'Replies from Roman Catholics'

Matt Wykoff - 52

6th February, 2012

(Continued from page 313)


'Protestants are idolaters that worship a book that is a counterfeit construct of the Bible'?


You write:  You also attempt to define the term 'heresy' when I already did in a previous communication to you. This is not new information.

TCE:  we wrote earlier 'many years ago we gave the definition for 'heresy/heretic' etc. on this page - and in other places (see Search This Site)

'Attempt'?  Had you read with any care at all you would have known this and realised how inadequate your definition was in comparison - and now you will realise that your accompanying reply has also been decimated!

You write:  Protestants are idolaters that worship a book that is a counterfeit construct of the Bible.

TCE:   Already refuted - and in many places already referenced!

You write:  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.

TCE:   We have already thoroughly exposed the wide range of occultic practices of Papal Rome and the number of pagan trophies exhibited by your cult in and around the Vatican - see our Menu or 'Search This Site' for the references that refute your rambling garbage.

Every branch of Papal Rome has adherents involved in false, pagan religions (the occult!) which have been approved by your popes (as the history of Qur'an kissing John Paul II reveals), while his successors also believe that salvation need not involve the Lord Jesus Christ!

You write:  You call Exorcism, which Jesus Christ left the Church, a kabalistic [sic] 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.

TCE: we have proven that Papal Rome has derived its 'exorcism' methods from the occult on this page and others!

And your comment: '
Nobody believes that Jews pray the Hail Mary and to the Saints and to the Lord Jesus Christ' refers to what?  The many Messianic Jews who accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour will all, hopefully, know that praying to Mary and the Saints is idolatry - except for the poor creatures who have been suckered by your cult and don't know any better!

'At the commands of Mary all obey - even God'?!


Clearly 'the Hail Mary' is not found in the New Testament in the way Papal Rome tries to insist on its use, so true Christians do not pray it - only the heretics of Papal Rome do!  The Mariological doctrine that insists on the veneration of Mary, supposedly based on her role as 'Mother of God', and so widely used in one of the most popular prayers (the 'Hail Mary'), ends with these words: 'Holy Mary, Mother of God. Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.'

Papal Rome claims that 'Mary, the Mother of God, is entitled to the Cult of Hyperdulia' - meaning that Mary may be venerated and honoured on a level higher than another creature, angels, or saints - a claim un-supported by the Word of God.  When your apologists write:

'In view of her dignity as the Mother of God and her fullness of grace, a special veneration is due to Mary.'  (Ott,
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p215)

they do so from their own vain imaginations alone - although they claim support of the special veneration and prayers to Mary come from Scripture, tradition, and analogy.  Thus Ott summarizes the texts for honouring Mary at a level above all other creatures, but below God, on the same page:

The Scriptural source of the special veneration due to the Mother of God is to be found in Luke 1:28: 'Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee,' in the praise of Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Ghost, Luke 1:42: 'Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb,' in the prophetic words of the Mother of God, Luke 1:48: 'For behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed,' in the words of the woman in the multitude, Luke 11:27: 'Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck.'

According to Ott, veneration of Mary was practiced in connection with that of Christ for the first three centuries and then, 'From the fourth century onwards we find a formal veneration of Mary herself.'  (
ibid.) Phrases such as 'Mother of God,' 'Co-redemptress,' 'Co-mediatrix', and even 'Queen of Heaven', have been used by Papal Rome to support the veneration of Mary down through the centuries.

Arguing from 'analogy', Papal Rome teaches that Mary was the prototypical Christian, the one to whom God gave all the blessings of redemption.
They argue that, while all Christians will eventually receive complete sanctification after death, Mary received hers at conception.  Likewise, while other Christians will attain bodily resurrection after Christ's return, Mary received her bodily assumption before Christ's coming again.  Hence, they insist that it is appropriate to honour her more than others now, since she has attained her glorification earlier than other creatures.

But there is absolutely nothing in the Biblical text that supports the conclusions Papal Roman Catholics draw from them, namely, that Mary should be venerated above all creatures but below God.  The texts say nothing about veneration or prayers to Mary; they simply call Mary 'blessed' of God, which she truly was but, contrary to Catholic practice, Mary was not blessed above all women but was the most blessed among all women - even the Catholic New American Bible agrees: 'Most blessed are you among women' (Luke 1:42).  This is not a distinction without a difference, for it is strange logic to argue that being the most blessed among women makes Mary worthy of more honour than all other women. Eve was the mother of all the living (Genesis. 3:20), a distinctive honour held by no other person, including Mary, and yet she is not venerated by Catholics in accord with her blessed status.  Even great sinners who are forgiven are highly blessed but need not be most highly esteemed because of that blessing (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:9; 1 Timothy. 1:15). There is not a single instance in the New Testament where veneration was given to Mary.  When the magi came to the manger to visit the Christ child, Matthew 2:11 declares that 'they prostrated themselves and did Him homage' - but no homage was paid to Mary.

Papal Rome forgets that Scripture forbids us to bow down in veneration before any creature,
even angels (cf. Colossians. 2:18; Revelation. 22:8-9).  The Bible makes it clear that we are not to make 'idols' of any creature or even 'bow down' to them in an act of religious devotion (Exod. 20:4-5).  To call Mary 'Queen of Heaven,' knowing that this very phrase comes from an old pagan idolatrous cult condemned in the Bible (cf. Jer. 7:18), only invites the charge of Mariolatry - which is idolatry.

Finally, despite theological distinctions to the contrary, in practice there is often no real difference between the veneration Papal Rome gives to Mary and to Christ.  This is true for many Catholics in spite of the church's use of verses showing that we should 'honour' our parents (Deuteronomy. 5:16) and our rulers (Romans 13:1-7).  Furthermore, there is clearly a difference, both in theory and in practice, in the way Catholics honour other human beings and the way they honour Mary.  Consider the following book, Novena Prayers in Honor of Our Mother of Perpetual Help, with the Catholic Imprimatur and nihil obstat on it (which supposedly guarantees that there is nothing heretical in the book):

    We have no greater help,
    no greater hope than you,
    O Most Pure Virgin; help us, then,
    for we hope in you, we glory in you,
    we are your servants.
    Do not disappoint us.

