Depravity Of The Vatican

page: 5
38
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by evictiongnostic
 


Typos happen...don't be harsh




posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Yea thanks so much for being the ATS police dude ..what would we do without you ....Why even waste the energy what did this thread do to hurt you in anyway ??? Give people a break on typos as well , I mean honestly the OP could have any multitude of physical issues that make typing difficult .
edit on 24-3-2013 by essanance because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ParovStelar
 


OP welcome to ATS and good job on your first post ..Please dont let rude people bring you down , its one of the downfalls of are lovely forums ..Some people feel the need to tear others down for no reason ....Your presentation was good and informative ..GOOD JOB



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Have you heard of The Vision Of Pope Leo XIII...Source





Pope Leo XIII had a remarkable vision. When the aged Pontiff had finished celebrating Mass in his private Vatican Chapel, attended by a few Cardinals and members of the Vatican staff, he suddenly stopped at the foot of the altar. He stood there for about 10 minutes, as if in a trance, his face ashen white. Then, going immediately from the Chapel to his office, he composed the prayer to St. Michael, with instructions it be said after all Low Masses everywhere. When asked what had happened, he explained that, as he was about to leave the foot of the altar, he suddenly heard voices - two voices, one kind and gentle, the other guttural and harsh. They seemed to come from near the tabernacle. As he listened, he heard the following conversation

The guttural voice, the voice of Satan in his pride, boasted to Our Lord:"I can destroy your Church."The gentle voice of Our Lord:"You can? Then go ahead and do so."Satan:"To do so, I need more time and more power."Our Lord:"How much time? How much power?Satan:"75 to 100 years, and a greater power over those who will give themselves over to my service."Our Lord:"You have the time, you will have the power. Do with them what you will."

Pope Leo XIII also wrote the Prayer to St. Michael to help us overcome the devil in his quest.


Decide for yourself...but I find it very interesting to look around and see where we've come in the past 100 years...and yet with all the praying we still haven't gotten ourselves headed in the right direction.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by essanance
reply to post by adjensen
 


Yea thanks so much for being the ATS police dude ..what would we do without you ....Why even waste the energy what did this thread do to hurt you in anyway ??? Give people a break on typos as well , I mean honestly the OP could have any multitude of physical issues that make typing difficult .

When did I criticize his typing?


What I criticized was posting five pictures with unsourced commentary, reposting "news", about the Vatican owning a building which houses a gay sauna, that has been on ATS for two weeks, and posting completely invalid information regarding the Crimen Sollicitationis in a Catholic bashing thread when there are already plenty of those on ATS. It doesn't benefit ATS in any manner, why would you think that it does?



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by relocator
 


Satan - "I need 100 years to destroy the church"

Other voice - "Knock yourself out, your only destroying yourself"



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by truejew
 


Well, if it's true for all leaven, then you better stay away from other people, or you will "catch" their sin.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Charles,

I'm sorry it took so long to get back to you. I've been really busy.


I'm sure you're not surprised that I see the Vatican, and the leadership of the Church, a little differently from you. I'm more inclined to say that the Church itself is good, but the men given vast authority have sometimes, but not most of the time, misused it.


Not surprised at all, seeing how we both know that I'm not a Christian, and don't believe in the divinity of Jesus. Personally, I believe that the Vatican has information that, if exposed would undermine their message. If the Vatican is deliberately misleading it's congregations, then that is evil to the core. But we're not here to discuss my unsubstantiated suspicion.

I also disagree with the "Christian" idea that we are all wretched sinners first, and only can become "good" through belief in Jesus. I think that is a destructive teaching for society as whole, and therefore a core evil, and something that Jesus never taught.


I'm also a little concerned about the "rotten roots" idea. What were the rotten roots which were apparent in the first, oh, say, thousand years?


THE COMPLETE CANONS OF THE SYNOD OF LAODICEA IN PHRYGIA PACATIANA

These cannons, from 364AD, forbid church members to mourn the loss of, or pray for, "martyred" friends and relatives of other religions, share meals with people of different religious affiliations, and condemns the communion with angels, which is something that Jesus did by example. There's not much "Christianity" in these cannons, but there sure is suppression, oppression and division.


