We Did NOT Just Vote for a New Pope

I guess I do need to write this post, given the fact that so many of my friends and acquaintances on Facebook had to rush and tell everyone that “we have a new pope.” I immediately responded with this:

BTW, “WE” did not just choose a new pope. Remember brothers and sisters in the LORD, “We” are not Catholic. We are protestants. The pope is AN anti-christ and is seated as the head of the church, whereas we believe that only Christ is the head of the church (Read Colossians). So please, fellow protestants and Christians, quit lauding this as something special. It’s just another move of the apostate Roman Catholic Church.

Let the Timothy bashing begin. How dare I say anything against our newest celebrity, or should I say, our celebrity du jour? How dare I infer that there might be some truth that is actually confrontational? How dare I stand on some convictions?

I’m always surprised that those who stand on their own convictions against those who have convictions. But alas, that is the fallen world we live in.

My point is that this is not a great day because the apostate Roman Catholic Church has elected another man to fill the office of pope, which is what we see as an anti-Christ. Now allow me to state what it means to be an anti-Christ. An anti-Christ is anyone who stands in the place of Christ. The pope is the vicar of Christ or the head of the church, according to the RCC. Yet Colossians makes it clear that Jesus is the only head of the church. Colossians is an actual book of the Bible for those of you who don’t know. It is authoritative on who the head of the church really is. So for some man to assume such a position is to place himself in the position of Christ, making himself an anti-Christ. Lots of people do this, but the pope is an official position of the RCC in doing so.

This is one of the many reasons why I am a protestant and not RCC. The Bible is the only authority, not the RCC. Therefore for someone to claim to be the head of the church is to go against Scripture.

BTW, I had one gooey liberal defriend me on Facebook over this. I count this as a badge of honor. The last thing a liberal can handle is someone standing for the truth.

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “We Did NOT Just Vote for a New Pope

  1. phoebehb

    Can you begin to imagine a Bible-believing Christian leader getting a moment of this awed adulation from every news outlet–camera fixed on the smokestack for days, on the window for hours, reverent talking heads discussing the beauty of the Vatican, the glorious history & protocols of the RCC & the papacy as they waited for the curtains to go back, worshipful crowds of unbelievable size waiting in the rain for 3 days? I sat and watched it for a while trying to fathom it, ended up heartsick.

    Like

    1. It’s funny the talking heads have anything nice to say, because once he stands against gay marriage, they will bash him like they bash the rest of the RCC.

      I’m glad there are those who recognize his is not truly the head of the church. I’m glad we have that freedom today.

      Like

  2. phoebehb

    Francis 1 is the first Jesuit pope:

    “The Jesuits were founded just before the Counter-Reformation (or at least before the date those historians with a classical view of the counter reformation hold to be the beginning of the Counter-Reformation), a movement whose purpose was to reform the Catholic Church from within and to counter the Protestant Reformers, whose teachings were spreading throughout Catholic Europe.
    As part of their service to the Roman Church, the Jesuits encouraged people to continue their obedience to scripture as interpreted by Catholic doctrine. Ignatius is known to have written: ‘…: I will believe that the white that I see is black if the hierarchical Church so defines it.’ “[16]
    -Wikipedia, Jesuits

    Like

  3. phoebehb

    Conservative radio was all-Pope today–(even Rush sounded ecstatic, and the all-Catholic Howie Carr show crew likewise. Only Glenn Beck saw some problems (this from his website):

    “In 2007, [Bergoglio] said, “We live in the most unequal part of the world, which has grown the most yet reduced misery the least. The unjust distribution of goods persists, creating a situation of social sin that cries out to Heaven and limits the possibilities of a fuller life for so many of our brothers.”

    Pope Francis’ views have caused some to wonder if he endorses government-centric social justice. A Business Insider piece from last year claimed that he would embrace this ideology and embed it into the church if selected.