    (
Novena Prayers in Honor of Our Mother of Perpetual Help; Uniontown, Pa.: Sisters of St. Basil, 1968, p16)

In the same devotional book Mary's devotees pray:

Come to my aid, dearest Mother, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear nothing: not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; not even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee, He will be appeased. (ibid., p19)

Citing Scripture to show it is not wrong to pray for someone else's forgiveness (Exod. 32:30-34; Job 42:8; Acts 7:59-60), or of appeasing God's wrath on others (Genesis. 20:7; 1 Sam. 12:19; Job 1:5), does not negate the clearly blasphemous content and tone of these Catholic prayers to Mary, or their clearly un-Biblical direction of praying to a dead human being rather than to the living God.

Numerous examples of this kind of idolatrous Mary worship can be found in Alphonsus de Liguori's infamous book,
The Glories of Mary (A.D. 1750), which is published in over 800 editions!  A few examples will be sufficient to reveal the incredible idolatry of Papal Rome:

Shall we scruple to ask her to save us, when
'the way of salvation is open to none otherwise than through Mary.'

'Many things,' says Nicephorus, 'are
asked from God, and are not granted: they are asked from Mary, and are obtained.'

'
At the commands of Mary all obey - even God '

(Alphonsus de Liguori,
The Glories of Mary, ed. Eugene Grimm; Brooklyn: Redemptionist Fathers, 1931, pp. 169, 180, 137).

So, according to your heretic Liguori, God has to obey Mary!  Such astonishing filth from Papal Rome!

These so-called prayers are repugnant and blasphemous, but many Catholics from Papal Rome simply 'regret' the extravagance in these prayers and excuse them as 'poetic license', or make similar excuses and try to insist that there is 'an implied exception here for Christ'!

Unfortunately for these moronic clowns, words have meaning and the blasphemous nature of Papal Rome's Mariolatry is clearly shown in the wording of these prayers and the religious fervour of the devotee to Mary. 
There is little, if any, difference between the intensity of the traditional Papal Roman Catholic's devotion to Mary and the worship of Almighty God - which betrays the cultic nature of Papal Rome in every way possible!

The evidence from tradition for venerating Mary only dates from the fourth century - as even Ott admits.
And, concerning devotion to Mary in the ante-Nicene period, historian Kelly states that, while not completely absent, 'reliable evidence of prayers being addressed to her, or of her protection and help being sought, is
almost ... non-existent in the first four centuries' (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, p491).

What brought about the worshipful adoration of Mary?


In fourth century Thrace a cult originated which consisted of women who worshipped the virgin Mary as a goddess (another similar group existed in Arabia), and baked cakes as an offering to Mary (ref.  Articles on 'Collyridians',
The Westminster Dictionary of Church History, ed. Jerald C. Brauer, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971, p220; Cross, Oxford Dictionary, pp314-15).  This group was condemned by Epiphanius of Salamis (A.D. 315-403), who became metropolitan of Constantia (Salamis) and was considered an authority on devotion to the blessed virgin Mary.  Commenting on this idolatrous cult which was condemned by the church, he stated: 'Mary should be honoured, but the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost should be adored. Nobody should adore Mary (Haer. 78, 7).'  (Ref. Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p216. On Epiphanius, see John J. Delaney and James E. Tobin, Dictionary of Catholic Biography, Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1961, p379).

Very early in church history, Epiphanius (310-403), bishop of Salamis, Cyprus (who is considered a saint and a Church Father by both the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches), gained a reputation as a strong defender of orthodoxy and sensed the potential danger inherent in too much attention being paid to Mary.  Papal Roman Catholics claim that their church makes a distinction between the 'extreme veneration' (
hyperdouleia) offered to Mary and the worship (latreia) which is legitimately offered only to God, but the truth is that such a distinction becomes quite obscure in practice.  The most dangerous and heretical outcome, as the practice clearly reveals, is that they have elected Mary to a position where she is considered to be the 'Joint Mediator' with the One Mediator of Scripture - the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5):

'For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus'

Other verses also teach the same truth:

'I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me' (John 14:6).

'And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved' (Acts 4:12).

'He is the mediator of a new covenant' (Hebrews 9:15).

'If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous' (1 John 2:1).

'Christ Jesus . . . who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us' (Romans 8:34).

It is Christ, not Mary, who is at the right hand of God making intercession for us!

'Wherefore also he is able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God through him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them' (Hebrews 7:25).

Thus Papal Rome denies the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice at Calvary and attacks the Biblical Gospel!

As we have pointed out in many other places, Papal Roman Catholics forget or ignore the fact that there is no evidence that Mary attained her sanctification earlier than the rest of us and that she clearly confessed being a sinner (Luke 1:46), offered a sacrifice for her sinful condition (Luke 2:22) and, as even the more honest theologians of Papal Rome admit, she died like the rest of us!  So Mary showed no evidence of having received ultimate sanctification (glorification) while on earth and - even if Mary had attained her glorification earlier than other creatures (there is no support from Scripture for such a view) - this still would not justify venerating her any more than we should a saint or an angel.  Remember, angels in Scripture even forbid humans to bow before them to worship God (cf. Revelation. 22:8-9).

If you really recognised how far kabbalistic Judaism is from Biblical Christianity and the Lord Jesus Christ, you would know that they are as far away as Papal Roman Catholics are from the Biblical Saviour and His Gospel of Full and Free Salvation!

You write:  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.

TCE: Once again you reveal the classic anti-Semitic labels of Papal Rome coupled with un-Biblical 'inner Life' claims!  Although we have never said anything like this your pathetic ad hominem attack reveals yet another thoroughly Satanic attack, devoid of Scriptural support, logic, or reason.

You write:  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.

TCE:  We have totally and utterly refuted the claims for the un-Scriptural 'Apostolic Priesthood' you believe in - and claims for 'exorcism' by Papal Rome (see previous references or Search This Site). 

We have also witnessed genuine deliverance of demons from afflicted people enough times to know that God still graciously frees people from such bondage when true believers minister Scripturally in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ!  And we do not know of any 'Protestants' (or genuine orthodox Christians) who ever 'run' to Papal Rome for any reason other than to try to reason with the enslaved souls of your sad cult who need to be delivered from papal tyranny before the Gates of Hell close behind them for eternity.

You write:  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.

TCE:   Since we have clearly obliterated every attempt by you to argue the points you strain to make in this paragraph, we will merely point out the most damning fact - that you are incapable of producing a single Scriptural quote to make an, at least, partially relevant point!  Let us just move on to your next pathetic non-point..................

Why do Papal Roman Catholics appeal to heretics rather than to the truth?


You write:  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.

TCE:   Once again you contradict yourself!  You label Keating a heretic - although he is far less heretical than any number of your 'popes' - and you then admit that 'what he says is correct'! 

