Is the pope something special?
November 30th, 2005Let me say again at the outset that I have nothing against catholics, but I have much against their gnostic religion. Many of my relatives and friends are catholics. Without exception, they’re the finest people I’ve ever known.
The religion is a whole lot of un-biblical silliness. It’s satanism at its purest. He’s made himself god. At least there.
They go, unconvincingly, to great lengths these days to swear that they never said the pope is infallible, that they don’t worship the “virgin” Mary, etc. (Psst. She’s not a virgin anymore. She had a bunch of Joseph’s kids the regular way after Jesus was born. Some of ‘em even wrote books!)
I don’t really mean to make fun, but it’s hard not to. The Bible bears out almost none of their beliefs. I’ll even give them the benefit of the doubt and let them use their special Bible to prove them (or disprove me). After all, according to them, they canonized the Bible and Luther perverted it. Sounds good. But it’s just not historically accurate. Besides that, as I’ve pointed out, their own canonization of the Bible doesn’t support many of the beliefs they’re taught in the catechism.
Satan gave up on being openly, directly worshipped long, long ago. If he can pervert you enough to direct your attention away from scripture and worship of Jehovah, he succeeds. He knows his fate. He’s not looking for worshippers now, he’s looking for recruits because misery loves company. The catholic church is his greatest achievement in history.
“Pray to the saints. Set men up to decide who will be saints and your ‘pope’ – the supreme voice about what God says. The virgin Mary can get your prayers to Jesus. Confess your sins anonymously to another man that you call father and then do the penance he gives you. If you do, your sins will be forgiven. If you desire to serve God you must be celibate.”
Not a whit of that is scriptural. Even in the catholic perversion of the Bible. Most of it is directly contrary to what the Bible says. Even theirs. But that’s what they were taught. Maybe that’s what David was talking about in Psalm 44 when he said:
Yea, for thy sake are we killed all the day long; we are counted as sheep for the slaughter
I’ve never known a catholic that didn’t live the Word better than most protestants and we should all be ashamed for that. I’ve also never known one that didn’t believe the Bible was the inerrant word of God Almighty and also had no clue what it says. They can recite liturgies in a language they don’t understand, know when to sit stand and kneel, tell you nearly everything they learned in catechism, but they can’t tell you why they believe anything they believe beyond, “Because the priest said so.” (Paraphrasing.)
There will be many, many catholics in heaven. I’ll be proud to say I know some of them. But they mostly got there without knowledge. God can work in anything, even satan’s perversion of truth, and His mercy and grace never fail.
We’ve all got a lot to learn yet. One of the few things I’ve learned is that you’ll never get truth from one that doesn’t know it. The catholic “church” is the blind leading the blind. You’ll never get truth from the pope. He’s already thrown his life away on a lie. But they voted him in, so he must be God’s choice, right? Just like Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Abe Lincoln, FDR, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush… (pick your poison, I could go on all night). Right? They were all elected. Oh. I forgot, the pope was elected by a chosen few. Chosen by God, huh? Who was it that chose them? The last pope. Right! Now it all makes sense. An organization built by fallible men, run for centuries by fallible men and the fallible men have a popular vote on the “voice of God” whenever the current “voice of God” croaks. It’s OK. The smoke makes it all official with God. I saw that on the news.
I’m sure the pope would condemn my “gambling” at poker. My game is poker and his is catholicism. Two very different games of skill. He won. I often do, too.
Perhaps I should go to confession and see what the penance is. “Father, forgive me for I have sinned. My last confession was before you were born and I’ve done a bunch of stuff since then that is covered by the shed blood of Christ and is none of your business. What’s my penance?”
Recite a bunch of memorized prayers to a dead woman over and over? Cool! That’s easy enough. See ya next week.
The problem is that it’s both easier and harder than that.
But first we must get a decision from the god in Rom – er- we have to get a decision from the Vatican about whether or not “limbo” really exists. (That’s where babies go if they die before they’re properly “baptized” without their knowledge, understanding or consent.) I’m hoping he’ll give us a ruling on fairies – true or false – right after that one.
“Let me say again at the outset that I have nothing against catholics, but I have much against their gnostic religion.”
Are you crazy? The Catholic Church *defeated* the Gnostics.
“It’s satanism at its purest.”
If it’s pure Satanism, then why do we worship Christ?
