Revelation's Harlot

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
Came across this in my studies, the other night. I posted it in another thread, but I think it more than fits here...

In his encyclical, "The Reunion of Christendom" (1885), Pope Leo XIII stated that the pope holds "upon this earth the place of God Almighty"

OK, I want one Catholic supporter to tell me this isn't blasphemy. Just one. Explain it in plain English why this claim isn't from hell.

It is the RCC setting itself up to be the one world church.

First off, you misquoted. I don't know if purposefully, for I don't know if you read the encyclical itself and took the quote directly from it, or took the quote from a third party, and they did not supply the whole sentence. It actually reads:

"But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, and now that Our advanced age and the bitterness of anxious cares urge Us on towards the end common to every mortal, We feel drawn to follow the example of Our Redeemer and Master, Jesus Christ, who when about to return to heaven, implored of God, His Father, in earnest prayer, that His disciples and followers should be of one mind and of one heart: I pray ... that they all may be one, as thou Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they also may be one in Us. "

First of all, the subject is "we," not "I." I'm very busy, and I have not read the whole article either, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is referring to the succession of popes. He is not, however, speaking merely of himself. Therefore, he is speaking of his office, and not his person, for his person is not plural, but his office is.

Second, this is what the papacy is: a visible head of the Church (while Christ is the immortal, invisible head of the Church) until Christ's return to earth at the Final Judgement. You are willingly reading too much into this. "Holding the place of" does not mean taking the place of. If you are in line to get a movie ticket (a very long line), and you need to go to the bathroom really bad, you might ask the person in front of you to hold your place until you get back. They will then stand in your place, and when you return, they will give you back your place in line.

In the same fashion, the office of the pope serves as a visible leader of the Church, holding the place of Jesus until he makes his triumphant return. Reading the whole sentence, you see the referral to Jesus as Master and Redeemer. One who was claiming to BE God would not in the same statement claim need of a redeemer or master, and this is not what the Pope is claiming. He is merely the supreme pastor of the Church united throughout the world, the visible leader to point to the invisible God.

I can't stop you from reading into this, but your reading in to this any more than I have just stated it false and foolish, for it is NOT what the office of the Pope is about.

As for your last sentence, about the "one world church," I was never aware that Jesus desired division in His most Holy Church, especially based on the last part of the sentence from Pope Leo, where he quotes Jesus just before His ascension that we are to be one, just as He and the Father are One.

You can have your division; I'll take world unity any day.

God bless,

Grant

[ November 07, 2002, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]

 

[CatholicConvert]

The A.D. 70 heresy that is promulgated by Max King does not represent the teachings of the Bible nor the church of Christ. Mr. King's Theology had been refuted in many sound gospel periodicals such as The Gospel Journal, Therefore Stand and The World Evangelist. This is a little late on the thread, but I wanted to set the record straight.

Well, then Jesus lied. Plain and simple. You see, He made certain promises which He said He would fulfill:

Mt 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Jesus said that His coming in His kingdom would take place BEFORE all who were standing there would die. So unless you can find me some 2000 year old Jew floating around, you haven't got a case!!! I'll take His promise over a doctrine that was invented in the 19th century by a wee Scottish lassie who had too many pickle and ice cream sandwiches before retiring.

There are other indicators which show that Premillenialism is simply IMPOSSIBLE. If there is ever a "rapture" as the Premillenialists claim there will be, then God will have broken a number of promises which He made.

Cordially in disagreement,

Brother Ed

 

[Dualhunter]

28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Likely refering to the resurection of Christ and His role in the establishment of the Church.

The book of Revelation refutes the preterist view.

1 After (1) these things I looked, and behold, (2) a door standing open in heaven, and the first voice which I had heard, (3) like the sound of a trumpet speaking with me, said, "(4) Come up here, and I will (5) show you what must take place after these things." - Revelation 4:1 NASB

John wrote after the fall of Jerusalem and yet he writes of the future coming of Christ.

19 "Therefore (68) write (69) the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place (70) after these things. - Revelation 1:19 NASB

Surely if Christ had already returned, it would have been mentioned in verses 1 to 18 of Revelation 1.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Grace Saves....

