The real enemy of catholics is the papacy.

[ex cathedra]

 the papacy does not want catholics who know their bibles .


 1 Timothy 4
Instructions to Timothy
1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.


was it not the papacy that in its history  said its a sin to eat meat on friday ?

And was it not the papacy that forbid priests to marry . And now look at all the child molestations through the centuries.


The papacy has the teachings of "demons"

The popes claim to be God . isnt  that what satan wants  to?


these  are statements of the papacy, check them out on the internet your selves.

but dont fall into the trap of 7th day adventism either.you dont need them to be your pope either ,

instead let God be your pope he is the one that died for you his word alone is trustworthy.



http://amazingdiscoveries.org/AD-Articles-TotalOnslaught-ThePopeIsGodOnThisEarth.html

[chestertonrules]

the papacy does not want catholics who know their bibles .


 1 Timothy 4
Instructions to Timothy
1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.


was it not the papacy that in its history  said its a sin to eat meat on friday ?

And was it not the papacy that forbid priests to marry . And now look at all the child molestations through the centuries.


The papacy has the teachings of "demons"

The popes claim to be God . isnt  that what satan wants  to?

http://amazingdiscoveries.org/AD-Articles-TotalOnslaught-ThePopeIsGodOnThisEarth.html


You have been shown the truth but you reject it.

What do you hope to accomplish by lying about the Church?  Do you think you will impress Catholics? 

[ex cathedra]

upon this rock -----------peter the rocks  Rock solid confession of faith in Jesus .

That Jesus is the VERY Christ of God

and the popes know it to . those snakes and they twist the words   To their own benefits.

[chestertonrules]

upon this rock -----------peter the rocks  Rock solid confession of faith in Jesus .

That Jesus is the VERY Christ of God

and the popes know it to . those snakes and they twist the words   To their own benefits.

Two questions you won't be able to answer:


1) Why did Jesus change Simon's name to Rock?

2) Why did Jesus give Peter alone the keys to the Kingdom?

[YesImAFreshman]

I see lots of you mention Jesus handing the keys to Peter. I'm sure Peter didn't intend for all of the corruption such as indulgences and simony to happen. I'm sure Peter didn't for so many images of Christ in the church which is in the ten commandments " You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." The papacy has become so wealthy it seems to me it has been blinded by greed. The pope even said himself that you do not have to believe in Jesus as your savior in order to go to heaven. He also said that all religions in the world were praying to the same god when they weren't. Don't believe me? Look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOY11ALIlI4

[chestertonrules]

I see lots of you mention Jesus handing the keys to Peter. I'm sure Peter didn't intend for all of the corruption such as indulgences and simony to happen. I'm sure Peter didn't for so many images of Christ in the church which is in the ten commandments " You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." The papacy has become so wealthy it seems to me it has been blinded by greed. The pope even said himself that you do not have to believe in Jesus as your savior in order to go to heaven. He also said that all religions in the world were praying to the same god when they weren't. Don't believe me? Look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOY11ALIlI4

Do you believe that all the people who lived and died without ever hearing about Jesus went to Hell?

I think you misunderstand Catholic teaching.

Here's what the very beginning of the prologue of the Catholic catechism says:


PROLOGUE


"FATHER, . . . this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."1 "God our Savior desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."2 "There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved"3 - than the name of JESUS.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/prologue.htm

[ex cathedra]

upon this rock -----------peter the rocks  Rock solid confession of faith in Jesus .

That Jesus is the VERY Christ of God

and the popes know it to . those snakes and they twist the words   To their own benefits.

Two questions you won't be able to answer:


1) Why did Jesus change Simon's name to Rock?

2) Why did Jesus give Peter alone the keys to the Kingdom?

I CAN ANSWER THEM BOTH EASLY

Jesus did not give the keys just to Peter your papacy Is telling you of only one verse.  The other Bible verse clearly shows all the deciples ALL CHRISTIANS  were given the keys.
MATHEW 18:14-20



Beacause  of HIS CONFESSION that Jesus would build his church upon.
MATHEW 16:16


MY TURN

IF PETER WAS THE BOSSMAN THE  HEAD OF THE DECIPLES  WHY DOES ST PAUL SCOLD HIM FOR DOING WRONG ?

ALSO   why does the Lord JESUS IN SCRIPTURE FORBID FOR ALL TIME --- HEADSHIP AMONG HIS DECIPLES ?

[ex cathedra]

I see lots of you mention Jesus handing the keys to Peter. I'm sure Peter didn't intend for all of the corruption such as indulgences and simony to happen. I'm sure Peter didn't for so many images of Christ in the church which is in the ten commandments " You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." The papacy has become so wealthy it seems to me it has been blinded by greed. The pope even said himself that you do not have to believe in Jesus as your savior in order to go to heaven. He also said that all religions in the world were praying to the same god when they weren't. Don't believe me? Look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOY11ALIlI4

Do you believe that all the people who lived and died without ever hearing about Jesus went to Hell?

I think you misunderstand Catholic teaching.

Here's what the very beginning of the prologue of the Catholic catechism says:


PROLOGUE


"FATHER, . . . this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."1 "God our Savior desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."2 "There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved"3 - than the name of JESUS.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/prologue.htm

John 3:16-18

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.


