Featured Vicar of Jesus Christ?

If Pope Francis looks at himself in the mirror, he will see the anti-Christ. No, he's not the anti-Christ himself, but the papalcy en toto compromises the anti-Christ, with the RCC being Babylon.

 

Confession 26:4
"...neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming."

 

Vicarius Filii Dei - according to Catholic Canon Law.

 

These are blasphemous words to be uttered by anyone, especially the Vicar of Christ. The only trouble is he didn't say this. http://m.snopes.com/religious-replicates/

 

But he did say this much didn't he:

 

No, he didn't say that either. http://m.snopes.com/religious-replicates/

He does say enough to totally embarrass most Catholics I know, all of whom wish he hadn't made this trip. But let's not attribute these made up quotes to him.

 

Antichrist, as the Church of Rome has always preached a false Gospel, and they see salvation to be to all other faiths save for conservative non catholic Christians!

 

Hello, all- I stumbled upon this thread recently after reading an article on this very topic by Nabeel Qureshi. When I saw that there weren't any Catholic replies, being an adult "convert" to the Catholic faith, I signed up. I am sure that some of the participants here realize the fact that Catholics are to submit to the authority of Christ's Church when considering matters of faith and morals. So it is that this particular matter isn't one which Catholics are free to understand in a variety of ways. The Catechism of the Catholic Church reads as follows:

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."

844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:
Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.
845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.

 

In this alone they are mistaken.
They don't acknowledge the Creator; they acknowledge a false deity called Allah.
They don't hold to the faith of Abraham; they believe that Abraham offered Ishmael and not Isaac.
The don't adore with us the same merciful God. Their God is a different God; their Jesus is a different Jesus. He is only a prophet and not deity. This is blasphemy. God is not the triune Godhead. To say so to them is blasphemy. No, their god is a completely different god. Their salvation is a completely different salvation.

But then so is the Catholic salvation; it also runs contrary to the Bible.

 

The pope and "~papalcy~" are the "harlot" of the Apocalypse; Islam and 'Muslimcy' the harlot's first-born harlot daughter.


Watch them together the great red dragon and the women riding it ready to devour the woman clothed with the sun as well as her Child in the wilderness before Michael and his angels fight against the dragon and prevail over and cast it out because he deceived the WHOLE WORLD.


The concern at present is the whole world being deceived. With what will the dragon's deception be overcome? "They overcame by the blood of the Lamb and by the Word of his Testimony"— by Christ and by the two-edged Sword of the Word of God, the Scriptures.


But that very Sword has been forged blunt and pointless between the iron teeth of the dragon and his prophet. “Take the Little Book and eat it … Thou (John the beloved apostle of Jesus) must prophecy before MANY PEOPLE AND NATIONS AND TONGUES AND KINGS…” the PURIFIED AND SHARPENED Word of God “…AGAIN!”

 

Hello to you both, Gerhard Ebersoehn and DHK-

When I first visited this site I was intrigued because I spent the first 30 years of my life as a Baptist. I look back fondly upon my life as a Baptist. Now as a Catholic I retain all the truth that I embraced as a Baptist and more. For I now receive the graces of all that Christ intended for His Flock in the very Church He founded.

I do not boast in this, though, as if I am personally better or wiser for this. I am not saying these things in a triumphalistic way, as if I can gloat in being a Catholic.

I imagine that there are many people here who truly love the Lord, live for Him, and share in the rich Christian intellectual tradition together on this site. There is a certain unity that we all enjoy through our common Baptism in the Lord! Yet, division remains among us. So I am here to ask that both of you be careful not to mistake your prejudices and inherited traditions for sound arguments against the Catholic Church. Both of you have presented some "assertions" here. But like the the statue in Nebuchadnezzar's dream, your assertions have feet of clay. Claims such as the idea that "the pope and the '~papalcy~' are the 'harlot' of the apocalypse" or the claim that "Catholic salvation... runs contrary to the Bible." are just that, claims. I am happy to consider and discuss any arguments which you believe may substantiate them because, though your assertions likely come from hearts which desire the truth, they are quite untrue.

Finally, speaking of differing beliefs, on this thread the point of division we're discussing centers upon Christian and Muslim conceptions of God. To speak to that issue, I'd recommend the following article: http://www.strangenotions.com/and-this-all-men-call-god/

Thanks again.

 

Salty,

Thanks for asking. It’s been a long road and one I would not have expected to walk. I’ve tried to come up with some ideas to relay my heart to you and it’s not been easy. I could respond by writing about Holy Communion. I could respond by focusing upon the Scriptures. I could respond by discussing my marriage and how that covenant taught me so much about love, sacrifice, and the heart of God for a married couple. But, alas, conviction is something that comes about slowly, in phases, often quite privately, and according to lived experience. So at this point in this walk of faith, I must say that your question is to me a lot like asking a person why he came in from a storm or why he moved into a house instead of staying out homeless and on the street. Sure, I didn’t used to see things this way. It took time for my perspective to shift.

