Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Saint Malachy, Prophecies about 112 popes until the end of the world, the last five Popes
WorkofGod.org ^ | n/a | WorkofGod

Posted on 10/14/2007 8:25:58 PM PDT by Salvation

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-413 next last
To: Dominick
I think keeping track of who called whom a heretic is a waste of the Internet’s electromagnetic flux.

Guess it depends on whose ox is gored, huh? Words -- certain words, that is -- matter; content means nothing. At least I now know the proper words to use when refering to the RCC.

101 posted on 10/15/2007 1:22:30 PM PDT by Glenmerle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

Comment #102 Removed by Moderator

To: Glenmerle
Guess it depends on whose ox is gored, huh? Words -- certain words, that is -- matter; content means nothing. At least I now know the proper words to use when refering to the RCC.

If your can't understand what I said, then I am done. Take my comment for what it is worth.

103 posted on 10/15/2007 1:28:25 PM PDT by Dominick ("Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." - JP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: nanetteclaret
See post 58.
104 posted on 10/15/2007 1:28:43 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: xzins
the Mystery Babylon religious system

Islam?

105 posted on 10/15/2007 1:30:29 PM PDT by GiovannaNicoletta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: nanetteclaret
I’m sorry you object to the word “heretic.” I was once a heretic myself, and will freely call myself that.

Yeah I object to being called a heretic. I'm just funny like that. I'll bet you don't like your church being called a . . . whoops, verboten. You're so blinded by hate you can't even see that you're inflicting on others what you so object to yourself. "I was once a heretic myself," you say -- meaning "once a Protestant." That's filth, and you can't even see it.

106 posted on 10/15/2007 1:30:41 PM PDT by Glenmerle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Glenmerle
I'm not sure what your point is, then ...

In #43, the "Roman Mass" is condemned as blasphemy.

In #44 "protestantism" is condemned as heresy.

As I said, if the one goes, I'll be happy to see the other removed, as well.

As is, objecting to accusations of "heresy", whilst saying to to accusations of "blasphemy" strikes me as hypocritical.

YMMV.

107 posted on 10/15/2007 1:52:58 PM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

***return the faith of the Apostles***

Examples of the “faith of the Apostles” include the “Epistle to the Corinthians,” written by Clement of Rome about the same time as the Gospel of St. John. He is the Clement mentioned by St. Paul in Philippians 4:3 as his “fellow-laborer.” Also the epistles of Ignatius, composed as he was going to his martyrdom which occurred December 20, 107 AD, the writings of Justin Martyr written around 150 AD, and the work “Against Heresies” written by Irenaeus of Lyons between 175-185 AD. Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp, who was personally taught by St. John the Apostle.

Your post shows that you have no knowledge of the Early Church and the “faith of the Apostles.” You might want to investigate. If you don’t want to hear what these Early Fathers had to say, you should at least read about them since they were martyrs for Jesus. We can all learn from their heroic faith.


108 posted on 10/15/2007 1:56:33 PM PDT by nanetteclaret (Our Lady's Hat Society)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
The Reformers saw the spiritual entity we call the Roman Catholic Church as fallen in much the same way as ancient Israel. Rome was in covenant relationship at one time, but had abdicated their position and gone after foreign gods through a gradual process of assimilation of false practices.

Those would be the same guys who said that it was manifestly plain that popes and councils did err.

I'll turn their own medicine back on them: it is manifestly plain (to me) that the "Reformers" did err.

I'll stick with the Bible.

109 posted on 10/15/2007 2:05:51 PM PDT by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: nanetteclaret
Examples of the “faith of the Apostles” include the “Epistle to the Corinthians,” written by Clement of Rome about the same time as the Gospel of St. John. He is the Clement mentioned by St. Paul in Philippians 4:3 as his “fellow-laborer.” Also the epistles of Ignatius, composed as he was going to his martyrdom which occurred December 20, 107 AD, the writings of Justin Martyr written around 150 AD, and the work “Against Heresies” written by Irenaeus of Lyons between 175-185 AD. Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp, who was personally taught by St. John the Apostle.

Without getting creative, I can't seem to find the RC Mass or transubstantiation in any of those ancient writings. You need to read a lot of medieval theology back into the text to get them where you want them to be.

Your post shows that you have no knowledge of the Early Church and the “faith of the Apostles.”

And your post demonstrates that you have no knowledge of my knowledge in this area.

110 posted on 10/15/2007 2:07:39 PM PDT by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends listen to dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Those would be the same guys who said that it was manifestly plain that popes and councils did err.

I'll turn their own medicine back on them: it is manifestly plain (to me) that the "Reformers" did err.

