Very roughly - when Rome converted to Christianity it was a bureaucratic decision to consolidate power under the church. They kept pretty much all of the pagan rituals and holidays but slapped Jesus's face on them. They even kept the pantheonic system but renamed them under biblical terms like demons and angels, and then added the saints to replace local deities in newly conquered lands.
There is no "Catholic Church" in the Bible and the Popes have never adhered to the Biblical teachings of Jesus. They use the Christian ideals of sin and forgiveness to enforce obedience and taxation.
With 1700 years of hindsight, it seems like the Catholic Church is just a front for what they themselves would call "satanism" and they could even be likened to what we would call corrupt globalists today.
Jesus was really born on September 11 if the Bible is truly the Word of God, which I believe it is. The Book of Revelation talks about the position of the stars at the time of the birth of Christ and astronomical computer software was used to determine when those conditions could possibly have been met.
Really makes you wonder why George H.W. Bush chose to give this speech to Congress on September 11, 1990, which just so happened to be 11 years before 9/11/2001-
Clearly, no longer can a dictator count on East-West confrontation to stymie concerted United Nations action against aggression. A new partnership of nations has begun.
We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective–a new world order–can emerge: a new era–freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony. A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor.
Today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we’ve known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak[!]. This is the vision that I shared with President Gorbachev in Helsinki. He and other leaders from Europe, the Gulf, and around the world understand that how we manage this crisis today could shape the future for generations to come.
The test we face is great, and so are the stakes. This is the first assault on the new world that we seek, the first test of our mettle. Had we not responded to this first provocation with clarity of purpose, if we do not continue to demonstrate our determination, it would be a signal to actual and potential despots around the world. . .
Once again, Americans have stepped forward . . . At this very moment, they serve together with Arabs, Europeans, Asians, and Africans in defense of principle and the dream of a new world order. . . .
I’ve never read or heard this full speech before, only clips of the “New World Order” reference. When you read it through, it actually appears quite beautiful, that countries will unite, that the strong will take care of the weak, etc.. it’s really too bad that the New World Order is expected to be run by a select few, because the concepts of world peace would be so goddamn wonderful. The evil one tends to appear as the “angel of light”. Enter Q….
As much as I agree that the Catholic Church is as evil as it comes…the immaculate conception is referring to The conception of Mary, her birth is 9 months later sept 8. They say she was conceived without sin, hence immaculate conception.
Plus Dec 25 is almost certainly not the actual day of Jesus' birth. It was a way to keep the pagan celebration held that day but rename it as Christmas.
Superficially, I agree with you. Once you dig into all the lies of modern Christianity, you realize getting back to the truth, is paramount. It’s really the only way forward, here.
This pure fact of necessity is what has caused the rift between normies and the awakened. It's why my family and everyone else thinks I'm crazy (after knowing me for 36 years) out of the blue. People think I'm a straight up asshole now because I make sure to clarify fuzzy nuances of almost every scenario. Every day I consider telling myself "fuck it" as long as I myself am aware of the full story or full truth of something, I guess I'll let those around me continue their naivete so they won't think I'm loopy.
Yes it does matter. Just like words used in the bill of rights words and details matter.
Lack of details allows the enemy to deceive even the "righteous". Xmas is a perfect example. What (or who) is actually being worshiped on 12/25? Or the 1st day - the day of the SUN.
Meanwhile, the Bible says all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and that includes Mary.
Jesus also made it clear Mary is no different than the rest of us on numerous occasions.
Luke 11:14-28 (Verses 14-26 are for context and you can skip to the end for tl;dr)
14 And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered.
15 But some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils.
16 And others, tempting him, sought of him a sign from heaven.
17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.
18 If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub.
19 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges.
20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.
21 When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:
22 But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.
23 He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.
24 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out.
25 And when he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished.
26 Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in, and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first.
27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.
28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
So Jesus is preaching and is accused of working with Beelzebub after casting out demons. He states the oft-quoted "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth." (As an aside, we are witnessing the truth of this statement in real time in the United States...).
After Jesus is done saying this to a crowd trying to tempt him, a woman shouts "Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps (teats, nipples) which thou hast sucked." (Note: The Hail Mary prayer contains the same sentiment, does it not?)
What was Jesus's response?
Without dishonoring his mother, He replies, "Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it."
Luke 8:20-22
20 And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.
21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.
Jesus obeyed the commandment to honor his father and mother even to His death. It's not that He did not love His mother. Rather, He knew it was important for her not to be worshipped, as that's a violation of the second commandment (the one the Roman Catholics removed and also pretend they don't violate because they "venerate" statues and relics rather than "worship" them), so he continuously pointed people back to the word of God.
John 19:25-28
25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
You can read the rest of it for further investigations and proofs, but here's the single paragraph explaining the date itself-
The Precise Position of the Moon is Important
Now note this point. Since the feet of Virgo the Virgin represent the last 7 degrees of the constellation (in the time of Jesus this would have been between about 180 and 187 degrees along the ecliptic), the Moon has to be positioned somewhere under that 7 degree arc to satisfy the description of Revelation 12. But the Moon also has to be in that exact location when the Sun is mid-bodied to Virgo. In the year 3 B.C.E., these two factors came to precise agreement for about an hour and a half, as observed from Palestine or Patmos, in the twilight period of September 11th The relationship began about 6:15 p.m. (sunset), and lasted until around 7:45 p.m. (moonset). This is the only day in the whole year that the astronomical phenomenon described in the twelfth chapter of Revelation could take place.
This also shows one other important point. The Moon was in crescent phase. It was a New Moon day, the start of a new lunar month. (See plates one and two below which show early depictions of the celestial scene of Revelation 12:1–3 and how the Moon is shown to be in its crescent phase.)
Do you think the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Jesus? Incorrect. It refers to the conception of Mary as she had to be free from sun to carry the Son of God.
Exactly. It is the seed of man that carries the sin we all inherit, not the seed of woman. Therefore Jesus was not born of the seed of man, but of the Spirit. Mary was a sinner and she worships Jesus like all believers.
And you consulted God on this little detail? These things are way beyond my pay grade. And, I’ll wager, yours. How about we both live pure and blameless lives and when we die we’ll be able to see God face to face and find out the Truth directly from HIM?
Oh yeah I be sure to take your advice. You sound REALLY smart. Ha ha ha.
Seriously though, if you don't know what you are talking about, STFU, ok? If you can't respect something enough to know what it is, then seriously shut the fuck up about it, got it?
Whatever the fuck you are trying to be, this is my advice: you need to stop circle jerking your buddy. This is a crippling level of stupidity. Jesus weeps. Here's thing thing - you are so stupid, you may wind up hurting his little weenis with your retard strength.
But I got to hand it to you, you earned a few upvotes, so apparently you have a lot of stupid,easily frightened little dicks to choose from. So go blow away as many faggots as you wish! Just remember, the important part here is for you to go away.
And please, coax your fed army away with your very capable dick beaters.
Or begin to understand the incredible acuteness of your Dunning-Kruger curve and get a clue.
Well, the first mention of the term “catholic church” is in the Apostle’s Creed. “Catholic” is a term that refers to the universality of the church, that no matter where in the world you go to a body of believers in Christ, we are all united together as Christians.
That said, that original meaning has been long lost to time and distortions, as what became the Roman Catholic church essentially pushed the “heaven on earth” idea way too far by saying that the bishop of Rome is the spokesman of God Himself.
Say what you like, but the words of Scripture (the canon that does NOT include the Apocrypha) are the words of God, and those words alone are the true guide to spiritual truth. Anything attempting to mix other religions (I’ve seen people on this site mention about Islam and Christianity sharing the same God, for example, along with some melding Christianity with Eastern thinking) with the Bible and its gospel truth is falsehood. It might sound close-minded, but I can say that it’s the only spiritual way that doesn’t lead to very dark places.
I have nothing against individual Catholics but I have come to learn there is much about Catholicism I was never even taught. It was an open secret.
Whenever one visits a Roman Catholic Church for a wedding, funeral, or what not, one can ask the priest which relics are contained in the altar. And, if one wants to really appear in the know, one can ask if it's a first-class, second-class, or third-class relic.
What's a relic? Relics are sometimes pieces of clothing, but, in many cases, are the actual body parts of the "saints."
Just what are relics and what meaning do they have for disciples of Jesus Christ?
The word relic comes from the Latin relinquo, literally meaning I leave, or I abandon. A relic is a piece of the body of a saint, an item owned or used by the saint, or an object which has been touched to the tomb of a saint. Traditionally, a piece of the body of a saint, especially that of a martyr, may be with the permission of the local ecclesiastical authority used in solemn processions recalling the specific holy person.
It may seem strange that Christianity, which so adheres to the belief in the resurrected body after the final judgment, should attach veneration to body parts of the faithful departed. But as Dom Bernardo Cignitti, O.S.B., once wrote, In a religion as spiritually centered as Christianity, the remains of certain dead are surrounded with special care and veneration. This is because the mortal remains of the deceased are associated in some manner with the holiness of their souls which await reunion with their bodies in the resurrection.
There's actually Roman Catholic churches which not only supposedly contain the finger of St. Joachim or some other saint in the altar, but are actually constructed almost completely with skeletal remains.
If you've never heard of Sedlec Ossuary, prepare to have your mind blown-
You should read church history. You are badly informed as to the creation of the Church. That church is Orthodox, not Catholic, which is anathema to Christ.
Wouldn't the Orthodox Church be considered closer to the original church? As I recall it was Roman branch that split off from the rest of the church to become Catholicism, not the other way around.
The orthodox church is no different than the catholic church, they disagree on maybe two things. But they both worship idols, confess to a priest, pray to saints, all the things the Bible says not to do.
Lol how ignorant. Orthodox church is very very different in so many ways. Confessing to a priest is not forbidden in the Bible lolol. And one is confessing to God with the guidance of a priest btw. Because confessing your sins openly to people who may not have vows to handle them properly, or the training to help you with personal growth may not serve the intended purpose but those who seek repentance require a specialist to always be available. They do not worship idols. Icons are not idols. Icons are not worshipped. They commemorate the saints, I’ve never seen any Orthodox pray to the saints and I’ve been to Greek, Romanian, Macedonian and Russian Orthodox church lol. Those “maybe two things” are HUGE by the way. Transubstantiation for instance. Ya know, the difference between delusional dogma and a rite. Even if there were only differences they are quite large. The RCC has always been anti-science. The Orthodox church has never been anti-science.
Confessing to a priest is not forbidden in the Bible lolol.
1 Timothy 2:5 KJV For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus
And one is confessing to God with the guidance of a priest btw. Because confessing your sins openly to people who may not have vows to handle them properly, or the training to help you with personal growth may not serve the intended purpose but those who seek repentance require a specialist to always be available.
1 Corinthians 3:16 KJV Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? (Apparently our boy doesn't know about this because preach never told him. I wonder why?)
They do not worship idols. Icons are not idols. Icons are not worshipped. They commemorate the saints, I’ve never seen any Orthodox pray to the saints and I’ve been to Greek, Romanian, Macedonian and Russian Orthodox church lol.
“ but the churches in the East were developing distinct cultural and theological differences from those in the West”
It is the west who reinvented the wheel and adopted different doctrines from the original church created by the apostles that were widespread throughout the entire Christian world. The RCC made it so priests could not be married, which was not an original practice Orthodox changed. Garbage rhetoric to fool the ignorant. Check your sources. Because they are trash.
Yes, a clown that presents himself as "dickallcocks" is calling me a troll. Could this be a catholic? Gee, I wonder.
Look, if you want to worship the antiChrist, that's your problem, not mine. I know the Bible, it couldn't be more clear. You don't know the bible, you are the beast's bitch and proud of it. I've fulfilled my duty here. Later.
You don’t confess TO the priest. The priest bears witness as you confess to God. You confess in the presence of the priest if you are so inclined. But mince words. It is also NOT required to confess to a priest in Orthodoxy, ever, and completely optional, and a practice, not a rite, because most people have a difficult time being honest to themselves let alone God. The purpose of the priest is to advise you or guide you to personal transformation if requested, which they cannot do without information. Being your brother’s keeper means holding each other accountable where you cannot hold yourself accountable and priests are intended to offer that service where yourself or others may fail. But mince words about a faith you don’t actually practice with someone who does like an ignorant fool.
Everything you say is a stretch. Seriously. Icons are not idols. Icons are symbolic, like letters, words, sentences and stories. They are an abstraction and representation to imperfectly communicate the meaning and purpose of the faith like all means of man’s communication. No one worships icons. They are a tool to worship God. No different than the book itself or prayer beads. Pictures are worth 1,000 words and setting is important to the orthodox faith, and icons create a setting which focus your mind on God instead of the material world.
It should be noted that the largest collection of icons in the world, on Mt Aethos are put away into storage and almost never seen again after being finished because the act of creating the icons themselves is a form of prayer no different than when monks wrote and illustrated bibles. They paint the icons as prayer and they are preserved in deep storage and almost never seen again. That is not worship. They are not praying to the icons, they are praying to God as they make them as they do when they bake bread or candles or write texts.
An icon is no different than a cross for lay people. Is the cross idol worship? No.
Sadly you can quote text, but do not fully understand it beyond cherry-picking for selfish purposes.
First off let me just state that ALL religions are man made. And thus they are full of sin. Only God is pure.
