That's correct.
Posted on 02/19/2008 11:55:18 AM PST by NYer
In my opinion, the catholic church is of Satan and the pope is the antichrist.
Tell you what, while you're at it, why not sprinkle some water on me. I sure that will do as much good as praying for me to the dead gods and people that you are praying to.
You know I must say that I have been in a great many debates on here with my Protestant brothers in Christ. There are a number of Evangelicals with whom I am in complete agreement on every issue except certain differences between Protestantism and Catholicism. They know where I stand and I know where they stand. I have zero doubts that they are true Christians and that their Salvation is assured and I would like to think that they feel the same about me.
However, in all of our debates, I have NEVER seen any of them use the type of rhetoric I see here, because if I did, I would have a very difficult time even being cordial with them on other threads. I've seen people join FR, both Catholic and Protestant, who are so militantly myopic that they soon ostracize themselves even from those who agree with them and I must say that it is pathetic to watch.
And what is the source of this opinion?
I was reading the Hahn's book, "Rome Sweet Home," and the question occurred to me ... how do Catholics explain Mary and the saints being able to hear and respond to thousands of prayers at one time?
With Christ Himself, it is not an issue, because of His divine nature ... but how about our brothers and sisters in Christ in heaven ... how can they listen to tens of thousands of prayers at once?
Dear Catholic friend (yes, you are still Catholic),
Is the Bible the "pillar of truth" in the Christian religion? No. According to the Bible Itself, the Church is the "pillar of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), not the Bible.
Is private interpretation of the Bible condoned in the Bible Itself? No, it is not (2 Peter 1:20). Was individual interpretation of Scripture practiced by the early Christians or the Jews? Again, "NO" (Acts 8:29-35). The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false. Even the "founder" of Sola Scriptura (Martin Luther), near the end of his life, was afraid that "any milkmaid who could read" would found a new Christian denomination based on his or her "interpretation" of the Bible. Hence, there are now 20,000+ denominations and growing!
Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible? No. The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth. So how can there be over 20,000 non-Catholic Christian denominations all claiming to have the "Truth" (i.e., the correct interpretation of the Bible)? For that matter, aren't ALL non-Catholic Christians as individuals claiming "infallibility" when it comes to interpreting the Bible? Catholics only believe in the infallibility of the Papacy as an office. Which is more believable - one office holding infallibility or 400 million non-Catholic Christians who can't agree on the interpretation of Scripture all claiming "infallibility?" Now, in the case of Catholics, the Church which Christ founded and is with forever (Matthew 28:20) interprets the Bible, as guided by the Holy Spirit, (Mark 13:11) for the "sheep" (the faithful). The Church (not individuals) interpret Scripture. In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma.
Is the Bible the sole "teaching from God?" No. The Bible Itself states that their are "oral" teachings and traditions that are to be carried on to the present-day (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Timothy 2:2; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:24-25). These teachings are what the Catholic Church considers "Sacred Apostolic Tradition."
Did the early Christians have the Bible as we know it? No. The Bible as a whole was not compiled until the late 4th century and then it was compiled by a Catholic saint (St. Jerome) at the request of a Catholic pope (St. Damasus I). So how were the early Christians saved if they did not possess the entire written "Word of God" to follow His teachings? Well, naturally, they were the Body of Christ and were taught through "oral" teachings by the Church, not by writings.
Is the Bible to be taken literally - "word for word?" No. The Bible doesn't state anywhere that It should be taken literally. The Bible was written by different authors with different literary styles at different times in history and in different languages. Therefore, the writings should be interpreted with these circumstances in mind. The Bible is a religious book, not a scientific or a history "textbook."
Does the Bible state It is the sole or final authority of Christianity? No. Neither this statement nor anything even close to it appears anywhere in the New Testament. In fact, Christ said that the Church is to resolve disputes among Christians, not Scripture (Matthew 18:17).
Dear friend, you are always welcome home!
Depending on which list is used there have been somewhere around 267 popes in just under 2000 years.
If the pope were the “antichrist,” that would mean that every seven and a half years on average this “antichrist” would die and be replaced with another “antichrist.”
This should create a great dilemma for the YOPIOS crowd when you consider that the Bible never hints of “succcessive” antichrists and that NONE of the New Testament descriptions of an antichrist (denying the divinity of Jesus, denying that Jesus is the Son of God, denying that He came in the flesh, claiming to be Christ, etc.) has EVER been ascribed to ANY pope even by the most hateful anti-Catholics.
Right on, Wiley.
Spurgeon said it well when he said:
“With what indignation must the Lord look down upon that
apostate harlot, called the Romish Church, when, in all her
sanctuaries, there are pictures and images, relics and statues, and poor beguiled beings are even taught to bow before a piece of bread.
I have seen thousands adore the wafer, hundreds bow
before the image of the Virgin, scores at prayer before
a crucifix, and companies of men and women adoring a
rotten bone or a rusty nail, because said to be the relic
of a saint.
Let us, above all, never have any complicity with this
communion of devils, this gathering together of the sons
of Belial: and since our God is a jealous God, let us not
provoke him by any affinity, gentleness, fellowship, or unity with this Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the earth.
Renounce, my brethren, every ceremony which has not
Scripture for its warrant, and every doctrine which is not
established by the plain testimony of the Word of God.”