John 14:6

6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

[chestertonrules]

the papacy does not want catholics who know their bibles .


 1 Timothy 4
Instructions to Timothy
1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.


was it not the papacy that in its history  said its a sin to eat meat on friday ?

And was it not the papacy that forbid priests to marry . And now look at all the child molestations through the centuries.


The papacy has the teachings of "demons"

The popes claim to be God . isnt  that what satan wants  to?


these  are statements of the papacy, check them out on the internet your selves.

but dont fall into the trap of 7th day adventism either.you dont need them to be your pope either ,

instead let God be your pope he is the one that died for you his word alone is trustworthy.



http://amazingdiscoveries.org/AD-Articles-TotalOnslaught-ThePopeIsGodOnThisEarth.html

The real enemy of stupid, uneducated people is not smart, educated people.

We are not your enemy.

[ex cathedra]

the papacy does not want catholics who know their bibles .


  1 Timothy 4
Instructions to Timothy
1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.


was it not the papacy that in its history  said its a sin to eat meat on friday ?

And was it not the papacy that forbid priests to marry . And now look at all the child molestations through the centuries.


The papacy has the teachings of "demons"

The popes claim to be God . isnt  that what satan wants  to?


these  are statements of the papacy, check them out on the internet your selves.

but dont fall into the trap of 7th day adventism either.you dont need them to be your pope either ,

instead let God be your pope he is the one that died for you his word alone is trustworthy.



http://amazingdiscoveries.org/AD-Articles-TotalOnslaught-ThePopeIsGodOnThisEarth.html

The real enemy of stupid, uneducated people is not smart, educated people.

We are not your enemy.

1 Corinthians 1:25
25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.


1 Corinthians 3:19
19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"




1 Corinthians 1:20

20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

[mclees8]

the papacy does not want catholics who know their bibles .


  1 Timothy 4
Instructions to Timothy
1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.


was it not the papacy that in its history  said its a sin to eat meat on friday ?

And was it not the papacy that forbid priests to marry . And now look at all the child molestations through the centuries.


The papacy has the teachings of "demons"

The popes claim to be God . isnt  that what satan wants  to?


these  are statements of the papacy, check them out on the internet your selves.

but dont fall into the trap of 7th day adventism either.you dont need them to be your pope either ,

instead let God be your pope he is the one that died for you his word alone is trustworthy.



http://amazingdiscoveries.org/AD-Articles-TotalOnslaught-ThePopeIsGodOnThisEarth.html

The real enemy of stupid, uneducated people is not smart, educated people.

We are not your enemy.

1 Corinthians 1:25
25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.


1 Corinthians 3:19
19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"




1 Corinthians 1:20

20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

Is this relative?

[Rob, PGK]

upon this rock -----------peter the rocks  Rock solid confession of faith in Jesus .

That Jesus is the VERY Christ of God

and the popes know it to . those snakes and they twist the words   To their own benefits.

Two questions you won't be able to answer:


1) Why did Jesus change Simon's name to Rock?

2) Why did Jesus give Peter alone the keys to the Kingdom?

I CAN ANSWER THEM BOTH EASLY

Jesus did not give the keys just to Peter your papacy Is telling you of only one verse.  The other Bible verse clearly shows all the deciples ALL CHRISTIANS  were given the keys.
MATHEW 18:14-20



Beacause  of HIS CONFESSION that Jesus would build his church upon.
MATHEW 16:16


MY TURN

IF PETER WAS THE BOSSMAN THE  HEAD OF THE DECIPLES  WHY DOES ST PAUL SCOLD HIM FOR DOING WRONG ?

ALSO   why does the Lord JESUS IN SCRIPTURE FORBID FOR ALL TIME --- HEADSHIP AMONG HIS DECIPLES ?

It is perfectly OK for the "bossman" to be wrong. He wasn't the boss because he was smarter than everyone else, he was the boss because somebody has to be. Peter was "scolded" in a council with all of the apostles and elders. They were having a debate, Peter was wrong, Paul was right, Peter changed his mind. Not a hard concept to get.

Where does Jesus forbid headship among his disciples?

[LightHammer]

Chester

Come on bro, you're not debating you're talking smack. I know it may be frustrating but I know you to be a good person who shares my passion for sarcasm and condescending remarks but don't be a jerk.

You're way smarter than the responses you were dishing out in this thread.


Ex Cathedra

Man if you managed to find scriptures with Christ forbidding headship it might prove to be enough to put a crack in the Purple Wall. Could you please quote that reference?!

[desertknight]

"Purple Wall"?   

[mclees8]

Chester

Come on bro, you're not debating you're talking smack. I know it may be frustrating but I know you to be a good person who shares my passion for sarcasm and condescending remarks but don't be a jerk.

You're way smarter than the responses you were dishing out in this thread.

Since when is sarcasm and condescending remarks make a man good 

[chestertonrules]

Chester

Come on bro, you're not debating you're talking smack. I know it may be frustrating but I know you to be a good person who shares my passion for sarcasm and condescending remarks but don't be a jerk.

You're way smarter than the responses you were dishing out in this thread.

Sorry to disappoint you.  What would you expect from a thread like this?

Is it even possible to take this thread seriouslY?