Let us consider what you are saying then:

you insist that we cannot use anything from Keating because he is a heretic - and then you admit that he is correct;

you won't accept any word from Döllinger because he is a heretic;

you won't accept any word from 'Protestants' because they are heretics;

BUT you will accept the words of heretical 'Protestants' - if they support Rome's heretical doctrines?

What priceless hypocrisy!

Demonic deception is capable of anything and you have shown this to be a major factor behind your every attempt to apply reason.  We have already refuted the tedious accusations you trot out while, yet again, you fail to supply a reasoned reply with Scriptural support.

You write:  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.

TCE:   Every comment we have made regarding the 'popes' is in regard to the false position these 'sons of Belial' (Deuteronomy 13:13) hold in the false edifice of Papal Rome.  Your hypocrisy is unbounding so you can call it whatever you like - while we will merely refer you to another very apt Scriptural quote from Titus 1:10-16:

'For
there are many unruly men, vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped; men who overthrow whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, idle gluttons. This testimony is true. For which cause reprove them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men who turn away from the truth. To the pure all things are pure: but to them that are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but both their mind and their conscience are defiled. They profess that they know God; but by their works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.'

Just as such men existed in Paul's day, so you exemplify the same behaviour in your supposed replies.  You cannot find any Scriptural replies to our arguments and you simply resort to the refuge of the loser -
ad hominem* attacks!

[*
ad hominem attack - personal attack made because the attacker is losing the argument and thinks personal insults will gain him some ground with the neutral reader or believer in his cult!]

You write:  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.

TCE:   We do not know where you picked up the foolish idea about these things and write as if this was a common occurrence amongst 'Fundamentalists' but not among other groups calling themselves 'Christian'?  The informed mind will immediately spring to the extensive history of popes who carried out these actions - and far worse - see this page for links!

It is a simple fact that many groups have sprung up throughout history and labelled themselves 'Christian'.  Some have been strongly Bible-based from their foundation and remained so even when the persecution from such as Papal Rome was at its severest - as history reveals (
Search This Site for Mennonite, Albigensian, Waldensian, Anabaptist, Hussites etc.).

Others, such as Papal Rome itself, may have once been close to the Word of God but again, as history reveals, heresy set in as it does with so many who fail to closely follow the Bible - and cults and erroneous sects result.

The Bible clearly reveals many autonomous ekklesia - and not 'one Church (of Rome!)'


You write:  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.

TCE: We have thoroughly refuted all claims for 'Papal infallibility' and associated claims (see references above).

You write:  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).'

TCE:  Again, you and your 'popes' supply no Scriptural support - because there are no Scriptures to support this idea which we have already thoroughly refuted on other pages.

While the phrase '
I believe in one Church' sounds impressive to the 'the ignorant and unstable' (2 Peter 3v16) it does not appear in Scripture anywhere - and neither does the word 'Church'!  In fact we read that ekklesiae - meaning autonomous 'churches' (not ruled by councils or popes!) - are described throughout the New Testament:

Acts 15:41  And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the
churches.

Acts 16:5  So the
churches were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily.

Romans 16:4  who for my life laid down their own necks; unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all [Greek: π
ς pâs, pas - all, any, every, the whole, everyone, every way, as many as, whole, whosoever] the churches of the Gentiles:

Romans 16:16  Salute one another with a holy kiss. The
churches of Christ salute you.

1 Corinthians 7:17  Only, as the Lord hath distributed to each man, as God hath called each, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all [
Greek: πς pâs - meaning: all, any, every, the whole, everyone, every way, as many as, whole, whosoever] the churches.

1 Corinthians 11:16  But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the
churches of God.

1 Corinthians 14:33  for God is not a God of confusion, but of peace. As in all [
Greek: πς pâs - meaning: all, any, every, the whole, everyone, every way, as many as, whole, whosoever] churches of the saints,

1 Corinthians 14:34  let the women keep silence in the
churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law.

1 Corinthians 16:1  Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I gave order to the
churches of Galatia, so also do ye.

1 Corinthians 16:19  The
churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Prisca salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.

2 Corinthians 8:1  Moreover, brethren, we make known to you the grace of God which hath been given in the
churches of Macedonia;

2 Corinthians 8:18  And we have sent together with him the brother whose praise in the gospel is spread through all [
Greek: πς pâs - meaning: all, any, every, the whole, everyone, every way, as many as, whole, whosoever] the churches;

2 Corinthians 8:19  and not only so, but who was also appointed by the
churches to travel with us in the matter of this grace, which is ministered by us to the glory of the Lord, and to show our readiness:

2 Corinthians 8:23  Whether any inquire about Titus, he is my partner and my fellow-worker to you-ward, or our brethren, they are the messengers of the
churches, they are the glory of Christ.

2 Corinthians 8:24  Show ye therefore unto them in the face of the
churches the proof of your love, and of our glorying on your behalf.

2 Corinthians 11:8  I robbed other
[Greek: ἄλλος állos - meaning: else, i.e. different, more, others] churches, taking wages of them that I might minister unto you;

2 Corinthians 11:28  Besides those things that are without, there is that which presseth upon me daily, anxiety for all [Greek: π
ς pâs, pas - all, any, every, the whole, everyone, every way, as many as, whole, whosoever] the churches.

2 Corinthians 12:13  For what is there wherein ye were made inferior to the rest [
Greek: λοιποί loipoí - meaning: remaining ones, other, which remain, remnant, residue, rest] of the churches, except it be that I myself was not a burden to you? forgive me this wrong.

Galatians 1:2  and all the brethren that are with me, unto the
churches of Galatia:

Galatians 1:22  And I was still unknown by face unto the
churches of Judaea which were in Christ:
1 Thessalonians 2:14  For ye, brethren, became imitators of the
churches of God which are in Judaea in Christ Jesus: for ye also suffered the same things of your own countrymen, even as they did of the Jews;

2 Thessalonians 1:4  so that we ourselves glory in you in the
churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and in the afflictions which ye endure;

Revelation 1:4  John to the
seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from him who is and who was and who is to come; and from the seven Spirits that are before his throne;

Revelation 1:11  saying, What thou seest, write in a book and send it to the
seven churches: unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamum, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

Revelation 1:20  the mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the
seven churches: and the seven candlesticks are seven churches.

Revelation 2:7  He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the
churches. To him that overcometh, to him will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the Paradise of God.