    “Social Justice moves to the front of the Church’s concerns,” the outlet wrote of Bergoglio’s potential election. “He’d also carry out a humble papacy. Say goodbye to Benedict’s ostentation in papal clothing.”
    ____________

    The Jesuits have been the wellspring of Marxist Liberation Theology, the Social Gospel. He is going to be a beloved Pope and bring many people to (or back to) the RCC, and a powerful figure geopolitically.

    Interesting times we live in. Too interesting by half, IMO.

    Like

  4. phoebehb

    When he says, ““We live in the most unequal part of the world, which has grown the most yet reduced misery the least…”, I have to wonder what he makes of the fact that his “part of the world”, Latin America, has been Roman Catholic since the 1500s, still 90% so.

    Like

    1. Good point. Also, it might help to know what he means by misery, and what he thinks should be done to alleviate this misery. We know socialist regimes have not come close to reducing misery of any kind in their countries.

      Like

      1. phoebehb

        If you were a Dispensationalist you’d probably be thinking (along with me) that, all things considered, he is the most likely “False Prophet” candidate to ever come down the pike.

        Like

  5. The pope is not the Head of the Church and doesn’t claim to be. He is just the pastor of the largest megachurch in the world. And an “anti-Christ” is someone who is against Christ. So you should be careful is making such charges against people. I challenge you to come up with anything this or any other of the past several popes has done that is “against Christ.”

    Like

    1. phoebehb

      No, Joseph.
      ‘The word antichrist is made up of two roots: αντί + Χριστός (anti + Christos). “Αντί” can mean not only “against” and “opposite of”, but also “in place of”,[3]…’-Wikpedia, “Antichrist”

      Like

      1. That’s true, but “anti” in common English parlance connotes “against” pretty strongly. That’s also the biblical sense of the word, as I understand it. To go around calling anyone an “Antichrist” is tantamount to saying that person is a servant of Satan.

        Like

  6. Also, that you go out of your way to call Catholics the “enemy” and the pope an “Antichrist” makes me suspect that you somehow feel threatened by the faith of Catholics. There are a lot of things I disagree with about the doctrines you hold, but I don’t go around attacking your faith or beliefs or calling you an enemy. You are my brother in Christ, and Christ prayed that we all should be one, as He and the Father are One.

    Like

  7. phoebehb

    Joseph, It’s hard to “be one” with an institution whose centuries of curses on non-Catholics they’ve never seen fit to retract or expunge:

    Anathema (2)
    Given up or devoted to destruction, ccursed. In Rom. 9:3, estrangement from Christ and His salvation. The word does not denote punishment intended as discipline but being given over or devoted to divine condemnation. It denotes an indissoluble vow.

    We see a biblical example of this type of anathema by the apostle Paul in the first chapter of Galatians. The Galatians were teaching that it was necessary to obey the law of circumcision in order to be saved, and Paul said this was another gospel. He proclaimed that anyone who preached any other gospel should be “anathema” or as we would say today “eternally condemned.”

    Gal 1:7-9 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! (NIV)

    The Catholic Church has used this term for many years announcing eternal conemnation to those who question or disagree with their doctrine. They define anathema this same way.

    Anathema (3)
    In the New Testament Saint Paul used it to express exclusion from the society, or communion, of the faithful the same as minor excommunication (Galatians 1). It was used in this sense of sinners and heretics from the 5th to the 8th century, when it came to mean not only minor excommunication, but expulsion or major excommunication from the Church, promulgated solemnly by the pope.

    So we see that to anathematize someone is not something we should do lightly. The Council of Trent has about 100 anathemas within it, we will look at some of them….

    Anathemas Declared by the Catholic Church

    Do you believe that the Bible is complete without the Aprocrypha books?
    Then you are considered anathema!

    COUNCIL OF TRENT: FOURTH SESSION, DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES:
    And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately condemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.

    Do you believe that salvation is by grace through faith and not of works as stated in Ephesians 2:8-10? Then you are considered anathema!

    COUNCIL OF TRENT: SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION CANON XXIV
    If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

    Do you believe that only those who believe should baptized as was done in Acts 2:41; 8:12; 10:47; 18:8 and therefore disagree with the Catholic Churches doctrine of infant baptism? Then you are considered anathema!

