To make things straight: Babylon is Rome. Why?

Originally posted by herm
In Phillip K. Dick's final trilogy, he expounds upon this idea- That the social control mechanisim of Rome was transfered to the Pope after the Fall of Rome. The same organization has been controlling world affairs for 4,000 years. "In order to fight the Empire, one had to become what it represents. If a segment of the Empire is defeated, the victor assumes it's role, thus becoming what was defeated. In this way the mechanism of control is sustained" Babylon is our paternal, militant, consumer- oriented society, which we aren't about to give up. All of our "beat em up and take it" paradigms only sustain the Roman system- It's a way of doing things that we are conditioned to, more than any particular person pulling strings behind the curtain. The system is so successful precisely because it opperates in the open and is considered to be "the sensible way to do things". It is "official."
Responsible Anarchy is the future hope of Humanity.....

Interresting turn, Mr. yes, indeed. Do you have a title or the ISBN code for that book/trilogy? It would be a very interresting read indeed.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

"The Transmigration of Timmothy Archer"
"The Divine Invasion"

and, especially, one of the weirdest things ever written:
"Valis"

"Valis," especially has lots about the EMPIRE.

[check out the way he predicts E. Clapton's family tradgedy TEN YEARS before it happened]

"Valis" is more than a goofy sci-fi. It holds a clue to our ultimate nature.....

Originally posted by herm
"The Transmigration of Timmothy Archer"
"The Divine Invasion"
"Valis"

Thankyou! I'll see if I can get my hands on a copy. One of the oldes tricks in the book is "if you can't beat'em, join'em and breed them out". Just look at the Catholic history of popes and antipopes. They got worse than their enemy. They were bitten by the serpent, but the venom didn't kill them, the Old Serpent breeds on them.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
I disagree. I think that Babylon is just that, Babylon, and that there is a possibility that the Vatican might be the backbone for the Harlot.

But hey, this is just as I see it. I don't see my position being any more rock-solid than anyone's else's. I do know that in time, those left behind will know for a fact.

++++++++

AH HA!!...someone prys the lid off the septic tank...

Vatican City is an independent city-state, albiet surrounded by Rome-->>SO, by mutual exclusion,

the Roman Catholic Church, seated in Vatican, cannot be a Harlot/Roman/anti-christ dragon, that some fantasize

modern catholicism is principaly 'Pauline' & not based on Peter as suggested. (Apostle Paul, conversion & epiphany- on road to Baghdad? or whatever....)

youse guys are more schooled than me on these points. and to paraphrase a meme from Gov. Ahnold...'big enough loophole to drive my Hummer thru.'

Originally posted by riffraffalunas

++++++++

AH HA!!...someone prys the lid off the septic tank...

Vatican City is an independent city-state, albiet surrounded by Rome-->>SO, by mutual exclusion,

the Roman Catholic Church, seated in Vatican, cannot be a Harlot/Roman/anti-christ dragon, that some fantasize

modern catholicism is principaly 'Pauline' & not based on Peter as suggested. (Apostle Paul, conversion & epiphany- on road to Baghdad? or whatever....)

If I can remember correctly, the congregation of Rome in the time of Peter and Paul hid in the sewer. Remember what Paul even said? We worship God to a smell theat brings life. What is the smell that brings life? Fertiliser, poop. Don't trust your instinkts when it comes to spiritual smells. You'll be like a beast. use your heart and mind instead. Saulus was in Damascus in Syria. According to the Koran, the Dajjal/AntiChrist starts his ministry in Syria btw.

Also if you read my posts, you will get the full explanation of why the Beast itself is probably an antipope, who will be a Roman citizen, hence he will be one of the seven high priests of Rome. Since he is the head of Babylon, he will be judged for Babylon's sin, which basically is that she has seduced the least among the children of God, making them worshippers of the works of man and has made a system which categorically brakes all 613 laws of the Tannakh. The punnishment for that is like it was with Nebukadnezzar, to be removed from the throne and cast down to the people, or metaphorically speeking, being cast into the sea with a millstone around his neck. Just what the prophecy of Malachy says about the last pope (Peter II or Peter the Roman, though I want to call him Nebukadnezzar II) and also exactly how the Angel explains how Babylon will receive her punnishment. In one hour the judgement will be fulfilled. The Prophet Daniel will possibly wake up and prophecy during this period together with Prophet Moses, Ezra the scribe, Prophet Elijah or Enoch the Rightious. These two prophets are alive today, and will probably end their ministry in Babylon, they will be killed by the Beast, but will wake up three and a half days later and walk up to Heaven in a cloud right before their enemies' faces. And 7000 of them will be killed in an earthquake that lays one tenth of the city in ruin. The rest will repent and follow the Law of God.