Revelation 2:11  He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the
churches. He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

Revelation 2:17  He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the
churches. To him that overcometh, to him will I give of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, and upon the stone a new name written, which no one knoweth but he that receiveth it.

Revelation 2:23  And I will kill her children with death; and all [
Greek: πς pâs, pas - all, any, every, the whole, everyone, every way, as many as, whole, whosoever] the churches shall know that I am he that searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto each one of you according to your works.

Revelation 2:29  He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the
churches.

Revelation 3:6  He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the
churches.

Revelation 3:13  He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the
churches.

Revelation 3:22  He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the
churches.

Revelation 22:16  I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things for the
churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright, the morning star.

Apart from the interpretation of the Greek words for 'all' [
Greek: πς pâs - meaning: all, any, every, the whole, everyone, every way, as many as, whole, whosoever] 'churches' and 'other churches' (ekklesia)  clearly using:

Greek: λοιποί loipoí - meaning: remaining ones, other, which remain, remnant, residue, rest

and

Greek: ἄλλος állos - meaning: else, i.e. different, more, others

it is utterly irrefutable that
seven churches are analyzed by the Lord Jesus Christ and given different admonitions, warnings and instructions!  This clearly proves our point to all but the most confused mind.

This multitude of verses obliterates your claims for Papal Rome!

You write:  There is absolutely No Salvation Outiside [sic] of the Catholic Church you heretic see www.vaticancatholic.com

Anybody reading our total refutations of this claim - and the many others you and other Papal Roman Catholics have thrown at us - will know that you have not made one claim that we have failed to refute!  This is not because of any great intelligence or wisdom exhibited by us, but simply because the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ dwells in us and has given us the power to answer when we are questioned about our faith (ref. Mt 10v19; Mk 13v11; Lk 12v12; 21v14) and as the inspired Paul (and we are not claiming to be inspired when we write!) wrote:

1 Corinthians 2:14-16:  Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, and he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct him?
But we have the mind of Christ.

In Christ Jesus,

TCE


===================================


Matt replies: 22nd October 2012

It has been a very long time - over 6 months since I communicated to you my reply that crushed and refuted all your arguments based on eminent Protestant sources, scholars, histories, and works generally recognized by Protestants. I still want a fair reply to my email which I worked so hard to type up and research through the books. I refuted what you said about St. Mat. 16:18 from strictly Protestant sources and scholars, and the sources were honest enough to admit that St. Peter is the Rock and Leader upon which the Church was founded.

An example is Ruffin's book which makes a distinction between St. Peter and the other Apostles.  It certainly makes a distinction. Ruffin is a heretic, but he clearly makes a distinction between St. Peter and the other Apostles.  Actually, he even repeatedly indicates that St. Peter was the head of the Church.

It's extremely interesting that even though Ruffin is a Lutheran, in his book on the twelve apostles, we find numerous clear admissions that St. Peter was the head of the Church.  It shows that any careful, scholarly and even slightly honest assessment of the biblical text confirms Catholic teaching on the Papacy; and only a very dishonest person will run from the obvious conclusion.  What's amazing is that despite acknowledging, based on the biblical evidence, that St. Peter was constituted 'the rock' and 'the head' of the Church by Christ Himself, with authority over its laws, Ruffin apparently remains a Lutheran!  It's the mystery of bad will.

'It is perfectly clear that Jesus named Peter the chief of the apostolic college.  It is also perfectly clear that Jesus proclaimed that it was to be through Peter that His eternal Church would be established on earth.  It is moreover a fact that Jesus authorized Peter to act as His regent on earth in the matter of Church laws and discipline.' (Bernard Ruffin, The Twelve, p. 26).

'The first part of the Acts of the Apostles is a clear record that Peter was indeed the 'rock' upon whom the Church was established.' (Bernard Ruffin, The Twelve, p. 34).

'These events give a clear picture of Peter's leadership.  It is clear that he was the head of the Christian Church.' (Bernard Ruffin, The Twelve, p. 48).

'… the Lord immediately indicated that it was Peter who would be chief among His apostles, not Andrew.' (Bernard Ruffin, The Twelve, p. 62).

So there you have it, one of many eminent Protestant scholars admitting these things. Not only does the Bible tell us that Simon's name was changed to Cephas, which means 'Rock' in Aramaic, but St. John 1:42 also adds the qualification that Cephas is Peter: 'And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona. Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.' (St. John 1:42) In St. Mat 16:18-19 it tells us '..Thou art Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build my Church...' Petros is in a masculine ending. Petra is in a feminine ending; and Petra is the normative word for rock in Koine Greek. Petros and Petra are synonyms for rock in Koine Greek, the Greek into which St. Matthew's gospel was translated. Since St. Matthew's gospel was originally written in Aramaic, the translator simply uses the masculinized  form of the word 'Rock' (Petros) when referring to Peter's new name, and then he uses 'Petra', the normal word for 'Rock' in the second part. Had the translator retained Petros for both parts, it would sound awkward in the Greek. Neither could he use (Petra for both parts) 'you are Petra and upon this Petra..' because obviously Peter is a man. In many other languages such as French, and of course Aramaic (the language that St. Matthew wrote his gospel, and also which Lord Jesus Christ spoke in) the words for 'Rock' and 'Peter' are one and the same.

The heretic of the 16th century Revolt tradition is incredibly dishonest, the heretic would have to conclude that all the English versions of the Bible are inaccurate, since they translate 'Petra' as 'Rock.' The heretic wrongly thinks that 'Petra' means 'small rock' or 'stone' (a stone is defined as a small rock), but the Greek word 'lithos' is the word that means 'small rock/stone' in the Koine Greek. So even when one dissects the verse (which is unnecessary of course, for someone that is operating honestly) it just goes to show more how absurdly dishonest is the heretic position. Also, in St. Mat.10:42, not only does it say that Simon is the 'first' of the 12 Apostles, but the Greek word there used for 'first' is 'protos' which means 'first, or chief, principal, leading man, foreman.' All this screams out that St. Peter is the leader of the 12 Apostles. Lastly, the Greek Fathers of the Church, who by the way grew up in that language of the Koine Greek and therefore understand it, call Peter the Rock upon which the Church is built. Even eminent 'scholars' among the heretics, have admitted that Peter is the Rock of St. Matthew 16:18-19; and so do the prominent heretic Greek dictionaries such as the most prominent, 'Strong's Concordance', made by Anglican James Strong with over 100 other colleagues in 1890 for the King James 'bible,' though it's not perfect it at least admits and gives the definition of 'Petra' as meaning 'Rock'. And 'Strong's Concordance' is the most used dictionary by the heretics, and it was used for the translations of the New International Version and American Standard Version heretic 'bibles.'


