It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Pope 112 and the Reason for Corruption of the Chruch

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:31 PM

Originally posted by WhoKnows100

If you want to argue that the term "father" can be used in reference to an elder who is our 'spiritual father on earth' or who is a "father in the gospel", then why would any Catholic forget scripture below and not discern spirits?

"You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:44

"I am telling you what I have seen in the Father's presence, and you do what you have heard from your father." John 8:33

" You are doing the things your own father does." "We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself." John 8:41

"You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord?" Acts 13:10

It's as if Catholics have abandoned any sense of spiritual discernment and as such, still call a man who states the blasphemies above their "holy father". Please tell me, what is HOLY about a man who exalts Mary to co-redemption, co-Mediatrix and the source of salvation? Nothing. In what capacity can such a man be, in any sense, your spiritual father in Jesus here on earth? None. No man of God would EVER state these blasphemies, and therefore Catholics agreeing to call them "Holy Father" aren't even hearing nor obeying the words in all your quoted scripture above in support of the justification to call a man here on earth "father". Those passages which you quote in support of using the term "father" are completely ignored when it comes to discerning the difference between one who upholds the gospel as given to us and one who distorts and twists the gospel to support Satan. Calling those Popes "Holy Father" is tantamount to calling the twister of scripture your "spiritual father". Catholics are so trained by the RCC to defend against the worship of Mary and calling their pope "Holy Father" with a litany of scripture as proof, then don't stop to do what the gospel COMMANDS US TO DO - TEST ALL SPIRITS TO SEE IF THEY ARE OF OUR GOD. If you insist on calling those popes cited above "holy father", you have neither tested what they said against scripture nor discerned that their spirits are not of Our God. In which case, are they not your "spiritual father", the lusts and desires of which you agree with?

So, in context with my previous post, stating that Mary is the "co-redemptrix" is not a blasphemy. As for why we call the Pope "Holy Father":

Catholics call the pope "Holy Father" not as an acknowledgement of his personal state of soul but as an expression of respect for his office as successor to Peter and head of the Church on earth. His is a holy office.

As far as testing the spirits with regards to the Pope's direction, I'd say that is already covered:

Matthew 16:18

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Those words were spoken by Christ Himself. I don't think it can be any clearer. And with Apostolic Succession, I have no reason to believe that, despite what many ATSers and conspiracy theorists believe, it would be even possible. In my mind it goes like this; Jesus is God, Jesus spoke those words, I believe God is the Final Authority, so to believe the Church can be corrupted by Satan, would be to imply God breaks His own words.
edit on 2/13/2013 by IsidoreOfSeville because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/13/2013 by IsidoreOfSeville because: couple of type-os

posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:48 PM
reply to post by Happy1

I honestly had no idea there's a camera on his tomb. I did a quick Google search and I found this. But to say it's as if we're awaiting his resurrection is a bit of a stretch. That site looks to be catering to tourists, and I'm sure many tourists to the Vatican would want to see the tomb; hence the cam.

As far as who runs the Vatican, can you back up your claim?

posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 05:21 PM
reply to post by IsidoreOfSeville

Let's try this again:

posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 05:39 PM
Not to change the subject, but it's on topic at least. How many of you have heard about this? Well, now you have. The implications of this should be obvious. This gets announced, and suddenly Benedict decides to get the hell out of there? I wonder why..... (no I don't.)

posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 06:02 PM
reply to post by Thought Provoker

Yeah I'd had seen that! It will be interesting to see how this will play out. That area has been a veritable hotbed for all of the Abrahamic religions.

posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 08:11 PM

Originally posted by DaesDaemar
reply to post by Eavel

I can't help but feel that our calendar is out by a year, though I'm not sure how. The amount of prophecy and prediction that mentioned 2012 is staggering, but it looks as though 2013 will be the year we see it all come to pass. Look inside you for the truth, beware the falsehoods of mankind.

I hope you are right, at least my 90 year old grandfather will be pleased to live until that day. I hope he does as well, good man. Anyways, falsehood and mankind is two peas in a pod. The Lord Jesus is the only saving grace, and that grace has blessed my family. Rough times ahead that is for sure, but they are worth every second.

posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 11:59 PM
reply to post by IsidoreOfSeville

I could give you one site, but, please, do some research on the history of the jesuits, since their beginning, through the inquisition, early european history, and japan - don't use wikipedia, or one conspiracy site or another, do some real research - through many different venues - you'll be surprised. I was.

posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 07:16 PM
reply to post by Happy1

Always valid advice when doing research! If you're referring to the rumors spouted by Jack Chick referencing Alberto Rivera, I believe "Alberto Rivera" was discredited, and Jack Chick is so far gone, it's ridiculous.

I did do some searches and there are loads of conspiracy sites out there that try and use Jack Chick's materials, or derivatives there of to try and knit their theories together.

Check out this for more information.

posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 11:11 PM
reply to post by IsidoreOfSeville

I believe "Alberto Rivera" was discredited

That's putting it mildly -- he was a con man, pure and simple and non-Catholic journalists completely debunked all of his claims. Only a complete moron or someone so blinded by their anti-Catholic biases that they are, effectively, a complete moron, believes the "Alberto Rivera" story.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in