Entirely possible. They have stated as such in their confession. No human institution is infallible. Nothing in the Bible says that any human or human institution is infallible.

As a protestant I have no trouble believing and trusting in a perfect, infallible God handing His Church over to undershepherds who are sinful, fallible men. Otherwise I would be tempted to worship these men, a form of idolatry.

I prefer to kiss the Son lest He be angry (Psalm 2) than kiss the ring or feet of a prelate.

I'll stick with the Bible.

Not as an RC you won't. You need the Magisterium to tell you what is right to believe.

111 posted on 10/15/2007 2:19:39 PM PDT by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends listen to dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
You need the Magisterium to tell you what is right to believe.

So when I go to the Magisterium, and they point me to Scripture (Dei Verbum, Vatican II):

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

... I'm back where I started.

112 posted on 10/15/2007 2:33:58 PM PDT by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Glenmerle

Okay, I’ll put it my way, Protestants follow an incomplete religion.


113 posted on 10/15/2007 2:35:42 PM PDT by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Glenmerle
No other denomination has a rightful claim to this mandate but those which enjoy Apostolic succession.

So prove that statement wrong if you can. Show where Christ established many churches with diverse beliefs.

114 posted on 10/15/2007 2:42:23 PM PDT by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Glenmerle

“Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation.... But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes ... But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.” Ignatius of Antioch “Letter to the Smyrnaeans” Chpt. 6-7 AD 107


115 posted on 10/15/2007 2:45:39 PM PDT by nanetteclaret (Our Lady's Hat Society)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Seattle has 7 hills also, but all we rule is the coffee kingdom :>)


116 posted on 10/15/2007 2:56:49 PM PDT by irishtenor (How much good could a Hindu do, if a Hindu could do good?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

If you can’t find the Mass or transubstantiation in any of the writings of the Early Fathers, you haven’t read much. For a composite look at different writings, read “The Mass of the Early Christians” by Mike Aquilina. You will find more than enough examples.

By the way, the concept of “transubstantiation” was always in the Eucharist. It was just never verbalized until St. Thomas Aquinas explained it, using the Aristotelian concepts of “substance” and “accidents.” His is probably the greatest mind that had ever lived until that time. No one else had been able to articulate it.

Point taken that I have no knowledge of your knowledge. However, you write as if you don’t have any.


117 posted on 10/15/2007 3:03:43 PM PDT by nanetteclaret (Our Lady's Hat Society)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: nanetteclaret
Since we're quoting here . . .

“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

118 posted on 10/15/2007 3:13:22 PM PDT by Glenmerle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever
That’s impossible. Peter the Roman is code for Jesus Himself - the last Pope (when He comes to judge the world).

Haven't heard that one before.

119 posted on 10/15/2007 3:18:39 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Campion; xzins
Well, actually, yes, to a Jew, it does, because that is where the shem of YVWH dwells. (1 Kgs 11:36)

HaShem put His Name literally on His Land.

It shows the Name of God at Ancient Bethel!

shalom b'shem Yah'shua
120 posted on 10/15/2007 3:22:44 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (you shall know that I, YHvH, your Savior, and your Redeemer, am the Elohim of Ya'aqob. Isaiah 60:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: tiki
Show where Christ established many churches with diverse beliefs.

Show where Christ established the Roman Catholic Church (you may also want to discuss the concept of Christ's first church with apostolic Protestant groups and the Eastern Orthodox Church). Christ established his church, full of human beings who would differ -- some honestly, some not -- on certain matters.

But I reject the premise implicit in your post. The Catholic Church is not a church that has existed, unchanged, since Peter's time. That's nonsense. In fact, the RCC became so thoroughly corrupt at certain times in its history that people of good faith had to leave it.

The Church is where Christ is, and in some times and some places that has not been the RCC.

121 posted on 10/15/2007 3:25:22 PM PDT by Glenmerle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard; xzins
In John’s day, it was Rome. The early Church was going through some rather rough times then, and had little love for the pagan Roman state.

Does that mean that Rome the literal city is meant today? I don’t know. It is possible (and IMO likely) that it means a similar all encompassing pagan empire that will rise in the last days.

122 posted on 10/15/2007 3:27:52 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: nanetteclaret
The Protestant “system” is the apostate one, not the Catholic Church. I was brought up Presbyterian, so I know every Protestant argument, and not one of them holds weight against Scripture and the teachings of the Early Church Fathers (which anyone can access).

Do you mean like the early church fathers refutations of Rome's misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18 to denote Petrine primacy?