    COUNCIL OF TRENT: SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM CANON III
    If any one saith, that in the Roman church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism; let him be anathema.

    Do you agree with Paul that baptism is not part of the gospel (1 Cor 1:17) and therefore not required for salvation? Then you are considered anathema!

    COUNCIL OF TRENT: SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM CANON V
    If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

    Do you believe the Bible when it says that we must be able to believe and repent before we are baptized (Acts 2:38)? Then you are considered anathema!

    COUNCIL OF TRENT: SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM CANON XIII
    If any one saith, that little children, for that they have not actual faith, are not, after having received baptism, to be reckoned amongst the faithful; and that, for this cause, they are to be rebaptized when they have attained to years of discretion; or, that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted, than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be bapized in the faith alone of the Church; let him be anathema.

    Do you believe that confirmation is not a proper sacrament since it is not taught in the Bible? Then you are considered anathema!

    COUNCIL OF TRENT: SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON CONFIRMATON CANON I
    If any one saith, that the confirmation of those who have been baptized is an idle ceremony, and not rather a true and proper sacrament; or that of old it was nothing more than a kind of catechism, whereby they who were near adolescence gave an account of their faith in the face of the Church; let him be anathema.

    Do you deny that Christ complete in body, blood, soul and divinity are present in the Eucharist? Then you are considered anathema!

    COUNCIL OF TRENT: THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST CANON I
    If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

    Do you deny the doctrine of Transubstantiation since it is not taught in the scripture? Then you are considered anathema!

    THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST CANON lI:
    If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

    Do you believe that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is the only sacrifice that will offer forgiveness of sins (Heb 10:12-14) and thefore deny that we receive forgiveness of sins by taking the Eucharist? Then you are considered anathema!

    COUNCIL OF TRENT: THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST CANON V
    If any one saith, either that the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or, that other effects do not result therefrom; let him be anathema. let him be anathema.

    Do you believe that we should not worship the bread of the Eucharist as if it were Christ complete? Then you are considered anathema!

    COUNCIL OF TRENT: THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST CANON VI
    If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolators; let him be anathema.

    Do you believe that sacramental confession is not necessary to keep your salvation and that confessing secretly to priests is a doctrine made by man, not Christ? Then you are considered anathema!

    COUNCIL OF TRENT: FOURTEENTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE CANON VI
    If any one denieth, either that sacramental confession was instituted, or is necessary to salvation, of divine right; or saith, that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Church hath ever observed from the beginning, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention; let him be anathema.

    Do you believe that the Mass is NOT a real and true sacrifice offered to God because the Bible specifically says that there will be no more sacrifice for sins (Heb 10:18)? Then you are considered anathema!

    COUNCIL OF TRENT: TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS CANON I
    If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacriflce is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.

    Do you believe that the Mass is NOT a propitiatory sacrifice that should be offered for the sins of both the living and dead saints for forgiveness of sins, punishment, etc.? Then you are considered anathema!

    COUNCIL OF TRENT: TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS CANON III
    If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.

    Do you believe in the priesthood of the believers as stated in 1 Peter 2:9 and therefore do not believe that Catholic priests have the power to retain and forgive sins? Then you are considered anathema!

    TWENTY-THIRD SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRAMENT OF ORDER CANON I
    If any one saith, that there is not in the New Testament a visible and external priesthood; or that there is not any power of consecrating and offering the true body and blood of the Lord, and of forgiving and retaining sins; but only an office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel, or, that those who do not preach are not priests at all; let him be anathema.

    Do you deny the legitimacy of the bishops appointed by Rome? Then you are considered anathema!

    COUNCIL OF TRENT: TWENTY-THIRD SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRAMENT OF ORDER CANON VIII
    If any one saith, that the bishops, who are assumed by authority of the Roman Pontiff, are not legitimate and true bishops, but are a human figment; let him be anathema.