I'm not joking!      HA!

[winsome]

I'm probably going to upset my fellow Catholics here but I think ex cathedra pointed in the wrong direction. The real internal enemy (there are plenty of external ones) of Catholics is not the Pope but the Vatican.

Clifford Longley (catholic commentator) said recently that the Church seems to be governed by the Pope and the Vatican assisted by the bishops, instead of the Pope and the bishops assisted by the Vatican.

Personally it seems to me the Church is governed by the Vatican assisted by the Pope and the bishops. Jesus set up the apostles, headed by Peter, to govern the Church. The bishops and the Pope are the legitimate successors to that structure not Vatican officials. It's civil servants run amuk.

At Vatican II the Vatican mafia thought they had it all sown up with prepared papers that they expected the assembled bishops to nod through. Thank God that a significant minority of bishops faced them down and then persuaded the rest of the bishops to back them. Some sort of collegiality seemed to be coming back.

Unfortunately over the last 40+ years the Vatican has re-established its grip. Bishops seem to be treated like some sort of junior branch mangers, just there to implement central poilicies. It's time for our bishops to stand up and point out that they run the Church not the Vatican.

[mclees8]

I'm probably going to upset my fellow Catholics here but I think ex cathedra pointed in the wrong direction. The real internal enemy (there are plenty of external ones) of Catholics is not the Pope but the Vatican.

Clifford Longley (catholic commentator) said recently that the Church seems to be governed by the Pope and the Vatican assisted by the bishops, instead of the Pope and the bishops assisted by the Vatican.

Personally it seems to me the Church is governed by the Vatican assisted by the Pope and the bishops. Jesus set up the apostles, headed by Peter, to govern the Church. The bishops and the Pope are the legitimate successors to that structure not Vatican officials. It's civil servants run amuk.

At Vatican II the Vatican mafia thought they had it all sown up with prepared papers that they expected the assembled bishops to nod through. Thank God that a significant minority of bishops faced them down and then persuaded the rest of the bishops to back them. Some sort of collegiality seemed to be coming back.

Unfortunately over the last 40+ years the Vatican has re-established its grip. Bishops seem to be treated like some sort of junior branch mangers, just there to implement central poilicies. It's time for our bishops to stand up and point out that they run the Church not the Vatican.

Vatican mafia ?

[mclees8]

I'm probably going to upset my fellow Catholics here but I think ex cathedra pointed in the wrong direction. The real internal enemy (there are plenty of external ones) of Catholics is not the Pope but the Vatican.

Clifford Longley (catholic commentator) said recently that the Church seems to be governed by the Pope and the Vatican assisted by the bishops, instead of the Pope and the bishops assisted by the Vatican.

Personally it seems to me the Church is governed by the Vatican assisted by the Pope and the bishops. Jesus set up the apostles, headed by Peter, to govern the Church. The bishops and the Pope are the legitimate successors to that structure not Vatican officials. It's civil servants run amuk.

At Vatican II the Vatican mafia thought they had it all sown up with prepared papers that they expected the assembled bishops to nod through. Thank God that a significant minority of bishops faced them down and then persuaded the rest of the bishops to back them. Some sort of collegiality seemed to be coming back.

Unfortunately over the last 40+ years the Vatican has re-established its grip. Bishops seem to be treated like some sort of junior branch mangers, just there to implement central poilicies. It's time for our bishops to stand up and point out that they run the Church not the Vatican.

Vatican mafia ?

I guess I've been naive. there are many books about this. I always wondered why we saw Cardinals dealing with the mob in the godfather. Of course that was just a holy wood movie, but still why would they haves scenes like that in the first place. the Idea had to have come from somewhere. Why should i be surprised?

[winsome]

I'm probably going to upset my fellow Catholics here but I think ex cathedra pointed in the wrong direction. The real internal enemy (there are plenty of external ones) of Catholics is not the Pope but the Vatican.

Clifford Longley (catholic commentator) said recently that the Church seems to be governed by the Pope and the Vatican assisted by the bishops, instead of the Pope and the bishops assisted by the Vatican.

Personally it seems to me the Church is governed by the Vatican assisted by the Pope and the bishops. Jesus set up the apostles, headed by Peter, to govern the Church. The bishops and the Pope are the legitimate successors to that structure not Vatican officials. It's civil servants run amuk.

At Vatican II the Vatican mafia thought they had it all sown up with prepared papers that they expected the assembled bishops to nod through. Thank God that a significant minority of bishops faced them down and then persuaded the rest of the bishops to back them. Some sort of collegiality seemed to be coming back.

Unfortunately over the last 40+ years the Vatican has re-established its grip. Bishops seem to be treated like some sort of junior branch mangers, just there to implement central poilicies. It's time for our bishops to stand up and point out that they run the Church not the Vatican.

Vatican mafia ?

I guess I've been naive. there are many books about this. I always wondered why we saw Cardinals dealing with the mob in the godfather. Of course that was just a holy wood movie, but still why would they haves scenes like that in the first place. the Idea had to have come from somewhere. Why should i be surprised?

Not the real Mafia!!! It's a term we use in the UK for a closed group that seems run everything and have everything sown up between them. I guess you don't use it in the US as you have the real version.