What is important is your relationship with God. How you practice is up to you. I look upon my Catholic Church as a community of people who were raised in similar beliefs. I go for the communal spirit and the opportunity to administer to others.
Boy do people get this wrong.! We do NOT worship saints nor any statutes. We ask saints to intercede for us.
God works through them. As he does through a priest when one goes to confession.
We also pray directly to God/Jesus. And we believe in the Holy Trinity which some religions do not.
The most important thing to remember is the Roman Catholic Church (to my knowledge) is the only church that believes the host and wine become the body and blood of Christ. (Transubstantiation) when the priest calls for the Holy Spirit to come down (epiklesis) . The body and blood are transformed into the body and blood of Christ to transform us when we eat the bread and drink the wine.
Oh and Just so ya know many of us also do not LIKE Pope Francis.
If you are the Temple of God and Jesus Christ is in you, why do you need intercession?
The most important thing to remember is the Roman Catholic Church (to my knowledge) is the only church that believes the host and wine become the body and blood of Christ.
Christ's Work of redemption is finished, His Blood was only required once to pay all of the debts of sin. The Bible is quite clear on this. And it's just common sense. If a priest is required to cause this "transubwhatever" and you are required to do it every week, what outcome is obvious? Church business, filthy lucre.
Another little Biblical truth, believers in Jesus Christ are kings and priests already. What do we need priests for?
The most important thing to remember is the Roman Catholic Church (to my knowledge) is the only church that believes the host and wine become the body and blood of Christ. (Transubstantiation) when the priest calls for the Holy Spirit to come down (epiklesis) . The body and blood are transformed into the body and blood of Christ to transform us when we eat the bread and drink the wine.
The most important thing to remember is the Roman Catholic Church slit the throats of those who chose not to believe that once they obtained a copy of the Bible in their native tongues and heard the Word of God for themselves.
The Bible says there was one sacrifice for sins that ended all sacrifices.
Hebrews 10:11-13
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
Meanwhile the Catholic theologians attack the Reformers for daring to believe the Word of God and assuming they had to toss out Roman Catholic tradition whenever they found a conflict.
By making these assumptions, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli totally rejected the sacrificial character of Mass, the Roman Canon, the so-called "Private Mass" and the application of Masses for the living and the dead.
Here’s the thing. Christ left a Church not a book and put his Apostles in charge of spreading his Word. Only later did the Church compile an official Bible from various writings. So when you ask what about all of these things that aren’t in the Bible imagine the early Christians before the Bible? Were they not real Christians?
The amazing thing about the Catholic Church is it’s still here even with all of our truly awful leaders. It still officially teaches the truth even with all of its sinful clergy.
Sorry, but it’s not enough to simply say, “Oh, we’ve spent $4billion on sex crimes/charges against children, but a few ‘bad apples’ cannot convince me my religion is the wrong one.”
Even worse, the United States dioceses of the Roman Catholic Church took out non-recourse loans from Allied Irish Banks and the Bank of Ireland from 2005-2007, putting up their overinflated US real estate holdings as collateral.
To understand this claim, look into Peter Sutherland, the father of globalism.
Sutherland was educated at Jesuit-run Gonzaga College and became the youngest Attorney General in Irish history in 1981. He was only 35 years old.
He left public office to work at Allied Irish Banks, quickly rising to chairman. In 1984, Sutherland became the youngest ever European Commisioner (notice a trend?) and parlayed the connections he made in this position to become Director General of GATT and later the World Trade Organization, which he helped found.
Peter Sutherland held the title of Consultor of the Extraordinary Section of the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See AKA Financial Advisor to the Vatican while simultaneously serving as chairman of Allied Irish Banks (now AIB Bank), non-executive Chairman of Goldman Sachs International, non executive Chairman of the oil company BP, and director of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group.
As we now know now, Goldman Sachs was well aware of the real estate bubble that collapsed in 2008. There's a very good chance Sutherland advised Pope Benedict of this and helped those dioceses get the loans based on their vast real estate holdings.
After the crash in 2008, the Roman Catholic dioceses claimed they were unable to pay their loans back to the Irish banks, and turned over the unused real estate they had put up as collateral on the non-recourse loans, settling their contract in full. The problem was this real estate was now worth pennies on the dollar.
Guess who bailed out the Irish banks, and, ultimately, the Roman Catholic Church? You guessed it, the American taxpayers...
I discovered all of this digging into Raffaelo Follieri, the Italian businessman who dated Anne Hathaway and, in my opinion, was the patsy when all these real estate deals fell through. Interesting ties to Bill Clinton and Ron Burkle as well as Naomi Campbell.
Follieri is an Italian real estate developer best known for the Vati-Con scandal. The scandal included allegations that Follieri misappropriated a $ 50 million investment by Bill Clinton and billionaire Ronald Burkle to buy Roman Catholic churches and monasteries in the United States. After his arrest, prosecutors alleged from court files that Follieri lied about his links with the Vatican.
Follieri also made connections with No Name and threw a birthday party for John McCain in 2006 on a rented yacht in Montenegro.
The McCain-Follieri Love Boat
John McCain has been hammering rival Barack Obama for being little more than a vapid “celebrity” and “elitist.” But The Nation has obtained a photo revealing just how star-struck a straight-talking maverick can become when offered the chance to celebrate his birthday aboard a yacht filled with celebrities–even if one of those celebrity types turns out to be an A-list con man.
The photograph finally confirms reports that in late August, 2006, McCain celebrated his 70th birthday aboard a yacht, the Celine Ashley, rented by A-list con man Raffaello Follieri, now serving a five year jail term, and his then-movie star girlfriend Anne Hathaway. In the current edition ofVanity Fair, Michael Schnayerson reported that Follieri rented the Celine Ashley for the month of August 2006. Montenegro’s leading daily newspaper, Vijesti, earlier reported that during McCain’s visit in 2006 he celebrated with birthday cocktails and sweets aboard the Celine Ashley yacht.
In the photograph, taken in Montenegro at the end of August, McCain is shown giddily shuffling up the yacht ramp like an old Tim Conway, heading towards the smiling Follieri and Hathaway. Just ahead of McCain and shaking hands with Follieri appears to be Rick Davis–McCain’s top aide and now co-manager of his campaign, who accompanied him on the trip and advised the government of Montenegro.
The yacht that McCain partied on was likely paid for with stolen money.
A few months after McCain’s yacht party, Follieri strengthened his ties to McCain’s orbit by retaining Rick Davis’s well-connected Washington lobbying firm, Davis Manafort, and offering Davis both an investment deal and help in securing the Catholic vote for McCain’s presidential bid.
Martin Luther would be proud. He experienced excommunication himself, in exchange for finding the truth!
Maybe his hatred toward the Jews wasn’t so off the cuff, after all… especially given how their rejection of Jesus back in his day is very much the same as today.
Wrong. Whenever the Church spread the Gospel it looked for parts of peoples culture that aligned with the Truth that is written by God on all peoples hearts. Customs that didn’t violate God’s teachings were acceptable.
You wouldn’t have the word of God without the Church to tell you it. Who is going to interpret? You get what you have today Millions of Protestants with whatever beliefs you can make up leading to a complete destruction of the faith.
Worship a Tree? Pretty much the opposite. The Pagans were the tree worshipers and Sr Boniface cut it down which was a death sentence kind of like modern tree worshippers.
The Moloch worshipers are still here too. So longevity doesn't bestow much.
The awful leaders? Thats a pretty good indicator that there's a big problem with that church. "officially teaches the truth even with all of it's sinful clergy" lol.
The inquisitions, where official church policy was "torture non-Catholics to death"?
The selling of indulgences? Church teaching. The continual defense of the pedos among them? Thoroughly corrupt.
The Catholic Church doesn’t have a monopoly on pedophilia. Unfortunately, The Southern Baptist convention of churches have a history of pedophilia and sexual abuse and covering it up, as do Sovereign Grace Churches, and probably any other “corporation” of churches that you look into. That’s the problem, these are what I believe to be massive “religious institutions/corporations” not churches.
The Bible tells us that “when two or more are gathered in my name, I am there in the midst of them”. I would say 2 or more believers meeting is “church”. A massive corporation made up of churches is different and I believe the overall corporation can be corrupt and evil but not EVERY church in the corporation is. Kind of like countries, the governments are evil but not necessarily its citizens. The American government is evil right now, has been for a long time, but We the People are not.
The Catholic Church doesn’t have a monopoly on pedophilia. Unfortunately, The Southern Baptist convention of churches have a history of pedophilia and sexual abuse and covering it up, as do Sovereign Grace Churches, and probably any other “corporation” of churches that you look into. That’s the problem, these are what I believe to be massive “religious institutions/corporations” not churches.
I don't disagree with this.
The main difference is when a Southern Baptist gets caught committing pedophilia, they get turned over to the local authorities and punished for their crimes. In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, the offending priest often gets a one way ticket to another city or even a totally different country, and, historically, has continued the abuse.
I wish that were true, unfortunately, I know first hand they do not report to the authorities. Some do, and I think it’s perhaps getting better with individual churches than it was in the past, but that hasn’t historically been the case. Do a deep dive, go down the rabbit hole, and then see if you have the same opinion. 🤷🏼♀️ I know more now than I ever wished to about this subject, but now that I know, I can never not know it.
I know for a fact there are going to be cases where an individual Protestant church covers up misdeeds, but I also know what happens when the victims report it to the authorities or even to the regional or national chapters of that denomination.
I haven't seen a single case of a Protestant minister being relocated by his church to another city in order to evade pedophilia charges. And with that being said, if there is, they are just as evil as the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
No monopolies, true. And a Baptist molester certainly would fight to hide their own crimes....But the Baptist Church doesn't work to avoid criminal sanctions of pedos. The Catholic Church has continually hidden, moved and protected its molesters, moving them to other areas, thwarting criminal justice by sending them for "treatment" etc at monastic facilities, etc...
BAptist churches have always been far more grass-roots, bottom-up, and controlled locally by the laypeople of the individual church. The So Bapt Convention, as compromised as it has become re doctrine, doesn't save a pedo pastor by hustling him off to another Baptist church somewhere, blocking imposition of criminal prosecutions.
If there was time, I'd love to delve into real Catholic doctrinal reasons for their behavior, but it boils down to the belief that they aren't answerable to law, they are universal and that Earthly governments don't have standing to impose their laws upon the Catholic Church or it's priests and potentates. Which exacerbates their problem with pedos, who get access to kids and protection from the RCC. It DRAWS pedos to it's ranks, unfortunately. If you want the protection and access, and are OK with becoming a minister to do it, you sure as heck don't go to Baptist Seminary to achieve it.
Hey, don’t go into Catholic pedophilia on my account. 😉🤷🏼♀️ I can assure you my post wasn’t meant in any way to make excuses for them and unfortunately I know far more about the Catholic Churches history of pedophilia, sexual abuse, cover ups, moving people around to escape justice, etc., than I ever wanted to! lol. However, from personal experience/first hand knowledge, I can tell you that you have greatly underestimated the convention of Baptist churches, their pervasive cover ups and “minister musical chairs” to hide pastors, elders, deacons, etc., and the immense influence the associations have on individual churches. It’s just on a much smaller scale b/c compared to the Catholic Church probably all Protestant church associations combined are just a blip on the radar, that’s how far and wide the Catholic Churches reach and size is.
I can’t speak directly to each Protestant affiliation (although, sadly I’m sure I’d find very similar stories if I dug a little) but as for the Baptist, Southern Baptist, and Reformed Southern Baptist conventions, their history of the sexual abuse of children is there as well as their lack of inaction to report these crimes, move pastors around to cover these crimes up, the refusal to call these sins and crimes out, shine a bright light on them, use constant transparency, and condemn these sins/crimes. If they do offer some milk toast explanation or “press release” it’s very on the surface and nothing changes behind the scenes. Some individual churches will take a hard stance, but the associations themselves won’t and churches who are heavily involved in these associations don’t either. They like to give the illusion that their church’s are independent and the association has no control or authority of individual ones but the pressure and influence to follow the narrative is real.
I say all this again, not to excuse the Catholic Church or act like their crimes aren’t vast and horrific, but more to point out that all big associations of churches seem to have their own sordid and disgusting sexual abuse problems it’s just to scale with the CC. People also have to dig more for this information b/c it’s not as “in the public” b/c of how big the CC is comparatively. I hope all of that made sense. I condemn the CC and I condemn all large organized religion due to their tendency towards widespread corruption and crimes against children and the pressure they put on individuals to “follow the narrative/leader”.
That wasn’t what the inquisition was. It was the Protestants that were running around burning witches. The inquisition was a formal process to investigate accused heretics not some crazy torture policy like the Protestants like to believe.
Indulgences are a form of temporal punishments like paying fines or taxes on sinful behavior to fund things like schools, hospitals, etc. It doesn’t allow you to sin since a mortal sin will condemn you to hell.
What teaching defends pedos? Are you saying there are pedos in the Church? Absolutely and it’s a disgrace but there is no teaching allowing it. And unlike most Protestants the teachings on faith and morals doesn’t change to whatever is fashionable.
That wasn’t what the inquisition was. It was the Protestants that were running around burning witches. The inquisition was a formal process to investigate accused heretics not some crazy torture policy like the Protestants like to believe.
Have you read Foxe's Book of Martyrs? That's what the Inquisition was, whether you believe it or not.