Eusebius of Caesarea says:

‘And he sent out arrows, and scattered them; he flashed forth lightnings, and routed them. Then the channels of the sea were seen, and the foundations of the world were laid bear, at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of thy nostrils’ (Ps. 18.14)...By ‘the foundations of the world,’ we shall understand the strength of God’s wisdom, by which, first, the order of the universe was established, and then, the world itself was founded—a world which will not be shaken. Yet you will not in any way err from the scope of the truth if you suppose that ‘the world’ is actually the Church of God, and that its ‘foundation’ is in the first place, that unspeakably solid rock on which it is founded, as Scripture says: ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’; and elsewhere: ‘The rock, moreover, was Christ.’ For, as the Apostle indicates with these words: ‘No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.’ Then, too, after the Savior himself, you may rightly judge the foundations of the Church to be the words of the prophets and apostles, in accordance with the statement of the Apostle: ‘Built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.’ These foundations of the world have been laid bare because the enemies of God, who once darkened the eyes of our mind, lest we gaze upon divine things, have been routed and put to flight—scattered by the arrows sent from God and put to flight by the rebuke of the Lord and by the blast from his nostrils. As a result, having been saved from these enemies and having received the use of our eyes, we have seen the channels of the sea and have looked upon the foundations of the world. This has happened in our lifetime in many parts of the world---Commentary on the Psalms, M.P.G., Vol. 23, Col. 173, 176.

Likewise Augustine says:

And I tell you...‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ...Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer---John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327.

There is no excuse for ignorance.

I agree, the early church fathers held the same interpretation of Matthew 16:18 as Protestants, in opposition to the later Roman interpretation which infers a Petrine primacy that is confided to the bishops of Rome where it does not exist.

123 posted on 10/15/2007 3:36:41 PM PDT by Missey_Lucy_Goosey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tiki

Um, Revelation 2-3?


124 posted on 10/15/2007 3:40:49 PM PDT by irishtenor (How much good could a Hindu do, if a Hindu could do good?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever
That’s impossible. Peter the Roman is code for Jesus Himself - the last Pope (when He comes to judge the world).

Do you have some evidence for that?

Every RC writer on this so called "prophecy" says that "Peter the Roman" is the Anti-Christ.

125 posted on 10/15/2007 3:40:52 PM PDT by Missey_Lucy_Goosey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator
As noted here, words like "heresy" and "blasphemy" are legitimate in theological debate. The Religion Forum is not ecumenical - open threads are for debate.

Do I understand that correctly to mean that within the course of providing opposition to Roman Catholicism with documented facts, that it is legitimate and not against the rules to use the terms: heretical, apostate, damnable, antichrist or reprobate?

126 posted on 10/15/2007 3:50:54 PM PDT by Missey_Lucy_Goosey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: nanetteclaret
Examples of the “faith of the Apostles” include the “Epistle to the Corinthians,” written by Clement of Rome about the same time as the Gospel of St. John. He is the Clement mentioned by St. Paul in Philippians 4:3 as his “fellow-laborer.” Also the epistles of Ignatius, composed as he was going to his martyrdom which occurred December 20, 107 AD, the writings of Justin Martyr written around 150 AD, and the work “Against Heresies” written by Irenaeus of Lyons between 175-185 AD. Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp, who was personally taught by St. John the Apostle.

None of which support many of the dogmas of Roman Catholicism which developed well after the 6th century.

Your post shows that you have no knowledge of the Early Church and the “faith of the Apostles.”

I do, as I firmly suspect "topcat" does as well, which is why he made the comment that Rome began deviating from the "faith of the Apostles" and ultimately strayed so far as to have ceased being a true church during the medieval period as the Reformers rightly charged.

You might want to investigate.

I have, and do, finding the religion of Roman Catholicism to be far removed from the Apostolic faith taught by Christ, the Apostles and the early Church.

127 posted on 10/15/2007 3:58:38 PM PDT by Missey_Lucy_Goosey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Missey_Lucy_Goosey
I agree, the early church fathers held the same interpretation of Matthew 16:18 as Protestants

You have two whole examples. I have a book here on my lap ("Jesus, Peter, and the Keys", by Butler, Dahlgren, and Hess) with 64 pages of counterexamples between pages 215 and 279.

It will take me time just to cherry-pick some good ones to post.

128 posted on 10/15/2007 4:04:33 PM PDT by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Campion
You have two whole examples. I have a book here on my lap ("Jesus, Peter, and the Keys"...

I'm familiar with the misrepresentations in that book.

