Edifying Spectacle

Oh darn! I was gonna write a blog entry about St. Malachy's "prophecies" but you beat me to it. I'll look for something else to write about.

Oh, c'mon! Why so much negativity in your life against our Catholic Pope(s)--unless you know, for sure, he (or, they all) have done things, wrongly?!

How many people have been executed at tortured at the orders of various popes?

pretty sure the same people said John Paul II was the antichrist, and John Paul I before him, and Pope Paul VI before him and Pope John XXIII before him etc etc. The problem with 'Christian' fundamentalists is they're too busy damning others to hell to see the mote in their own eyes.

Keep in mind the word antichrist is never mentioned in the book of Apocalypse. There are however, beasts. Multiple beasts. With multiple heads. I am a Catholic, but nonetheless believe that "Pope" Benedict XVI is an antipope, and one of the heads of the beasts. What do you think the "whore of Babylon" is? Well, it should be obvious (to Catholics, anyway) that the "whore of Babylon" is the NEW Church. The Novus Ordo. The new faith that was formed merely 40 years ago, even after millenia of tradition. So, it turns out, apparently (to all of you Novus Ordo "Catholics", anyway) that the Holy Catholic Church was actually wrong for almost 2000 years. Luckily we have these so-called conservative antipopes to show us the true way, which is, in fact, away from the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. If you want antichrist, look no further than our own Holy See.

the new pope is obsessed with symbols and more into his OWN doctorine and not of faith. No matter, if he is the antichrist we will know when he goes to jerusalem and tries to make all religions one. We will know who it is when he wonders us with great things. Come on people we will see him when he is here. And if the new pope is him we will know soon enough and have no excuse. Just be aware.

Some people will throw away the Bible completely just so they can believe what they want to. Unfortunately, the office of "Pope" is just not Biblical at all. Peter was not the first pope as the church claims. He also was not the "rock" as claimed by the same church. There are too many Bible descriptions of the "antichrist power" that perfectly fit the catholic church organization for anyone to deny it. It has a man (pope)at it's head or leadership. It "sees" (holy see) with the eyes of a man, not the eyes of God. The woman (church in prohecy) has a "cup" (in the mass) full of filthiness and abominations. The woman is decked with all kinds of gold and jewels (catholic church is super rich while millions starve to death and pope lives in luxury) It is described as being dressed in purple and scarlet...(ever see the pope and bishops dressed in their best?...purple and scarlet) She will "fornicate" with the "kings" (rulers) of the earth. Church and state is a major deal with the catholic religion. Politics and churches have NO business together, persecution is inevitable. The power is said to change "times and laws"...there is only one of God's laws that is also a time and that is the seventh day Sabbath commandment. The catholic church has plainly admitted for year that it "thinks" it has the power to change God's law. They also claim that sunday is the new sabbath...show me the commandment for that one... The church is referred to as a "mother of harlots" ...the catholic church has always referred to itself as the "mother" church. It is described as sitting on seven mountains...guess where the church is sitting? ...the seven hills..getting scared yet? It is said that this power would speak blasphemy...the church claims that the pope and priests can forgive sin...utter hogwash...God & Jesus alone can forgive sins. They also say that the pope is "another God on earth"...that's blasphemy in my book. The number of his name is 666...The popes title "Vicarious Fillii Dei" equals 666 in the roman numerals...ouchie! the power is said to "wear out" or persecute, torture, destroy, the saints of God...the church freely admits that it has killed millions. Conservative estimates say somewhere around 50 million...I'd say that fits perfectly. I could go on and on but unless a person see's what I have already shared, they are blind anyway so it wont matter. The historical interpretation is the correct one. This left behind junk is also a catholic heresy to cover up the real antichrist power. If they can place the antichrist in the future AFTER the rapture, then the protestants wont recognize the truth about the catholic church. I dont know if the current pope is right with God or not. I hope he is. I am not judging his heart, but he is deluded into thinking that he can accept worship from people. Ever see catholics kneeling down and kissing his ring? Calling him "holy father" when the bible says "call no MAN father". it's time to wake up and smell the prophecies...good day....j

Look I have no love for Catholism, I think it's a mass of illogical superstitions but I don't think all the previous poster said made much sense either.