[LightHammer]

"Purple Wall"?   

Thats just a nickname I use to describe Catholic Doctrine. I'm not one to dispute the indusputable and there are some protions of Catholic doctrine that seem indisputable. "The Purple Wall" I just use for fun.

I'm always trying to find a hole (or disputable position) in the Purple Wall because I enjoy being a wanderer of the faith and if Catholic doctrine continues to prove indisputable I will undoubtably be compelled and led by the Truth to join the established Church.

And I rather enjoy being a wanderer( freethinking unbiased protestant) of the faith.

Does that make sense?

[Catholica]

the papacy does not want catholics who know their bibles .


 1 Timothy 4
Instructions to Timothy
1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.


was it not the papacy that in its history  said its a sin to eat meat on friday ?

And was it not the papacy that forbid priests to marry . And now look at all the child molestations through the centuries.

Hi there, this is my first post here, just thought I'd say "hi" first before discussing the thread.  My name is Andre, I'm an adult convert to the Catholic faith.

So ok, 1 Timothy 4:1-3.  Does the Catholic Church "forbid" people to marry?  No.  Lay Catholics can marry.  The Church forces no one to become a priest; they do it on their own volition, and they do it knowing that they will need to take a vow of celibacy.  This is a discipline, not a doctrine, and is only a discipline in the Latin Rite of the Church.  In the Eastern Catholic rites, as well as the Anglican rite, priests can be and are married.  What Paul is speaking about here is the altogether elimination of marriage, similar to what the gnostic heresy taught - a teaching that marriage is forbidden.

Similarly, the Church does not forbid anyone from eating any particular food.  They encourage abstinence from meat on Fridays, but it can be substituted with some other non-food item to abstain from.  On the other days of the week, those foods (meats, not fish) that are traditionally abstained from on Friday can be eaten.  Paul is referring to the forced abstaining from certain classes of foods, always, similar to what the gnostic heresy taught.  The truth behind this interpretation can be seen in the last line, 1Tim. 4:3, where it refers to them as foods "which God created".  The Gnostics forbid meat because they believed flesh to be evil, but Paul was teaching that flesh is good because it was created by God.

The Gnostic Heresy was battled in the early Church, and it existed prior to Jesus' incarnation and tried to distort the gospel, introducing false gospel books.  It appears that Paul is referring to striking down the Gnostic Heresy as the "doctrine of demons". 

I hope that sheds some light on this verse.

Both Jesus and Paul encourage people to be celibate for the kingdom of God (Matt. 19:11-12, 1 Cor. 7:32-35).  Jesus exhorts people to "deny themselves" which has strong connotations toward fasting and abstinence (Matt. 16:24), and Paul talks of beating his body so that he will not be "disqualified" (1 Cor. 9:27) which is asceticism.

Andre

[winsome]

the papacy does not want catholics who know their bibles .


 1 Timothy 4
Instructions to Timothy
1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.


was it not the papacy that in its history  said its a sin to eat meat on friday ?

And was it not the papacy that forbid priests to marry . And now look at all the child molestations through the centuries.

Hi there, this is my first post here, just thought I'd say "hi" first before discussing the thread.  My name is Andre, I'm an adult convert to the Catholic faith.

So ok, 1 Timothy 4:1-3.  Does the Catholic Church "forbid" people to marry?  No.  Lay Catholics can marry.  The Church forces no one to become a priest; they do it on their own volition, and they do it knowing that they will need to take a vow of celibacy.  This is a discipline, not a doctrine, and is only a discipline in the Latin Rite of the Church.  In the Eastern Catholic rites, as well as the Anglican rite, priests can be and are married.  What Paul is speaking about here is the altogether elimination of marriage, similar to what the gnostic heresy taught - a teaching that marriage is forbidden.

Similarly, the Church does not forbid anyone from eating any particular food.  They encourage abstinence from meat on Fridays, but it can be substituted with some other non-food item to abstain from.  On the other days of the week, those foods (meats, not fish) that are traditionally abstained from on Friday can be eaten.  Paul is referring to the forced abstaining from certain classes of foods, always, similar to what the gnostic heresy taught.  The truth behind this interpretation can be seen in the last line, 1Tim. 4:3, where it refers to them as foods "which God created".  The Gnostics forbid meat because they believed flesh to be evil, but Paul was teaching that flesh is good because it was created by God.

The Gnostic Heresy was battled in the early Church, and it existed prior to Jesus' incarnation and tried to distort the gospel, introducing false gospel books.  It appears that Paul is referring to striking down the Gnostic Heresy as the "doctrine of demons". 

I hope that sheds some light on this verse.

Both Jesus and Paul encourage people to be celibate for the kingdom of God (Matt. 19:11-12, 1 Cor. 7:32-35).  Jesus exhorts people to "deny themselves" which has strong connotations toward fasting and abstinence (Matt. 16:24), and Paul talks of beating his body so that he will not be "disqualified" (1 Cor. 9:27) which is asceticism.

Andre

Hi Andre - welcome to Grace Centered.

[mclees8]

I'm probably going to upset my fellow Catholics here but I think ex cathedra pointed in the wrong direction. The real internal enemy (there are plenty of external ones) of Catholics is not the Pope but the Vatican.