Post them when you want and I'll respond to demonstrate how the authors take the citations they present out of context, and totally misrepresent, especially the term they point out so much, being "the chair of Peter".

129 posted on 10/15/2007 4:09:51 PM PDT by Missey_Lucy_Goosey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Missey_Lucy_Goosey
I'm very interested in what you posted in #123. Can you recommend a good (modern-day) book or two on the subject?
130 posted on 10/15/2007 4:17:20 PM PDT by Glenmerle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Then maybe we can have a discussion on Rome's new definition of "tradition" from the Vincentian Principle, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est, that Rome cited at the Council of Trent to it's new version of "viva voce", or whatever Rome says it is.
131 posted on 10/15/2007 4:22:02 PM PDT by Missey_Lucy_Goosey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Glenmerle
I can't recommend a particular book at the moment, but give me some time and I'll dig some up.

Also, there are a lot of RC sites on the net that deal with the topic of "Peter the Roman".

132 posted on 10/15/2007 4:23:30 PM PDT by Missey_Lucy_Goosey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Campion
You have two whole examples.

Those two were just for starters, there are many, many more.

So much for "tradition" being the "unanimous consent of the fathers", that Rome cited at Trent, huh?

133 posted on 10/15/2007 4:25:22 PM PDT by Missey_Lucy_Goosey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Glenmerle
If memory serves me well, JPII put a lot of stock in the Malachy prophecy, and held that "Peter the Roman" would be the Antichrist who would lead the Roman church into apostasy.

Of course there are the Old Catholics, SSPXers, Sedevacantists and others who say the Roman church led by the Vatican has been apostate since the Vatican I Council.

134 posted on 10/15/2007 4:30:10 PM PDT by Missey_Lucy_Goosey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever

***I don’t go around posting that the church of Calvinism is worthless and hellbound.***

Maybe you don’t, but many of your friends do.


135 posted on 10/15/2007 4:40:55 PM PDT by irishtenor (How much good could a Hindu do, if a Hindu could do good?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever

***I don’t go around posting that the church of Calvinism is worthless and hellbound.***

Maybe you don’t, but many of your friends do.


136 posted on 10/15/2007 4:41:08 PM PDT by irishtenor (How much good could a Hindu do, if a Hindu could do good?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Missey_Lucy_Goosey
So much for "tradition" being the "unanimous consent of the fathers", that Rome cited at Trent, huh?

All Trent said was that something which was unanimously attested by the fathers required assent. They didn't specify which "somethings" they had in mind.

137 posted on 10/15/2007 4:41:39 PM PDT by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Campion

Wrong.


138 posted on 10/15/2007 4:48:04 PM PDT by Missey_Lucy_Goosey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Missey_Lucy_Goosey
Patrick Madrid disagrees with you. I think he's probably a more cogent authority on Catholic doctrine than you are.

The phrase "unanimous consent of the Fathers" had a specific application as used at the Council of Trent (Fourth Session), and reiterated at the First Vatican Council (Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council, chap. 2). The Council Fathers specifically applied the phrase to the interpretation of Scripture. Biblical and theological confusion was rampant in the wake of the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther stated, "There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams."

The Council Fathers at Trent (1554-63) affirmed the ancient custom that the proper understanding of Scripture was that which was held by the Fathers of the Church. In this way, they hoped to bring order out of the rising chaos. Opposition to the Church's teaching is exemplified by William Webster (The Church of Rome at the Bar of History [Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1995]), who misrepresents the Council Fathers by redefining and misapplying "unanimous consent." First in redefining, he implies that unanimous consent means 100% affirmation by each Father. This is a false understanding of the phrase and even in American law, unanimous consent "does not always mean that every one present voted for the proposition, but it may, and generally does, mean, when a [verbal] vote is taken, that no one voted in the negative" (Black's Law Dictionary).

Second, Webster misapplies the term, not to the interpretation of Scripture, as the Council Fathers intended, but to tradition. His assertions are patently untrue, but using a skewed definition and application of "unanimous consent," he uses selective patristic passages as proof-texts for his analysis of the Fathers.

As an example, individual Fathers may explain the "Rock" in Matthew 16 as Jesus, Peter, Peter's confession or Peter's faith. Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to the "Rock" of Matthew 16 as Peter in one place (CCC 552) and his faith in another (CCC 424). Matthew 16 can be applied in many ways to refute false teachings and to instruct the faithful without emphasizing the literal, historical interpretation of Peter as the Rock upon which the Church has been built. Webster and others emphasize various patristic applications as "proof" of non-unanimous consent.