    1Catechism of the Catholic Church
    2Complete Word Study Dictionary
    3New Catholic Dictionary

    Like

    1. Your argument is invalidated by the fact that in every case in which a Church council as declared someone “anathema,” is has been completely willing to allow any said person back into the Church upon their repentance. Paul, likewise being an Apostle of Christ, would offer forgiveness to any person who had been excommunicated and then repented (2 Cor 2:5-11). The idea that any Christian body would dictate an “indissoluble vow” of damnation is against everything the Christian faith teaches. The source you are citing is not Catholic (possibly not Christian?) and is incorrect.

      ANATHEMA. A thing devoted or given over to evil, so that “anathema sit” means, “let him be accursed.” St. Paul at the end of 1 Corinthians pronounces this anathema on all who do not love our blessed Saviour. The Church has used the phrase “anathema sit” from the earliest times with reference to those whom she excludes from her communion either because of moral offences or because they persist in heresy. Thus one of the earliest councils—that of Elvira, held in 306—decrees in its fifty-second canon that those who placed libellous writings in the church should be anathematised; and the First General Council anathematised those who held the Arian heresy. General councils since then have usually given solemnity to their decrees on articles of faith by appending an Anathema.
      Neither St. Paul nor the Church of God ever wished a soul to be damned. In pronouncing anathema against wilful heretics, the Church does but declare that they are excluded from her communion, and that they must, if they continue obstinate, perish eternally.
      —W. E. Addis & Arnold, T. (1887). A Catholic Dictionary (Sixth Edition, With Additions) (24). New York: The Catholic Publication Society Co.

      As I said in my comment, yes, the Church rejects these particular formulations of doctrines. But I notice you are only quoting a few out of context. Presumably that’s because there are other things in these same canons with which you don’t disagree.

      Like

      1. phoebehb

        You say my “…. argument is invalidated by the fact that in every case in which a Church council as declared someone “anathema,” is has been completely willing to allow any said person back into the Church upon their repentance.”

        You mean since the “Church” was no longer able to put them on the rack or burn them at the stake? Joseph, you need to study the history–including some quite recent history–of the Roman church. It probably won’t affect your loyalty to it, but it might help you understand others’ antipathy toward it.

        http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/esp_vatican29.htm

        Like

    2. I have (nearly, pending my thesis) a master’s degree in history. Don’t talk to me about history. You should probably study your research methods, and not believe every unsourced article you read on the Internet. Yes, the Church is made up on men, and men make mistakes, and the Church acknowledges that it has made some grave ones. But the evils of the “Inquisitions” and “Witchhunts” are blown far out of proportion of what actually happened, and are largely modern inventions of anti-Catholic propaganda. One of my major professors is a specialist on witchcraft and the Church’s handling of it (and he’s not Catholic, but quite secular) — and he confirms this. I’d be making up stuff if I cited a figure to you — I honestly don’t remember what he said — but I believe that the actual number of “witches” who were ever “burned at the stake” by Church authorities was, at the most, in the dozens. I can cite some academic sources to you if you’d like, by reputable scholars, and not Catholics or even Christians.

      Like

    3. These are not the academic sources that I promised, but these are well-researched and well-argued Catholic responses to the kind of charged accusations you linked to. They explain the roots and the history of this kind of anti-Catholic mythology. If you care at all about truth, and don’t want to continue in unjust and unsubstantiated charges and prejudice, you would do well to read them.

      http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/secrets-of-the-spanish-inquisition-revealed
      http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/an-inquisition-primer
      http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-inquisition

      I am going to bed. I would be glad to continue this conversation tomorrow. Peace of Christ be with you.

      Like

    4. These are not the academic sources that I promised, but these are well-researched and well-argued Catholic responses to the kind of charged accusations you linked to. They explain the roots and the history of this kind of anti-Catholic mythology. If you care at all about truth, and don’t want to continue in unjust and unsubstantiated charges and prejudice, you would do well to read them.

      [Ack, well, my comment with several links hit Pastor Tim’s moderation queue, but hopefully it will let just one link through:]

      http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/secrets-of-the-spanish-inquisition-revealed

      Like

Comments are closed.