So the OFFICE of the pope takes the place of God on Earth ?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:


In the same fashion, the office of the pope serves as a visible leader of the Church, holding the place of Jesus until he makes his triumphant return. Reading the whole sentence, you see the referral to Jesus as Master and Redeemer. One who was claiming to BE God would not in the same statement claim need of a redeemer or master, and this is not what the Pope is claiming. He is merely the supreme pastor of the Church united throughout the world, the visible leader to point to the invisible God.

God bless,

Grant

OK, then let's look at the New York Cathecism...

"By divine right the pope has supreme and full power in faith and morals over each and every pastor in his flock. He is the true Vicar of Christ, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of all dogmas, the author and the judge of all councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of Heaven and Earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one. God himself on Earth" The New York Catholic Catechism

How does one read this ?

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
OK, then let's look at the New York Cathecism...

"By divine right the pope has supreme and full power in faith and morals over each and every pastor in his flock. He is the true Vicar of Christ, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of all dogmas, the author and the judge of all councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of Heaven and Earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one. God himself on Earth" The New York Catholic Catechism

How does one read this ?

No no no no no. You just don't understand what they meant by 'God'. They aren't referring to God almighty, as that would be heresy. 'God' above means 'I am not God even though I think I am God and want to be God and will tell my poor followers I am God so they will bow to me and revere me. I love this job.'. See the difference?

Actually, they are using an alternate alphabet as well. G = SOUNDSALOT O = LIKEACIENT D = EGYPTIANEMPERORS

So, you see, you don't really understand what you think you know or are angry about. Because of this lack of full knowledge, you hold 'the' church accountable to things it can 'rightfully' do and say. If you really understand what is being said, of course you would not be so upset because you would be catholic and HAVE to believe it. Else, you would risk losing your immortal soul even though have fully trusted your life to the savior of Christ. See? Simple.

Anyway, that finishes my sarcastic post.

 

[Singer]

Bro Curtis:

Could you provide me a source for the New York Catechism quote....

Help !!! Thanks

 

[BobRyan]

Frank
The A.D. 70 heresy that is promulgated by Max King does not represent the teachings of the Bible nor the church of Christ. Mr. King's Theology had been refuted in many sound gospel periodicals such as The Gospel Journal, Therefore Stand and The World Evangelist. This is a little late on the thread, but I wanted to set the record straight.

Frank - are those Catholic sources?

Obviously the speculation that the world experienced the Matt 24 return of Christ - the 2nd coming in 70ad is ludicrous since Christ Himself and Peter and John describe the event as earth-destroying and world-wide.

But it would be nice to know where the 70AD heresy comes from. Is that really Catholic doctrine? IS the response to it listed above - a Catholic response?

IN christ,

Bob

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Originally posted by Singer:
Bro Curtis:

Could you provide me a source for the New York Catechism quote....

Help !!! Thanks

I have a book that has that text in it. But you can read excerpts from the New Catholic Chatecism here

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Look at this, from that document....

First..."Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation ... thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."

And..."Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."'

But..."The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

HUH ??!!!???!! So which is it ?Muslims are saved, but not Baptists ?

There's more..."The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. ... The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Saviour."

Since when do Muslims do tha sacrements ? Do I see a contradiction ?"

Individual and integral confession of grave sins followed by absolution remains the only ordinary means of reconciliation with God and with the Church."

"The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth."

I believe these to be untrue, also. My salvation didn't come until I was almost 40.

There are so many more, but I'm getting a little tired of always arguing about Mary, and purgatory, and indulgences, that I really need to take a break from it. This discussion is about the End-Times Church.

But there are apparent contradictions in this document. And the claims of authority can be used to support the office of the Pope becoming the seat of The Antichrist.

[ November 09, 2002, 01:55 AM: Message edited by: Bro. Curtis ]

 

[Singer]

Bro Curtis:

Although close, I couldn't find the following as a word for word quote from
the New York Catechism...Can you detail it closer..? Maybe it's in the Vatican II Council ? Thanks.