Edit: The head of Babylon will loose it's power just as quick as he received it. In one hour he received it, in one hour he will loose it.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 23-10-2003 by mikromarius]

"by the Pope who still today is regarded next to God in power. "- Mik's quote

"Just look at the Catholic history of popes and antipopes. They got worse than their enemy. They were bitten by the serpent, but the venom didn't kill them, the Old Serpent breeds on them."- Mik's quote

The Pope doesn't claim such a thing (the power), he is a sinner like the rest of us. The Pope is just a man capable of doing bad things as we all are. I'm sure that there are many popes burning in hell for their selfishness and unrepentant sin.



Also about kingship, all Kings or Queens claim to get their power from God, not just the HRE. By the way The Holy Roman Empire, ended by a decision of the last Emperor, Francis II, on 6 August 1806. If the HRE was the Church's vehicle to rise, it has been long gone.

About Clovis, it was a mutual agreement between the Church and his kingdom. You see the Church was in a dangerous position for it was competing with the Celtic church along with fighting off heresies like Arianism and Gnosticism. So the two became allies to help each other. Be aware the Church didn't make Clovis, King.

Also there wasn't a Pope Peter II either.



When they talk about the eighth king they are talking about Trajan.
In AD 98 Trajan became emperor. Politically he marked a great turning point. He was the first of the empire's "adopted emperors" � emperors chosen for what they could do rather than for their kinship to the previous emperor. (OK, strictly speaking Nerva was the first adopted emperor in AD 96, but he was opposed by the Praetorian Guard who mutinied in 97, hence the choice of Trajan. Nerva only reigned for "a short space" � see Revelation 17:10).

The Roman empire reached its greatest power under Trajan. But what is far more important is the condition he brought with him.

From the outside he seemed to be just another king � he came from the previous seven � albeit one who severely persecuted the Christians. But from the point of view of the church, his reign was a turning point of the worst possible kind. During his reign, the last of the apostles died or disappeared.


This next section is from David Wills, concerning the eighth:

[In the King James Bible, this verse read

"And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition."

But if you look in other translations, this is translated in different ways. So clearly the words in the original Greek are not perfectly straightforward. I looked in my Greek study Bible, and found that most of the words in the English translations are not present in the Greek. In fact, the Greek words are just:

"wild beast � also � eighth � seven � go � into � perdition (or destruction)"

Now, I am not a Greek scholar. Perhaps the missing words are implied by the grammatical structure? So I looked at the "Literal Translation" Bible. This is what is says (Strong�s numbers come before each Greek word � words without numbers are added for convenience):

And | 3588 | the | 2342 | beast | 3759 | which | 2258 | was, | and | 3756 | not | 2076 | is, | 3383 | even | he | 3590 | eighth | 2076 | is, | and | of | the | 2033 | seven | 2076 | it is, | and | 4314 | to | 684 | perdition | 5562 | goes.

This is starting to look interesting�

"Even" he is the Eighth?
The key word is "even", Strong�s word number 3383. As I said, I am not a Greek scholar, so please correct me if I am wrong. But I do not see how this word could be translated as "even". According to Strong�s concordance it is means "and not, neither ... nor, not so". In the King James Bible it is translated as follows: neither (20 times), nor (15 times), so much as (1 time), or (1 time). Replace the word "even" with one of those words, and see what you get.

Clearly the beast has something to do with being an "eighth", or why would John have introduced the word? But we do not have to stick strictly to it being Nero or any of the other emperors. It could be something quite different. So what did John mean by "eighth", and how does this relate to the "seven"?

The Symbolism of the Eighth, When Speaking of a Sequence of Time Periods:
In the scriptures, seven is symbolic of completion, probably stemming from the seven days of creation. The eighth day is not just another fixed period � it represents the start of everything else.

Many of the ordinances of the Law of Moses had the final event happening on the eighth day. See for example (and you will have to read the verses that come before them to get the context): Leviticus 14:10, 23; Leviticus 15:14, 29; 22:27; 23:36, 39; Ezekiel 43:27. This is how the Gray Home Bible Commentary puts it, commenting on Leviticus chapter 12;

"The eighth day"

"The "eighth day" will be often met as we proceed, and needs to be recognized in its symbolic and prophetic significance. The old creation was finished in six days with a following Sabbath, rendering six the number of the old creation as under imperfection and sin. But the eighth day, which is the first of a new week, appears everywhere in Scripture as symbolizing the new creation in which all things shall be restored in the redemption through the second Adam.

"The thought finds its fullest expression in the resurrection of Christ as the Firstborn from the dead, the Beginning and the Lord of the new creation, who rose from the dead on the first day, the day after the seventh, the eighth day.

"This gives the key to the use of the number eight in the Mosaic symbolism. With good reason, therefore, was circumcision ordered for the eighth day, as it symbolized the putting off of the old nature and the putting on of a new and purified nature in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17, R. V., margin)."

Conclusion � The Beast As a Satanic Mirror of Christ:

At the beginning of the Revelation, Christ announced himself as "I am he that liveth, and as dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore" (Revelation 1:18) and "the first and the last, which was dead and is alive" (2:8). After seven periods of preparation he begins a new creation. After dying he rises again on the eighth day.
In contrast, the Beast is "he that once was, is not, and is to come". After seven periods of misrule he begins a new tyranny. After receiving a deadly wound he rises again in the eighth period of rule.
The beast is a satanic mirror of Christ. His kingdom is the evil alternative to the kingdom of God."]

Dave points it out clear as day on the meaning of the eighth. As you can see everyone has their own views on this. We'll know what it trully means when God deems it.

I seek comfort from those that persecute Christ's Church through the Son of Man himself. Jesus had said "If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household" (Matt. 10:25). "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world . . . the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, �A servant is not greater than his master.� If they persecuted me, they will persecute you" (John 15:18�20). "

I believe Him.





[Edited on 10-24-2003 by Cearbhall]

Originally posted by Cearbhall
"by the Pope who still today is regarded next to God in power. "- Mik's quote

"Just look at the Catholic history of popes and antipopes. They got worse than their enemy. They were bitten by the serpent, but the venom didn't kill them, the Old Serpent breeds on them."- Mik's quote

The Pope doesn't claim such a thing (the power), he is a sinner like the rest of us. The Pope is just a man capable of doing bad things as we all are. I'm sure that there are many popes burning in hell for their selfishness and unrepentant sin.

According to official Catholic doctrine, the Pope is infallible in matters of doctrine, faith and morals. That would be quite alot of power when you see their doctrines. If they have a doctrine which says kings and emperors are lower than the pope and that the pope is next to God in rank, and that the pope is the right hand of God so to speek, fully capable of and prooved willing to judging and punnishing, executing and torturing those who donot comply.... What does that say about the real power of the Pope. His law is above any other law damn it, even the Law of Moses they have prooven by categorically braking all 613 laws in the Tannakh with their "infallible" doctrines!

Also about kingship, all Kings or Queens claim to get their power from God, not just the HRE. By the way The Holy Roman Empire, ended by a decision of the last Emperor, Francis II, on 6 August 1806. If the HRE was the Church's vehicle to rise, it has been long gone.

Book of Revelation 17:11�"The beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction. 12�"The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but they receive authority as kings with the beast for one hour. 13�"These have one purpose, and they give their power and authority to the beast.

14�"These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful."

About Clovis, it was a mutual agreement between the Church and his kingdom. You see the Church was in a dangerous position for it was competing with the Celtic church along with fighting off heresies like Arianism and Gnosticism. So the two became allies to help each other. Be aware the Church didn't make Clovis, King.

No, they didn't make him king, they made him Emperor of the Roman Empire.

Also there wasn't a Pope Peter II either.