===================================


TCE replies: 21st November 2012

Note, first, that we have avoided responding to the bombardment of dishonest e-mails under multiple identities by refuting many of your claims on pages addressed to 'Herman Benedict' - see
this page and those that follow it!

Only fully Scriptural and irrefutable historical support for a doctrine can enable anyone to make a point!


Since you fail to recognise that we are not Protestants, you also fail to recognise that quoting any 'Protestant' as an 'authority' because they may support the view you hope to promulgate simply does not refute the orthodox Christian view! 
Only finding fully Scriptural and irrefutable historical support for your doctrinal stand can you hope to make your point - and this you have totally failed to achieve!

You should therefore note that Ruffin, the supposed authority you quote, is no authority at all.  Even Wikipedia records:  'C. Bernard Ruffin (born 1947) is an American non-fiction writer who has written many books on religious subjects. He currently resides in Reston, Virginia, where he taught history for twenty-five years at South Lakes High School. He is pastor at Holy Comforter Lutheran Church in Washington, D.C.'

It is a fact that many supposed Christians (who you label as 'Protestants') have often remained so close to the beliefs of Papal Rome that they cannot see 'the wood for the trees' and often re-join your cult eventually.  One of the most notable examples is that of the infamous John Henry Newman who eventually left his 'origins' as 'an evangelical' at Oxford University and was drawn to the 'high-church tradition of Anglicanism'.  In fact this is just another phrase that really means a breakaway cult from the major cult of Papal Rome!  Newman was known as a leader of the Oxford Movement, an influential and controversial Anglican group which desired to re-introduce many Papal Roman Catholic beliefs and liturgical rituals which had been removed during the 'English Reformation' of the Church of England.  As we have already pointed out in many places on our pages - and emphasised at the top of our home page - the 'Reformation' never went far enough and was embraced to various degrees by many who recognised the many errors of Papal Rome.  However, like Newman, they missed the 'wonderful' pomp and glory of Papal Rome and the slight success he and his movement had in turning Anglicans back from the 'Reformation' was not enough.  In 1845, Newman, joined by some of his followers, left the Church of England and was received into the Catholic Church.  He was rapidly ordained as a priest and, in 1879, he was created a cardinal by Pope Leo XIII in recognition of his services to the cause of the Catholic Church in England.  It was no surprise for us to find that another cult, the Christadelphians, quoted him as an authority in attempting to refute the doctrine of the Trinity (correctly, The Tri-unity of the Godhead!) when we confronted them at a series of their outreach seminars in Cardiff.  That Newman's writings were so heretical that the Christadelphian cult thought they could be used to overturn a Biblical doctrine reveals the heretical nature of this man who was so well suited to Papal Rome.

We have already dismantled all the aspects of Papal Rome's claims for Peter as 'the Rock' on our web-pages so, to save ourselves time, we will just briefly address the more ridiculous (from the point of emphasising your ignorance!) errors of Ruffin and yourself in your quotes from his work:

You claim: 'Also, in St. Mat.10:42, not only does it say that Simon is the 'first' of the 12 Apostles, but the Greek word there used for 'first' is 'protos' which means 'first, or chief, principal, leading man, foreman.' All this screams out that St. Peter is the leader of the 12 Apostles.

TCE:  Not only does it NOT say that 'Simon is the 'first' of the 12 Apostles', but you have the wrong book!

Since you so appreciate Strong's work,
here is the real quote from Mark 10:43-44:

But <dé> so <hoúto> shall it <ésomai> not <ou> be <ésomai> among <en> you <hymîn>: but <allá> whosoever <hós> <eán> will <thélo> be <gínomai> great <mégas> among <en> you <hymîn>, shall be <ésomai> your <hymon> minister <diákonos>: And <kaí> whosoever <hós> <án> of you <hymon> will <thélo> be <gínomai> the chiefest <protos>, shall be <ésomai> servant <doûlos> of all <pâs>.

Mark 10:43-45 (NASB) - 43  "But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; 44  and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. 45  "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

St. Mat.10:42 actually reads:

Matthew 10:42:  And <kaí> whosoever <hós> <eán> shall give to drink <potízō> unto one <heîs> of these <toútōn> little ones <mikrós> a cup <pot rion> of cold <psychrós> water only <mónon> in <eis> the name <ónoma> of a disciple <mathēt s>, verily <am n> I say <légō> unto you <hymîn>, he shall in no wise <ou m > lose <apóllymi> his <autós> reward <misthós>.

Matthew 10:42 (NASB) - 42  "And whoever in the name of a disciple gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water to drink, truly I say to you, he shall not lose his reward."

Such carelessness certainly makes one want to scream!  We would have corrected the slight omissions from the Greek in our cut and paste job from Strong's but, since you cannot even be bothered to check your quotes, we will leave your glaring error for others to share - as it truly deserves - and just include the two passages from the NASB to make your error clear to other readers.

Whatever the linguistic abilities of the '
Greek Fathers of the Church', it is their heterodox interpretations that raise questions!  It is a fact that the so-called 'Church Fathers' held many heretical views which we have already analysed on many pages.

Strong's work holds up very well in any field of uninspired interpretation of the Biblical languages - as our record on Jerome and his Vulgate reveals.

We will return to your other material later.

TCE


===================================


Matt writes again:  27th December 2012

You are a typical Protestant. Protestants are some of the biggest liars one could ever meet on the face of this earth. The dishonesty is just astounding. Well the founder and leader of your false religion - the Arch-Heretic Martin Luther - had some very interesting things to say about how he discovered his new mad [
sic] made teaching.

In the past I've mentioned that Martin Luther allegedly came up with his 'profound' (i.e., diabolical) insight about justification - that man does not need to be righteous to be saved - while on the toilet.  Of course, this is not to suggest that any natural human function properly used is sinful or evil.  Rather, it is to remind us that Luther was an inventor of new doctrines, who made things up as he went along.  The following interesting quote from a non-Catholic Protestant historian lends some support to the report about where Luther received his 'revelation.'