Quote:

"By divine right the pope has supreme and full power in faith and morals over each
and every pastor in his flock. He is the true Vicar of Christ, the head of the entire
church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder
of all dogmas, the author and the judge of all councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of Heaven and Earth, the judge of all, being
judged by no one. God himself on Earth" The New York Catholic Catechism

 

[BobRyan]

THe Faith Exaplained: (A commentary on the Baltimore Catechism - post Vatican II) page 507

He (the Pope) does have more authority, more extensive jurisdiction than any other bishop. Because He is the bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter, the Pope has authority over the entire Church of Christ. He makes LAws for the Entire Church. He designates priests who are to become Bishops...He also enjoys a very special privilege which Jesus conferred on St. PEter and St. Peter's successors; the privilege of infallibility. By this divine privilege God preserves the Holy Father from error WHENEVER he makes a Definative pronouncement to the universal Church on matters of Christian faith OR Moral Conduct (read inquisition), using the fullness of his teaching authority.

Words in Parenthesis - mine.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
Grace Saves....

So the OFFICE of the pope takes the place of God on Earth ?

Brother Curtis,

You did not read my post, did you? I made clear, and the quote is clear that the word "holds" is used, and not "takes." Then, you requestion me using the word "takes."

So, again, NO. The office of the pope does not take the place of God. It holds the place until Christ makes a visible return.

God bless, and please read what I say,

Grant

 

[GraceSaves]

As for the New York Catechism quote, that last line is not even a sentence. "God himself on earth" is not even close to grammar, as there is no subject or verb. That makes me HIGHLY question the legitamacy of this quote, as I cannot imagine the Catechism having grammar this poor.

No, I think this is very much improperly quoted. Please point me to this online; surely there is a complete copy of it available on the Internet.

If you can prove it, we'll work from there. If not, I regard this as false, for it goes against all other Catholic teachings on the papacy. It's this kind of drivel that people who dispise the Church use to attack the Church, when it was never truth in the first place.

Sorry for any harshness, but I feel very strongly about people falsely propogating inconsistencies in the Catholic Church that frankly do not exist.

God bless you,

Grant

 

[CatholicConvert]

Dualhunter --

Please read more carefully the description of the return of our Lord in the parousia:

Mt 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

No judgement of reward and punishment took place at the resurrection. You need to use verse 27 to understand why it cannot be either the Resurrection or the Transfiguration being spoken of.
The book of Revelation refutes the preterist view.

Not at all.

1 After (1) these things I looked, and behold, (2) a door standing open in heaven, and the first voice which I had heard, (3) like the sound of a trumpet speaking with me, said, "(4) Come up here, and I will (5) show you what must take place after these things." - Revelation 4:1 NASB

John wrote after the fall of Jerusalem and yet he writes of the future coming of Christ.

You have no proof of this. There are, however, excellent materials available which place the time of the writing of the Apocalypse as being before AD 70.

Surely if Christ had already returned, it would have been mentioned in verses 1 to 18 of Revelation 1.

You realize that you just proved my point, right? The fall of Jerusalem would be like the destruction of the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and the White House, all rolled into one. Think of what that would have done to the American conciousness. Jerusalem was all that and more, and to think that John would be writing after AD 70 and yet not mention the fall of Jerusalem is simply unthinkable.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

[Dualhunter]

Originally posted by CatholicConvert:
Dualhunter --

Please read more carefully the description of the return of our Lord in the parousia:

Mt 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

No judgement of reward and punishment took place at the resurrection. You need to use verse 27 to understand why it cannot be either the Resurrection or the Transfiguration being spoken of.

Doesn't look like these things took place when Jerusalem fell either (excepting judgement on those who were in Jerusalem at the time and did not flee).

The book of Revelation refutes the preterist view.

Not at all.

1 After (1) these things I looked, and behold, (2) a door standing open in heaven, and the first voice which I had heard, (3) like the sound of a trumpet speaking with me, said, "(4) Come up here, and I will (5) show you what must take place after these things." - Revelation 4:1 NASB

John wrote after the fall of Jerusalem and yet he writes of the future coming of Christ.

You have no proof of this. There are, however, excellent materials available which place the time of the writing of the Apocalypse as being before AD 70.

The evidence, both internal and external, favors the latter date. The various plagues and other events described in Revelation prior to Christ's coming have not occured.

Surely if Christ had already returned, it would have been mentioned in verses 1 to 18 of Revelation 1.

You realize that you just proved my point, right? The fall of Jerusalem would be like the destruction of the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and the White House, all rolled into one. Think of what that would have done to the American conciousness. Jerusalem was all that and more, and to think that John would be writing after AD 70 and yet not mention the fall of Jerusalem is simply unthinkable.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

The things written as past and present were not dealing with Jerusalem, hence they do not mention the fall of Jerusalem. The Second Coming on the other hand, has relevance in any part of the world.