If you read what I wrote, I was refering to the prophecies of st. Malachy about the future popes. This prophecy the Church has lived by like slaves. John Paul II was refered to as "From the labour of the Sun", look how he has used most of his time while on the throne traveling around the world, kissing the ground every place he enters. The pope was even born during a solar eclipse, the cardinals elect popes from prophecies if they can. And Malachy's prophecy says that the next pope will be called "From the Glory of the Olive". And the last pope who will reign when Babylon falls will be named Peter II or Petrus Romanov, Peter the Roman.

When they talk about the eighth king they are talking about Trajan.
In AD 98 Trajan became emperor. Politically he marked a great turning point. He was the first of the empire's "adopted emperors" � emperors chosen for what they could do rather than for their kinship to the previous emperor. (OK, strictly speaking Nerva was the first adopted emperor in AD 96, but he was opposed by the Praetorian Guard who mutinied in 97, hence the choice of Trajan. Nerva only reigned for "a short space" � see Revelation 17:10).

So you're in the forever debunked historicist heap? This is not true and you know it. The seven heads aren't seven emperors of Rome, the fifth being Nero. The fifth was the C�sar, Nero being the archetype. Your view is highly relevant though, they are children of the same system and prophecy their own distruction over and over. Read the stories of their lives and read the stories of their riches.....

The Roman empire reached its greatest power under Trajan. But what is far more important is the condition he brought with him.

From the outside he seemed to be just another king � he came from the previous seven � albeit one who severely persecuted the Christians. But from the point of view of the church, his reign was a turning point of the worst possible kind. During his reign, the last of the apostles died or disappeared.

And which of the seven was also him? And when was he nearly killed by sword, but his deadly wound healed?

This next section is from David Wills, concerning the eighth:

[In the King James Bible, this verse read

"And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition."

But if you look in other translations, this is translated in different ways. So clearly the words in the original Greek are not perfectly straightforward. I looked in my Greek study Bible, and found that most of the words in the English translations are not present in the Greek. In fact, the Greek words are just:

"wild beast � also � eighth � seven � go � into � perdition (or destruction)"

Now, I am not a Greek scholar. Perhaps the missing words are implied by the grammatical structure? So I looked at the "Literal Translation" Bible. This is what is says (Strong�s numbers come before each Greek word � words without numbers are added for convenience):

And | 3588 | the | 2342 | beast | 3759 | which | 2258 | was, | and | 3756 | not | 2076 | is, | 3383 | even | he | 3590 | eighth | 2076 | is, | and | of | the | 2033 | seven | 2076 | it is, | and | 4314 | to | 684 | perdition | 5562 | goes.

Yes master Yoda, and your point is?

This is starting to look interesting�

"Even" he is the Eighth?
The key word is "even", Strong�s word number 3383. As I said, I am not a Greek scholar, so please correct me if I am wrong.
But I do not see how this word could be translated as "even". According to Strong�s concordance it is means "and not, neither ... nor, not so". In the King James Bible it is translated as follows: neither (20 times), nor (15 times), so much as (1 time), or (1 time). Replace the word "even" with one of those words, and see what you get.

Clearly the beast has something to do with being an "eighth", or why would John have introduced the word? But we do not have to stick strictly to it being Nero or any of the other emperors. It could be something quite different. So what did John mean by "eighth", and how does this relate to the "seven"?

You forget who wrote this and who Jesus was. You must think like Israel to understand Israel's prophecies. Did you know that the Eighth is a melody in the Psalms? "By the Eighth" it says. Research that instead, and see what you come up with. It might lead to something.... The Tannakh is the key to understand the Book of Revelation. It's all explained in detail there. There and in the Gospel. Peter has the keys to Heaven. Jesus has the keys to Hades. Hint hint. Jesus is the Tannakh come to life, He is the Prophecy. He shall judge the quick and the dead. Peter and his fellow Apostles of the Ekklesia shall judge the gods and angels. The Son of God shall execute that judgement.

To say it simple as for the rest of your text: "The eighth" is significant, indeed it is. And time is not s doumb key to use when speeking of prophecy. Jesus was circumsised on the eighth day. The eighth Prophetic Day (borrowing one of the keys of Peter) is when God creates everything new etc. etc. The eighth is Sunday, the same as the first day. "Even" is an expression of horror written in such a way you can feel the fear. He's of God's first creation, he holds Heaven and Earth for gods which were the first gods God created, Satan was of this creation, you can read about his stories and lies in Mesopotamian and Egyptian writings, like in Pergamon where they invented parchment after the Egyptians restricted export of papyrus to the region. Their water sources both spiritually and physical were lukewarm due do some kind of volcanic underground thing. The temple in the city was a joint Zeus (Heaven) and the god of healing.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Mik's quote-"According to official Catholic doctrine, the Pope is infallible in matters of doctrine, faith and morals. That would be quite alot of power when you see their doctrines."

The popes have used the doctrine of infallibility I think twice in all of the almost 2000 year of history. One was the Immaculate Conception and the other the Assumption of Mary. You think the popes go around saying they are speaking infallibly? No they do not, much research goes into making such statements. Remember the four things that must happen for something to be infallible:

1) he must be speaking 'ex cathedra' ... that is, 'from the Chair' of Peter, or in other words, officially, as head of the entire Church

2) the decision must be for the whole Church

3) it must be on a matter of faith or morals

4) the pope must have the intention of making a final decision on a teaching of faith or morals, so that it is to be held by all the faithful

Remember infallibility was given by Christ Himself. Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19�20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope�s infallibility. This development of the faithful�s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14).



Mik's quote- "If they have a doctrine which says kings and emperors are lower than the pope and that the pope is next to God in rank, and that the pope is the right hand of God so to speak, fully capable of and proved willing to judging and punishing, executing and torturing those who don't comply"

What is this doctrine that say such things? Surly not the doctrine of Papal infallibility. Read more on it please.

Mik's quote-"No, they didn't make him king, they made him Emperor of the Roman Empire."

Show me documents stating he was Emperor of Rome. Did he make any laws signed his name Emporer of Rome?

Book of Revelation 17:11 "The beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction. 12 "The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but they receive authority as kings with the beast for one hour. 13 "These have one purpose, and they give their power and authority to the beast.

14 "These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful."

how about this

The beast is an allusion of Nero, people of the time believed Nero would return from the dead. The ten kings could be perhaps Parthians sattraps who are to accompany the revived Nero (the beast) in his march on pagan Rome to regain his power. The ten horns symbolise the ten pagan kings who unwittingly fullfill God's will against harlot pagan Rome, the great city( cf. Ez 16:37)

Originally posted by Cearbhall
Mik's quote-"According to official Catholic doctrine, the Pope is infallible in matters of doctrine, faith and morals. That would be quite alot of power when you see their doctrines."

The popes have used the doctrine of infallibility I think twice in all of the almost 2000 year of history. One was the Immaculate Conception and the other the Assumption of Mary. You think the popes go around saying they are speaking infallibly? No they do not, much research goes into making such statements. Remember the four things that must happen for something to be infallible:

1) he must be speaking 'ex cathedra' ... that is, 'from the Chair' of Peter, or in other words, officially, as head of the entire Church

He doesn't do muche else than sit these days, may God bless the guy, he has proven to be wise many times, but kissing the ground isn't very smart, God use dust in the water to decide whether a woman has been faithful to her husbond or not. If she has committed adultary, her belly will swell up and the hips will be weakened and shrink in, read up on the Law, it's quite amazing. John Paul was also shot and almost killed in the beginning of the eighties, he nearly survived the operation, exactly what is prophecied about "the eighth"... For all I know John Paul II may represent an old secret movement, being evil incarnated, but I somehow find that hard to believe. The whole Church thing is probably just be an illusion created by wicked forces to direct people away from God and God away from the people.

2) the decision must be for the whole Church

as is all his appearances on Television I would presume....

3) it must be on a matter of faith or morals

Which of the speeches from Rome is not about faith and morals?

4) the pope must have the intention of making a final decision on a teaching of faith or morals, so that it is to be held by all the faithful

Well that's his problem now isn't it?

Remember infallibility was given by Christ Himself.

No. Peter's authority came because he was the wisest and a perfect example of a true disciple. He had earned his respect. Jesus gave him to be shepherd among the sheep. He didn't make him into God. Only God is 100% correct. Are you saying that God cannot do the exact oposite of what the pope says due to him being the Aleph and the Tav, the First and the Last, the A and the �.