Do you know the Inquisitors were known to dig up the bones of those who dared translate the Word of God into their native tongues and burn them if they evaded capture during their lifetime?
Do you know the Jesuit co-coadjutor Guy Fawkes tried to blow up King James and the entire British Parliament because he dared translate the Word of God into English?
And you're referring to the Puritans when you bring up "It was the Protestants that were running around burning witches." The Puritans were an offshoot of the Anglican church, which essentially shared the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, with the only exception being Henry VIII and his successors replaced the Pope. Here, we see the dangers of concentrating that much spiritual power into one man's hands, whether it be the Pope, the King of England, or Cotton Mather.
And people who were now able to read the Word of God in their native tongues determined the Roman Catholic Church was lying about many things. These "heretics" were tortured and burned at the stake by the Inquistion for the crime of refusing to admit a piece of bread is magically transformed into God when a Latin incantation is spoken (this was pre-Vatican II, of course). They dared to say communion is simply a remembrance of Christ and should occur on the Passover, and that Jesus was sacrificed once and only once. For that crime, they either were burnt at the stake, or, if they recanted, their throats were then slit so they couldn't change their minds.
Also, no sin will condemn you to hell. Jesus died for them all. It's up to us to accept the free gift of salvation and go and sin no more. And when we do make mistakes, we confess our sins, not to a mortal priest, but to Jesus Himself.
1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Acts 5:31
Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
Acts 26:18
To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
You're ridiculous. That's EXACTLY what the Inquisitions were about. Catholic Church even used their facilities to operate dungeons and torture chambers. Iron Maiden, anyone?
Indulgences? Pay "x" to get your scummy Dad out of purgatory....
Most of those so called torture devices were 19th century inventions to promote anti-Catholic views in circus type freak shows. Kind of like the click bait of the day.
Because you don’t understand what a Saint is. A Saint is a person who is in heaven. There is a process to figure this out. Nobody worships them. If you ever asked a friend to pray for you that’s is what praying to a Saint is. Asking someone in heaven to pray for you.
I've already posted a link to that article. Relics are idolatry and sickening.
Isnt the veneration of relics optional for Catholics? Must the Catholic faithful really esteem the bodies of the saints? Once and for all, the Council of Trent (16th century) responded to the claims of the reformers that both the veneration of the saints and their relics is contrary to Sacred Scripture. The Council taught: Also the holy bodies of the holy martyrs and of the others who dwell with Christ . . . are to be honored by the faithful.
Council of Trent = the Satanic Society of Jesus AKA the Jesuits
I would generally agree with you, however, what we call ‘The Bible’ today is a collection of letters/stories collected together, by men, and deemed as ‘THE’ bible.. by men.
One also can’t just follow exactly what is written in todays Bible without discernment, or there will be blood on the streets.
Ultimately, the Old Testament (in my view) is quite a mess. God seems very… fickle and petty?
However, in the New Testament, when Jesus walked the Earth… his message was clear, meaningful and is more foundational to a good life.
The Bible was written by the Apostles of Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit. You think they just wrote a bunch of letters, threw them in the trash for the catholics to find later?
And I'm saying it wasn't. There was no careless handling of the Word from the very beginning. From the church of Antioch, which began in 35AD, and is described in the Book of Acts, we have clear and undeniable sources for the texts that were used in the KJV and other Reformation translations. Polycarp was quoting chapter and verse from the finished work in 127AD.
Ultimately, the Old Testament (in my view) is quite a mess. God seems very… fickle and petty?
If you do a deep dive into Genesis 6 (the Book of Enoch helps with this greatly), a very different picture emerges.
Genesis 6:1-4
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
So the sons of God AKA angels mated with the daughters of men, which resulted in the birth of giants and demigods. This act corrupted the DNA of mankind.
Genesis 6:5-7
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
The effect of man’s sexual immorality was staggering since it altered the race. The offspring of this union between human females and the fallen angelic beings were physical giants. These children were not fully human. They grew enormous in stature with great intellects and were called “men of renown.”
This cohabitation between humans and the spiritual beings was not isolated to a few individuals but became widespread throughout the earth.
This cohabitation was part of the reason God’s heart was grieved with mankind and triggered the flood as judgment to wipe out this corrupted race of humans. In modern science, the biologists would identify what happened to mankind as altering the human DNA.
The DNA of man was changed by this union and some men were no longer fully men. They were a hybrid.
9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
The Bible describes God’s selection of Noah in order to preserve mankind. Noah qualified because he was “perfect” in his generation. This does not mean he was a morally perfect human, but that he was genetically perfect in his lineage. He had perfect human DNA and was not corrupted by the sons of God.
This fickle and petty God, as you refer to him, waited until the last 8 purebloods were alive before He shut the doors of the Ark and destroyed the planet with the Great Flood.
Now, after the Great Flood, we discover there was a revival of the Nephilim. They settled in the land of Canaan after God promised that land to Abraham and his descendants. The tribes God ordered Israel to destroy utterly and completely were not fully human.
However, ‘The Bible’ as we know of today was compiled by men… AND there are MANY versions of it.
Amongst Christians, those who profess to follow Christ, there are constant arguments and debates on which ‘Bible’ is the correct.
So, unfortunately your assessment that the ‘Bible cannot err’ is not entirely true.. which Bible version are you referring to? KJV? New American? Apocrypha included? Coptic bible with Book of Enoch? … which?
There's ultimately 2 versions of the Bible on the planet.
On one side, you have the Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament and the Textus Receptus New Testament written in Koine Greek. These are the documents used to translate the KJV and the Geneva Bible.
On the other side, you have the Septuagint, a Greek Old Testament which was translated by Alexandrian scholars funded by Ptolemy II Philadelphus AKA Ptolemy the Great and a New Testament written in Classical Greek.
The modern copies of the Septuagint are largely based on the Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus texts. The Sinaiticus text was rediscovered in a convent waste paper basket located in Mt. Sinai and has been edited multiple times. The Alexandrinus gets its name because it was originally discovered in Alexandria, Egypt, relocated to Constantinople, and was given to Charles I, the Roman Catholic sympathetic King of England, and it's remained in the British library until the present. Vaticanus has been in the Vatican collection since at least the 15th century.
The real question is which version is correct? I choose the one that contains Acts 8:37 without a footnote.
NIV version of Acts 8:37 (The verse is actually missing)-
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Here is the chapter recording Philip's encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch, a devout Jew who is converted to Christianity. The eunuch sees some water and asks what hinders him from being baptized.
Acts 8:36
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
In the NIV, the eunuch's question is never answered.
C’mon pops, you can’t be this clueless nor are you so blind that you can’t apply discernment or perhaps have a sound discussion without patronizing comments?
This type of thinking compliments the likes of ‘extreme Muslim jihadist’, don’t you agree? Agree with your view of the holy text, otherwise belittlement is the answer. Foolish.
My point stands sir, the ‘Bible’ as you know it, or whichever version you prescribe to, has been debated over a thousand times, over the centuries.
Ah yes, the Norman Geisler, perhaps you should look into his history eh? You might find out some interesting facts… doesn’t mean his writings are bad, but perhaps context is good in this case.
Either way, why disparage me? I follow Jesus, why the attack? Did I attack you? Did you somehow read my reply/comment as an attack on you, or the faith?
If you truly see my comment as ‘bad faith’, perhaps you should reconsider all your interactions with both Christians (all denominations) and also non Christians… how then perhaps can you spread the Good News if you treat them like me?
The Bible says there was one sacrifice, which was the death of Yeshua AKA Jesus for our sins.
Hebrews 10:11-13
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
The Roman Catholic Church says the Eucharist is a sacrifice, but the Bible says there was only one sacrifice. The Bible says the breaking of bread is done in remembrance of Christ and should be practiced at Passover.
1414 As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God.
Meanwhile, the Roman Catholic Church goes out of its way to make sure Easter Sunday never falls on the Passover and has done so since 325 AD. The decision was made at the 1st Council of Nicaea to celebrate Easter on the first Sunday after the first full moon after March 21, or, in other words, to ensure it falls on the Spring Equinox.
It’s an artifact of combining the Jewish Lunar and Catholic Gregorian Solar Calendars. Passover always starts on the first full moon after the first new moon after the spring equinox. Easter is always celebrated on Sunday and because the Last Supper fell on a Thursday night (Friday for the Jews because they start the day at sunset) then Easter is always on the Sunday after Passover.
The Roman Catholic Church was upset some Christian churches still disregard the Council of Nicaea and dare to celebrate Easter on Nisan 15 AKA Passover, or on the Sunday following Passover. So, in 1997, the World Council of Churches, a front organization for bringing the Protestants back under Rome, gathered all of the Christian member denominations together and tried to hash out a common date, which would basically be the Roman Catholic date. Read 10. (e) below and you'll see the importance of the spring equinox to the Roman Catholic Church and their refusal to budge on that.
I won't quote the entire document but you can click on the link below to verify my summary of points 1-6.
Towards a Common Date for Easter
World Council of Churches / Middle East Council of Churches Consultation
Aleppo, Syria
March 5 - 10, 1997
Historical background to the present differences
The New Testament indicates that Christ's death and resurrection were historically associated with the Jewish passover, but the precise details of this association are not clear. According to the synoptic gospels, Jesus' last supper was a passover meal, which would place his death on the day after passover, while according to John his death occurred on the day itself, indeed at the very hour, when the paschal lambs were sacrificed. By the end of the 2nd century some churches celebrated Easter/Pascha on the day of the Jewish passover, regardless of the day of the week, while others celebrated it on the following Sunday. By the 4th century, the former practice had been abandoned practically universally, but differences still remained in the calculation of the date of Easter/Pascha. The ecumenical council held at Nicea in 325 AD determined that Easter/Pascha should be celebrated on the Sunday following the first vernal full moon. Originally passover was celebrated on the first full moon after the March equinox, but in the 3rd century the day of the feast came to be calculated by some Jewish communities without reference to the equinox, thus causing passover to be celebrated twice in some solar years. Nicea tried to avoid this by linking the principles for the dating of Easter/Pascha to the norms for the calculation of passover during Jesus' lifetime.
While certain differences in the mechanics of determining the date of Easter/Pascha remained even after Nicea, which occasionally resulted in local differences, by the 6th century the mode of calculation based on the studies of Alexandrian astronomers and scholars had gained universal acceptance. By the 16th century, however, the discrepancy between this mode of calculation and the observed astronomical data was becoming evident. This led to the calendar change introduced by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582. Since that time, western Christians have come to calculate the date of Easter on the basis of this newer Gregorian calendar, while the eastern churches generally have continued to follow the older Julian calendar. While calendrical changes in some of the Orthodox churches in 1923 affected fixed-date feasts, the calculation of the Easter date remained linked to the Julian Calendar. Our present differences in calculation of the date of Easter thus may be ascribed to differences in the calendars and lunar tables employed rather than to differences in fundamental theological outlook.
In its study of the mechanics of the paschal calculation, the consultation took note of the fact that both the current eastern (Julian) and the current western (Gregorian) calculations diverge in certain respects from the astronomical data as determined by precise scientific calculation. As is well known, the Julian calendar at present diverges from the astronomical by thirteen days; the Gregorian at present does not diverge significantly, though it will in the distant future. Less well known is the fact that both Julian and Gregorian calculations rely upon conventional tables for determining the lunar cycle. For both modes of calculation, these tables at times give results that diverge from the astronomical data.
The continuing relevance of the Council of Nicea
In the course of their deliberations, the participants in the consultation came to a deeper appreciation of the continuing relevance of the Council of Nicea for the present discussion. The decisions of this council, rooted as they are in scripture and tradition, came to be regarded as normative for the whole Church.
(a) Despite differences in the method of calculation, the principles of calculation in the churches of both East and West are based on the norms set forth at Nicea. This fact is of great significance. In the present divided situation, any decision by one church or group of churches to move away from these norms would only increase the difficulty of resolving outstanding differences.
(b) The Council of Nicea's decisions are expressive of the desire for unity. The council's aim was to establish principles, based upon the scriptural data concerning the association of the passion and resurrection of Christ with the passover, which would encourage a single annual observance of Easter/Pascha by all the churches. By fostering unity in this way, the council also demonstrated its concern for the mission of the church in the world. The council was aware that disunity in such a central matter was a cause of scandal.
(c) The Nicene norms affirm the intimate connection between the biblical passover (cf. especially Exod. 12:18, Lev. 23:5, Num. 28:16, Deut. 16:1-2) and the Christian celebration of "Christ our paschal lamb" (1 Cor. 5:7). While the council rejected the principle of dependence on contemporary Jewish reckoning, it did so on the grounds that this had changed and become inaccurate, not because it regarded this connection as unimportant.
(d) In the course of their discussions the consultation also gained a deeper appreciation for the wealth of symbolism which the Nicene norms permit. In the worship of many of the churches, especially in the biblical readings and hymnography of the paschal season, Christians are reminded not only of the important link between the passover and the Christian Easter/Pascha but also of other aspects of salvation history. For example, they are reminded that in Christ's resurrection all creation is renewed. Some early Christian sources thus linked the Genesis account of the seven days of creation with the week of Christ's passion, death and resurrection.