Clifford Longley (catholic commentator) said recently that the Church seems to be governed by the Pope and the Vatican assisted by the bishops, instead of the Pope and the bishops assisted by the Vatican.

Personally it seems to me the Church is governed by the Vatican assisted by the Pope and the bishops. Jesus set up the apostles, headed by Peter, to govern the Church. The bishops and the Pope are the legitimate successors to that structure not Vatican officials. It's civil servants run amuk.

At Vatican II the Vatican mafia thought they had it all sown up with prepared papers that they expected the assembled bishops to nod through. Thank God that a significant minority of bishops faced them down and then persuaded the rest of the bishops to back them. Some sort of collegiality seemed to be coming back.

Unfortunately over the last 40+ years the Vatican has re-established its grip. Bishops seem to be treated like some sort of junior branch mangers, just there to implement central poilicies. It's time for our bishops to stand up and point out that they run the Church not the Vatican.

Vatican mafia ?

I guess I've been naive. there are many books about this. I always wondered why we saw Cardinals dealing with the mob in the godfather. Of course that was just a holy wood movie, but still why would they haves scenes like that in the first place. the Idea had to have come from somewhere. Why should i be surprised?

Not the real Mafia!!! It's a term we use in the UK for a closed group that seems run everything and have everything sown up between them. I guess you don't use it in the US as you have the real version.

Im not sure what you mean by the real version in the US. You mean the real mafia?

When you say closed group is  that like a secret society of power people who run things from behind the scenes but keep secret. Or are they people whom the Vatican power uses to do things like political assassinations  or get rid of certain people who are a threat to truth of evil doings. Any way you cut cut it it sounds evil.











s

[chestertonrules]

Unfortunately over the last 40+ years the Vatican has re-established its grip. Bishops seem to be treated like some sort of junior branch mangers, just there to implement central poilicies. It's time for our bishops to stand up and point out that they run the Church not the Vatican.

I think that orthodoxy is on the rise in the Catholic Church.  I think the liberal/left influx that has had some impact on the Vatican bureaucracy is beyond it's peak.  I think the tide has turned in our direction.

[mclees8]

Unfortunately over the last 40+ years the Vatican has re-established its grip. Bishops seem to be treated like some sort of junior branch mangers, just there to implement central poilicies. It's time for our bishops to stand up and point out that they run the Church not the Vatican.

I think that orthodoxy is on the rise in the Catholic Church.  I think the liberal/left influx that has had some impact on the Vatican bureaucracy is beyond it's peak.  I think the tide has turned in our direction.

Yea its time to stand up to those guys. Go Orthodoxy! thats the spirit! TELL them  WHOS THE BOSS! YEA!   

[winsome]

I'm probably going to upset my fellow Catholics here but I think ex cathedra pointed in the wrong direction. The real internal enemy (there are plenty of external ones) of Catholics is not the Pope but the Vatican.

Clifford Longley (catholic commentator) said recently that the Church seems to be governed by the Pope and the Vatican assisted by the bishops, instead of the Pope and the bishops assisted by the Vatican.

Personally it seems to me the Church is governed by the Vatican assisted by the Pope and the bishops. Jesus set up the apostles, headed by Peter, to govern the Church. The bishops and the Pope are the legitimate successors to that structure not Vatican officials. It's civil servants run amuk.

At Vatican II the Vatican mafia thought they had it all sown up with prepared papers that they expected the assembled bishops to nod through. Thank God that a significant minority of bishops faced them down and then persuaded the rest of the bishops to back them. Some sort of collegiality seemed to be coming back.

Unfortunately over the last 40+ years the Vatican has re-established its grip. Bishops seem to be treated like some sort of junior branch mangers, just there to implement central poilicies. It's time for our bishops to stand up and point out that they run the Church not the Vatican.

Vatican mafia ?

I guess I've been naive. there are many books about this. I always wondered why we saw Cardinals dealing with the mob in the godfather. Of course that was just a holy wood movie, but still why would they haves scenes like that in the first place. the Idea had to have come from somewhere. Why should i be surprised?

Not the real Mafia!!! It's a term we use in the UK for a closed group that seems run everything and have everything sown up between them. I guess you don't use it in the US as you have the real version.

Im not sure what you mean by the real version in the US. You mean the real mafia?

When you say closed group is  that like a secret society of power people who run things from behind the scenes but keep secret. Or are they people whom the Vatican power uses to do things like political assassinations  or get rid of certain people who are a threat to truth of evil doings. Any way you cut cut it it sounds evil.



s

You've been reading too much Dan Brown

[winsome]

Unfortunately over the last 40+ years the Vatican has re-established its grip. Bishops seem to be treated like some sort of junior branch mangers, just there to implement central poilicies. It's time for our bishops to stand up and point out that they run the Church not the Vatican.

I think that orthodoxy is on the rise in the Catholic Church.  I think the liberal/left influx that has had some impact on the Vatican bureaucracy is beyond it's peak.  I think the tide has turned in our direction.

That sounds like the triumph of hope over experience.

[desertknight]

Unfortunately over the last 40+ years the Vatican has re-established its grip. Bishops seem to be treated like some sort of junior branch mangers, just there to implement central poilicies. It's time for our bishops to stand up and point out that they run the Church not the Vatican.