If it weren't illogical it wouldn't be here. The other guy is a wonderfuly typical instance.

I think I know who through their Bible out. Read Mathew 16:13-18 Jesus calls Simon Peter (The word Peter meaning Rock)and upon this Rock I will build my Church and the Gates of hell will not prevail against it. Jesus makes this statement because God the Father revealed Jesus as the Messiah to Simon. Institutes first Pope. I would take care not to Deny God's Church Or the Apostolic Authority Jesus gave to his first officer. Catholic Church has Gold and Jewels. Read Exodus 25:1-9 Instructions for making a place fitting for God to be present. Seven Hills Sounds like Rome. Read Revelation 18:1-5 God calls his people out of there. Meaning there are saints (believers) in the Great harlot. The Catholic Faith has Apostolic succession. If you don't agree with the Church, it is possible that you are not reading scripture in context or don't quite understand her traditions. Just a thought "ask before you Bash".

There isn't a Baptist who hasn't heard those arguements and laughed at them. And atheists have no reason to respect any cult, religious leader including the Bishop of Rome.

Talk about a laugh. I was talking to a Baptist Deacon about his being a Protestant to which he became very animated and proclaimed " I aint one of them there!" I doubt the Anti-Christ will be a Roman Catholic Pope. For no other reason than too many people beleive that is where he will show up. Besides that whole Apostolic succession thing.?

There are arguments then there are Biblical truths.