'Then - possibly in 1515 - Luther had a new insight.  We shall never be sure exactly how and when Luther arrived at his new way of thinking.  We do, however, have his own account of what happened.  He meditated daily on the words of Paul, which he found so problematic, hoping against hope to have the answer to his questions.  Finally, he arrived at his conclusion.  The 'righteousness of God' of which Paul spoke so highly was not the righteousness by which God was righteous, but a righteousness given to us by God.  The gospel was indeed good news, in that God provided the righteousness needed for salvation.  Individual humans were not being asked to be righteous and hence be saved - they were being offered precisely the righteousness that was demanded as a condition of entry into paradise.  Luther exulted at his discovery, which changed everything:

This immediately made me feel as though I had been born again, and as though I had entered through open gates into paradise itself.  From that moment, the whole face of Scripture appeared to me in a different light. 

There is also some debate over exactly where Luther's insight took place.  A somewhat cryptic remark in one of Luther's personal recollections has been the subject of much interest.  Luther wrote of being granted his theological insight in a room identified by the Latin abbreviation cl.  What could this mean?  One obvious interpretation would be that the abbreviation is to be understood as cloaca - a semipolite Latin term for 'latrine' or 'privy.'  This possibility has evoked considerable discussion.  For example, John Osborne's 1961 play Luther represents Luther as achieving theological insight at the same moment as he experienced relief from a long-standing bout of constipation.'  (Alister McGrath, In the Beginning, p. 45.)


===================================


TCE replies: 29th December 2012

You write:  You are a typical Protestant. Protestants are some of the biggest liars one could ever meet on the face of this earth. The dishonesty is just astounding.

TCE:   As usual the man lacking the Holy Spirit cannot fail to be led by Satan into the ad hominem attack instead of following any Scriptural admonition, such as 1 Peter 3:14-18:

'But even if ye should suffer for righteousness' sake, blessed are ye: and fear not their fear, neither be troubled; but sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord:
being ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear: having a good conscience; that, wherein ye are spoken against, they may be put to shame who revile your good manner of life in Christ. For it is better, if the will of God should so will, that ye suffer for well-doing than for evil-doing. Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit ...'

You write:  Well the founder and leader of your false religion - the Arch-Heretic Martin Luther - had some very interesting things to say about how he discovered his new mad [sic] made teaching.

In the past I've mentioned that Martin Luther allegedly came up with his 'profound' (i.e., diabolical) insight about justification - that man does not need to be righteous to be saved - while on the toilet.  Of course, this is not to suggest that any natural human function properly used is sinful or evil.  Rather, it is to remind us that Luther was an inventor of new doctrines, who made things up as he went along.

TCE: How appropriate that you should slip into a 'mad made teaching' blooper!  Early on in the inter-change of e-mails we recognised that one foolish Papal Roman Catholic was so enraged by our pages that he had decided to bombard us (using different pseudonyms and e-mail addresses) with feeble and repetitious claims for Papal Rome and, during the course of his rants, eventually forgot which 'pseudonym' he had written some comments under!

We quickly recognised that it was not 'Matt Wykoff' who - '
In the past ... mentioned that Martin Luther allegedly came up with his ... insight about justification - that man does not need to be righteous to be saved - while on the toilet' - but your pseudonym 'Herman Benedict' who we have refuted on this point at ###

This is one of the main reasons we put your e-mails on the 'back-burner' - you coupled repeated
ad hominem attacks with colossal arrogance and ignorance while making limited efforts to check material and read replies properly.  Little more need be said - for, indeed, your '...dishonesty is just astounding.'

Any intelligent Bible student will know that Luther never taught '
that man does not need to be righteous to be saved ' for, after his early battles to cast off Papal Rome's false doctrines and difficulty understanding the Word of God, he finally recognised the great Biblical truth (that Papal Rome still hides from its adherents!).  Luther put it in this manner:

'At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely, "In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, 'He who through faith is righteous shall live.' "
There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written, "He who through faith is righteous shall live." Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates. There a totally other face of the entire Scripture showed itself to me. Thereupon I ran through the Scriptures from memory. I also found in other terms an analogy, as, the work of God, that is, what God does in us, the power of God, with which he makes us strong, the wisdom of God, with which he makes us wise, the strength of God, the salvation of God, the glory of God'.  (Luther's Works, Volume 34, p336-337).

And the Word of God makes it totally clear:

1 Peter 3:18 -  Because
Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

It is Grace NOT Works that saves believers in the Lord Jesus Christ!

Note the Order of Salvation that these Scriptures point out clearly:

GRACE > faith > Gift of Eternal Life with NO WORKS involved >
then WORK:

Ephesians 2:8-10 - for by
grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man should glory. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them.

The following verses state the same truth in different ways:

Romans 4
v1-5; 10v3-4,13; 11v5-6; 2 Timothy 1v9; Titus 3v5; Galatians 5v6; James 2v17


We have explained the false interpretation of James 2 at other places - see these pages! ###

'Apologists' for Papal Rome should attempt to refute these Scriptures - blustering and hurling insults just does not cut it!

You write:  The following interesting quote from a non-Catholic Protestant historian ...

'Then - possibly in 1515 - Luther had a new insight.  We shall never be sure exactly how and when Luther arrived at his new way of thinking.  We do, however, have his own account of what happened.  He meditated daily on the words of Paul, which he found so problematic, hoping against hope to have the answer to his questions.  Finally, he arrived at his conclusion. 
The 'righteousness of God' of which Paul spoke so highly was not the righteousness by which God was righteous, but a righteousness given to us by God.  The gospel was indeed good news, in that God provided the righteousness needed for salvation.  Individual humans were not being asked to be righteous and hence be saved - they were being offered precisely the righteousness that was demanded as a condition of entry into paradise.  Luther exulted at his discovery, which changed everything:

This immediately made me feel as though I had been born again, and as though I had entered through open gates into paradise itself.  From that moment, the whole face of Scripture appeared to me in a different light. 

There is also some debate over exactly where Luther's insight took place.  A somewhat cryptic remark in one of Luther's personal recollections has been the subject of much interest.  Luther wrote of being granted his theological insight in a room identified by the Latin abbreviation cl.  What could this mean? 
One obvious interpretation would be that the abbreviation is to be understood as cloaca - a semipolite Latin term for 'latrine' or 'privy.'  This possibility has evoked considerable discussion.  For example, John Osborne's 1961 play Luther represents Luther as achieving theological insight at the same moment as he experienced relief from a long-standing bout of constipation.'  (Alister McGrath, In the Beginning, p. 45.)

TCE:   Any born-again Christian reading the first section quoted - which we have high-lighted in blue - will rejoice as Luther did - and as is revealed in the second section in blue!