I think that orthodoxy is on the rise in the Catholic Church.  I think the liberal/left influx that has had some impact on the Vatican bureaucracy is beyond it's peak.  I think the tide has turned in our direction.

I agree.  The 1960's and 70's were trying times ecclesiastically and they destroyed "main stream Protestantism", (just look at the plight of the Anglican Communion in the northern hemisphere.), but the Church endured and the long pontificate of JPII staved off the worst of it at just the right time.  The tide is definitely in the other direction and it is also important to remember that the vigilance of the Holy Spirit was always there.  Even in the bizarre 1970's, the Church still overwhelmingly preached and practised orthodoxy.  It was in the traditional religious orders that the damage of modernism was most severe.  For a while it was hard to find a Jesuit who was orthodox, but even they are coming back slowly.  I think most American "Catholic" universities can be written off however.   There is no need to think of great old schools like Georgetown as even being Catholic anymore.

[mclees8]

Not really willing to let go of this Catholic mafia thing, I decided to google it. Im still dong some research but could not help taking notice of this Article of deception. A true story about and eight year old Brooklyn girl who's communion was invalidated by the RC. I thought it would be interesting to share.



Catholic Church Admits to Centuries of Fraud and Deception (Sort of)

This link is to a story that ran a while back as a news item at SermonAudio.com.

The story is that there's this young girl, who partook of her first Mass as a good Catholic youth. Only, she's got this digestive problem which makes it impossible for her to digest wheat. Apparently, the local priest accomodated her by using a barley wafer, rather than the normal wheat-based version; and now higher-ups in the Catholic Church have "invalidated" her communion. You see, the wafer must be made in a precise, traditional way, or the whole deal is off.

This item garnered about five dozen comments. As always at SermonAudio, the comments were mostly juvenile, or else just outrageously stupid. This point was completely missed:

The story represents an admission by all parties that the Catholic Church is a big lie.

Hold on. Don't freak out: I'll explain how.

Even Catholic defenders and apologists have pointed out the truth that the Roman Catholic Church stands or falls with the Mass. If the Mass is what they say it is, then this necessarily validates Rome as the one, true Church on earth. If the Mass is not what they say it is, then everything else about her is also indefensible and false.

And let's be clear: what they say it is, is this. They say that during the Mass, the elements of bread and wine actually, physically, are transformed into the literal, physical flesh and blood of the man Jesus Christ. As documented in Foxe's Book of Martyrs, multitudes of Christians lost their lives in the Reformation period for refusing to confess that the bread actually becomes the Body. They said the bread remains bread, and this condemned them to death.

Now, in the news story in question, both parties (the girl's family and the Roman Church officials) have unwittingly admitted that there is no transformation of the substance of the bread. All sides have tacitly agreed that the bread remains merely bread.

If the wafer becomes flesh, then why worry what the wafer was baked out of?

During the Mass, the tiny cake of wheat ceases to be wheat and becomes human flesh, right?

So why would the family worry that the Mass would harm their daughter due to her inability to digest wheat?

Why would the first priest agree with that and have a wafer made of barley?

Why would the Church that has invalidated her First Communion not say, "Hey, just have faith and go ahead and partake. By the time she eats it, it's not wheat anymore anyway?"

(Which they are not saying, by the way. If she does eat, and then die, well then you can add that Wrongful Death lawsuit to the hundreds of sexual misconduct suits. Got to CYA.)

By admitting that the Mass would harm the girl's systems, they've all admitted that the bread remains bread. Thus, they've inadvertently admitted what we've all known all along: the Mass is a fiction. And thus, so is the Church that administers it.

[winsome]

Not really willing to let go of this Catholic mafia thing, I decided to google it. Im still dong some research but could not help taking notice of this Article of deception. A true story about and eight year old Brooklyn girl who's communion was invalidated by the RC. I thought it would be interesting to share.



Catholic Church Admits to Centuries of Fraud and Deception (Sort of)

This link is to a story that ran a while back as a news item at SermonAudio.com.

The story is that there's this young girl, who partook of her first Mass as a good Catholic youth. Only, she's got this digestive problem which makes it impossible for her to digest wheat. Apparently, the local priest accomodated her by using a barley wafer, rather than the normal wheat-based version; and now higher-ups in the Catholic Church have "invalidated" her communion. You see, the wafer must be made in a precise, traditional way, or the whole deal is off.

This item garnered about five dozen comments. As always at SermonAudio, the comments were mostly juvenile, or else just outrageously stupid. This point was completely missed:

The story represents an admission by all parties that the Catholic Church is a big lie.

Hold on. Don't freak out: I'll explain how.

Even Catholic defenders and apologists have pointed out the truth that the Roman Catholic Church stands or falls with the Mass. If the Mass is what they say it is, then this necessarily validates Rome as the one, true Church on earth. If the Mass is not what they say it is, then everything else about her is also indefensible and false.

And let's be clear: what they say it is, is this. They say that during the Mass, the elements of bread and wine actually, physically, are transformed into the literal, physical flesh and blood of the man Jesus Christ. As documented in Foxe's Book of Martyrs, multitudes of Christians lost their lives in the Reformation period for refusing to confess that the bread actually becomes the Body. They said the bread remains bread, and this condemned them to death.

