Pope Benedict 'Resigns' - Reports

Arthur, what do you make of a statement made by a former Vatican insider that the devil roams within the Vatican?
 
Redeemed said:
Arthur, what do you make of a statement made by a former Vatican insider that the devil roams within the Vatican?
Click to expand...
He certainly does. Of course the smoke of satan has entered the sanctuary ... just look at the homosexual/paedophile sex scandals, money scandals, weak bishops, etc. Wherever great good is found, there great evil brings special focus to cause injury. The enemy hates Christ's church with passionate intensity and will work with anyone to harm or destroy it.

As an aside, one reason why I seriously examined the Catholic claims while still an ardent foe is precisely because evil men inside the Church have risen to power ... and yet in her teaching the Church remains utterly consistent throughout 2000 years of history, with nothing dogmatic or doctrinal ever changing or being compromised in any way whatsoever. How can this be? Any merely human institution would have collapsed in a bundle of chaos and corruption centuries ago, yet the Catholic Church continues today as vital as ever, semper reformandi, while much more recent "churches" are collapsing in doctrinal confusions and contradictions, splintering and shattering into ever tinier sects and shards ... surely not the Church Christ founded and heads?

Clearly, just the simple fact that the Catholic Church has survived so many evil men inside (not to speak of her enemies outside) - and survived doctrinally intact, is evidence (not proof) that something remarkable is going on here, and therefore worth examining in great detail. I was not prepared to have all my preconceptions, misconceptions and bigotry against the Church shattered, but I wanted to truth.

Every time I discovered a gotcha against the Church (and exulted - I didn't want this to be true, I wanted it to be false), closer examination showed the answer was even better, simpler, and more compelling. It is wild country west of the Tiber.
 
Last edited:
Arthur said:
1) Bishops of the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament and years later decided what books to incorporate into the Bible. They did this by the authority given to them and to no others, by Christ himself.
Click to expand...
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul and Peter certainly were not catholic bishops. The first known use of the term catholic was long after.

2) The Bible is not the ultimate authority of faith. The Church is. More specifically, it is the apostolic authority received from Christ himself and handed on down to their successors that alone can decide these matters definitively. Christ established a living authority to teach his truth and bring his sanctification to all people down through the ages, until He comes again in glory.
Click to expand...
I am glad this is actually not true. The RCC is basically trying to hijack the Bible, I wasn't aware of the extent of this until now.

No, the basis of the Catholic claim is not in Mt 16. The basis is the authority and mission given directly by Christ to his Apostles in particular and to his disciples in general. It is a living authority, handed down over the generations from the Apostles to their successors, the bishops. The validity and authority rests in Christ himself, the Head of the Church. Mt 16 was only written years maybe decades after the Church had been established. It is the Church that validates Matthews gospel as authentic, not the other way round. Looking to a book as an authority simply begs the question. By what authority? And how do you know?
Click to expand...
I said Matt 16 is quoted in one of your links as the basis for papal infallibility, not the "catholic claim".

But let's go with your point for a moment: There's simply no way of wriggling out of the plain and clear meaning of Mt 16, where Christ changes the name of Simon and gives him the name Rock, and says that he (Peter) is the rock on which He will build his church, and then gives him the power to bind and loose in His name. These words are addressed to Simon alone.

Elsewhere Jesus says "who receives you receives me, and who rejects you rejects me, and the one who sent me". We also read of the Great Commission, where Christ shares his own mission with his Apostles: "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you" (Jn 20:21). But wait, there's more. He also gives them authority to make binding decisions. "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Mt 18:18). And he gives that final binding power to Simon renamed to Rock (Peter).

That authority extends to the forgiveness of sins, again something normally reserved only to God: "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’" (Jn 20:21–23).

This power was understood as coming from God: "All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation" (2 Cor. 5:18). Indeed, confirms Paul, "So we are ambassadors for Christ" (2 Cor. 5:20).

What many religious people in Christ's day could not accept was that a mere man could forgive sins. Yet Christ shares that divine power with mere portals, creatures, weaklings. How do you account for this?
Click to expand...
With your massive essays on relatively basic stuff, you are doing the wriggling.

You might want to read Matt 18 again. The whole chapter, and also pay special attention to the 1st couple of verses. The "you" is actually all of His disciples who started His church. Not the physical buildings, but rather the church as in the bride of Christ.


As to your attempt at playing the word "vicar". No cigar. Vicar has several related meanings. It is absurd to suggest that a single Catholic of more than a billion believes for one millisecond that the pope is a substitute Christ. Just ask any one. If you can find one sincere Catholic who believes what you say we believe, I'll eat my hat and give you my car. But there is a sense in which every Christian is called to be another Christ.
Click to expand...