What shifted, though? Was it the truth that changed? Do we Christians have a moving goal post? Most certainly not! It was my perception that changed.

So here I sit, a Catholic these seven years. And to me, whatever else “conversion” may be, it means assuming a lowly position. For it means scowls from the religious and secular alike. It means ridicule and dismissal from some of the most devoted of all the Christians and nearly all of the most convinced of the atheists. To become a Catholic now is to be questioned about priestly abuse, corruption among the clergy, and confusion related to the Pope’s latest off-the-cuff remark. It means having to attempt to explain the riches of the Church, the mitres and the croziers. None of these reasons, though, amounts to a reason to give up on the faith which is likely part of the reason that John Henry Newman once said “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.” For me to leave the Church for the sake of all of these challenges would be, after all, to live out an observation once made by GK Chesterton: "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried."

But you asked me why I became a Catholic. Well, let me put it this way. If Christianity was a solar system, I once thought of the Bible as its Sun. With that ordering of things, my Baptist faith started to make all the sense in the world to me. Indeed, I believed that God had set things up that way and I was happy to strive to conform myself to His ordering of things. I came to realize, though, that such an arrangement wasn’t God’s arrangement at all. No, God had arranged the solar system in an entirely different manner. For God had placed His very own begotten Son in the position in which I’d wrongly placed the Bible. I’d done so in good faith, though. For I was told by those I trusted that the Bible belonged there. As I came to understand, however, that the solar system was to be ordered around Him, God’s Son, some planets were undisturbed while others were moved about and still other planets which hadn’t entered my field of vision suddenly appeared. For example, a planet we call the dogma of the “Holy Trinity” didn’t budge. Most of the “moral” planets, for that matter, stayed right where they had always been. New planets, though, popped up. For example, the Church’s teaching on contraception was represented by a large planet I’d never seen before. In fact, I didn’t even know that planet existed there among the moral planets! But when examined, I saw that it made perfect sense in the light of the Son. Also, the Bible got a little bit bigger, which wasn't something, I, a lover of the Bible was going to complain about. And quite possibly the biggest planet (by virtue of its relationship to the Son), something which had previously been more like a Black Hole to me, the Catholic Church, came into my field of vision. For like a Black Hole, the Catholic Church, up until then wasn’t perceived through direct recognition. Rather, I’d always perceived of the Church according to its effect on things near to it. There it had always been throughout my years as a Christian, influencing some writer, meeting in Council, frustrating the efforts of a young and righteous Martin Luther... in other words, just doing the things the Church did. Now, though, there is order to the solar system, God's order. Christ is the Center. The Scriptures are placed in their rightful place in relation to Him. The Saints of the Church find their rightful place as that great cloud of witnesses. The Church itself, with her Magisterium and her Catechism occupy the rightful positions in the solar system. What a beautiful picture all of this makes, a picture of God's work among His people! Also, my role as a member of the laity is clearer. In other words, things make sense now. They make so much sense, in fact, that it’s hard for me to understand how they once didn’t. That’s why, in pondering possible responses to that same question you asked me, the great American writer Walker Percy, who was himself received into the Church as an adult, imagined answering it with another question: “What else is there?”

It’s a short answer. But it’s a perfectly legitimate one and quite sufficient in itself.

Q: “Why did you become a Catholic?”

A: “What else is there?”

After all, Christ only established one Church. As a divinely instituted society, it receives men and women into its communion and even excludes them according to their unwillingness to repent (Matthew 18). This Church was already active as a society during the Apostolic age through its cooperation with the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28). Other than this Church, the Church founded by Christ, the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth (1 Timothy 3) against which the Gates of Hades will not prevail (Matthew 16), what else is there? This Church is, after all, his body, “the fullness of Him who fills all in all” (Ephesians 1). It was founded upon the prophets and the apostles with Christ as the Chief Cornerstone. Through this Church God has seen it fit to reveal His manifold wisdom (Ephesians 3). It is a Church which is one flesh with its Bridegroom, Christ (Ephesians 5) and which has the authority to bind and loose (Matthew 16, Matthew 18), and upon whose Apostles was conferred the very authority of Christ (John 20, Luke 10). There is indeed only one Church founded by Christ. This is the very Church which provides the supernatural means of unity found nowhere else which Christ prayed for in St. John’s Gospel, ch.17, verses 20-23. That Church’s establishment even precedes the writing of the books of the New Testament itself. The same Holy Spirit who descended on Pentecost, the Church’s Birthday, is the same Holy Spirit to whom we attribute the writing, with their human authors, the texts of the New Testament, the Early Church’s family journal. Christopher Dawson, an English historian who was received into the Church as an adult, once said this of the Catholic life: “It was by the study of St. Paul and St. John that I first came to understand the fundamental unity of Catholic theology and the Catholic life. I realized that the Incarnation, the sacraments, and the external order of the church and the internal work of sanctifying grace, were all parts of one organic unity, a living tree whose roots are in the Divine nature and whose fruit is the perfection of the saints…”