(e) The Council of Nicea also has an enduring lesson for Christians today in its willingness make use of contemporary science in calculating the date of Easter. While the council sought to advance the concrete unity of the churches, it did not itself undertake a detailed regulation of the Easter calculation. Instead it expected the churches to employ the most exact science of the day for calculating the necessary astronomical data (the March equinox and the full moon).
As far as my claims the World Council of Churches is a front organization for bringing Protestant churches back under the control of Rome, here's a Roman Catholic priest telling us that openly-
And? If you have two different calendars and you want to unite on a day to celebrate you need to pick a day. Options are same day of the week, same day of the month, same day of the solar year. Which is “right”? The Church decided day of the week being Sunday as the new covenant following the lunar based Passover was when they wanted to celebrate it.
If you have a solar based calendar because you secretly worship the sun, and you want to make sure your day of worship falls as close to the spring equinox as possible, you do exactly what the Roman Catholic Church did.
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Works do not grant salvation. However, they are evidence one has accepted the free gift of salvation.
When we trust God and allow the Holy Spirit to work in our lives, the works naturally follow. We keep the commandments, not because they save us, but because we love God. This is the difference between commandments written on tablets of stone and commandments written on our hearts.
Romans 2:14-16
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
What's pure ignorance? The fact saying some incantations over a piece of bread and a glass of wine does not make it the actual body and blood of Christ?
If anything, it's heresy if you believe Roman Catholic traditions.
They would take over the entire identity and life, occupy their home and enjoy their money. They have been doing it for centuries.
What if..... The actors that we often discuss, the body doubles and clones etc.
What if I think mirror and wonder if the real criminals have been dealt with already. The White Hats have used the Khazar tactic and they are using actors to "name steal" that ex-KM asset to destroy their entire organisations, from within ?
At the beginning of April 2016, two employees of Israeli private intelligence firm Black Cube were arrested in a raid on the Bucharest Marriot by members of Romania’s Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism.
That letter on the right of the image is from Lord Balfour and is referencing the Balfour Declaration, so nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church.
With that being said, the Jesuits are the group you need to look at. The Jesuits were founded by Ignatius Loyola, a Marrano AKA Crypto Jew and "former" member of the Alumbrados, or "Enlightened Ones", a group descended from the Chaldeans AKA Babylonians. Helena Blavatsky, the famous Theosophist, mentions this link.
Ayy, hell yes to Blavatsky reference. I got a massive compendium of her work, I think all the volumes combined and outlined into certain sections. I have been researching "conspiries" (aka, the truth) for most of my adult life, but I have never felt "ready" to take a full dive into Blavatsky's work--I'm close though. It's just so so much to take in.
I know within her Secret Doctrine, many of the things we discuss today are probably outlined. Maybe not specific events, but concepts and outlines; words describing the human relationship to time, to the cosmos, to things much bigger than us, and how folks here on Earth with ill will, greed, malice & contempt towards others will use this relationship for selfish & unclean purposes. Then you look at modern times and see Zionism, Imperialism, globalists coming together under the guise of WEF and NATO n shit..........Blavatsky knew what the fuck was up, looong long ago...
edit: And she was Russian too! Imagine folks these days coming across Secret Doctrine: "Oh, she's Russian, it's fake disinformation" omegalul
In my opinion most all religions were created to control the populations. There is no way anyone can tell me Christ or actually Yeshua would condone anything about the modern money grubbing Christian or catholic churches.
See Antichrist. The man of lawlessness. Son of Perdition. The wicked shepherd who is describe in the Bible as blind in one eye, with a withered hand—much like someone with a traumatic head-wound/brain injury/assassination attempt. The one-eye symbolizes wisdom and all-seeing Horus to the cult, but it also heralds their god, the beast—who will control all commerce and force them to take his mark.
◾️In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king◾️
I can not speak on Catholics or Jews intelligently
But i have pondered if 666 was a man vice an object such as gold or greed
In OT of Bible we have Solomon and 666
Also the weight of gold, that came to Solomon in one year, was six hundred threescore and six talents of gold,
1 Kings 10:14
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
I don't know why it would not be available. Check out Asha Logos channel, or look on bitchute to not give youtube the traffic. All of his stuff is interesting.
Filioque - the Latin for, “and from the Son,” equivalent to et filio, inserted by the third council of Toledo (589 AD) in the clause qui ex Patre procedit (who proceedeth from the Father) of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (381 AD), that made the creed to state that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father. Hence, the doctrine itself (not admitted by the Eastern Church)
This from Adji Murads Europa, Turks and the greater steppe
Around 380 it seems catholism starts to appear in Rome and the old gods Mercury etc forgotten. It seems it was the goths or people like them who brought this faith of the Heavenly Father as they were similiar to the old “Arian” ways.
It would be awesome if Protestants actually knew what the Church teaches before disagreeing with it.
Catholics do not believe you can work your way into heaven. It is only through the grace of Christ.
BUT
You can sin your way into hell. That is where the disagreement is. Many Protestants believe as long as you have faith in Christ you can do whatever you like and still go to heaven. That’s where we disagree.
Many Protestants believe as long as you have faith in Christ you can do whatever you like and still go to heaven. That’s where we disagree.
No, we don't disagree. There are many people who will claim to follow Christ at judgment day and will be rejected.
Just as there are many Protestants who mistakenly believe faith gives one license to sin, there are many Catholics who believe as long as they say their rosaries and confess their sins to a priest and take the Eucharist, they are good to go.
Catholic theologians love to quote the following from 1 John 5 when asked about venial and mortal sins-
1 John 5:16
If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
I've never heard those same theologians quote this verse from the same chapter-
1 John 5:21
Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.
I think Christianity predates Catholicism, it’s obvious from
The older ways that were brought from the east, those 400 years that it took to spread to Rome are evidence of this too. The Catholic Church has spent immense effort destroying any evidence of the old ways.
What did Q say about some trying to divide us? The vitriol against Catholics that I see here sometimes astounds me. Do people really think that sex abuse by clergy only happens in the Catholic Church? If you do, then you really need to dig. Do people think other faiths are perfect? If they do, then they do not deserve the moniker, anon.
As a sex abuse survivor, I have zero tolerance for perpetrators, I also have zero tolerance for those who spread disinformation. By focusing only on the Catholic clergy, you're giving a pass to and are encouraging clergy of other faiths who are abusing children.
I am a Catholic. Do I follow blindly? no. Do I follow Francis? No
I have a personal relationship with God and the Holy Family. It's this relationship that guides me in my everyday life. There was that saying a couple of decades ago, "What Would Jesus Do?". That's how I try to live my life - putting Jesus first and not doing things that would embarrass or annoy Him. Do I fall? every single day but I keep trying.
You who criticize Catholics by the Church leadership, would you want the world to judge you by Joe Biden ? No? Then, why do you judge a group of people by sins and errors committed by their Church leadership? Yes, sadly, there are and have been evil people in the Catholic Church. Don't be so naive as to think evil does not exist in every Church denomination.
I understand what you are saying about the hatred to the Catholic church, bit understand it's to the church and not Catholics.
There are good reasons to hate that church first the child abuse and cover up and then the false doctrines and it's erroneous supremacist claim to be the head of the faith.
Especially the RC church requiring works (seven sacrements) to receive salvation, this is unbiblical and opposed to what Jesus taught
And then burning alive anyone who didn't believe their lies and deceptions. I hope your not one of those Catholics that cry they are being oppressed but then say that the Protestant martyrs are heretics and deserve to burn.
Us protestants believe scripture has more authority than a priest. The reformation was an attempt to recreate the 1st C church.
I think its wise to expose all the elites puppets and stooges and the Catholic church does not have an exception to that fact. They ruled Europe and were practically the Khazar before they had control.
All roads lead to Rome.
Peace and love to you my brother or sister in Christ. I'm not trying to offend or argue but evil is evil and needs to be held to account.
I agree that "evil is evil and needs to be held to account". Dig and expose the evil in your own faith and others should do the same in their faiths. Only by exposing the infections can the wounds be cleansed and healed.
Protestants believe whatever they want. That’s kind of the point. As for burning heretics what are you supposed to do when someone is leading souls to hell?
If you really believe in an afterlife and heaven and hell it’s an act of self defense to try to save souls. Now that we have pretty much given up on saving souls do you think that’s better?
Remember what God did to all of the cities that were full of sinners to make way for the Israelites? Remember what he did when they didn’t listen to him and spared people? What did Jesus say about people that lead children to sin?
I think you Catholics are the ones being lead astray, I believe the faith Christ taught in the Bible, it's doctrines, laws, way to salvation.
Them martyrs are more Christian than any pope that ever existed. If you think Christ would allow a priest to torturously murder a Christian like that you are seriously misguided and sinning before God.
Didn't Christ stop a woman being stoned to death bit your cheering on Christians being burned alive! Repent of your sins.
You pretty much stated yourself that our beliefs are at odds with eachother, very different.
One of us is right I fully believe what the Bible says and I choose to follow the church laid out in the New testament.
There is a huge difference between forgiving a sinner and someone saying a sin is a virtue and you know it. If the death penalty is allowable for an unrepentant murderer what is it for someone leading thousands of souls to hell?
I have no hatred against individual Catholics. As I stated elsewhere in this thread, I was born and raised Roman Catholic.
With that being said, I am against the institution, because it is Mystery Babylon. The second commandment to not worship idols is clear, and that's why Roman Catholicism removed it and also uses the term veneration to describe its practices regarding statues and relics. The Reformers taught the Pope is the antiChrist. That is now considered hate speech, no doubt.
Pope Francis is the father of the climate movement. Wake up.
And since you said you don't support Francis, you are considered anathema by your very religion, unless you've broken ranks and joined up with the sedivaticanists, who want to bring the Latin mass back...
The Roman catholic church got nothing to do with Christianity. It never had. The Roman empire spend almost 300 years slaughtering every christian and destroying every church before they hijacked Christianity it was the only way for them to survive and unfortunate they were very successful.
The Roman catholic church is luciferian/Saturn in origin and for 1700 years they hide themself in symbolism while claiming to be christian when in fact their master was Saturn/Satan.
The 7 churches John wrote to in the revelation was all destroyed in the early christian period. Gauss who destroyed them? It was actually quite genius, kill, destroy every christian and original church with the fake Jews and then take over the entire religion.
Just throwing something in here because I dug into this for a while some years ago:
The "star of Remphan" may be a mistranslation. There is literally no "Remphan" anywhere else in the Bible or in ancient literature.
Recent alternate attempts to re-visit the Hebrew produces the name of the god 'Ninurta.' That means the text likely refers to the eight-pointed star of Ninurta, who was a more well-known ancient pagan god in the middle east at the time the verse was written. I would recommend Doug Hamp's research into the subject.
That being said, yes: the occult has all kind of geometric patterns and meaning in their symbology. Connections between the six-pointed polygon, the black cube, and other symbols may indeed be entirely legitimate. So I'm not trying to bash the connections being highlighted in this post.
I'm just pointing out that the identification of the "Star of David" as synonymous with the "Star of Remphan" has always been an assumption - but they may not ctually be the same thing.
Just being a stickler on Bible research. The truth matters.
Very roughly - when Rome converted to Christianity it was a bureaucratic decision to consolidate power under the church. They kept pretty much all of the pagan rituals and holidays but slapped Jesus's face on them. They even kept the pantheonic system but renamed them under biblical terms like demons and angels, and then added the saints to replace local deities in newly conquered lands.
There is no "Catholic Church" in the Bible and the Popes have never adhered to the Biblical teachings of Jesus. They use the Christian ideals of sin and forgiveness to enforce obedience and taxation.
With 1700 years of hindsight, it seems like the Catholic Church is just a front for what they themselves would call "satanism" and they could even be likened to what we would call corrupt globalists today.
The Nag Hammadi is an interesting read.
Find the oldest bible you can aquire and compare to modern ones. Try to comprehend 2k years of that.
Interpretation varies just like a statistic.
Dec 8 the immaculate conception......Birthday Dec 25.
Jesus was really born on September 11 if the Bible is truly the Word of God, which I believe it is. The Book of Revelation talks about the position of the stars at the time of the birth of Christ and astronomical computer software was used to determine when those conditions could possibly have been met.
Really makes you wonder why George H.W. Bush chose to give this speech to Congress on September 11, 1990, which just so happened to be 11 years before 9/11/2001-
https://archive.ph/9bnaV
I hope people understand the importance of this post.
It's so important it broke the webpage.
I’ve never read or heard this full speech before, only clips of the “New World Order” reference. When you read it through, it actually appears quite beautiful, that countries will unite, that the strong will take care of the weak, etc.. it’s really too bad that the New World Order is expected to be run by a select few, because the concepts of world peace would be so goddamn wonderful. The evil one tends to appear as the “angel of light”. Enter Q….
Was there a speechwriter for this speech? If so, who was it?
Who wrote it, and who gets credit for writing it, are I'm sure two different things...
GHWB was one of the most evil to have lived. Evil emulates good
As much as I agree that the Catholic Church is as evil as it comes…the immaculate conception is referring to The conception of Mary, her birth is 9 months later sept 8. They say she was conceived without sin, hence immaculate conception.
Plus Dec 25 is almost certainly not the actual day of Jesus' birth. It was a way to keep the pagan celebration held that day but rename it as Christmas.
That is correct.
Does it really matter what day we celebrate Jesus’ birth? What matters is he was born. Why get caught up on the trivial?