But to find that the only response from so many sad, depraved, lost souls of Papal Rome is to try and use it to hurl insults at Luther rather than rejoice that even this rough, coarse, anti-Semitic former 'priest' of Papal Rome can be saved by the Glorious Grace of our Lord and Saviour God, reveals how the Papal poison fills men and women with hateful pride because they are so convinced that the pompous popes will lead them to heaven (via purgatory - unless they have the cash for a 'brown scapular'!) while the vile 'Protestants' they despise are bound for Hell!

It would have done you well to have considered the reason John Osborne even bothered writing a 'play' about Luther.  Even the briefest reviews of his work and character would have revealed the world of a poor, lost creature looking to embarrass 'the establishment' that he chose to reject so that any poke he could make at social, political, or religious figures or organisations was bound to embrace the most extravagantly crude and insulting aspects of those he saw as enemies who were to be mocked and ridiculed without regard for the conventions of the day.  It is no surprise to find you using a reference that attacks Luther without thought for the obvious - he would have used your popes as an example of religious hypocrites to be ridiculed if he had known their history and he was just one of several pagan figures who started the path that led to the later blasphemous attack on the Lord Jesus Christ by Monty Python's 'Life of Brian'.  Emboldened by figures such as Osborne, these limited comedians dared to parody the Life of the Messiah, the Saviour of the World. 
But Papal Roman Catholics of your ilk would rather seek material to attack Luther than consider the source of men such as Osborne who are blatant agents of Satan and, in doing so, you reveal the same spirit as Osborne!

But we must ask why you didn't quote the rest of the passage following your chosen 'clip' from McGrath's work?  Here are the words from McGrath's book which follow your quoted portion - but which you chose to avoid:

'This might initially seem somewhat improbable ... there is another (and rather more plausible) explanation of the mysterious Latin abbreviation cl.  The term could be an abbreviation for the heated room in the Wittenberg monastery, which was a favourite haunt of monks feeling the cold in winter.' 

We carried out careful research and came up with solid support to draw the same irrefutable conclusion in our reply to 'Herman' at ###

McGrath also continued:

This debate aside, the relevance of Luther's insight cannot be ignored. What Luther was proposing, based on his reading of key sections of the Bible, was that the righteousness required for salvation was not acquired through scrupulous monastic observance, or through individual moral achievement--it was the free gift of God. As Luther wrestled with this issue over the period 1514-17, it seemed to him that the entire Church of his day had lapsed into a complete misunderstanding of what Christianity was all about. The Church seemed to Luther to stress achieving, meriting, or even downright purchasing forgiveness and eternal life, when in fact this was offered by God as a gift. What humans could never achieve, or hope to acquire, was given them as a gift by a gracious God. It was clear to Luther that this was the central theme of the Bible, and that the Church had lost sight of it. And if it had lost sight of so central a theme, how could it be called a "Christian" Church? These worrying questions, which dogged Luther's thoughts throughout this period, were brought to a focus when Johann Tetzel arrived in Wittenberg in October 1517 to sell indulgences. For many scholars, the incident that resulted triggered the massive upheaval we know as "the Reformation." (ref. McGrath, Alister. In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible, Hodder & Stoughton)

Equally sad is the fact that recent popes have made it clear that they believe almost any religion will see you safely to heaven so that the blood of Christ was spilled pointlessly and not for the salvation of all people as Scripture clearly states of sinners who are:

Romans 3:24-25 -
being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God;

cf.  Romans 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Ephesians 2:13; Colossians 1:2; Hebrew 9:14; Hebrew 9:22-25; Hebrew 13:20; 1 Peter 1:17-18-19; Revelation 1:5; Revelation 5:9

Your popes have made it clear that all the posing of the fake priests of Papal Rome, with the fake 'transubstantiation' of bread and wine, is only that - a pose by heretics dispensing 'doctrines of demons' (1 Timothy 4:1-3)!

We do not intend to waste further time refuting your foolish claims only to find that you follow the pattern of all Papal Roman Catholics - you simply ignore the truth and continue ranting just as your heretical forefathers taught you to do.  But now you no longer have the power to force your false religion on others you are no more than a rich bully posturing while you live on memories of the Dark Ages when you were king of Satan's kingdom on earth.

In Christ Jesus,

TCE


===================================

PRIESTS AND SCHOLARS CHARGE POPE FRANCIS WITH HERESY - October 2017


P.S. - this post-script could have been applied many centuries earlier because of the unending succession of heretical 'popes' who have blundered through life, unremittingly ignorant of Scripture, and now followed by a Marxist dressed in papal garb who is every bit as naked spiritually as those that went before!

PRIESTS AND SCHOLARS CHARGE POPE FRANCIS WITH HERESY - October 2017


For the first time in 684 years, a pope has been charged with heresy. On August 11, 2017, Pope Francis was presented with "A Filial Correction Concerning the Propagation of Heresies," which was signed on July 15 by 62 "clergy and lay scholars."  It accused the pope of holding seven heretical positions on "marriage, the moral life, and the reception of the sacraments" ("Clergy and Lay Scholars Issue Filial Correction," National Catholic Register, Sep. 23, 3017). The heresies include allowing some divorced or remarried Catholics to receive the eucharist and calling for the acceptance of "non-traditional lifestyles" (homosexuality). The document blamed the influence of "modernism." 
It also expressed concern that the pope has expressed "explicit and unprecedented praise" for Martin Luther. This is the first "filial correction" to be issued since Pope John XXII was charged in 1333 for saying that those who "died in grace" do not see God face-to-face until the Last Judgment.  We would agree that the pope is a heretic and it is high time he were charged with such.  We would highlight the heresies of a sacramental gospel, baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, papal supremacy, the Catholic priesthood, prayers to and for the "saints," indulgences, purgatory, Mariolatry, and a host of others.