Now, in the news story in question, both parties (the girl's family and the Roman Church officials) have unwittingly admitted that there is no transformation of the substance of the bread. All sides have tacitly agreed that the bread remains merely bread.

If the wafer becomes flesh, then why worry what the wafer was baked out of?

During the Mass, the tiny cake of wheat ceases to be wheat and becomes human flesh, right?

So why would the family worry that the Mass would harm their daughter due to her inability to digest wheat?

Why would the first priest agree with that and have a wafer made of barley?

Why would the Church that has invalidated her First Communion not say, "Hey, just have faith and go ahead and partake. By the time she eats it, it's not wheat anymore anyway?"

(Which they are not saying, by the way. If she does eat, and then die, well then you can add that Wrongful Death lawsuit to the hundreds of sexual misconduct suits. Got to CYA.)

By admitting that the Mass would harm the girl's systems, they've all admitted that the bread remains bread. Thus, they've inadvertently admitted what we've all known all along: the Mass is a fiction. And thus, so is the Church that administers it.

These sort of stories do the rounds and ignorant Protestants try to make something of them.

When the bread is consecrated the substance changes to the body of Christ. The accidents (physical characteristics) stay the same. This is what the term transubstantiation means. The girl presumably was a coeliac. Whatever physical substance is in the host that causes an allergic reaction before consecration remains in the host after consecration.

Someone in such as position has two options.
1.   To use special coeliac hosts that have zero or just a trace of whatever the substance is:
2.   To take from the chalice only.

Either way they receive the body and blood of Christ. 

[Catholica]

If the wafer becomes flesh, then why worry what the wafer was baked out of?

During the Mass, the tiny cake of wheat ceases to be wheat and becomes human flesh, right?

So why would the family worry that the Mass would harm their daughter due to her inability to digest wheat?

Why would the first priest agree with that and have a wafer made of barley?

A sacrament consists of both matter and form.  If the form is not observed, the sacrament is not valid.  If the matter is not present, the sacrament is invalid.  The matter for communion is bread made from wheat and water.  If you use barley, you have invalid matter.

We believe that the bread is transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.  However the "accidents" remain the same.  That is, sensory speaking, the bread still appears as bread in every measurable way, and the wine still appears as wine in every measurable way.  This is what the Catholic Church has always taught.  In a way, our Lord remains veiled, although there have been several recorded instances where the veil has been lifted, hosts have started bleeding and the accidents have been unveiled, where the flesh becomes apparent.  Google the "Miracle of Lanciano" for example.

The priest, acting with good intentions, made a mistake and thought that he could use barley.  But barley is invalid matter.  What he should have done is offered her just the precious blood.  I know some Catholics that have celiac's disease (I don't know if that is spelled right) and it is hard on them, because the precious blood is not always offered.  But those with an inability to consume wheat can still consume the precious blood, which is the same, the body, blood, soul and divinity.

So the Church has not admitted to any fraud.  Rather they are upholding exactly what they have always taught.  Unfortunately for this girl, a mistake was made, but now it can be rectified.

[AvrilNYC]

Not really willing to let go of this Catholic mafia thing, I decided to google it. Im still dong some research but could not help taking notice of this Article of deception. A true story about and eight year old Brooklyn girl who's communion was invalidated by the RC. I thought it would be interesting to share.



Catholic Church Admits to Centuries of Fraud and Deception (Sort of)

This link is to a story that ran a while back as a news item at SermonAudio.com.

The story is that there's this young girl, who partook of her first Mass as a good Catholic youth. Only, she's got this digestive problem which makes it impossible for her to digest wheat. Apparently, the local priest accomodated her by using a barley wafer, rather than the normal wheat-based version; and now higher-ups in the Catholic Church have "invalidated" her communion. You see, the wafer must be made in a precise, traditional way, or the whole deal is off.

This item garnered about five dozen comments. As always at SermonAudio, the comments were mostly juvenile, or else just outrageously stupid. This point was completely missed:

The story represents an admission by all parties that the Catholic Church is a big lie.

Hold on. Don't freak out: I'll explain how.

Even Catholic defenders and apologists have pointed out the truth that the Roman Catholic Church stands or falls with the Mass. If the Mass is what they say it is, then this necessarily validates Rome as the one, true Church on earth. If the Mass is not what they say it is, then everything else about her is also indefensible and false.

And let's be clear: what they say it is, is this. They say that during the Mass, the elements of bread and wine actually, physically, are transformed into the literal, physical flesh and blood of the man Jesus Christ. As documented in Foxe's Book of Martyrs, multitudes of Christians lost their lives in the Reformation period for refusing to confess that the bread actually becomes the Body. They said the bread remains bread, and this condemned them to death.

Now, in the news story in question, both parties (the girl's family and the Roman Church officials) have unwittingly admitted that there is no transformation of the substance of the bread. All sides have tacitly agreed that the bread remains merely bread.

If the wafer becomes flesh, then why worry what the wafer was baked out of?

During the Mass, the tiny cake of wheat ceases to be wheat and becomes human flesh, right?

So why would the family worry that the Mass would harm their daughter due to her inability to digest wheat?

Why would the first priest agree with that and have a wafer made of barley?