Superficially, I agree with you. Once you dig into all the lies of modern Christianity, you realize getting back to the truth, is paramount. It’s really the only way forward, here.
I will second this.
This pure fact of necessity is what has caused the rift between normies and the awakened. It's why my family and everyone else thinks I'm crazy (after knowing me for 36 years) out of the blue. People think I'm a straight up asshole now because I make sure to clarify fuzzy nuances of almost every scenario. Every day I consider telling myself "fuck it" as long as I myself am aware of the full story or full truth of something, I guess I'll let those around me continue their naivete so they won't think I'm loopy.
You HAVE to return to truth. Period.
The truth shall set you free
Yes it does matter. Just like words used in the bill of rights words and details matter.
Lack of details allows the enemy to deceive even the "righteous". Xmas is a perfect example. What (or who) is actually being worshiped on 12/25? Or the 1st day - the day of the SUN.
Meanwhile, the Bible says all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and that includes Mary.
Jesus also made it clear Mary is no different than the rest of us on numerous occasions.
Luke 11:14-28 (Verses 14-26 are for context and you can skip to the end for tl;dr)
14 And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered.
15 But some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils.
16 And others, tempting him, sought of him a sign from heaven.
17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.
18 If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub.
19 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges.
20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.
21 When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:
22 But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.
23 He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.
24 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out.
25 And when he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished.
26 Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in, and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first.
27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.
28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
So Jesus is preaching and is accused of working with Beelzebub after casting out demons. He states the oft-quoted "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth." (As an aside, we are witnessing the truth of this statement in real time in the United States...).
After Jesus is done saying this to a crowd trying to tempt him, a woman shouts "Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps (teats, nipples) which thou hast sucked." (Note: The Hail Mary prayer contains the same sentiment, does it not?)
What was Jesus's response?
Without dishonoring his mother, He replies, "Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it."
Luke 8:20-22
20 And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.
21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.
Jesus obeyed the commandment to honor his father and mother even to His death. It's not that He did not love His mother. Rather, He knew it was important for her not to be worshipped, as that's a violation of the second commandment (the one the Roman Catholics removed and also pretend they don't violate because they "venerate" statues and relics rather than "worship" them), so he continuously pointed people back to the word of God.
John 19:25-28
25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
Where is that theory? The popular idea is it is Jesus's bday, intrigued
Look up 'birth of Jesus Sept 11th'
Wait... is that connected to 9/11?
It's believed so
You can read Ernest L. Martin's The Star of Bethlehem: The Star That Astonished the World for free here-
https://www.askelm.com/star/
Here's a link to the specific chapter where Martin describes how he derived the exact date-
https://www.askelm.com/star/star006.htm
You can read the rest of it for further investigations and proofs, but here's the single paragraph explaining the date itself-
The Precise Position of the Moon is Important
Do you think the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Jesus? Incorrect. It refers to the conception of Mary as she had to be free from sun to carry the Son of God.
She didn't need to be free from sin to be chosen by God to carry Jesus. Nobody is free of sin.
This is Mystery Babylon teaching.
Exactly. It is the seed of man that carries the sin we all inherit, not the seed of woman. Therefore Jesus was not born of the seed of man, but of the Spirit. Mary was a sinner and she worships Jesus like all believers.
And you consulted God on this little detail? These things are way beyond my pay grade. And, I’ll wager, yours. How about we both live pure and blameless lives and when we die we’ll be able to see God face to face and find out the Truth directly from HIM?
Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
What part of all is too hard for you to understand?
You either believe the Bible is the Word of God or you believe the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church.
When I see God face to face, the only thing that's going to save me is Yashua as my lawyer.
I’ll stick with my statement. God is my God. And I’ll trust Him as my Merciful Father. And I dare you to tell me otherwise.
The Immaculate Conception refers to the Blessed Mother’s conception. Her birth is typically celebrated September 8.
Oh yeah I be sure to take your advice. You sound REALLY smart. Ha ha ha.
Seriously though, if you don't know what you are talking about, STFU, ok? If you can't respect something enough to know what it is, then seriously shut the fuck up about it, got it?
Whatever the fuck you are trying to be, this is my advice: you need to stop circle jerking your buddy. This is a crippling level of stupidity. Jesus weeps. Here's thing thing - you are so stupid, you may wind up hurting his little weenis with your retard strength.
But I got to hand it to you, you earned a few upvotes, so apparently you have a lot of stupid,easily frightened little dicks to choose from. So go blow away as many faggots as you wish! Just remember, the important part here is for you to go away.
And please, coax your fed army away with your very capable dick beaters.
Or begin to understand the incredible acuteness of your Dunning-Kruger curve and get a clue.
Well, the first mention of the term “catholic church” is in the Apostle’s Creed. “Catholic” is a term that refers to the universality of the church, that no matter where in the world you go to a body of believers in Christ, we are all united together as Christians.
That said, that original meaning has been long lost to time and distortions, as what became the Roman Catholic church essentially pushed the “heaven on earth” idea way too far by saying that the bishop of Rome is the spokesman of God Himself.
Say what you like, but the words of Scripture (the canon that does NOT include the Apocrypha) are the words of God, and those words alone are the true guide to spiritual truth. Anything attempting to mix other religions (I’ve seen people on this site mention about Islam and Christianity sharing the same God, for example, along with some melding Christianity with Eastern thinking) with the Bible and its gospel truth is falsehood. It might sound close-minded, but I can say that it’s the only spiritual way that doesn’t lead to very dark places.
100%
I was born, raised, and educated Roman Catholic.
I have nothing against individual Catholics but I have come to learn there is much about Catholicism I was never even taught. It was an open secret.
Whenever one visits a Roman Catholic Church for a wedding, funeral, or what not, one can ask the priest which relics are contained in the altar. And, if one wants to really appear in the know, one can ask if it's a first-class, second-class, or third-class relic.
What's a relic? Relics are sometimes pieces of clothing, but, in many cases, are the actual body parts of the "saints."
Just what are relics and what meaning do they have for disciples of Jesus Christ?
https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/church-teaching-on-relics.html
There's actually Roman Catholic churches which not only supposedly contain the finger of St. Joachim or some other saint in the altar, but are actually constructed almost completely with skeletal remains.
If you've never heard of Sedlec Ossuary, prepare to have your mind blown-
https://unusualplaces.org/sedlec-ossuary-the-gothic-wonder-of-thousands-of-bones/
You should read church history. You are badly informed as to the creation of the Church. That church is Orthodox, not Catholic, which is anathema to Christ.
Wouldn't the Orthodox Church be considered closer to the original church? As I recall it was Roman branch that split off from the rest of the church to become Catholicism, not the other way around.
this
The orthodox church is no different than the catholic church, they disagree on maybe two things. But they both worship idols, confess to a priest, pray to saints, all the things the Bible says not to do.
Lol how ignorant. Orthodox church is very very different in so many ways. Confessing to a priest is not forbidden in the Bible lolol. And one is confessing to God with the guidance of a priest btw. Because confessing your sins openly to people who may not have vows to handle them properly, or the training to help you with personal growth may not serve the intended purpose but those who seek repentance require a specialist to always be available. They do not worship idols. Icons are not idols. Icons are not worshipped. They commemorate the saints, I’ve never seen any Orthodox pray to the saints and I’ve been to Greek, Romanian, Macedonian and Russian Orthodox church lol. Those “maybe two things” are HUGE by the way. Transubstantiation for instance. Ya know, the difference between delusional dogma and a rite. Even if there were only differences they are quite large. The RCC has always been anti-science. The Orthodox church has never been anti-science.
Lol how ignorant. Orthodox church is very very different in so many ways.
https://www.learnreligions.com/the-great-schism-of-1054-4691893
Confessing to a priest is not forbidden in the Bible lolol.
1 Timothy 2:5 KJV For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus
And one is confessing to God with the guidance of a priest btw. Because confessing your sins openly to people who may not have vows to handle them properly, or the training to help you with personal growth may not serve the intended purpose but those who seek repentance require a specialist to always be available.
1 Corinthians 3:16 KJV Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? (Apparently our boy doesn't know about this because preach never told him. I wonder why?)
They do not worship idols. Icons are not idols. Icons are not worshipped. They commemorate the saints, I’ve never seen any Orthodox pray to the saints and I’ve been to Greek, Romanian, Macedonian and Russian Orthodox church lol.
😂
What a garbage source
“ but the churches in the East were developing distinct cultural and theological differences from those in the West”
It is the west who reinvented the wheel and adopted different doctrines from the original church created by the apostles that were widespread throughout the entire Christian world. The RCC made it so priests could not be married, which was not an original practice Orthodox changed. Garbage rhetoric to fool the ignorant. Check your sources. Because they are trash.
You’re just a dumb troll.
You’re just a dumb troll.
Yes, a clown that presents himself as "dickallcocks" is calling me a troll. Could this be a catholic? Gee, I wonder.
Look, if you want to worship the antiChrist, that's your problem, not mine. I know the Bible, it couldn't be more clear. You don't know the bible, you are the beast's bitch and proud of it. I've fulfilled my duty here. Later.
Lol okay. I’ve read the Bible in 4 languages and 3 English translations. Okay pal lol.
What a fag.
"disagree with me equals u worship the antichrist plus u belong to the beast plus ur a troll so fuk u REEEEEEEEE"
This is how you sound. Like you're trying to start some dick-measuring contest over who's religion is better. Like a child.
"My religion and beliefs are more holy than yours so suck it!"
You don’t confess TO the priest. The priest bears witness as you confess to God. You confess in the presence of the priest if you are so inclined. But mince words. It is also NOT required to confess to a priest in Orthodoxy, ever, and completely optional, and a practice, not a rite, because most people have a difficult time being honest to themselves let alone God. The purpose of the priest is to advise you or guide you to personal transformation if requested, which they cannot do without information. Being your brother’s keeper means holding each other accountable where you cannot hold yourself accountable and priests are intended to offer that service where yourself or others may fail. But mince words about a faith you don’t actually practice with someone who does like an ignorant fool.
Everything you say is a stretch. Seriously. Icons are not idols. Icons are symbolic, like letters, words, sentences and stories. They are an abstraction and representation to imperfectly communicate the meaning and purpose of the faith like all means of man’s communication. No one worships icons. They are a tool to worship God. No different than the book itself or prayer beads. Pictures are worth 1,000 words and setting is important to the orthodox faith, and icons create a setting which focus your mind on God instead of the material world.
It should be noted that the largest collection of icons in the world, on Mt Aethos are put away into storage and almost never seen again after being finished because the act of creating the icons themselves is a form of prayer no different than when monks wrote and illustrated bibles. They paint the icons as prayer and they are preserved in deep storage and almost never seen again. That is not worship. They are not praying to the icons, they are praying to God as they make them as they do when they bake bread or candles or write texts.
An icon is no different than a cross for lay people. Is the cross idol worship? No.
Sadly you can quote text, but do not fully understand it beyond cherry-picking for selfish purposes.
This is bill clinton type BS. Am I surprised?
That would be Catholicism with transubstantiation lol.
Orthodoxy is a works and rites faith, not dogma.
But, keep trolling closet queen. Sorry you can’t marry your boyfriend in my church. You seem like a Lutheran.
First off let me just state that ALL religions are man made. And thus they are full of sin. Only God is pure.
What is important is your relationship with God. How you practice is up to you. I look upon my Catholic Church as a community of people who were raised in similar beliefs. I go for the communal spirit and the opportunity to administer to others.
Boy do people get this wrong.! We do NOT worship saints nor any statutes. We ask saints to intercede for us.
God works through them. As he does through a priest when one goes to confession.
We also pray directly to God/Jesus. And we believe in the Holy Trinity which some religions do not.
The most important thing to remember is the Roman Catholic Church (to my knowledge) is the only church that believes the host and wine become the body and blood of Christ. (Transubstantiation) when the priest calls for the Holy Spirit to come down (epiklesis) . The body and blood are transformed into the body and blood of Christ to transform us when we eat the bread and drink the wine.
Oh and Just so ya know many of us also do not LIKE Pope Francis.
We ask saints to intercede for us.
If you are the Temple of God and Jesus Christ is in you, why do you need intercession?
The most important thing to remember is the Roman Catholic Church (to my knowledge) is the only church that believes the host and wine become the body and blood of Christ.
Christ's Work of redemption is finished, His Blood was only required once to pay all of the debts of sin. The Bible is quite clear on this. And it's just common sense. If a priest is required to cause this "transubwhatever" and you are required to do it every week, what outcome is obvious? Church business, filthy lucre.
Another little Biblical truth, believers in Jesus Christ are kings and priests already. What do we need priests for?
The most important thing to remember is the Roman Catholic Church (to my knowledge) is the only church that believes the host and wine become the body and blood of Christ. (Transubstantiation) when the priest calls for the Holy Spirit to come down (epiklesis) . The body and blood are transformed into the body and blood of Christ to transform us when we eat the bread and drink the wine.
The most important thing to remember is the Roman Catholic Church slit the throats of those who chose not to believe that once they obtained a copy of the Bible in their native tongues and heard the Word of God for themselves.
The Bible says there was one sacrifice for sins that ended all sacrifices.
Hebrews 10:11-13
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
Meanwhile the Catholic theologians attack the Reformers for daring to believe the Word of God and assuming they had to toss out Roman Catholic tradition whenever they found a conflict.
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/eucharistic-theology-in-the-reformation-and-the-council-of-trent-9988
Here’s the thing. Christ left a Church not a book and put his Apostles in charge of spreading his Word. Only later did the Church compile an official Bible from various writings. So when you ask what about all of these things that aren’t in the Bible imagine the early Christians before the Bible? Were they not real Christians?
The amazing thing about the Catholic Church is it’s still here even with all of our truly awful leaders. It still officially teaches the truth even with all of its sinful clergy.
Even worse, the United States dioceses of the Roman Catholic Church took out non-recourse loans from Allied Irish Banks and the Bank of Ireland from 2005-2007, putting up their overinflated US real estate holdings as collateral.
To understand this claim, look into Peter Sutherland, the father of globalism.
Sutherland was educated at Jesuit-run Gonzaga College and became the youngest Attorney General in Irish history in 1981. He was only 35 years old. He left public office to work at Allied Irish Banks, quickly rising to chairman. In 1984, Sutherland became the youngest ever European Commisioner (notice a trend?) and parlayed the connections he made in this position to become Director General of GATT and later the World Trade Organization, which he helped found.
Peter Sutherland held the title of Consultor of the Extraordinary Section of the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See AKA Financial Advisor to the Vatican while simultaneously serving as chairman of Allied Irish Banks (now AIB Bank), non-executive Chairman of Goldman Sachs International, non executive Chairman of the oil company BP, and director of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group.
As we now know now, Goldman Sachs was well aware of the real estate bubble that collapsed in 2008. There's a very good chance Sutherland advised Pope Benedict of this and helped those dioceses get the loans based on their vast real estate holdings.
After the crash in 2008, the Roman Catholic dioceses claimed they were unable to pay their loans back to the Irish banks, and turned over the unused real estate they had put up as collateral on the non-recourse loans, settling their contract in full. The problem was this real estate was now worth pennies on the dollar.
Guess who bailed out the Irish banks, and, ultimately, the Roman Catholic Church? You guessed it, the American taxpayers...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2165584/Peter-Sutherland-globes-grandee.html
https://www.catholicireland.net/popes-financial-advisor-peter-sutherland-dies-aged-71/
https://www.ft.com/content/3029390a-5c68-11e3-931e-00144feabdc0
I discovered all of this digging into Raffaelo Follieri, the Italian businessman who dated Anne Hathaway and, in my opinion, was the patsy when all these real estate deals fell through. Interesting ties to Bill Clinton and Ron Burkle as well as Naomi Campbell.
Follieri is an Italian real estate developer best known for the Vati-Con scandal. The scandal included allegations that Follieri misappropriated a $ 50 million investment by Bill Clinton and billionaire Ronald Burkle to buy Roman Catholic churches and monasteries in the United States. After his arrest, prosecutors alleged from court files that Follieri lied about his links with the Vatican.
https://www.tac-lawna.org/raffaello-follieri-anne-hathaway-and-the-scammer-who-stole-millions-from-bill-clinton/
Follieri also made connections with No Name and threw a birthday party for John McCain in 2006 on a rented yacht in Montenegro.
The McCain-Follieri Love Boat
John McCain has been hammering rival Barack Obama for being little more than a vapid “celebrity” and “elitist.” But The Nation has obtained a photo revealing just how star-struck a straight-talking maverick can become when offered the chance to celebrate his birthday aboard a yacht filled with celebrities–even if one of those celebrity types turns out to be an A-list con man.
The photograph finally confirms reports that in late August, 2006, McCain celebrated his 70th birthday aboard a yacht, the Celine Ashley, rented by A-list con man Raffaello Follieri, now serving a five year jail term, and his then-movie star girlfriend Anne Hathaway. In the current edition ofVanity Fair, Michael Schnayerson reported that Follieri rented the Celine Ashley for the month of August 2006. Montenegro’s leading daily newspaper, Vijesti, earlier reported that during McCain’s visit in 2006 he celebrated with birthday cocktails and sweets aboard the Celine Ashley yacht.
In the photograph, taken in Montenegro at the end of August, McCain is shown giddily shuffling up the yacht ramp like an old Tim Conway, heading towards the smiling Follieri and Hathaway. Just ahead of McCain and shaking hands with Follieri appears to be Rick Davis–McCain’s top aide and now co-manager of his campaign, who accompanied him on the trip and advised the government of Montenegro.
The yacht that McCain partied on was likely paid for with stolen money.
A few months after McCain’s yacht party, Follieri strengthened his ties to McCain’s orbit by retaining Rick Davis’s well-connected Washington lobbying firm, Davis Manafort, and offering Davis both an investment deal and help in securing the Catholic vote for McCain’s presidential bid.
http://exiledonline.com/the-mccain-follieri-bang-boat/
And after Follieri got out of prison, he went into business with Tony Podesta...
https://www.getcompanydetails.com/people/anthony-podesta-xVbTrGqPgDJ-6gg8rrbSA6xFxY0-uk
If you think that’s bad one of Jesus’ hand picked Apostles ratted him out for silver and the first Pope denied he knew Jesus three times.
The first Pope or the first pebble?
Jesus is the rock and the chief cornerstone. Peter is a pebble if you go back to the original Hebrew.
Martin Luther would be proud. He experienced excommunication himself, in exchange for finding the truth!
Maybe his hatred toward the Jews wasn’t so off the cuff, after all… especially given how their rejection of Jesus back in his day is very much the same as today.
Catholic Church teaches paganism under the guise of the Christ.
Catholicism was a mash up of all pagan Roman religions to get everyone to stop arguing.
Wrong. Whenever the Church spread the Gospel it looked for parts of peoples culture that aligned with the Truth that is written by God on all peoples hearts. Customs that didn’t violate God’s teachings were acceptable.
In contrast, Yeshua/Jesus said the complete opposite-
Matthew 15:9
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches tradition is more important than the Word of God, and also claims they alone can properly interpret the Word of God.
You wouldn’t have the word of God without the Church to tell you it. Who is going to interpret? You get what you have today Millions of Protestants with whatever beliefs you can make up leading to a complete destruction of the faith.
In fact, I wouldn't have the Word of God without the Reformers translating the Bible into English. The Inquisitors did their best to stop that.
And luckily English hasn’t changed in 400 years so I’m sure no meaning is lost.
Mainstream western Christian culture worships a tree and a fat man dressed in red. Just one examples of many.
Worship a Tree? Pretty much the opposite. The Pagans were the tree worshipers and Sr Boniface cut it down which was a death sentence kind of like modern tree worshippers.
Pretty accurate, council of Nicaea blah blah blah except there were godly people around too (monotheists other than Jews)
The Moloch worshipers are still here too. So longevity doesn't bestow much.
The awful leaders? Thats a pretty good indicator that there's a big problem with that church. "officially teaches the truth even with all of it's sinful clergy" lol.
The inquisitions, where official church policy was "torture non-Catholics to death"? The selling of indulgences? Church teaching. The continual defense of the pedos among them? Thoroughly corrupt.
The Catholic Church doesn’t have a monopoly on pedophilia. Unfortunately, The Southern Baptist convention of churches have a history of pedophilia and sexual abuse and covering it up, as do Sovereign Grace Churches, and probably any other “corporation” of churches that you look into. That’s the problem, these are what I believe to be massive “religious institutions/corporations” not churches.
The Bible tells us that “when two or more are gathered in my name, I am there in the midst of them”. I would say 2 or more believers meeting is “church”. A massive corporation made up of churches is different and I believe the overall corporation can be corrupt and evil but not EVERY church in the corporation is. Kind of like countries, the governments are evil but not necessarily its citizens. The American government is evil right now, has been for a long time, but We the People are not.
I don't disagree with this.
The main difference is when a Southern Baptist gets caught committing pedophilia, they get turned over to the local authorities and punished for their crimes. In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, the offending priest often gets a one way ticket to another city or even a totally different country, and, historically, has continued the abuse.
I wish that were true, unfortunately, I know first hand they do not report to the authorities. Some do, and I think it’s perhaps getting better with individual churches than it was in the past, but that hasn’t historically been the case. Do a deep dive, go down the rabbit hole, and then see if you have the same opinion. 🤷🏼♀️ I know more now than I ever wished to about this subject, but now that I know, I can never not know it.
I have done a deep dive.
I know for a fact there are going to be cases where an individual Protestant church covers up misdeeds, but I also know what happens when the victims report it to the authorities or even to the regional or national chapters of that denomination.
I haven't seen a single case of a Protestant minister being relocated by his church to another city in order to evade pedophilia charges. And with that being said, if there is, they are just as evil as the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
No monopolies, true. And a Baptist molester certainly would fight to hide their own crimes....But the Baptist Church doesn't work to avoid criminal sanctions of pedos. The Catholic Church has continually hidden, moved and protected its molesters, moving them to other areas, thwarting criminal justice by sending them for "treatment" etc at monastic facilities, etc...
BAptist churches have always been far more grass-roots, bottom-up, and controlled locally by the laypeople of the individual church. The So Bapt Convention, as compromised as it has become re doctrine, doesn't save a pedo pastor by hustling him off to another Baptist church somewhere, blocking imposition of criminal prosecutions.
If there was time, I'd love to delve into real Catholic doctrinal reasons for their behavior, but it boils down to the belief that they aren't answerable to law, they are universal and that Earthly governments don't have standing to impose their laws upon the Catholic Church or it's priests and potentates. Which exacerbates their problem with pedos, who get access to kids and protection from the RCC. It DRAWS pedos to it's ranks, unfortunately. If you want the protection and access, and are OK with becoming a minister to do it, you sure as heck don't go to Baptist Seminary to achieve it.
Hey, don’t go into Catholic pedophilia on my account. 😉🤷🏼♀️ I can assure you my post wasn’t meant in any way to make excuses for them and unfortunately I know far more about the Catholic Churches history of pedophilia, sexual abuse, cover ups, moving people around to escape justice, etc., than I ever wanted to! lol. However, from personal experience/first hand knowledge, I can tell you that you have greatly underestimated the convention of Baptist churches, their pervasive cover ups and “minister musical chairs” to hide pastors, elders, deacons, etc., and the immense influence the associations have on individual churches. It’s just on a much smaller scale b/c compared to the Catholic Church probably all Protestant church associations combined are just a blip on the radar, that’s how far and wide the Catholic Churches reach and size is.
I can’t speak directly to each Protestant affiliation (although, sadly I’m sure I’d find very similar stories if I dug a little) but as for the Baptist, Southern Baptist, and Reformed Southern Baptist conventions, their history of the sexual abuse of children is there as well as their lack of inaction to report these crimes, move pastors around to cover these crimes up, the refusal to call these sins and crimes out, shine a bright light on them, use constant transparency, and condemn these sins/crimes. If they do offer some milk toast explanation or “press release” it’s very on the surface and nothing changes behind the scenes. Some individual churches will take a hard stance, but the associations themselves won’t and churches who are heavily involved in these associations don’t either. They like to give the illusion that their church’s are independent and the association has no control or authority of individual ones but the pressure and influence to follow the narrative is real.
I say all this again, not to excuse the Catholic Church or act like their crimes aren’t vast and horrific, but more to point out that all big associations of churches seem to have their own sordid and disgusting sexual abuse problems it’s just to scale with the CC. People also have to dig more for this information b/c it’s not as “in the public” b/c of how big the CC is comparatively. I hope all of that made sense. I condemn the CC and I condemn all large organized religion due to their tendency towards widespread corruption and crimes against children and the pressure they put on individuals to “follow the narrative/leader”.
That wasn’t what the inquisition was. It was the Protestants that were running around burning witches. The inquisition was a formal process to investigate accused heretics not some crazy torture policy like the Protestants like to believe.
Indulgences are a form of temporal punishments like paying fines or taxes on sinful behavior to fund things like schools, hospitals, etc. It doesn’t allow you to sin since a mortal sin will condemn you to hell.
What teaching defends pedos? Are you saying there are pedos in the Church? Absolutely and it’s a disgrace but there is no teaching allowing it. And unlike most Protestants the teachings on faith and morals doesn’t change to whatever is fashionable.
Have you read Foxe's Book of Martyrs? That's what the Inquisition was, whether you believe it or not.
Do you know the Inquisitors were known to dig up the bones of those who dared translate the Word of God into their native tongues and burn them if they evaded capture during their lifetime?
Do you know the Jesuit co-coadjutor Guy Fawkes tried to blow up King James and the entire British Parliament because he dared translate the Word of God into English?
And you're referring to the Puritans when you bring up "It was the Protestants that were running around burning witches." The Puritans were an offshoot of the Anglican church, which essentially shared the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, with the only exception being Henry VIII and his successors replaced the Pope. Here, we see the dangers of concentrating that much spiritual power into one man's hands, whether it be the Pope, the King of England, or Cotton Mather.
And people who were now able to read the Word of God in their native tongues determined the Roman Catholic Church was lying about many things. These "heretics" were tortured and burned at the stake by the Inquistion for the crime of refusing to admit a piece of bread is magically transformed into God when a Latin incantation is spoken (this was pre-Vatican II, of course). They dared to say communion is simply a remembrance of Christ and should occur on the Passover, and that Jesus was sacrificed once and only once. For that crime, they either were burnt at the stake, or, if they recanted, their throats were then slit so they couldn't change their minds.
Also, no sin will condemn you to hell. Jesus died for them all. It's up to us to accept the free gift of salvation and go and sin no more. And when we do make mistakes, we confess our sins, not to a mortal priest, but to Jesus Himself.
1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Wait. You said no sin will condemn you to hell but then right after say if we make a mistake we confess our sins. Why would you have to do that?
Matthew 9:13
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Acts 5:31
Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
Acts 26:18
To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
You're ridiculous. That's EXACTLY what the Inquisitions were about. Catholic Church even used their facilities to operate dungeons and torture chambers. Iron Maiden, anyone?
Indulgences? Pay "x" to get your scummy Dad out of purgatory....
Most of those so called torture devices were 19th century inventions to promote anti-Catholic views in circus type freak shows. Kind of like the click bait of the day.
Because you don’t understand what a Saint is. A Saint is a person who is in heaven. There is a process to figure this out. Nobody worships them. If you ever asked a friend to pray for you that’s is what praying to a Saint is. Asking someone in heaven to pray for you.
This church was built with the bodies of the so-called "saints."
https://unusualplaces.org/sedlec-ossuary-the-gothic-wonder-of-thousands-of-bones/
Oh year. Relics are a fascinating and Biblical topic. https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/church-teaching-on-relics.html
I've already posted a link to that article. Relics are idolatry and sickening.
Council of Trent = the Satanic Society of Jesus AKA the Jesuits
You should get your doctrine from the Bible, not men.
I would generally agree with you, however, what we call ‘The Bible’ today is a collection of letters/stories collected together, by men, and deemed as ‘THE’ bible.. by men.
One also can’t just follow exactly what is written in todays Bible without discernment, or there will be blood on the streets.
Ultimately, the Old Testament (in my view) is quite a mess. God seems very… fickle and petty?
However, in the New Testament, when Jesus walked the Earth… his message was clear, meaningful and is more foundational to a good life.
My approach;
Understand that Christ is the Way, The Truth and The Life.
Thus to follow Christ is to live your life on The Way, which is the path of Truth.
Or to seek Christ in all things is to seek Truth in all things.
And that to judge but only with righteous weights and measures.
You should read about the Essenes. They were the original followers of The Way, of whom John the Baptist and Jesus himself were members.
Well said!
Amen to that.
The Bible was written by the Apostles of Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit. You think they just wrote a bunch of letters, threw them in the trash for the catholics to find later?
That isn't what he is saying; he is saying that it has been manipulated by men since it was written.
And I'm saying it wasn't. There was no careless handling of the Word from the very beginning. From the church of Antioch, which began in 35AD, and is described in the Book of Acts, we have clear and undeniable sources for the texts that were used in the KJV and other Reformation translations. Polycarp was quoting chapter and verse from the finished work in 127AD.
The catholics are liars like their father.
KJV is crap.
The Geneva Bible is most authentic English translation.
It’s what the Pilgrims brought to America.
KJV was state propaganda and has many differences from the Septuagint.
No, the Bible is far more than just a bunch of letters from the Apostles, obviously you must know this no?
If you do a deep dive into Genesis 6 (the Book of Enoch helps with this greatly), a very different picture emerges.
Genesis 6:1-4
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
So the sons of God AKA angels mated with the daughters of men, which resulted in the birth of giants and demigods. This act corrupted the DNA of mankind.
Genesis 6:5-7
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
https://www.defendproclaimthefaith.org/DaysNoah.htm
Genesis 6:8-9
8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
The Bible describes God’s selection of Noah in order to preserve mankind. Noah qualified because he was “perfect” in his generation. This does not mean he was a morally perfect human, but that he was genetically perfect in his lineage. He had perfect human DNA and was not corrupted by the sons of God.
This fickle and petty God, as you refer to him, waited until the last 8 purebloods were alive before He shut the doors of the Ark and destroyed the planet with the Great Flood.
Now, after the Great Flood, we discover there was a revival of the Nephilim. They settled in the land of Canaan after God promised that land to Abraham and his descendants. The tribes God ordered Israel to destroy utterly and completely were not fully human.
Well, let’s circle this back to my comment about the Bible.
The Book of Enoch is not part of the Bible the majority Western and Eastern Christians use, nor is it canon.
Thus my point of the Bible, which was decided upon by many dudes, over the centuries, what is included and not.
I get your point though.
We're all traced from one of Noah's sons if the Bible is true.
taps forehead
I agree with you, God cannot err.
However, ‘The Bible’ as we know of today was compiled by men… AND there are MANY versions of it.
Amongst Christians, those who profess to follow Christ, there are constant arguments and debates on which ‘Bible’ is the correct.
So, unfortunately your assessment that the ‘Bible cannot err’ is not entirely true.. which Bible version are you referring to? KJV? New American? Apocrypha included? Coptic bible with Book of Enoch? … which?
There's ultimately 2 versions of the Bible on the planet.
On one side, you have the Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament and the Textus Receptus New Testament written in Koine Greek. These are the documents used to translate the KJV and the Geneva Bible.
On the other side, you have the Septuagint, a Greek Old Testament which was translated by Alexandrian scholars funded by Ptolemy II Philadelphus AKA Ptolemy the Great and a New Testament written in Classical Greek.
The modern copies of the Septuagint are largely based on the Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus texts. The Sinaiticus text was rediscovered in a convent waste paper basket located in Mt. Sinai and has been edited multiple times. The Alexandrinus gets its name because it was originally discovered in Alexandria, Egypt, relocated to Constantinople, and was given to Charles I, the Roman Catholic sympathetic King of England, and it's remained in the British library until the present. Vaticanus has been in the Vatican collection since at least the 15th century.
The real question is which version is correct? I choose the one that contains Acts 8:37 without a footnote.
NIV version of Acts 8:37 (The verse is actually missing)-
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:37&version=NIV
King James version-
Acts 8:37
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Here is the chapter recording Philip's encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch, a devout Jew who is converted to Christianity. The eunuch sees some water and asks what hinders him from being baptized.
Acts 8:36
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
In the NIV, the eunuch's question is never answered.
Very interesting, thanks for writing all that. Great signposts for me to go dig further.
C’mon pops, you can’t be this clueless nor are you so blind that you can’t apply discernment or perhaps have a sound discussion without patronizing comments?
This type of thinking compliments the likes of ‘extreme Muslim jihadist’, don’t you agree? Agree with your view of the holy text, otherwise belittlement is the answer. Foolish.
My point stands sir, the ‘Bible’ as you know it, or whichever version you prescribe to, has been debated over a thousand times, over the centuries.
Ah yes, the Norman Geisler, perhaps you should look into his history eh? You might find out some interesting facts… doesn’t mean his writings are bad, but perhaps context is good in this case.
Either way, why disparage me? I follow Jesus, why the attack? Did I attack you? Did you somehow read my reply/comment as an attack on you, or the faith?
If you truly see my comment as ‘bad faith’, perhaps you should reconsider all your interactions with both Christians (all denominations) and also non Christians… how then perhaps can you spread the Good News if you treat them like me?
Foolish.
The Bible exists because the Catholic church assembled it.
The Bible says there was one sacrifice, which was the death of Yeshua AKA Jesus for our sins.
Hebrews 10:11-13
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
The Roman Catholic Church says the Eucharist is a sacrifice, but the Bible says there was only one sacrifice. The Bible says the breaking of bread is done in remembrance of Christ and should be practiced at Passover.
1414 As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God.
https://www.catechismonline.com/christian-ministry-2/eucharist
Meanwhile, the Roman Catholic Church goes out of its way to make sure Easter Sunday never falls on the Passover and has done so since 325 AD. The decision was made at the 1st Council of Nicaea to celebrate Easter on the first Sunday after the first full moon after March 21, or, in other words, to ensure it falls on the Spring Equinox.
It’s an artifact of combining the Jewish Lunar and Catholic Gregorian Solar Calendars. Passover always starts on the first full moon after the first new moon after the spring equinox. Easter is always celebrated on Sunday and because the Last Supper fell on a Thursday night (Friday for the Jews because they start the day at sunset) then Easter is always on the Sunday after Passover.
That's the Fact Check version, friend.
The Roman Catholic Church was upset some Christian churches still disregard the Council of Nicaea and dare to celebrate Easter on Nisan 15 AKA Passover, or on the Sunday following Passover. So, in 1997, the World Council of Churches, a front organization for bringing the Protestants back under Rome, gathered all of the Christian member denominations together and tried to hash out a common date, which would basically be the Roman Catholic date. Read 10. (e) below and you'll see the importance of the spring equinox to the Roman Catholic Church and their refusal to budge on that.
I won't quote the entire document but you can click on the link below to verify my summary of points 1-6.
Towards a Common Date for Easter
World Council of Churches / Middle East Council of Churches Consultation
Aleppo, Syria
March 5 - 10, 1997
Historical background to the present differences
The New Testament indicates that Christ's death and resurrection were historically associated with the Jewish passover, but the precise details of this association are not clear. According to the synoptic gospels, Jesus' last supper was a passover meal, which would place his death on the day after passover, while according to John his death occurred on the day itself, indeed at the very hour, when the paschal lambs were sacrificed. By the end of the 2nd century some churches celebrated Easter/Pascha on the day of the Jewish passover, regardless of the day of the week, while others celebrated it on the following Sunday. By the 4th century, the former practice had been abandoned practically universally, but differences still remained in the calculation of the date of Easter/Pascha. The ecumenical council held at Nicea in 325 AD determined that Easter/Pascha should be celebrated on the Sunday following the first vernal full moon. Originally passover was celebrated on the first full moon after the March equinox, but in the 3rd century the day of the feast came to be calculated by some Jewish communities without reference to the equinox, thus causing passover to be celebrated twice in some solar years. Nicea tried to avoid this by linking the principles for the dating of Easter/Pascha to the norms for the calculation of passover during Jesus' lifetime.
While certain differences in the mechanics of determining the date of Easter/Pascha remained even after Nicea, which occasionally resulted in local differences, by the 6th century the mode of calculation based on the studies of Alexandrian astronomers and scholars had gained universal acceptance. By the 16th century, however, the discrepancy between this mode of calculation and the observed astronomical data was becoming evident. This led to the calendar change introduced by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582. Since that time, western Christians have come to calculate the date of Easter on the basis of this newer Gregorian calendar, while the eastern churches generally have continued to follow the older Julian calendar. While calendrical changes in some of the Orthodox churches in 1923 affected fixed-date feasts, the calculation of the Easter date remained linked to the Julian Calendar. Our present differences in calculation of the date of Easter thus may be ascribed to differences in the calendars and lunar tables employed rather than to differences in fundamental theological outlook.
In its study of the mechanics of the paschal calculation, the consultation took note of the fact that both the current eastern (Julian) and the current western (Gregorian) calculations diverge in certain respects from the astronomical data as determined by precise scientific calculation. As is well known, the Julian calendar at present diverges from the astronomical by thirteen days; the Gregorian at present does not diverge significantly, though it will in the distant future. Less well known is the fact that both Julian and Gregorian calculations rely upon conventional tables for determining the lunar cycle. For both modes of calculation, these tables at times give results that diverge from the astronomical data.
The continuing relevance of the Council of Nicea
(a) Despite differences in the method of calculation, the principles of calculation in the churches of both East and West are based on the norms set forth at Nicea. This fact is of great significance. In the present divided situation, any decision by one church or group of churches to move away from these norms would only increase the difficulty of resolving outstanding differences.
(b) The Council of Nicea's decisions are expressive of the desire for unity. The council's aim was to establish principles, based upon the scriptural data concerning the association of the passion and resurrection of Christ with the passover, which would encourage a single annual observance of Easter/Pascha by all the churches. By fostering unity in this way, the council also demonstrated its concern for the mission of the church in the world. The council was aware that disunity in such a central matter was a cause of scandal.
(c) The Nicene norms affirm the intimate connection between the biblical passover (cf. especially Exod. 12:18, Lev. 23:5, Num. 28:16, Deut. 16:1-2) and the Christian celebration of "Christ our paschal lamb" (1 Cor. 5:7). While the council rejected the principle of dependence on contemporary Jewish reckoning, it did so on the grounds that this had changed and become inaccurate, not because it regarded this connection as unimportant.
(d) In the course of their discussions the consultation also gained a deeper appreciation for the wealth of symbolism which the Nicene norms permit. In the worship of many of the churches, especially in the biblical readings and hymnography of the paschal season, Christians are reminded not only of the important link between the passover and the Christian Easter/Pascha but also of other aspects of salvation history. For example, they are reminded that in Christ's resurrection all creation is renewed. Some early Christian sources thus linked the Genesis account of the seven days of creation with the week of Christ's passion, death and resurrection.
(e) The Council of Nicea also has an enduring lesson for Christians today in its willingness make use of contemporary science in calculating the date of Easter. While the council sought to advance the concrete unity of the churches, it did not itself undertake a detailed regulation of the Easter calculation. Instead it expected the churches to employ the most exact science of the day for calculating the necessary astronomical data (the March equinox and the full moon).
https://www.oikoumene.org/resources/documents/towards-a-common-date-for-easter
As far as my claims the World Council of Churches is a front organization for bringing Protestant churches back under the control of Rome, here's a Roman Catholic priest telling us that openly-
https://catholiccourier.com/articles/catholic-church-not-full-member-of-wcc-but-works-in-partnership/
And? If you have two different calendars and you want to unite on a day to celebrate you need to pick a day. Options are same day of the week, same day of the month, same day of the solar year. Which is “right”? The Church decided day of the week being Sunday as the new covenant following the lunar based Passover was when they wanted to celebrate it.