 

[BobRyan]

Ed
You realize that you just proved my point, right? The fall of Jerusalem would be like the destruction of the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and the White House, all rolled into one. Think of what that would have done to the American conciousness. Jerusalem was all that and more, and to think that John would be writing after AD 70 and yet not mention the fall of Jerusalem is simply unthinkable.

Contrary to your apparent belief - John did not write the book of revelation to "predict the past".

The book states that its purpose is to SHOW what must shortly come to pass.

IF the destruction of Jerusalem WAS ABOUT TO HAPPEN then WE WOULD expect that John would not "omit" such a 9/11 type event ABOUT to "come to pass". WE ALL agree that the event would be near and dear to John. You have in fact - made our point here.

The ONLY way it would be omitted in this FORWARD looking book - is if - the event was NOT in the future.

And so... that is exactly what we find.

IN christ,

Bob

 

[Frank]

Bob:
The sources I listed were not Catholic.
Actually, the Bible teaches Christ wil return a second time without sin unto salvation. Hebrews 9:28. If he came in A.D. 70 then he would have to come again for the day of Judgment. II Cor. 5:10. This would make him coming a third time which would be contrary to the teachings of the New Testament. Paul in II Tim. 4:12 writes, " I charge you in the sight God and the Lord Jesus Christ who shall judge the QUICK and the DEAD at his APPEARING In his kingdom. When Christ appears the second time judgment will take place. This will happen for all men, unless you know someone who falls into another category than ALIVE OR DEAD!! This messsage is also affirmed by the Lord himself in John 5: 28,29,"28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. I Thes. 4:16-18. Those alive will not precede the dead. We will all be judged when Christ appears. If Christ had appeared in A.D.70, according to the Bible we would have all been judged. It is obvious since I am communicating with you in the physical realm this did not happen. Therefore, this teaching is false.

I do not know the origin of this false doctrine.

 

[Frank]

CC:
The Kingdom of God came on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem about A.D. 30. The apostles were there and spoke the first gospel sermon. Acts 2:38-47. Mark 9:1, and Mat. 16:27 were the prophetic words of Christ about this event, as well as Mat. 16:18.
The dispute is not that the kingdom was established in 70 but the return of Christ in 70.
The Bible teaches concerning the return of Christ the following:
1. It will be an visual coming. Rev.1:7.All will see him.
2. It will be an audible coming. I Thes. 4:16,
3. His appearance will end the temporal world and time as we know it will cease. II Pet.3:10.
4. His appearance will bring judgemnt to all men. II Tim. 4:1, John 5:28,29, Rev.20:13
5. He will pass reward or punishment at his appearing. Rev. 20:11-15.
6.The temporal and man will become eternally spiritual. ICor. 15:51-54.
7. We will receive a body like his . Phil. 3:20,21.
8. These events will take place in the last days. John 6:39,40,44.
9. Men will be either eternally lost or in the Joy of the Lord. Mat.25:46.

Furthermore, the Bible does not teach a rapture as the term and event are promulgated among many in the denominational world. There is no Bible for this or the A.D. 70 teaching. The Lord will return a second time without sin unto salvation. Hebrews 9:28. At this time all accounts will be settled. Romans 14:12, II Cor. 5:10.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
As for the New York Catechism quote, that last line is not even a sentence. "God himself on earth" is not even close to grammar, as there is no subject or verb. That makes me HIGHLY question the legitamacy of this quote, as I cannot imagine the Catechism having grammar this poor.

No, I think this is very much improperly quoted. Please point me to this online; surely there is a complete copy of it available on the Internet.

If you can prove it, we'll work from there. If not, I regard this as false, for it goes against all other Catholic teachings on the papacy. It's this kind of drivel that people who dispise the Church use to attack the Church, when it was never truth in the first place.

Sorry for any harshness, but I feel very strongly about people falsely propogating inconsistencies in the Catholic Church that frankly do not exist.

God bless you,

Grant

The New York Catechism quote is from Lorraine Boettner's book, "Roman Catholocism Today". I will get it out and find the publishing information asap. But in the mean time.... Look Here

Now would you care to address the other inconsistencies in the New Catechism by John Paul II ?