Can this rotten roots idea be taken further? How about any country based on Mohammed's ideas? Perhaps the Asian countries based on Genghis Khan are rotten? Any country that was owned, colonized, or controlled by Britain? That would include India, parts of Africa, heck, parts of the whole world. Did Hitler come from a country with rotten roots?


Of course, but this thread is about the Vatican, and the Vatican claims to hold supremacy.


they have lost their right to claim to be the earthly representation of "Christ."
I'm not sure that's the claim.

I don't know of any Christian, Catholic or otherwise, who claims to be a good representation of Christ on Earth. Great goal, but rarely if ever, achieved.


Really?


But this authority, although it is given to man and is exercised by man, is not human, but rather divine, and has been given by the divine Word to Peter himself and to his successors in him, whom the Lord acknowledged an established rock, when he said to Peter himself: Whatsoever you shall bind etc. [Matt. 16:19]. Therefore, whosoever resists this power so ordained by God, resists the order of God [cf. Rom. 13:2] ... Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.
............................

...all the faithful of Christ must believe "that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and that the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church and faith, and teacher of all Christians; and that to him was handed down in blessed Peter, by our Lord Jesus Christ, full power to feed, rule, and guide the universal Church, just as is also contained in the records of the ecumenical Councils and in the sacred canons.
www.ourcatholicfaith.org...



“The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls” (Catechism, paragraph 937).


Since at least some of the Popes were not so good guys, it seems that these "great goals" that the church claims for the Pope may need to be tempered with reality. After all, the Pope is only human, right?



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

Dear windword,

There is no need to apologize for any delay. Your posts have always been so helpful to me that the wait is well worthwhile. You are serious, thoughtful, and polite. :up


I also disagree with the "Christian" idea that we are all wretched sinners first, and only can become "good" through belief in Jesus. I think that is a destructive teaching for society as whole, and therefore a core evil, and something that Jesus never taught.
I know that Original Sin is a Chritian idea, but even without that, I think it is safe to say that we are all sinners. So go ahead and toss "Original" sin if you have to, by the time we're adults we've probably got a long list of events featuring hate, lust, gluttony, despair, etc. to our (dis)credit.

As far as becoming "good" through belief in Jesus, I'm not sure I accept that idea. If that were true, all believers would be good and all non-believers would be bad. I don't believe that. Saved and doomed? Possibly, but (and forgive me evangelicals, fundamentalists, Lutherans, and some others) there is a strong argument to be made that faith alone isn't sufficient.

I can't thank you enough for steering me to the Laodicean synod. I hadn't read it before and it's fascinating. As I've said before, I always learn things from your posts, and I'm grateful.

These cannons, from 364AD, forbid church members to mourn the loss of, or pray for, "martyred" friends and relatives of other religions, share meals with people of different religious affiliations,
I assume you're referring to Canon 9 which reads

THE members of the Church are not allowed to meet in the cemeteries, nor attend the so-called martyries of any of the heretics, for prayer or service; but such as so do, if they be communicants, shall be excommunicated for a time; but if they repent and confess that they have sinned they shall be received.
It's not so much other religions, but people who are clearly and openly opposing some Church teaching. And that martyred business? It wasn't talking about family members or friends who had died, they could mourn any loss, but the "martyries" were special services extolling the virtues of heretics who had been killed for their beliefs, just as Christians held their martyrs in special regard. It was the praising of the heretics that got under their skin at Laodicea.

It's pretty much the same thing with angel discussion. The Canon reads


CHRISTIANS must not forsake the Church of God, and go away and invoke angels and gather assemblies, which things are forbidden. If, therefore, any one shall be found engaged in this covert idolatry, let him be anathema; for he has forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and has gone over to idolatry.
It seems clear that the idea is "Don't worship angels, worship Jesus," a pretty Christian idea.

I think this Pope and representation of Christ disagreement is due to my sloppy writing. You are absolutely right that the Pope has been given incredible authority and power in the spiritual realm. That comes from the "power to loose and bind" verses. There is one human head of the Church on Earth, and that's the successor of Peter.

But note, I said "human head." Because he's human, it's entirely possible that he can make mistakes, even become evil. We're all sinners. That's what I meant to say when I was talking about the Pope not being the earthly representation of Christ. Jesus couldn't sin, the Pope can and does. I try to take holy people as my inspiration, sometimes that means a Pope, sometimes it doesn't.