“They go, unconvincingly, to great lengths these days to swear that they never said the pope is infallible, …”
Who says that? The Pope *is* infallible.
“… that they don’t worship the “virgin” Mary, etc.”
We don’t. We pray to her to ask her to pray for us. Is there anything wrong with asking someone to pray for you?
“(Psst. She’s not a virgin anymore. She had a bunch of Joseph’s kids the regular way after Jesus was born. Some of ‘em even wrote books!)”
Again, false … and come on! Which books are you talking about?
“I’ll even give them the benefit of the doubt and let them use their special Bible to prove them (or disprove me). After all, according to them, they canonized the Bible and Luther perverted it. Sounds good. But it’s just not historically accurate.”
Actually, it’s completely true. The Church developed the canon of Scripture, and a thousand years later Luther decided to remove books which disagreed with him.
That’s how, when you’re looking for the truest expression of Christianity, you can easily dismiss Protestant churches.
“Not a whit of that is scriptural.”
You’ve fallen into the trap of thinking that something has to be explicitly spelled out in Scripture for it to be Christian.
A common mistake. Jesus didn’t come to give us Scripture, He came to found a Church.
And the Church was around long before canon of Scripture was closed.
“An organization built by fallible men, run for centuries by fallible men …”
Founded by Christ and maintained by Him for 2,000 years *despite* fallible men.
“I’m sure the pope would condemn my “gambling” at poker. My game is poker and his is catholicism.”
Why? He’s not a Protestant! What would he care if you play poker?
Not sure who rattled your cage or where you came from so quickly, Steve, but I stand by everything I said. I noticed you quoted no scripture, only “church” doctrine.
Who says that? The Pope *is* infallible.
Is that why some of them killed others to take power sooner or were killed by jealous husbands in the act of adultery with married women? It would do you well to study the history of the “church” outside of the church. It was founded in corruption and it’s always been corrupt.
We don’t. We pray to her to ask her to pray for us. Is there anything wrong with asking someone to pray for you?
“(Psst. She’s not a virgin anymore. She had a bunch of Joseph’s kids the regular way after Jesus was born. Some of ‘em even wrote books!)”
Again, false … and come on! Which books are you talking about?
Yes. There’s a lot wrong with praying to a dead woman. Both scripturally and by common sense. And I’m not sure how you come to the conclusion that she remained forever a virgin until her death. She had other children. One of the books I was talking about is James. It’s in your “real” Bible too. James was the half brother of Jesus and scripture makes that plain. Of course it also makes reference to “the holy mother” and Jesus’ brothers sending people in to interrupt his ministry while they stood outside as well as his brothers referring to him as a lunatic and trying to get him killed. But those are topics for another day.
Actually, it’s completely true. The Church developed the canon of Scripture, and a thousand years later Luther decided to remove books which disagreed with him.
That’s how, when you’re looking for the truest expression of Christianity, you can easily dismiss Protestant churches.
The canon of scripture was in dispute for hundreds of years. Luther didn’t remove anything worthwhile in an objective debate. He challenged the heresy of the evil that had suppressed the Word of God and kept it from the people. Control is a very ugly thing and it’s the foundation of the catholic heresy since its beginning.
I’ve read and studied both. If my Bible is the same as yours except just less, then why can I disprove almost everything the catholic religion teaches with either version?
You’ve fallen into the trap of thinking that something has to be explicitly spelled out in Scripture for it to be Christian.
A common mistake. Jesus didn’t come to give us Scripture, He came to found a Church.
You’ve fallen into the trap of believing that a man can contradict scripture and say God changed His mind. God does not contradict Himself. God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; – Romans 3:4 Any man that says he speaks for God and contradicts anything in scripture is deceived or decieving. Find me anyone working in the Vatican hierarchy that hasn’t.
Speaking of common mistakes, it would take a cultist to not know why Jesus came. It wasn’t to bring us scripture or found a church. He came to redeem us. (Check John 10:10 if you’d like to know why he came, in his own words.) But if all you know about the New Testament is what you get from catholic education, I can understand how you would make that mistake. The catholics came to found a “church.” He’s always had one, it just changed character quite a bit as a result of him ending the old covenant and superseding it with a new and better one.
And now for your most important question, asked first and answered last:
“It’s satanism at its purest.”
If it’s pure Satanism, then why do we worship Christ?