Mik's quote- "If they have a doctrine which says kings and emperors are lower than the pope and that the pope is next to God in rank, and that the pope is the right hand of God so to speak, fully capable of and proved willing to judging and punishing, executing and torturing those who don't comply"

What is this doctrine that say such things? Surly not the doctrine of Papal infallibility. Read more on it please.

How about the Spanish inquisission, wasn't that approved by the pope himself? Or the incidences in Southern America and Africa. The pope has so much blood on his hands do doesn't even know it himnself. If he did, he would never have accepted the papal crown.

Mik's quote-"No, they didn't make him king, they made him Emperor of the Roman Empire."

Show me documents stating he was Emperor of Rome. Did he make any laws signed his name Emporer of Rome?

I don't know. I'm not talking about what Clovis did, but what the Church did. They gave him the title and authority as Novus Constantinus. Edit: As it is written in the book called Holy Blood Holy Grail by M Baigent & co

Blessings,
Mikromarius


[Edited on 24-10-2003 by mikromarius]

[Edited on 24-10-2003 by mikromarius]

Quote-"Which of the speeches from Rome is not about faith and morals?"

He is not speaking infallibly when he talks, he could be wrong.

Quote-"No. Peter's authority came because he was the wisest and a perfect example of a true disciple. He had earned his respect. Jesus gave him to be shepherd among the sheep. He didn't make him into God. Only God is 100% correct. Are you saying that God cannot do the exact oposite of what the pope says due to him being the Aleph and the Tav, the First and the Last, the A and the �."

I meant Christ gave Peter the authority for being the true disciple. Christ gave him specifics on what needs to be done to further His Kingdom and what role Peter would play. Sure God could say the direct opposite of the Pope. I'm sure He would though manifest it to His Church. I agree that God is 100% true and won't lead His Church astray, thats why God gave the gift of infallibility to the Church, to protect it from hell. When the Pope speaks infallibly (only twice, mind you this happened in the almost 2000 years of its existence) he is protected by Christ, because Christ isn't a liar. Christ won't let the "gates of hell to prevail against it"

Quote-"How about the Spanish inquisission, wasn't that approved by the pope himself? Or the incidences in Southern America and Africa. The pope has so much blood on his hands do doesn't even know it himnself. If he did, he would never have accepted the papal crown."

Popes are human and make mistakes, they can be wrong and have been in the past. They can sin, and I think a few are in hell right now for being unrepentant. There has been bad priests, bishops, etc. within the Church and they will answer to and be judged by God according to their actions. Don't fear. Keep in mind too that Satan knows he cannot defeat the Church from the outside, for the Church survived the awful persecutions of the Roman Empire and Communism; rather, Satan will try to defeat the Church from the inside, preying on the frailty of her members.

BTW didn't this Pope apologise for the atrocities the Church commited in the past? I know he did.


Quote-"he nearly survived the operation"

he survived, he didn't die.

I hope I'm not hard on you, I'm not trying to be, I have respect for you Mik.

[Edited on 10-28-2003 by Cearbhall]

Originally posted by Cearbhall
He is not speaking infallibly when he talks, he could be wrong.

Does he have to wear a special kind of hat when he's infallible? How can a person or an office be infallible if it isn't infallible all the time?

....
I meant Christ gave Peter the authority for being the true disciple. Christ gave him specifics on what needs to be done to further His Kingdom and what role Peter would play.
.....
When the Pope speaks infallibly (only twice, mind you this happened in the almost 2000 years of its existence) he is protected by Christ, because Christ isn't a liar. Christ won't let the "gates of hell to prevail against it"

First off, the Vatican doesn't represent the same congregation Peter was the leader of. They represent themselves and their empire. If Peter wa here to see who claims to be his successors, he would have cast ashes in his hair and split his coat. Secondly, because Peter wasn't the first bishop of Rome, the Roman Church is not protected from the gates of Hades. I have difficulties finding even one living soul among her priests and leaders.

Popes are human and make mistakes.

Then why do they dress on infallibility?

BTW didn't this Pope apologise for the atrocities the Church commited in the past? I know he did.

Yes, some of it. He denounced the damnation of Copernicus for instance.

Quote-"he nearly survived the operation"

he survived, he didn't die.