Windword, thank you. You're one of the few people that make ATS worthwhile.

With respect,
Charles1952

:



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by POXUSA

Originally posted by DrunkYogi
Let's make no mistake here, The Vatican is a den of Pedophiles. This is known. You either deny or accept this, denying this is covering up the fact's. If you turn a blind eye you are a massive part of the problem. Turning a blind eye, to me, is giving these monster's your consensus. Most people know what they are!!! There will be no hiding the fact's. Shame on those who turn a blind eye, absolute shame. It's not a matter of people waking up, it's a time of admission, nothing more nothing less. Pretending something isn't there does not make it go away. It will only make it worse. God........I believe in Jesus but not the Vatican. You must see the difference, they are anti-Jesus.......Anti-Christ. Take your Ego and give it a shake, a slap, a mirror.


Your prejudicial rant is just an atheistic anti-Catholic diatribe with no foundation whatsoever. You are making it up and your language is that of an emotionally distraught housewife. There isn't a word of truth to your absurd charges. We Catholics won't even feel sorry for your kind - we feel nothing at all. DEFENDER OF THE FAITH
edit on 23-3-2013 by POXUSA because: DEFENDER OF THE FAITH


You are being much too hard on DrunkYogi!! Apparently the Yogi pushed your buttons. You must have stopped reading the post since you called DrunkYogi an atheist, he/she posted a belief in Jesus an atheist would not. Your anger in your post seems to verge on the edge of being "fanatical"and leads me to believe that your misplaced anger at the DrunkYogi may stem from something deeper, possibly your questioning of your own devotion to your faith. It is well documented through court cases the amount of child molestation done by the clerics or the Roman Catholic church in America and throughout the world so Yogi has a foundation. They are just people like you and me and Yogi, everyone sins, but a god who can forgive someone who molests children, especially the ones who do it that are of the cloth is sick an wrong.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Snsoc
 


There is a difference between being yoked together with someone in the same religion and just being next to a person.

You can not "catch" sin, however you are influenced by the sin if you are yoked together in the same religion, especially if it is the one and only leader of the religion doing the sinning.

Revelation 18:4 (KJV)
4And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by AntoniusBlock
 


If you go by that then who needs the church. Then the pope is just a guy in a silly suit. That sounds about right no religion needed.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrunkYogi
reply to post by adjensen
 


"About 4 percent of the population is believed to have pedophilic urges"
Believed to have? If i believed the Moon was made of Cheese would it be?
Was this a Scientific study?

And 4% wouldn't make the World a den of Pedo's. You know, two wrong's don't make a right!!!



The John Jay Report on Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States found 10,667 allegations against 4,392 priests in the years 1950-2002. Take a guess what percent 4,392 priests is out of the general population of American priests? If you didn't guess 4 percent, you're wrong.


This would have been the known one's. You know as in Caught Red Handed.

Do you think the Pope is infallible?



However, one can only address something for which we have proof, the rest is just conjecture.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   
You stated without any sources...


Described as one of the most outstanding Popes since St-Peter by his successors


I only found it stated on Wikipedia...

Two of Alexander's successors, Sixtus V and Urban VIII, described him as one of the most outstanding popes since St. Peter...

I believe that satan has taken over the Vatican...and I don't attend any churches anymore...My faith is between me and Our Lady God Jesus Christ & The Holy Ghost....It's my right and I have no problem proclaiming my right to faith...and it's interesting to see how others see theirs or not.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Charles,

As always, it's fun sparring with you. I hope you know not to take my observations and my criticism of the Vatican personally, as it isn't my intention to dismiss or argue faith or the good works that Catholics and others do. I know that your faith is of upmost importance to you.

But, continuing with the "rotten to the core" theme:



It's not so much other religions, but people who are clearly and openly opposing some Church teaching. And that martyred business? It wasn't talking about family members or friends who had died, they could mourn any loss, but the "martyries" were special services extolling the virtues of heretics who had been killed for their beliefs, just as Christians held their martyrs in special regard. It was the praising of the heretics that got under their skin at Laodicea.


People who "clearly and openly" opposed "some church teachings" were considered heretics, and within 14 years of instituting these cannons, they were being enforced under Roman law. If the "church" wasn't killing, making martyrs our of heretics in 364AD, they were by 380AD.