I found this information on several Christian search sites. I think it is important in this discussion, to remember as Christians that it’s not about converting Baptist to Catholicism, or vice versa, rather to help one another grow in truth as Christ encouraged. The reason we debate like this is not because of hurt pride or egotistical tendencies, but rather because we love each other and God, as commanded. I ask that, while this information does not directly pertain to whether the current pope is the prophesied anti-Christ, this article would not be deleted from the forum. I hope this helps everybody. The debate rages over whether “the rock” on which Christ will build His church is Peter or Peter’s confession that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Matthew 16:16). In all honesty, there is no way for us to be 100% sure which view is correct. The grammatical construction allows for either view. In my study and analysis of the text, I feel that Peter is the “rock” on which Christ will build His church. Jesus appears to be using a play on words. “You are Peter (petros) and on this rock (petra) I will build my church.” Since Peter’s name means rock, and Jesus is going to build is church on a rock – it appears that Christ is linking the two together. God used Peter greatly in the foundation of the church. It was Peter who first proclaimed the Gospel on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-47). Peter was also the first to take the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10:1-48). In a sense, Peter was the rock “foundation” of the church. This interpretation of "upon this rock" is often used by the Roman Catholic Church as proof that it is the true church of God since it was founded by Peter. This is not the case. Peter being the rock in Matthew 16:18 is meaningless in giving the Roman Catholic Church any authority. Peter was not the first pope and Peter did not start the Roman Catholic Church. If Peter truly was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, they would be in agreement with what Peter taught (Acts 2, 1 Peter, 2 Peter). The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope whom God had chosen to build His church (Matthew 16:18). They believe that He later became the first bishop of Rome and that the Roman bishop was accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. They then believe that God passed Peter’s apostolic authority to those who later filled his seat as bishops of Rome, thus the teaching of apostolic succession. They also claim that all other churches broke away from them, the original and one true church. But nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any New Testament writer set forth the idea of “apostolic succession.” Never is it anything like it mentioned in Scripture, and because of that fact, never is it seen as the qualification of the “true church.” What is mentioned in Scripture is the idea that the word of God was to be the guide that the church was to follow (Acts 20:32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17), not some infallible leader. It is the Scriptures that teachings are to be compared with (Acts 17:10-12). According to the Roman Catholic Church, it is not sufficient that a denomination be able to merely cite an unbroken list of church leaders leading back to Peter (such as the Anglican Church does), but rather a church must also follow the same doctrinal and social foundation as the original church if it is to be considered the “true church.” If one uses this latter measuring stick and compares the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings and practices with those of the original church as recorded in the New Testament, one must come away with the understanding that while they may claim an unbroken line of Roman bishops from the time of Peter, many of their core teachings certainly do not belong to the same church that Peter belonged to...as described by the New Testament. For in the New Testament we find nothing of any of the following: a dispensing of grace through the receiving of the sacraments, the Catholic priesthood which alone is able to transform the bread and wine of the communion service into the actual body and blood of Christ, the offering of the Eucharist as a continuing sacrifice in order to gain grace for those living and those who in purgatory, the adoration of Mary and prayer to her and the saints along with the falling down before statues of the same, confession to a priest, purgatory, and so on. In short, apostolic succession is never found in Scripture and is thus never seen as the basis for determining the “true church.” What is found in Scripture is that the true church will teach what the Scriptures teach and will compare all doctrines and practices to Scripture in order to determine what is true and right and what is not. It is an unfortunate truth (that the apostles acknowledged) that false teachers would arise. And often their heresies are based upon different interpretations of some passages; but in important matters, the truth can be determined by comparing Scripture with Scripture, i.e., taking verses in their context. Alignment with Scriptural teaching, not apostolic succession, is the determining factor of the trueness of a church. The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope upon whom God had chosen to build His church (Matthew 16:18). It holds that he had authority (primacy) over the other apostles. It maintains that sometime after the recorded events of the Book of Acts, the Apostle Peter became the first bishop of Rome and that the Roman bishop was accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. It teaches that God passed Peter’s apostolic authority to those who later filled his seat as bishop of Rome. This teaching that God passed on Peter’s apostolic authority to the subsequent bishops is referred to as “apostolic succession.” The Roman Catholic Church also holds that Peter and the subsequent popes were and are infallible when addressing issues from their position and authority as pope. It teaches that this infallibility gives the pope the ability to guide the church without error. The Roman Catholic Church claims that it can trace an unbroken line of popes back to St. Peter, citing this as evidence that it is the true church, since according to their interpretation of Matthew 16:18 Christ built His church upon Peter. It also claims that if some people (such as the Reformers of the 1500’s) reject the pope’s authority, they are rejecting his God-appointed apostolic authority and thus they are rejecting the true church. But while Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles or over the Church (having primacy) (see Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; 1 Peter 5:1-5). Nor is it ever taught that the bishop of Rome was to have primacy over the Church. Rather there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome, found in 1 Peter 5:13; primarily upon this and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome comes the Roman Catholic Church teaching of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20) and the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11). Also, nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). Paul does NOT call on