Yes, and that's exactly what's gonna happen (or has happened) to the beast with the leathal wound. It doesn't die, it's wound is healed in time.

I hope I'm not hard on you, I'm not trying to be, I have respect for you Mik.

No trouble. You may be as hard as you like on me. I would expect that. This isn't easy to swallow. You've earned your respect with me long time ago, and even when he hits, a friend does it with love. Never stop asking questions....

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Quote-"Does he have to wear a special kind of hat when he's infallible? How can a person or an office be infallible if it isn't infallible all the time?"

The Pope issues a doctrine and announces on the subject at hand. No special gimmicks or the like. If God as some important thing to say it is conveyed to the Pope via the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit which guides the Pope on what or when to speak infallibly on a subject. With God anything is possible, infallibility is just one of the many gifts God gave to His Church. Remember too though that God's plan is slowly being opened for us, everyday.

Quote-"Then why do they address on infallibility?"

When the pope speaks infallibly he is without error protected by Christ Himself.

Check this thread out about infallibility when you have time, it has a similar debate there:
www.catholic-forum.com...

It has some good stuff!

Quote-"First off, the Vatican doesn't represent the same congregation Peter was the leader of."

As Catholics we believe otherwise. The Catholic Church has always been one holy, catholic, and apostolic made by Christ Himself (Mt 16:18). Jesus actually conceived his Church and desired her presence and activity in all nations until the ultimate fulfilment of history (cf. Mt 26:14; 28:19; Mk 16:15; Lk 24:47; Acts 1:8).

Quote-"Secondly, because Peter wasn't the first bishop of Rome."

Written documents do not tell us how this succession occurred in the first link connecting Peter with the series of the Bishops of Rome. It can be deduced, however, by considering everything that Pope Clement states in the Letter cited above regarding the appointment of the first Bishops and their successors. After recalling that the Apostles, "preaching in the countryside and the cities, experienced their first fruits in the Spirit and appointed them Bishops and deacons of future believers" (42, 4), St Clement says in detail that, in order to avoid future conflicts regarding the episcopal dignity, the Apostles "appointed those whom we said and then ordered that, after they had died, other proven men would succeed them in their ministry" (44,2) The historical and canonical means by which that inheritance is passed on to them can change, and have indeed changed; but over the centuries, there is an unbroken chain linking that transition from Peter to his first successor in the Roman See.

This method of historical investigation (which could be called genetic) into the Petrine succession in the Church of Rome is confirmed by two other considerations: a negative one which, beginning with the need of a succession to Peter by virtue of Christ's very institution (and so iure divino, as is usually said in theological-canonical language), confirms that there are no signs of such a succession in any other Church; moreover, there is another consideration we could call positive: it consists in showing the convergence of signs that in every age point to the See of Rome as that of Peter's successor.

Regarding the link between the papal primacy and the Roman See significant testimony is given by Ignatius of Antioch, who extols the excellence of the Church of Rome. In his Letter to the Romans this authoritative witness of the Church's organizational and hierarchical development as it was experienced in the first half of the second century addressed the Church "which presides in the land of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, deservedly blessed, worthy of happy success, worthily chaste, which presides over charity" (Intro.). Charity (ag� pe) in St Ignatius' language refers to the ecclesial community. Presiding over charity expresses the primacy in that communion of charity which is the Church, and necessarily includes the service of authority, the ministeriumPetrinum. In fact, Ignatius acknowledges the Church of Rome's teaching authority: "You have never been jealous of anyone; you have taught the others. So I want those lessons that you give and enjoin in your teaching to be steadfast too" (3, 1).

Quote-"I have difficulties finding even one living soul among her priests and leaders."

I'm sorry you haven't experienced good priests or bishops. I have met some really good ones in my time.

Quote-"Yes, and that's exactly what's gonna happen (or has happened) to the beast with the lethal wound. It doesn't die, it's wound is healed in time."

Don't humans heal naturally anyways? Can you tell me for a fact that out of all the popes ( 264 of them) that not one, other than Pope John Paul the II, has received a wound thought to be lethal only to heal through the natural way the human body does? You'd be hard pressed.

Quote-"and even when he hits, a friend does it with love. Never stop asking questions.... "

True to that my bro.





[Edited on 10-29-2003 by Cearbhall]