The first known usage of the term (heresy) in a legal context was in 380 AD by the Edict of Thessalonica of Theodosius I,[11] which made Christianity the State church of the Roman Empire. Prior to the issuance of this edict, the Church had no state-sponsored support for any particular legal mechanism to counter what it perceived as "heresy". By this edict the State's authority and that of the catholic Church became somewhat overlapping. One of the outcomes of this blurring of Church and State was the sharing of State powers of legal enforcement with Church authorities. This reinforcement of the Church's authority gave Church leaders the power to, in effect, pronounce the death sentence upon those whom the Church considered heretical.
en.wikipedia.org...


The church was in the business of converting people, and I'm sure that many of those converts had family members and friends that didn't convert and that were opposed to some of the church teachings.

Early Christian Jews would have balked at this one, as they saw Jesus as the Messiah that their Jewish prophets foretold, not as someone who abolished "The Law."


CANON XXIX.
CHRISTIANS must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.


Or these:


CANON XXXVII.
IT is not lawful to receive portions sent from the feasts of Jews or heretics, nor to feast together with them.

CANON XXXVIII.
IT is not lawful to receive unleavened bread from the Jews, nor to be partakers of their impiety.

CANON XXXIX.
IT is not lawful to feast together with the heathen, and to be partakers of their godlessness.


I'm sure that they would have argued that Jesus himself was Jewish and honored the Sabbath and the Passover Feast, which was also forbidden.

From the conception of the Roman Catholic Church, Jews were an enemy that the church took aim at.


200 A. D. From very early days, Church sermons and Christian theological writing almost invariably included passionate anti-Jewish incitement. Twenty-seven of the thirty-two surviving works of Tertullian (160-225), a priest from Carthage who is considered the first theologian of the West, contain anti-Jewish discourse.' In De Oratione, he wrote that 'though Israel may wash all its members every day, it is never clean. Its hands ... are always stained, covered forever with the blood of the prophets and of our Lord himself.' { 1p. 146 }

240 A. D. Origen of Alexandria writes that the Jews "have committed the most abominable of crimes" in conspiring against Christ, and for that reason "the Jewish nation was driven from its country, and another people was called by God to the blessed election". * and 'the blood of Jesus falls not only on the Jews of that time, but on all generations of Jews up to the end of the world'.{ 1p. 146 }

325A. D Conversation and fellowship with Jews is forbidden to the clergy by the Council of Nicea.*

4th century A. D Christian emperors of Rome decree that Christians converting to Judaism, and Jews obstructing the conversion of other Jews to Christianity, will incur the death penalty; Jews can not marry Christians, or hold public office, or own slaves.

www.catholicarrogance.org...


Is this what Jesus meant when he told Peter, "On this rock I will build my church"?


edit on 25-3-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Strangely, they consider Polycarp, a disciple of John, to be an "early church father" when he was a quartodeciman and received that teaching from John. He and John would have been viewed as heretics if they had lived 325AD or later.

This fact should bring into question the theory that the Catholic Church was the original Church.
edit on 25-3-2013 by truejew because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

Dear windword,

More of your excellence, I see. And no, I'm not taking offense at any of this. We are opening our thinking to each other and I'm grateful, not wounded. (The reason my faith is so important to me is that after thinking and reading for years I've come to the conclusion that Christianity is the most logical, satisfying, and "truest" explanation for reality that I've found.)

I agree with what you say. In some places I may have a slightly different interpretation, but your facts are correct.

I wonder (and it's a honest wonder, I really don't know) how much of the enforcement was due to the "enthusiasm" of Roman government, and how much was done at the direction of the Church. As you say, it was enforced under Roman law. The Emperors seem to have assumed the responsibility of enforcing rules which the Church had no power to enforce.

Not surprisingly, the idea of a State Religion has been under attack, probably with the Romans in mind.

On the subject of the Jews, you are absolutely right that the Church came out swinging, and kept swinging for a l-o-n-g time. To some extent I can understand it. Paul was originally Saul, and he took great delight in his hobby of Christian stoning. Steven, the first martyr, was stoned. It didn't help much that the High Priest and other Temple officials plotted Jesus' death. They also had to live with the derogatory names "Scribe" and "Pharisee." They weren't Jesus' favorite people either.