Why would the Church that has invalidated her First Communion not say, "Hey, just have faith and go ahead and partake. By the time she eats it, it's not wheat anymore anyway?"

(Which they are not saying, by the way. If she does eat, and then die, well then you can add that Wrongful Death lawsuit to the hundreds of sexual misconduct suits. Got to CYA.)

By admitting that the Mass would harm the girl's systems, they've all admitted that the bread remains bread. Thus, they've inadvertently admitted what we've all known all along: the Mass is a fiction. And thus, so is the Church that administers it.

Dear mclees8,

I see you as a brother in Christ. Some of your posts are interesting. This one though was just plain stupid and revealed that you have no clue about Catholic sacraments. If you wish that Catholics take your posts seriously please don't demonstrate such ignorance of basic things next time

[mclees8]

Not really willing to let go of this Catholic mafia thing, I decided to google it. Im still dong some research but could not help taking notice of this Article of deception. A true story about and eight year old Brooklyn girl who's communion was invalidated by the RC. I thought it would be interesting to share.



Catholic Church Admits to Centuries of Fraud and Deception (Sort of)

This link is to a story that ran a while back as a news item at SermonAudio.com.

The story is that there's this young girl, who partook of her first Mass as a good Catholic youth. Only, she's got this digestive problem which makes it impossible for her to digest wheat. Apparently, the local priest accomodated her by using a barley wafer, rather than the normal wheat-based version; and now higher-ups in the Catholic Church have "invalidated" her communion. You see, the wafer must be made in a precise, traditional way, or the whole deal is off.

This item garnered about five dozen comments. As always at SermonAudio, the comments were mostly juvenile, or else just outrageously stupid. This point was completely missed:

The story represents an admission by all parties that the Catholic Church is a big lie.

Hold on. Don't freak out: I'll explain how.

Even Catholic defenders and apologists have pointed out the truth that the Roman Catholic Church stands or falls with the Mass. If the Mass is what they say it is, then this necessarily validates Rome as the one, true Church on earth. If the Mass is not what they say it is, then everything else about her is also indefensible and false.

And let's be clear: what they say it is, is this. They say that during the Mass, the elements of bread and wine actually, physically, are transformed into the literal, physical flesh and blood of the man Jesus Christ. As documented in Foxe's Book of Martyrs, multitudes of Christians lost their lives in the Reformation period for refusing to confess that the bread actually becomes the Body. They said the bread remains bread, and this condemned them to death.

Now, in the news story in question, both parties (the girl's family and the Roman Church officials) have unwittingly admitted that there is no transformation of the substance of the bread. All sides have tacitly agreed that the bread remains merely bread.

If the wafer becomes flesh, then why worry what the wafer was baked out of?

During the Mass, the tiny cake of wheat ceases to be wheat and becomes human flesh, right?

So why would the family worry that the Mass would harm their daughter due to her inability to digest wheat?

Why would the first priest agree with that and have a wafer made of barley?

Why would the Church that has invalidated her First Communion not say, "Hey, just have faith and go ahead and partake. By the time she eats it, it's not wheat anymore anyway?"

(Which they are not saying, by the way. If she does eat, and then die, well then you can add that Wrongful Death lawsuit to the hundreds of sexual misconduct suits. Got to CYA.)

By admitting that the Mass would harm the girl's systems, they've all admitted that the bread remains bread. Thus, they've inadvertently admitted what we've all known all along: the Mass is a fiction. And thus, so is the Church that administers it.

Dear mclees8,

I see you as a brother in Christ. Some of your posts are interesting. This one though was just plain stupid and revealed that you have no clue about Catholic sacraments. If you wish that Catholics take your posts seriously please don't demonstrate such ignorance of basic things next time

Well i just thought it was interesting. I knew it would get the hens to cackling.  I quite well have a clue about what you believe. I just choose not to condemn. Is not God all Powerful and nothing is impossible for him and nothing is impossible for those who have faith. That is the matter here isn't it? What ever is done with purity of heart and of  faith is valid. The law condemns. It is unwavering and has not flexibility, No room for grace. If you believe the the substance is changed then do it by faith. If you believe it is symbolic then also do it by faith. But don't put all under the law.

God bless

[Catholica]

Well i just thought it was interesting. I knew it would get the hens to cackling.  I quite well have a clue about what you believe. I just choose not to condemn. Is not God all Powerful and nothing is impossible for him and nothing is impossible for those who have faith. That is the matter here isn't it? What ever is done with purity of heart and of  faith is valid. The law condemns. It is unwavering and has not flexibility, No room for grace. If you believe the the substance is changed then do it by faith. If you believe it is symbolic then also do it by faith. But don't put all under the law.

God bless

Hi mclees8, forgive me, I don't know if I've read your name before.

I guess I'm confused.  Why would you want to "get the hens cackling"?  It seemed pretty clear from the questions that you asked that you didn't know about the Church's teaching about the accidents.   If you claim that you knew what we believe, then are you not just trying to stir up divisions in the body of Christ?  This doesn't seem like a very Christian way to act.  But I don't believe that is what you were doing, you just didn't know about the accidents.  Its better to just humbly acknowledge that fact and move on, don't you think?

Peace in Christ,

Andre