That “tree” of which Dawson speaks is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of the Creeds. It’s the kingdom of God, which Christ described as the smallest of seeds which grows into a large tree which provides shade and shelter for the birds. GK Chesterton, himself received into the Church as an adult, had this to say, which speaks directly the point I am trying to make: “The fatal metaphor of progress, which means leaving things behind us, has utterly obscured the real idea of growth, which means leaving things inside us.” For there in my Baptist faith were the seeds, the inchoate elements which have become a Catholic faith. And the Catholic faith is a faith entirely different from any other Christian faith. Chesterton, in writing to his own Mom prior to his reception into the Church referred to Catholicism as “Christianity’s one fighting form.” The difference between being Catholic and being Baptist is, as far as a society is concerned, is the difference between something and nothing. And this leads me to one of the most profound challenges I faced which began inching me toward the Church. It was posed this to me this way: “You say that as a Baptist you have a church. But if your church were actually not a church, but instead was just an accidental congregation of like-minded believers, what would be different?” I realized that nothing would be different. I realized that the like-minded believers in my Baptist Church could come and go as they pleased and even disregard the Pastor’s authority if they thought he’d swayed from the teaching of the Bible. In other words, if one thing’s existence is posited, but its absence is consistent with the given state of affairs, as well, why then, that thing that I’m saying is there, really isn’t there at all. In other words, I was guilty of falling prey to a particular form of the fallacy of nominalism. I was imagining something which did exist- an accidental congregation of culturally and theologically like-minded believers- as being something that did not there exist, namely a supernaturally bound, divinely ordained community of faith, which is what the Catholic Church is…

Thanks again for asking!

In Him,

Herbert VanderLugt

 

We come to know his son through the Word. The J.W.'s also read the Word, and yet Christ is only an angel to them. To the Mormon's he is simply "another god." The Son is defined for and speaks to us through His Word.

And yet the RCC has now changed it stance recently on contraception urging mothers to use it, and all because of the Zika virus. I am sure such diseases existed then (in Christ's time), as well. This is an example of a change of doctrine in the RCC.

It wasn't Luther. The apocryphal books, put in the OT canon, were never accepted by the Jews. The Jewish canon was completed by 450 B.C. The oldest of those books is 250 B.C., and some of them were written either during or after the time of Christ. How is it possible that these are OT books, or should be put in a canon of Scripture that was closed in 450 B.C. Also the OT Canon, given to the Israelites, quoted by Jesus was written in Hebrew. Those are the books inspired of God. All the Apocryphal books were written in Greek. That would disqualify them immediately.

The Magesterium is made up of fallible sinful men who came up with a document, the Catechism, which contains doctrines of fallible sinful men, and a whole lot of error contrary to the Bible. In essence one throws away the Bible and replaces it with a man-made uninspired piece of work written by sinful men.

There is the Word of God which Christ said is so much more important than the traditions of men which he condemned.

Mark 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Let's examine these claims.
First, Peter. I can show you from Scripture that Peter was never in Rome as the RCC claims. Tradition says he died there, but that is tradition, and given that, that would be the only time he went to Rome, dragged there as prisoner and then martyred. He was never there as a bishop or in any place of leadership in any church. Thus the very foundation of the RCC lies in question.
Second, the RCC's supposed understanding of the "sacraments" is flawed. One doesn't even find the word in the Scriptures, just as they don't find the word "Eucharist" in the Scripture. The entire doctrine of transubstantiation is a heresy.
Third, Paul and John never taught Catholic theology. You can't prove that they did.
Rather Baptist churches today have their pulpits in the center of the front of the church because the Bible is the authority for all its doctrine, not tradition. Saved individuals base their salvation on what the Bible says, and have a relationship with Jesus Christ not through a religion, but through Jesus Christ.
Fourth, Paul, and the others, established churches, not a "Church." The Greek word is ekklesia. It means assembly. There is no such thing as a universal invisible Church. There are only local churches. There is no such thing as an unassembled assembly. Paul went on three missionary journeys and established about 100 churches all independent of each other.

 

The RCC is apostate in its teaching.
It is misleading in its history. It did not come into existence until the fourth century when a pagan emperor married Christendom to the state. At that time paganism was introduced into Christendom and Catholicism was born. As you can see idols still abound in the RCC which the Catholics still bow down before, which is the essence of idolatry. It is a pagan church, not Christian. There are great similarities between Catholicism and Hinduism. Neither one belongs to Christianity.