doctrines Papal Rome has trampled on. No logical person could ever believe that a Christian church could get away with such an action. You - and Papal Rome - need to disprove the facts Döllinger brought out into the open - simply crying 'bare assertion fallacy ... poor evidence' cuts no mustard - especially as you major in the very technique yourself, as well as throwing in more examples of 'ipse dixit' assertions without supplying proof - while relying on nothing more than ad hominem attacks and dogmatic expressions of opinion. This is no surprise to us since that is the very basis of your cult which is far removed from the Christian emphasis on checking proven facts as the Bereans did:
Acts 17:11-12 (NASB) - 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.
Since you doubt the record of recognised historians a logical person would expect you to provide evidence that those we quote were without the 'authority and subjective criteria' you request. Or you can follow the newadvent.org link:
to see how Döllinger followed Scripture and (despite the sneering attacks of this Papal Roman Catholic website, who try desperately to deny his abilities as a historian) followed the facts of Scripture to reject false teachings, such as 'Papal infallibility', as these brief quotes reveal:
'It was not until 18 July, 1870, when the dogma of Papal Infallibility was proclaimed at Rome, that there was a sharp division in the ranks of German Catholics. This compelled Döllinger henceforth to seek friends and allies exclusively among the leaders of the Kulturkampf and the Old Catholics, as also among anti-Catholic statesmen and princes.'
'It is worthy of note also that about 1855 the author of the work on the Reformation began gradually to modify his views to such an extent that eventually (in 1889) he wrote a panegyric on Protestantism.'
TCE: For Döllinger to reject Papal Rome's heretical doctrines, align himself with 'Old Catholics', and show approval of 'Protestants' was bound to lead to the inevitable treatment by your cult!
'Concerning the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception Döllinger exhibited a prejudiced mind and a rather superficial historical grasp of the question; the defects in his theological equipment were here most noticeable. Indeed, he was much less concerned with the doctrine itself than with the person who wished to proclaim it as a dogma of faith. It was also his first open protest against a pope who was soon to proclaim that Papal Infallibility which seemed to Döllinger an utterly intolerable doctrine, from his view-point of exaggerated esteem for historical theology.'
'The Archbishop of Munich, however, insisted on a public declaration of his attitude, and Döllinger weakly yielded to the pressure of those who were bent on apostasy, and wrote to the archbishop, 29 March, 1871, declaring his refusal to accept the dogma and stating his reasons in his character as Christian, theologian, historian, and citizen. ... Döllinger had definitely severed connection with the Church. Three weeks later (18 April, 1871) both Döllinger and Friedrick were publicly declared excommunicated. The action of the archbishop, under the circumstances unavoidable, aroused much feeling; on the one side it was hailed as a decisive step that ended a situation grown scandalous and intolerable, on the other many rejoiced that the world-renowned scholar had not bent his neck under the yoke of Rome. This marked the rise of the sect of the Old Catholics.'
TCE: newadvent.org concludes: 'Seldom has it been so clearly proven that whenever a man turns completely from a glorious and honourable past, however stormy, his fate is irrevocably sealed' - but, apart from ad hominem attacks of this kind which are favoured by Papal Roman Catholics generally, the page fails to supply a single example of an error in Döllinger's work! Well up to your standard then!
(Continued on page 310)