Just because they are no longer "of this world" does not mean they don't "talk" to God. The saints in heaven are not "separated" by death from the community of the Church (Romans 8:38-39) as we are all one Body in Christ (Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 12:12) and Christ "abolished death" (2 Timothy 1:10 ). Therefore, the saints in Heaven can pray for us just as anyone here on Earth can. In fact, better, as they are presently in His Presence. The Virgin Mary asking God to help you should "carry more weight" so to speak than having your best friend on this earth praying for you. In fact, Christ's first public miracle was performed upon the "intercession" of His own mother (John 2:2-11).
I'm a Protestant in the Reformation tradition - Presbyterian to the core. What WileyPink posted makes me sick to my stomach. Any Protestant who thinks Catholics are satanic (or vice versa, for that matter) simply hasn't spent enough time around truly different religions.
I would submit this question: When the bullets are flying, would you rather have a Catholic (or a Protestant, for the Catholics reading this) in the foxhole with you, or a Muslim? Whose prayers would you rather have going up next to yours - a fellow Christian's or a Hindu's?
As I say, I'm sure Catholics have an answer for this ... but as I was reading the Hahns' book and trying to explain to my wife the Catholic teaching on praying to Mary and the saints, I wasn't sure what the answer was.
“You know I must say that I have been in a great many debates on here with my Protestant brothers in Christ. There are a number of Evangelicals with whom I am in complete agreement on every issue except certain differences between Protestantism and Catholicism. They know where I stand and I know where they stand. I have zero doubts that they are true Christians and that their Salvation is assured and I would like to think that they feel the same about me.”
I certainly hope that is more true than I often see here.
It seems standard OP on FR much of the time for alot of vitriol to be directed both at Catholics and Mormons (please excuse if you have great objections to the latter especially). And I mean vitriol. While I don’t see enough threads, I have yet to see that heavy and endemic vitriol hurled in other Christian directions.
As a Lutheran who was raised by a Catholic, and still is pretty wishy-washy either way, I have alot of respect for the latter. In fact Lutheranism being the 1st Protestant church still holds to alot of ways of the Catholics. So I guess maybe my opinion doesn’t count.
Bottom line, I just don’t see the need for all the hatred. I can see disagreements, but I don’t understand people acting as if Catholics were Buddhists or (gasp) Moslems.
A false convert joins an apostate church. He’s no better for it and the SBC is no worse.
That's correct.
I almost posted this to another forum until I read this:
It has also been suggested, that “Mr. Wesley is a very laborious man:” not more laborious, I presume, than a certain active being, who is said to go to and fro in the earth, and walk up and down in it:2 nor yet more laborious, I should imagine, than certain ancient Sectarians, concerning whom it was long ago said, “Woe unto you Scribes, hypocrites; for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte:”
I cannot support anyone who would compare John Wesley to Satan. How shameful.
Oh, that Calvinists might have the theology of a Calvin and the heart of a Whitfield.
Something else Mr. Pink might want to consider is that nobody can seriously debate the proposition that Western European civilization is laid upon a Catholic foundation. (And if you wish, that Catholic foundation is laid upon a classical Greco-Roman foundation.)
To claim that the Catholic Church is Satanic and all Popes are antichrist is effectively to claim that the roots of Western culture and civilization are Satanic. (Can a Godly culture be built on a Satanic foundation?)
It's to claim that the church that first translated the Scriptures out of Greek and Hebrew is Satanic.
It's to claim that the church that preserved those Scriptures until the late Middle Ages -- as even Luther himself testified! -- is Satanic.
It's to claim that the culture that brought about the first stirrings of human freedom in modern times, things like the Swiss confederation and the Magna Carta, is Satanic.
It's to claim that the culture that invented modern musical notation, without which we would have neither the cantatas of Bach nor the hymns of Wesley, is Satanic.
It's to claim that the culture that invented movable type, without which the Reformation would not have happened, is Satanic.
And all of that gives Satan way more credit than he deserves, IMO. He's neither that good, nor that creative.
I see now that Toplady was a contemporary of Wesley, so that might explain the passion. After all, Charles Wesley at the time was spouting “Calvin was the first born son of the devil”. I’m sure they all have time to reflect on this now in God’s presence where no doubt Wesley is being schooled by Whitfield, Calvin, Augustine and the Apostle Paul. ;-)
Seeing how the Methodist church has turned out, Whitfield and Wesley both probably regret that the Methodist Calvinists didn’t take over the denomination.
I would submit this question: When the bullets are flying, would you rather have a Catholic (or a Protestant, for the Catholics reading this) in the foxhole with you, or a Muslim? Whose prayers would you rather have going up next to yours - a fellow Christian's or a Hindu's?
I don't totally agree with his sentiments and I don't doubt that there are truly born again believers within the Catholic system, but surely you don't mean to suggest that the Romanist church is not apostate? If you do, then how can you call yourself Reformed? What was the point of the Reformation?
Surely, some of the statements made by the Reformers themselves were just as bad as those made by WileyPink.
Is it any less shameful, or more charitable, to compare the Pope to Satan?
Ps 133:1. John 17:20-23. 1 Cor 1:10.
Division and discord displease God.
Consider whether the sort of "unity" displayed on this thread is really the unity for which Christ prayed in John 17.
I do not believe that the RCatholic Church is of Satan and that the Pope is the antichrist.
I never have, and I consider it a poor reading of scripture to come to such a conclusion.
Mystery Babylon will find power in Rome, but it will be a new, Occultic, Post-Christian pagan perversion of the Bride of Christ.
The anti-Christ will be an individual and not an office.
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.