If you have a solar based calendar because you secretly worship the sun, and you want to make sure your day of worship falls as close to the spring equinox as possible, you do exactly what the Roman Catholic Church did.
Orthodox is original church. Roman Catholics broke off from the true church. Of course at the time orthodox didn’t have to call themselves orthodox.
Jesuit sums it up pretty well if you let it.
I'm so glad someone else understands this concept, thank you
It's not just the Catholics. The Jews tried to infiltrate The Bible itself with their Zionistic crap: https://www.hope-of-israel.org/createdbible.html
Roman catholic isn't Christian. It's a works based religion filled with idol worship.
James 2:26
James 2:26
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Works do not grant salvation. However, they are evidence one has accepted the free gift of salvation.
When we trust God and allow the Holy Spirit to work in our lives, the works naturally follow. We keep the commandments, not because they save us, but because we love God. This is the difference between commandments written on tablets of stone and commandments written on our hearts.
Romans 2:14-16
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
I’d agree. I was protestant once. I think protestants make a heinous assumption about works and faith that those who do works are charlatans.
The acts come from becoming new in Christ. Otherwise we’re no different than the demons who know Christ and must confess his righteousness as well.
Thus faith without works is dead. Matthew 13 should make this even more clear.
I think you need to learn the difference between salvation and justification.
And the Eucharist is worshipped as God. A piece of bread is not God, period.
That’s pure ignorance
What's pure ignorance? The fact saying some incantations over a piece of bread and a glass of wine does not make it the actual body and blood of Christ?
If anything, it's heresy if you believe Roman Catholic traditions.
They would take over the entire identity and life, occupy their home and enjoy their money. They have been doing it for centuries.
What if..... The actors that we often discuss, the body doubles and clones etc.
What if I think mirror and wonder if the real criminals have been dealt with already. The White Hats have used the Khazar tactic and they are using actors to "name steal" that ex-KM asset to destroy their entire organisations, from within ?
Interesting thought. I do believe they've been dealt with and now we are experiencing the reveal slowly.
Metatron's Cube.
The Pope is as Catholic as Joe Biden… a politician.
Regardless of what folks think of the Catholic Church (Roman / Orthodox), human nature takes over…
A need to look towards someone for leadership and guidance, which is neither good nor bad.
Sheep and Shepherd relationship.
A Shepherd has intrinsic Power; and that Power is tempting.
Very well said--and we see this relationship in so many ways. Media as a shepherd is certainly a thing as well~
Let's look at some symbols, shall we?
https://www.blackcube.com/
Also:
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/tech-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-interrogation-revealed-black-cube-ceo-suspected-of-running-crime-organization-1.9262559
"Art"
https://www.yelp.com/biz/the-cube-astor-place-new-york
Tefillin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tefillin
Just curious, but who sent the letter?
That letter on the right of the image is from Lord Balfour and is referencing the Balfour Declaration, so nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church.
With that being said, the Jesuits are the group you need to look at. The Jesuits were founded by Ignatius Loyola, a Marrano AKA Crypto Jew and "former" member of the Alumbrados, or "Enlightened Ones", a group descended from the Chaldeans AKA Babylonians. Helena Blavatsky, the famous Theosophist, mentions this link.
Ayy, hell yes to Blavatsky reference. I got a massive compendium of her work, I think all the volumes combined and outlined into certain sections. I have been researching "conspiries" (aka, the truth) for most of my adult life, but I have never felt "ready" to take a full dive into Blavatsky's work--I'm close though. It's just so so much to take in.
I know within her Secret Doctrine, many of the things we discuss today are probably outlined. Maybe not specific events, but concepts and outlines; words describing the human relationship to time, to the cosmos, to things much bigger than us, and how folks here on Earth with ill will, greed, malice & contempt towards others will use this relationship for selfish & unclean purposes. Then you look at modern times and see Zionism, Imperialism, globalists coming together under the guise of WEF and NATO n shit..........Blavatsky knew what the fuck was up, looong long ago...
edit: And she was Russian too! Imagine folks these days coming across Secret Doctrine: "Oh, she's Russian, it's fake disinformation" omegalul
Blavatsky was the Marina Abramovic of her day. She's big in the occult world.
In my opinion most all religions were created to control the populations. There is no way anyone can tell me Christ or actually Yeshua would condone anything about the modern money grubbing Christian or catholic churches.
The photo on the right, does the top man have a red eye?
See Antichrist. The man of lawlessness. Son of Perdition. The wicked shepherd who is describe in the Bible as blind in one eye, with a withered hand—much like someone with a traumatic head-wound/brain injury/assassination attempt. The one-eye symbolizes wisdom and all-seeing Horus to the cult, but it also heralds their god, the beast—who will control all commerce and force them to take his mark.
◾️In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king◾️
I wonder why they show it red rather than blackened. Just interesting. I dont know much about this image at all so will need to look into it
I can not speak on Catholics or Jews intelligently But i have pondered if 666 was a man vice an object such as gold or greed In OT of Bible we have Solomon and 666 Also the weight of gold, that came to Solomon in one year, was six hundred threescore and six talents of gold, 1 Kings 10:14
Just an outside the box thought
I could see that. After all, Matthew 6:24:
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
That was a type. The Pope is the Antichrist, and that is why there are many antichrists.
So the star of David or whatever is actually a wired frame connecting the dots of a cube... interesting
The Roman catholic church is just another flavor of kabalaism
"Conspiracy? Our Subverted History, Part 6 - From Holy Men to Dark Magicians"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R46zJYUbMdE&t=6s
Looks interesting… wanted to watch part 1 but it’s unavailable. Any idea why?
I don't know why it would not be available. Check out Asha Logos channel, or look on bitchute to not give youtube the traffic. All of his stuff is interesting.
It's the Goa'uld!
Filioque - the Latin for, “and from the Son,” equivalent to et filio, inserted by the third council of Toledo (589 AD) in the clause qui ex Patre procedit (who proceedeth from the Father) of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (381 AD), that made the creed to state that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father. Hence, the doctrine itself (not admitted by the Eastern Church)
This from Adji Murads Europa, Turks and the greater steppe
Around 380 it seems catholism starts to appear in Rome and the old gods Mercury etc forgotten. It seems it was the goths or people like them who brought this faith of the Heavenly Father as they were similiar to the old “Arian” ways.
Wait until everyone finds out that even the words of Bible have been tampered with. This Bible is not what Jesus the messiah brought upon us.
While we’re on the topic
https://greatawakening.win/p/15HIJwadAE/in-case-you-missed-the-elephant-/
James 2:26
It would be awesome if Protestants actually knew what the Church teaches before disagreeing with it.
Catholics do not believe you can work your way into heaven. It is only through the grace of Christ.
BUT
You can sin your way into hell. That is where the disagreement is. Many Protestants believe as long as you have faith in Christ you can do whatever you like and still go to heaven. That’s where we disagree.
What does not acceptable mean? Do you go to hell if you are unrepentant?
No, we don't disagree. There are many people who will claim to follow Christ at judgment day and will be rejected.
Just as there are many Protestants who mistakenly believe faith gives one license to sin, there are many Catholics who believe as long as they say their rosaries and confess their sins to a priest and take the Eucharist, they are good to go.
Catholic theologians love to quote the following from 1 John 5 when asked about venial and mortal sins-
1 John 5:16
If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
I've never heard those same theologians quote this verse from the same chapter-
1 John 5:21
Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.
I think Christianity predates Catholicism, it’s obvious from The older ways that were brought from the east, those 400 years that it took to spread to Rome are evidence of this too. The Catholic Church has spent immense effort destroying any evidence of the old ways.
What did Q say about some trying to divide us? The vitriol against Catholics that I see here sometimes astounds me. Do people really think that sex abuse by clergy only happens in the Catholic Church? If you do, then you really need to dig. Do people think other faiths are perfect? If they do, then they do not deserve the moniker, anon.
As a sex abuse survivor, I have zero tolerance for perpetrators, I also have zero tolerance for those who spread disinformation. By focusing only on the Catholic clergy, you're giving a pass to and are encouraging clergy of other faiths who are abusing children.
I am a Catholic. Do I follow blindly? no. Do I follow Francis? No
I have a personal relationship with God and the Holy Family. It's this relationship that guides me in my everyday life. There was that saying a couple of decades ago, "What Would Jesus Do?". That's how I try to live my life - putting Jesus first and not doing things that would embarrass or annoy Him. Do I fall? every single day but I keep trying.
You who criticize Catholics by the Church leadership, would you want the world to judge you by Joe Biden ? No? Then, why do you judge a group of people by sins and errors committed by their Church leadership? Yes, sadly, there are and have been evil people in the Catholic Church. Don't be so naive as to think evil does not exist in every Church denomination.
I understand what you are saying about the hatred to the Catholic church, bit understand it's to the church and not Catholics.
There are good reasons to hate that church first the child abuse and cover up and then the false doctrines and it's erroneous supremacist claim to be the head of the faith.
Especially the RC church requiring works (seven sacrements) to receive salvation, this is unbiblical and opposed to what Jesus taught
And then burning alive anyone who didn't believe their lies and deceptions. I hope your not one of those Catholics that cry they are being oppressed but then say that the Protestant martyrs are heretics and deserve to burn.
Us protestants believe scripture has more authority than a priest. The reformation was an attempt to recreate the 1st C church.
I think its wise to expose all the elites puppets and stooges and the Catholic church does not have an exception to that fact. They ruled Europe and were practically the Khazar before they had control.
All roads lead to Rome.
Peace and love to you my brother or sister in Christ. I'm not trying to offend or argue but evil is evil and needs to be held to account.
I agree that "evil is evil and needs to be held to account". Dig and expose the evil in your own faith and others should do the same in their faiths. Only by exposing the infections can the wounds be cleansed and healed.
We do there is a lot of wrong in the big Protestant denominations, especially prosperity preaching which I see as a giant pyramid scheme.
We need to see that the wolves have got into all our churches and are destroying them from within.
We need to leave no stone unturned in exposing the evil, wherever the gavel falls.
Protestants believe whatever they want. That’s kind of the point. As for burning heretics what are you supposed to do when someone is leading souls to hell?
If you really believe in an afterlife and heaven and hell it’s an act of self defense to try to save souls. Now that we have pretty much given up on saving souls do you think that’s better?
Remember what God did to all of the cities that were full of sinners to make way for the Israelites? Remember what he did when they didn’t listen to him and spared people? What did Jesus say about people that lead children to sin?
I think you Catholics are the ones being lead astray, I believe the faith Christ taught in the Bible, it's doctrines, laws, way to salvation.
Them martyrs are more Christian than any pope that ever existed. If you think Christ would allow a priest to torturously murder a Christian like that you are seriously misguided and sinning before God.
Didn't Christ stop a woman being stoned to death bit your cheering on Christians being burned alive! Repent of your sins.
You pretty much stated yourself that our beliefs are at odds with eachother, very different.
One of us is right I fully believe what the Bible says and I choose to follow the church laid out in the New testament.
Can you say the same?
There is a huge difference between forgiving a sinner and someone saying a sin is a virtue and you know it. If the death penalty is allowable for an unrepentant murderer what is it for someone leading thousands of souls to hell?
I have no hatred against individual Catholics. As I stated elsewhere in this thread, I was born and raised Roman Catholic.
With that being said, I am against the institution, because it is Mystery Babylon. The second commandment to not worship idols is clear, and that's why Roman Catholicism removed it and also uses the term veneration to describe its practices regarding statues and relics. The Reformers taught the Pope is the antiChrist. That is now considered hate speech, no doubt.
Pope Francis is the father of the climate movement. Wake up.
And since you said you don't support Francis, you are considered anathema by your very religion, unless you've broken ranks and joined up with the sedivaticanists, who want to bring the Latin mass back...
The Roman catholic church got nothing to do with Christianity. It never had. The Roman empire spend almost 300 years slaughtering every christian and destroying every church before they hijacked Christianity it was the only way for them to survive and unfortunate they were very successful.
The Roman catholic church is luciferian/Saturn in origin and for 1700 years they hide themself in symbolism while claiming to be christian when in fact their master was Saturn/Satan.
The 7 churches John wrote to in the revelation was all destroyed in the early christian period. Gauss who destroyed them? It was actually quite genius, kill, destroy every christian and original church with the fake Jews and then take over the entire religion.
Just throwing something in here because I dug into this for a while some years ago:
The "star of Remphan" may be a mistranslation. There is literally no "Remphan" anywhere else in the Bible or in ancient literature.
Recent alternate attempts to re-visit the Hebrew produces the name of the god 'Ninurta.' That means the text likely refers to the eight-pointed star of Ninurta, who was a more well-known ancient pagan god in the middle east at the time the verse was written. I would recommend Doug Hamp's research into the subject.
That being said, yes: the occult has all kind of geometric patterns and meaning in their symbology. Connections between the six-pointed polygon, the black cube, and other symbols may indeed be entirely legitimate. So I'm not trying to bash the connections being highlighted in this post.
I'm just pointing out that the identification of the "Star of David" as synonymous with the "Star of Remphan" has always been an assumption - but they may not ctually be the same thing.
Just being a stickler on Bible research. The truth matters.