Even with all that as a possible explanation, I was very glad that the '60s brought a complete turn in the Church's relationship to the Jews. Here's a little something I found on the website of the Anti-Defamation League:

That is why it is the responsibility of Jews and Catholics of good will to set the record straight and present an accurate picture of the state of Catholic-Jewish relations today. It is especially important this year, as both Catholics and Jews mark the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council on October 28, 1962, an important milestone in the history of the church and its relation to the Jewish people.

Vatican II Council culminated in the adoption in 1965 of a groundbreaking statement on Jews and Judaism.

The statement, Nostra Aetate, which is Latin for "In Our Time," ended the ancient teaching of contempt of Jews and Judaism and established the foundation of a new Christian understanding of the relationship of the churches with the Jewish people. It definitively rejected the collective guilt canard against the Jewish people for the death of Jesus and affirmed God's "irrevocable" covenant with the Jewish people.

Since Nostra Atetae, a series of official Vatican documents, papal statements and actions have reaffirmed and continued to build positively upon this profound theological foundation. These have been implemented throughout the world by the National Bishops' Conferences.

www.adl.org...

Is this what Jesus meant when he told Peter, "On this rock I will build my church"?
The interpretation of Christ's meaning seems to vary among denominations, but I believe He was referring to Peter, who would be the "Rock." I can't help but imagine that the other Apostles called him "Rocky."

I have a small nagging feeling that I may have missed your point. It was unintentional, I assure you.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by truejew
 


Strangely, they consider Polycarp, a disciple of John, to be an "early church father" when he was a quartodeciman and received that teaching from John.
I don't see why you say "strangely." The Church didn't have every rule set and every question answered by 40 A.D. John and the Eastern Churches celebrated the Resurection on Nisan 14, the Western Churches wanted to celebrate on a Sunday, whatever the date.

How did Polycarp deal with this question?

To resolve the dispute, Polycarp traveled to Rome. A since-lost letter by Irenaeus, quoted by Eusebius and others, tells us what happened. "When the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John, the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he associated.... Neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it."

So what did they do with this impasse? Did Anicetus call Polycarp a Jew for commemorating the resurrection on the Passover? Did Polycarp call Anicetus a pagan, or one who had denied the faith for celebrating the resurrection on a Sunday? Did he accuse him of denying God's law? Not at all. Both men decided they would not quarrel. They chose to live in peace.

What happened next we would have thought extraordinary. Irenaeus' letter records that Polycarp and Anicetus took the Lord's Supper together. It didn't matter to them what season or day it was. Taking the Lord's Supper together symbolically showed their unity in Christ. After this, "they parted from each other in peace."

www.gci.org...

At the Council of Nicea a majority of the Bishops decide on one date, so it became the Church's rule.

This fact should bring into question the theory that the Catholic Church was the original Church.
It doesn't for me. They were not disagreeing over a point of doctrine or requirement for salvation. This was not a huge issue and the men stayed united in peace and in the Church.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952

This fact should bring into question the theory that the Catholic Church was the original Church.
It doesn't for me. They were not disagreeing over a point of doctrine or requirement for salvation. This was not a huge issue and the men stayed united in peace and in the Church.

Sadly, there are groups out there who have turned days, names, pronunciations and other mundane minutia into doctrine that results in ridiculously invalid requirements for salvation. Particularly for churches who skip right past "Sola Scriptura" into "Sola Cultis" -- the requirements for salvation are being in complete agreement and compliance with the cult leader, regardless of what his basis is for claiming something.

The leader of TrueJew's church, for example, says that the eternal name of God is and has always been Jesus, and if you refer to him by any other name or mispronounce "gee-zus", *whoosh*, you get a one-way ticket to hell.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

The leader of TrueJew's church, for example, says that the eternal name of God is and has always been Jesus, and if you refer to him by any other name or mispronounce "gee-zus", *whoosh*, you get a one-way ticket to hell.



We believe as the Bible teaches. There is no other name given by which we must be saved.

Your info about us on mispronouncing is incorrect. Your info that we are led by a single leader is also incorrect.

I suggest that you stop judging other religions since your own Catholic religion is full of sin and error itself.

You should let the judging be done by those not living in sin.
edit on 27-3-2013 by truejew because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join