believers in various churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other church leaders based on their authority as bishops, having apostolic authority, but rather based upon their being fellow laborers with him (1 Corinthians 16:10; 16:16; 2 Corinthians 8:23). What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is cited as infallible (Matthew 5:18; Psalm 19:7-8; 119:160; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17; 2 Peter 1:19-21). The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers, and to fight against such error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority”, but rather he commends them to “God and to the word of His grace...” (Acts 20:28-32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17), not some infallible leader. It is by examining the Scriptures that teachings are shown to be true or false (Acts 17:10-12). According to the Roman Catholic Church, it is not sufficient that a denomination be able to merely cite an unbroken list of church leaders leading back to Peter (such as the Anglican Church does), but rather a church must also follow the same doctrinal and social foundation as the original church if it is to be considered the “true church.” If one uses this latter measuring stick and compares the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings and practices with those of the original church as recorded in the New Testament, one must come away with the understanding that while they may claim an unbroken line of Roman bishops from the time of Peter, many of their core teachings certainly do not belong to the same church that Peter belonged to...as described by the New Testament. For in the New Testament we find nothing of any of the following: a dispensing of grace through the receiving of the sacraments, the Catholic priesthood which alone is able to transform the bread and wine of the communion service into the actual body and blood of Christ, the offering of the Eucharist as a continuing sacrifice in order to gain grace for those living and those who in purgatory, the adoration of Mary and prayer to her and the saints along with the falling down before statues of the same, confession to a priest, purgatory, and so on The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope upon whom God had chosen to build His church (Matthew 16:18). It holds that he had authority (primacy) over the other apostles. It maintains that sometime after the recorded events of the Book of Acts, the Apostle Peter became the first bishop of Rome and that the Roman bishop was accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. It teaches that God passed Peter’s apostolic authority to those who later filled his seat as bishop of Rome. This teaching that God passed on Peter’s apostolic authority to the subsequent bishops is referred to as “apostolic succession.” The Roman Catholic Church also holds that Peter and the subsequent popes were and are infallible when addressing issues from their position and authority as pope. It teaches that this infallibility gives the pope the ability to guide the church without error. The Roman Catholic Church claims that it can trace an unbroken line of popes back to St. Peter, citing this as evidence that it is the true church, since according to their interpretation of Matthew 16:18 Christ built His church upon Peter. It also claims that if some people (such as the Reformers of the 1500’s) reject the pope’s authority, they are rejecting his God-appointed apostolic authority and thus they are rejecting the true church. But while Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles or over the Church (having primacy) (see Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; 1 Peter 5:1-5). Nor is it ever taught that the bishop of Rome was to have primacy over the Church. Rather there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome, found in 1 Peter 5:13; primarily upon this and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome comes the Roman Catholic Church teaching of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20) and the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11). Also, nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). Paul does NOT call on believers in various churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other church leaders based on their authority as bishops, having apostolic authority, but rather based upon their being fellow laborers with him (1 Corinthians 16:10; 16:16; 2 Corinthians 8:23). What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is cited as infallible (Matthew 5:18; Psalm 19:7-8; 119:160; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17; 2 Peter 1:19-21). The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers, and to fight against such error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority”, but rather he commends them to “God and to the word of His grace...” (Acts 20:28-32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17), not some infallible leader. It is by examining the Scriptures that teachings are shown to be true or false (Acts 17:10-12). According to the Roman Catholic Church, it is not sufficient that a denomination be able to merely cite an unbroken list of church leaders leading back to Peter (such as the Anglican Church does), but rather a church must also follow the same doctrinal and social foundation as the original church if it is to be considered the “true church.” If one uses this latter measuring stick and compares the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings and practices with those of the original church as recorded in the New Testament, one must come away with the understanding that while they may claim an unbroken line of Roman bishops from the time of Peter, many of their core teachings certainly do not belong to the same church that Peter belonged to...as described by the New Testament. For in the New Testament we find nothing of any of the following: a dispensing of grace through the receiving of the sacraments, the Catholic priesthood which alone is able to transform the bread and wine of the communion service into the actual body and blood of Christ, the offering of the Eucharist as a continuing sacrifice in order to gain grace for those living and those who in purgatory, the adoration of Mary and prayer to her and the saints along with the falling down before statues of the same, confession to a priest, purgatory, and so on.

the bible is full of lies. his name was not Jesus, but Jmmanuel. Ratzinger thinks he is going to reform the church and the world with his high moral values. he will fail, die soon, another will follow, then the pope called Peter will emerge. how many more people will die in the name of a Religion?? the antichrist is...Jesus. how can anyone call thier own religion real when all they teach is divisive tactics? wrong verses right? as in they are right and eveybody is wrong. it is up to every individual to find the Truth within themselves. Religions and their false teachings will eventually kill most of mankind. our persident thinks God is talking to him? right? well so does every other power hungrey political leader. why are 'we the people' allowing religion to rule our politics.? why is the pope political? all lies will be revealed.