Playing the word vicar ? I am not playing anything. Can the RCC also give new meaning to words ?

Anyway so the the pope is called the vicar of Christ, but he is not a substitute for Christ, yet he is given attributes and majestic titles that one would certainly bestow on a substitute for Christ. Are these all fabrications ? :
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/R-Pope_Rome_blasphemy_power_Jesus#footnoteiv

As for eating your hat and giving me your car :

http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/auckland-bishop-says-pope-presides-from-the-cross

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WBo7xFMNZTo


What you cannot do and remain credible is use dictionaries and definitions to argue like a dilettante.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, that's the way we do it. Kids and dilettantes go sit in the corner, you don't know what you're talking about.

Let me give you an uncontroversial example: take the meaning of the word "anarchy". Any dictionary will include several meanings, spanning a whole range of things, from chaos and mayhem to the simple state of no government. Its precise meaning depends on how and where the word is used. What some people do (and what you are doing with the word vicar) is to take one meaning and then in a different context impute that meaning to a different context. If someone were to say "I am an anarchist", does it necessarily follow from dictionary definitions that they believe in promoting chaos and mayhem? Of course not! For them, "anarchy" could well mean a very specific thing, from the Gk "an=no/none/not, "arche"="government/sovereign/ruler" and you would do them an injustice to impute chaos/mayhem to them. This is what you do with vicar.
Click to expand...
If somebody tells me now they are an anarchist, I would find it astonishing if they really are convinced that it won't ultimately end in chaos and mayhem if there was no government.


By far the most central and important doctrines and dogmas in the Catholic Church have to do with the utter and transcendent majesty of God
Click to expand...
As well as the pope and mary.

Despite Matt 23 :

"Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,

7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted."

Because the "biblical definition" that you take is in fact part of a long letter that addresses people who already believe. It is of very little use to unbelievers and says only slightly more than nothing about the content of faith.
Click to expand...
I can think of no better way to explain an atheist or unbeliever what faith actually is.

That's a set-up question. Of course there's nothing before God. By definition, else He wouldn't be God. But to suggest that you only have to believe and then you're saved is seriously wrong. It is utterly counter to the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is utterly counter to the Sacred Scriptures. The only place "faith" and "alone" appear together in the New Testament is when St James says that we are NOT saved by faith alone. Why is this do you think?
Click to expand...
If one truly and sincerely believes in God and the sacrifice that Christ made, and love Him with all your heart, your life will change accordingly. No it really will.

No rituals are required, no sacraments, nothing. As the case of the godless criminal who hung on the cross next to Jesus shows. All that is needed is bitter and sincere repentance. That said, what do you think that man would have done if he somehow gotten of the cross and had his life spared ?

Eph 2 :
"8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast."

We can't give ourselves the gift of grace, and the only other thing I see there is faith.
 
Man, the dissertations that flow when people start arguing about whose unprovable and improbable assumptions are better... :D
 
HapticSimian said:
Man, the dissertations that flow when people start arguing about whose unprovable and improbable assumptions are better... :D
Click to expand...

Well at least it's actually edifying and has a basis in reality, unlike some other fantastical speculations and conjectures which are passed off as science.
 
abandonallhope said:
Well at least it's actually edifying and has a basis in reality, unlike some other fantastical speculations and conjectures which are passed off as science.
Click to expand...

I know, I know... religion has tremendous appeal to those who subscribe to the "I don't understand something, hence it cannot be true" school of thought. But that's veering quite drastically off topic.
 
Shaun108 said:
Are there any Cardinals in South Africa that can run for pope?
Click to expand...
File:Male_Cardinal_Woodpecker_(Dendropicos_fuscescens).jpg
 
Pope Allegedly Sought immunity For abuse crimes Just Before Resigning

It seems that with his resignation announced, the Pope, whose given name is Joseph Ratzinger, has a meeting with the Italian President, Giorgio Napolitano on February 23 to beg for immunity against prosecution for allegations of child sex crimes. Apparently, this hastily arranged meeting, and likely the resignation as well, are the result of a supposed note received by the Vatican from an undisclosed European government that stated that there are plans to issue a warrant for the Pope’s arrest. This letter was allegedly received on February 4, and Ratzinger resigned a week later.
Click to expand...
 
No Pope of Rome no Chapel to sadden my eyes no Nuns and no Priest's no Roserry Beads every day is the 12th of July
FTP

Good Riddance to this ex-Nazi
 
What does the pope have to say about this whole Oscar Pistorius debacle?
 
So Arthur, how can a church so intimately involved with devil at its top echelons for such a long time really be God's chosen ambassador on earth?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X