Because that’s how he works. I thought I made it clear, but I guess not. Most catholics I know do worship Christ. Sort of. But they never pray to him. They pray to any number of idols that the Vatican has set up as saints including the Queen of all Idols, THE HOLY MOTHER. She was a righteous woman chosen by God. So were many woman in the Old Testament, a few in the New and many today. Read the story of Esther sometime. Mary was a mortal woman. She was NOT born of a virgin. She did not remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus, she bore other children by Joseph and she lived a pretty normal life. In fact, there is really no evidence that she even supported Jesus’ ministry. You could build a circumstantial case that she didn’t even believe in it. She’s rarely mentioned until after his resurrection and ascension when Acts specifically tells us she was in the upper room with HER SON James on the Day of Pentecost.
But you’d have to read the Bible to know any of that. After Gutenberg and Luther thwarted the success that the catholic church had had for centuries at keeping the Bible away from anyone but those under their direct control, the catholics have still managed to maintain an apathy and general discouragement towards lay people reading it themselves, for many centuries longer. Seems lately they’ve taken to flat out disregarding it as you did in an earlier statement. What was that you said? Oh, yes. “You’ve fallen into the trap of thinking that something has to be explicitly spelled out in Scripture for it to be Christian.”
I was baptized catholic and went to a catholic church right up until I learned to read. I learned to read at 4 and by 5, I knew I’d had enough of that nonsense.
Who’s in a trap?
“Because the priest said so.”
Incidentally the Protestants have the same exact faith when they say, “my pastor says…”
There is no moral difference between a Catholic that puts his faith in the teachings of his church as explained by a man (priest) and a protestant that does the same thing when he claims faith in the teachings of his church as espoused by the pastor.
Absolutely true, Res. But not really relevant here.
“Absolutely true, Res. But not really relevant here.”
I’m not so sure. Your point is that some folks that go to this church have developed some odd beliefs over the years, that didn’t come from the bible. No disagreement from me on that. They got those beliefs by taking somebody else’s word for what they should be doing and thinking, instead of checking it out for themselves.
I’m guilty of doing that too. It’s easy to criticize another group but when you examine yourself by the same standard, how do you do? I went to a Baptist school for part of my education. We had an entire course dedicated to bashing the Catholic Church. I believed it hook line and sinker. I asked a question one day about how it was different to ask the priest vs asking the pastor and why would a Catholic not believe the priest but we should believe the pastor. Got sent to the pastor’s office for that one.
How many protestants believe that drinking even one beer is a sin? OR How about a man and wife dancing together? OR playing cards or Yatzee? OR going to movies? Mixed bathing? Etc etc etc.
Anyone that has been an active part of a church is likely to have picked up on some beliefs that the Bible doesn’t teach, but that are held by some folks at that church. Over time those beliefs become doctrine.
If it’s Satanic to add to and take away from the Word of God for Catholics, isn’t it the same sin when Evangelicals do it?
Explain to me the difference between donating to the Bishop’s Relief Fund as an act of contrition and sending money to an AoG/Pentecostal Televangelist so they will pray for you.
If you spend 15 min looking at Catholic belief and practice vs the Bible you’ll have lots to question. What if you spent the same amount of time looking at your church?
I have, Res. I don’t like labels, but I can assure you that I would never attend a church that I hadn’t investigated and compared to scripture at least as much as I have that catholic silliness.
You raise a valid question, though. It’s what I was trying to get at. I’ll readily admit that I’m clumsy much of the time.
READ THE BOOK!
How’s that?
I’m not at all being sarcastic. I’m just trying to say, READ THE BOOK! If you’re still confused, ask HIM. He’ll tell you. The whole book is about Him because He wants to be known. The point of the post was that the catholic “church” is about anything but the Bible.
The Bible is a wild biography and the catholic “church” has always been about suppressing it for control.
DC,
I didn’t mean for that to come off like a mini tirade.
I agree with you. Read the Book.
I understand there will be a test.
Didn’t take it personal, Res. I love ya man. You’re one of my favorites.
I just like to be clear. Because of that, I like to be challenged when maybe I’m not.
You’re golden.
Fantastic! Thoroughly enjoyed that.
Well – while I definitely disagree with much of Catholicism, I do find myself respecting the previous Pope. He took unpopular, unpolitically correct stances based on the Bible, and he stood firm even under vast amounts of criticism. The current Pope seems to be continuing that trend so far.