In case anyone wasn't sure, the Pope isn't on Team Jesus
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (82)
sorted by:
“The Catholic Church is anti Christ?”
“Always has been”
Lol at the downvote.
Truth is uncomfortable sometimes. Also shows that the great awakening applies to ALL THINGS.
If only down-voting came with the requirement of providing a reason just as SCOTUS provides dissenting views.
And the protestant churches that support abortion and gay marriage are not?
People who go to Catholic Churches are not all evil. My family and me. Priests like the Pope are evil evil, but I have experienced the Holy Spirit in the Catholic Churches specially for Holy Week. I love Jesus and his father.
Well said. Catholic here and I agree with you Godisglory1.
God bless and thank u
The holy spirit told me at mass in my Catholic church that my wife and I would have a child after our first son died. Later in the week, my wife was going to have a drink and I told her not to as she was pregnant. A couple of days later same thing. A couple of weeks later, she tells me she is pregnant. We have have a child and name him Matthew. I find out later means "a gift from God." You cannot tell me the Catholic church is evil though some of its leaders are, I believe.
Exactly. Leaders like the “pope” and his people in the Vatican.
Why was your immediate reaction to attack? Do you think the Church whatever variety is immune to subversion?
Not attacking but questioning why all hatred is usually directed to the Catholic church and very seldom toward the Protestant faiths.
Well i don't think the historic child abuse and the cover-up helped but you are right they have become an easy target
I didn’t say they weren’t. Any organization that promotes any doctrine contrary to the Word is undeserving of the title “church”.
I believe the church is really all of us believers and not some institutions that make up rules as they go. Most all churches behave as government's do, they do their own thing regardless if that is in agreement with the word of God.
There is indeed a universal church, which is the collection of all believers alive on earth at any given time.
However, local churches are equally (if not more) important. In the NT you see local churches popping up almost instantly, with the apostles going to great lengths to support them, correct them, and help them grow. Hebrews 10:25 exhorts Christian’s to not forsake these local assemblies.
You are right that many denominations invent their own rules, abandon God’s rules, or just in general slide into corruption and decay. My advice would be to check out as many local churches in your area as you can, and compare their doctrine and practices to the Bible. Find one that boldly preaches the Word on every issue, especially when it takes a stand against evolution, LGBT, and other controversial issues. There aren’t many left, but there are still some.
IMHO, all churches that are registered as 501c3 non-profit corporations are an apostasy. How does one serve the Master Jesus when government is the absolute authority Ex incipiente finis over a corporations' charter?
I totally agree and there is no need for them to register as a non-profit.
If by "Antichrist" you mean "opposed to Christ" then yes they are!
It’s a feature not a bug
YES
Mystery Babylon the mother of harlots. My take is mystery Babylon is the Catholic church. The harlots are the protestant churches.
My top picks for what mystery Babylon is:
The RCC
The NWO (Rothschilds, globalists, the Uniparty, etc)
Talmudic Kabbalah Judaism
Each seems to fit the bill in their own way.
"Mystery Babylon" was the Jerusalem (with it's Temple) that was destroyed by Roman General Titus in A.D. 70!
Rev 11:8 - "And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt".
That interpretation requires to Tribulation to have already happened. While some historical events bear superficial similarities to the Tribulation, we’re not there yet. The church gets raptured first.
Always had been? Do you realize Peter was the first leader of this church?
Nope, Peter was never part of any organization called the Roman Catholic Church.
Peter never claimed to be the infallible vicar of Christ.
Peter never taught transubstantiation.
Peter never taught that Mary was sinless or a perpetual virgin.
Peter never taught that you can buy forgiveness of sins (indulgences).
Peter never taught celibacy for priests.
Peter never taught that there even was a class of priests separate from the layman (see Hebrews for how all believers are priests, and that Christ is our high priests. You have no need for some earthly priests to intercede for you.)
Peter never taught that there was a purgatory, much less that you could pray someone out of it into heaven.
The Roman Catholic Church was founded in the 4th century, almost immediately began teaching these and other heresies, and retroactively claimed Peter was one of them to justify their error.
The RCC does not follow Christ or the Bible, but their own traditions, most of which directly contradicts Jesus and His Word.
Also it's interesting that Paul, in Romans chapter 16, as he is thanking about 28 saints of the Church in Rome NEVER mentions Peter. If Peter had been the "Pastor" of the Roman church one would think that Paul would have mentioned Peter - but he does not.
In addition, we see Peter preaching the 1st salvation on the day of Pentecost. The message was recorded in Acts 2:38 - "Repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you shall received the gift of the Holy Spirit". Does the RCC church teach this today, as God's plan of salvation? NO! BTW I was a RC for the 1st 31 years of my life - I'm 71 now!
transubstantiation was certainly taught by the words of Christ. Of course there are a million ways to interpret the words of Christ.
In his letters, Ignatius refers to Peter and Paul as his spiritual fathers and expresses deep reverence and respect for them. He was mentored by them! Ignatius repeatedly spoke of transubstantiation. Again, maybe modern day scholars knew better than him and the early church. But could be the same with the Jehovahs Witnesses or Mormons, just modern people coming up with new ideas.
4th century is when the church canonized the 27 books of the New Testament. If the church had canonized the Cat in The Hat in the 4th, modern day scholars would not question its inclusion any more than the other 27 books the church decided to include.
Those books are considered holy scripture because Bishop Athanasius sent the Easter Letter" to some churches around 367 AD,l.
Also 4th century was when the concept of the trinity was formalized.
4th Century was when the church convened to refute the 325 AD, the Council of Nicaea met to address the Arian heresy. This belief rejected the divinity of Christ.
4th century, beliefs of Trinity, Divinity of Christ, Atonement, And Original Sin were formalized. Not sure which of these you disagree with. Overall, I'd say the 4th century was a positive time for the church.
If there truly were a million ways to correctly interpret the Scriptures, then they could be twisted to mean so many different things that they don't actually say anything useful at all, and there would have been no point in God inspiring them in the first place.
Christ did call the bread His body and the wine His blood in the Last Supper. However, since His physical body was in the room with the disciples, and there is not the slightest indication that the disciples literally ate Christ, then the simplest explanation is that Christ was speaking metaphorically, not literally. Given His disposition towards parables, Jesus was not above using metaphor.
Furthermore, both Paul and the author of Hebrews speak of Christ offering His body once for all. See Romans 6:10 and Hebrews 10:10. Yet the doctrine of transubstantiation has Christ's body being offered over and over again, a direct contradiction. In Paul's letters to the Corinthians, Paul instructs them regarding communion as a commemoration of Christ's sacrifice, not as sacrificing Christ again.
Ignatius, or any other historical figure, can have whatever opinion of scripture they want, and claim whatever apostolic lineage they want. That does not render them immune to error, and if their ideas are incongruent with scripture, then the former must be discarded.The same goes for newer groups like the Mormons or JW's.
Some of the administrative structure of the RCC dates back to 200 AD, but all of its distinctly heretical doctrines date from 400 AD or later. Indulgences, Purgatory, praying to saints, the adoption of pagan holidays, the insistence on Mary's perpetual virginity, etc.
Lastly, the doctrines of the Trinity, Divinity of Christ, and Atonement were not formalized in the 4th century; they plainly and clearly exist in scripture from the beginning. The irrational need for an external organization to confirm what the Bible says is the whole problem with the RCC in the first place, as they have abused their power to teach traditions of men instead of the Word of God.