Here are some of the websites that reported this matter:

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/09/CORRECTION.html

http://www.pagadiandiocese.org/2017/09/23/catholic-clergy-scholars-issue-filial-correction-to-pope-francis-against-propagation-of-heresies/

https://catholicismpure.wordpress.com/2017/09/24/clergy-and-lay-scholars-issue-filial-correction-of-pope-francis/

https://www.voanews.com/a/theologians-accuse-pope-of-heresy/4041991.html

https://cruxnow.com/global-church/2017/09/24/conservative-theologians-accuse-pope-spreading-heresy/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/09/pope-wrong-position-formal-correction.html

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/62-leaders-sign-filial-correction-to-pope-francis

https://novusordowatch.org/2017/09/bergoglio-takes-a-blow-filial-correction-accuses-francis-of-heresy/

Notice that the comments on the 'correction' are full of the typical double-speak of Papal Roman Catholicism, such as:

'This does not contradict the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility, because Pope Francis has not promulgated heretical opinions as dogmatic teachings of the Church. While professing their obedience to his legitimate commands and teachings, they maintain that Francis has upheld and propagated heretical opinions by various direct or indirect means. ... Pope Francis's document on marriage and family life, in which he insinuates or encourages heretical positions. Because some commentators have argued that these texts can be interpreted in an orthodox way, the Correction goes on to list Pope Francis's other words, deeds, and omissions which make it clear beyond reasonable doubt that he wishes Catholics to interpret these passages in a way that is, in fact, heretical. In particular, the pope has advocated the beliefs that obedience to God's moral law can be impossible or undesirable, and that Catholics should sometimes accept adultery as compatible with being a follower of Christ.'

When you find a man or woman arguing in a 'black
is white' methodology you know you are in the presence of Satan, the 'father of lies'!

We remind readers from Papal Rome to heed the words of the apostle Paul:

1 Corinthians 4:6 (NASB) - 6  Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes,
so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written (Greek: grápho - to write, to describe) so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.

Even in these Last Days we find Papal Rome '
exceeding what is written' in an effort to appear to be all things to all men - not in the way the apostle Paul taught, but in the manner of Satan, who has a deception to attract every man and woman who ever lived.

Seek only the pure way of the Lord Jesus Christ:  "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" (Matthew 5:8).

TCE

Full Menu

Topics discussed on pages responding to Roman Catholics
Section 45-52

Is it extremely important to become a Traditional Catholic to be saved?

The Catholic Church is infallible in the person of the Pope?

Apostolicity is easily proved by the facts of history?

'Traditional Roman Catholic' Matt Wykoff makes the following THREE claims:

What most of the world considers to be the Roman Catholic Church, is not the Roman Catholic Church - but the Novus Ordo Sect?

Antipope John Paul II was The Final AntiChrist himself?

Benedict XVI is the great Beast 666 and False Prophet of the Apocalypse?

J.H. Ignaz von Döllinger and the Papal claim to infallibility!

The Church Fathers and Rome's claims for 'apostolic succession'!

Outside the Catholic Church there is absolutely no Salvation!

Salvation is not based on any organisation but in faith in the Lord Jesus Christ alone!

The inaccuracy of Jerome's 'Vulgate' and the sloppiness of Papal Rome's copyists!

James, Peter, and John - described as 'pillars' - but Paul had to oppose one 'pillar' - Peter! 

A myriad of Papal heresies!

What does 1 Corinthians 11:19 clearly mean?

In the time of the 'triple popes' who was to be believed?

Impossible to determine whether the claimants were popes or anti-popes!

Not even once did Augustine suggest that the Bishop of Rome should be consulted at all!

How many popes 'self ex-communicated' by becoming Freemasons?

Three 'popes' - but only Gregory XII is now an official pope - the other two are now 'anti-popes'!

Scripture warns not to 'lord it over others' while Popes have been 'lording it over' their sheep for centuries!

Find kissing the foot of the 'pope' in Scripture if you can!

Papal Rome insults Jesus, the Everlasting High-priest, by installing a fake priesthood!

Did Peter ever claim to be 'The Rock'?

Antipope John Paul II was The Final AntiChrist?!

Benedict XVI is the great Beast 666 and False Prophet of the Apocalypse?!

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church) originated in St. Cyprian

Papal Rome declared Döllinger 'a heretic' - after he exposed the heretic Pope Pius IX

newadvent.org can only use the ad hominem method of Papal Rome to try and smear Döllinger 

Early writings reveal no mention of a special role for the Bishop of Rome, or the title 'Pope'!

That Christ passed on to Peter such pomp and luxuries, which neither of them knew, is both ludicrous and blasphemous!

Genuine apostolic powers do not exist in Papal Rome!

What do the writings of the 'Church Fathers' and 'St. Augustine' prove?

What do 'The Letters of St Augustine' prove?

Opinions on 'Peter the rock' from flabby Protestants!

More Scriptural views on Jesus the Rock of Scripture!

Early councils were not called by the Bishop of Rome, but by the Emperor!

Early writings reveal no mention of a special role for the Bishop of Rome, or the title 'Pope'!

Why should anyone believe that Christ - the Servant King -  passed pomp and luxuries to Peter!

Questions on Matthew 16:16-18 that Rome never answers!

Genuine apostolic powers do not exist in Papal Rome!

What do 'The Letters of St Augustine' prove?

Opinions on 'Peter the rock' from flabby Protestants!

More Scriptural views on Jesus the Rock of Scripture!

More truth about the so-called 'Church Fathers'!

More false Papal views on 'Protestants'!

Origin of the claim of 'No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church'?

Why call them 'Church Fathers' in rebellion against Jesus?!

Serious flaws in the work of C.S. Lewis - an apologist for Papal Rome!

No early council of Papal Rome can be found to have ruled on what was canonical!

Jesus, Great High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, proves Rome's priesthood is blasphemous!

Circular reasoning chooses to abandon logic and is often all Papists have in their attempts to avoid the truth!

Indulgences and the myth of the 'vast reservoir of merit called the treasury of the Church'!

The Biblical truth of Salvation by the FREE gift of grace shows the clear Satanic source of Rome's doctrines!

Pope Honorius declared a heretic by Councils and Popes!

More on Fallible Popes and their blatant heresies!

'Popes' insist that they should be followed - even when they teach heresy and evil!

'Papal infallibility' stands or falls by a single official error and the principle: Is falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

'Protestants are idolaters that worship a book that is a counterfeit construct of the Bible'?

'At the commands of Mary all obey - even God'?!

What brought about the worshipful adoration of Mary?

Why do Papal Roman Catholics appeal to heretics rather than to the truth?

The Bible clearly reveals many autonomous ekklesia - and not 'one Church (of Rome!)'

Only fully Scriptural and irrefutable historical support for a doctrine can enable anyone to make a point!

PRIESTS AND SCHOLARS CHARGE POPE FRANCIS WITH HERESY - October 2017

Know the reality of eternity in heaven by believing on Jesus Christ as your Lord & Saviour!

Go to the following link to discover eternal life is
A Free Gift for You

Home Page   |   Expositor History   |   'Orthodox' Heretics   |   Other Religions   |   Cults  |   Occult   |   New Age Movement  |   Rome & Ecumenism

christian.expositor@ntlworld.com