139 posted on 10/15/2007 4:56:51 PM PDT by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Missey_Lucy_Goosey

Of course there are the Old Catholics, SSPXers, Sedevacantists and others who say the Roman church led by the Vatican has been apostate since the Vatican I Council.

I've seen that opinion expressed numerous times in this very forum.

140 posted on 10/15/2007 5:01:42 PM PDT by Glenmerle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Missey_Lucy_Goosey; Campion

Keys ...... being "the chair of Peter".

129 posted on 10/15/2007 5:09:51 PM MDT by Missey_Lucy_Goosey

When I search the Word of G-d for "Keys" I only find two citations

Matthew 16:19 & Revelation 1:18.

Addressing The citation in Revelation one where the chapter is about the titles and attributes of Yah'shua.

It is clear that Yah'shua has not yet given the keys to the church, but instead they are
promised as a wedding gift to the church in Revelation 19 for use during the Seventh day:
the millennium

shalom b'shem Yah'shua
141 posted on 10/15/2007 5:07:27 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (you shall know that I, YHvH, your Savior, and your Redeemer, am the Elohim of Ya'aqob. Isaiah 60:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: All

Thanks, almost everyone here, for derailing this thread. I sure would have enjoyed a discussion of St. Malachi and his prophecies, but this is nothing more than the squabbling of immature, undisciplined children.

Now I remember why I never go to the religion threads—even the ones that sound interesting.

Incidently, I don’t see anyone here who has any right to represent him or herself as a Christian. This is the worst I’ve seen in a while. Most of you act as though your intention is to give Christians a bad name. Frankly, you have succeeded here.


142 posted on 10/15/2007 5:11:05 PM PDT by Judith Anne (Thank you St. Jude for favors granted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor
Seattle has 7 hills also, but all we rule is the coffee kingdom :>)

24:7 no doubt. No wonder they're sleepless in Seattle.

143 posted on 10/15/2007 5:15:38 PM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Sorry. I don’t get it. If St. Malachy is correct and there is only one more Pope after the current, is that enough for you to give up your faith? If St. Malachy was only writing prophesy to as far as he could see, would that be enough for you to give up your faith?

If St. Malachy was totally wrong, is that enough for you to give up your faith?

144 posted on 10/15/2007 5:17:05 PM PDT by MrsEmmaPeel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Campion
While you are looking, maybe you can find some more novel redefinitions of modernist Rome that has redefined the following dogmatic canon from Vatican I:

If anyone should say that the true Church is not one body in itself, but consists of varied and diverse societies of Christian name, and is spread out among them, or that various societies disagreeing among themselves in profession of faith and separated by communion, constitute, as members or parts, the one and universal Church of Christ, let him be anathema. --First Vatican Council, Canon IV

Vatican II and the "Dominus Iesus" now says we are "separated brethren", contradicting the previous dogmatic declaration of Vatican I.

145 posted on 10/15/2007 5:29:57 PM PDT by Missey_Lucy_Goosey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Glenmerle
Of course there are the Old Catholics, SSPXers, Sedevacantists and others who say the Roman church led by the Vatican has been apostate since the Vatican I Council.

I've seen that opinion expressed numerous times in this very forum.

So much for Roman Catholicism being the unified monolith it purports itself to be, eh?

146 posted on 10/15/2007 5:31:52 PM PDT by Missey_Lucy_Goosey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Sleep? I’ve heard of that.


147 posted on 10/15/2007 5:36:29 PM PDT by irishtenor (How much good could a Hindu do, if a Hindu could do good?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Patrick Madrid disagrees with you.

Of that I have no doubt, Madrid is a post Vatican II Modernist who subscribes to the new, novel redefinition of "Viva Voce". He is free to disagree. I would not expect otherwise.

I think he's probably a more cogent authority on Catholic doctrine than you are.

That could be true, or it could not be.

Here is exactly what Trent says in the 4th session.

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,—in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, —wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,—whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,—hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.

Yet Rome itself interprets Matthew 16:18 in violation of it's own stated principle. As is already noted, two early church fathers, of whom they belong to the overwhelming majority in their interpretation of Matthew 16:18 disagree with Rome's later interpretation, and contradict Rome with an overwhelming majority voice.

148 posted on 10/15/2007 5:45:17 PM PDT by Missey_Lucy_Goosey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Missey_Lucy_Goosey

Seems that Rome has been doing a lot of defining of terms and dogmatic declarations.


149 posted on 10/15/2007 5:52:38 PM PDT by Missey_Lucy_Goosey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Dominick

Thank you for that post, Sominick. Name calling like that is prohibited.


150 posted on 10/15/2007 5:56:29 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-413 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson