Catholics
say, “The pope is a sincere Catholic who loves us all. If he were a closeted Atheist or hypocrite he
would not be pope for you cannot be a Catholic if you deliberately repudiate
the Catholic faith. God would not let a
false brother sit upon the chair of Peter.”
To make the pope out to be sincere is a detestable claim often made by those who want to presume the pope to be a sweet old man who is simply ignorantly wrong about being head of the Church and infallible. The pope knows that the burden to make sure he is right rests on his shoulders for no one can give orders and love others unless she or he is certain that they have the authority. The pope has theological advisers and is familiar with the complaints against his teaching from liberal theologians and other critics so if he is wrong he knows he is wrong. Everybody does some good. That does not mean they are good. That does not mean that the good was done with caring motives. That does not mean that they are to be trusted.
Imagine if someone felt they were in love with an adopted sister or brother. The pope would say it would be wrong to admit this love to the other person. The proper answer is that it might be wrong. The loved one could be upset and embarrassed at the revelation. It could cause trauma to the relationship. Or as there is no biological relationship, the revelation might be just what the adopted sister or adopted brother wants to hear. It might turn out to be the greatest love story ever. So is revealing the feelings right or wrong? Nobody knows - the unexpected can happen. The most you could say is that it might be wrong but it all depends. To say it will be wrong or would be wrong is an attempt to manipulate the person into saying nothing. It is not about loving them but manipulating them. It is accusing them of being bad if they do not listen to you. The truly respectful approach would explain what could go wrong and advise the person to tread carefully. But it would clarify that they cannot be punished by condemnation for whatever course they take.
The unbeliever might tell the person that he or she must never tell the adopted sister or brother that he or she loves them for it is wrong. He or she thinks its wrong for it will hurt them and hurt the wider family.
If you tell somebody that something is wrong that does not necessarily mean you think that they should pay for it or suffer for it. In other words, it does not necessarily mean you think they should be punished. A teacher will not punish a child for making a mistake or two in the homework.
Back to our love for an adopted brother or sister scenario. The pope will be more concerned that God will be offended. He will therefore have less concern for the brother and sister than the unbeliever would. A person can only have so much concern so the pope gives the concern to God. The pope however believes that all wilful wrong is sin and must be punished.
The unbeliever is more of a human being than the pope! It is a disgrace how powerful the awful religion of Catholicism is. Many clerics act as human beings not as Catholics. Then people mistake this behaviour for Catholic behaviour . It is not. True Catholicism is anti-social and malicious. The pope would say we see God allowing a lot of human suffering. He would not say we believe in God in spite of suffering. That is like saying you believe Anthony should be fit to teach children despite having raped one. It sounds unreasonable. It sounds callous - even spiteful. He would say we have to believe in God because of suffering. That would put anybody off believing in him. It would imply that we should not be horrified when we see great suffering and should not wonder if God is looking after people at all.
If I needed help with a problem, I would feel I have rapport with the unbeliever and none at all with the pope. I wouldn't find Catholic "help" helpful. Nobody wants to hear about God and sin when they have a problem. If they do, then they have a new problem!
The pope says that couples who cohabit have rejected any necessary link between sex and marriage. He says they harm their marriage if they bring that outlook with them into it. He says that they might agree to be faithful but for them its just a personal preference. He says that it is not based on the nature of sex. He says that its not based on the meaning and purpose of sex. He means they ignore the teaching that having sex implies being united in marriage for life. He says the couple make the rule to be faithful and since it is their rule they will feel free to stick to it or abandon it or modify it. He says that if they see sex before marriage as okay they must see it as okay under certain conditions to have sex with other people during marriage.
Clearly such a teaching encourages people not to marry unless they repent for living together. It forbids their wedding if the priest has no reason to think they have repented. It implies that they are only serious about having their own rules and not being married. They pretend marriage. Such a teaching denies protection to the family unit headed by couples who lived together before marriage.
Such a teaching implies that sex indicates that the man and wife must live together no matter what - even if he beats her up every night. To avoid the backlash, the pope refuses to admit that this is his belief.
The pope advocates self-sacrifice and constant self-denial. The mother who puts her daughter first and before herself may also put her before other children. If there was a choice between her daughter being gunned down and the other children being gunned down she would choose her daughter. She is called selfish if she would do that. She is called unselfish if she sacrifices her beloved daughter. This is arbitrary. It states that even if an action is selfless it can still be selfish. It indicates that just because my action is selfish doesn't mean I do it for me. Selflessness is very improbable and so we should assume that psychological egoism, the doctrine that I can't help being selfish is true.
We know that if we do something and seek nothing back that we find we will derive happiness from it. Happiness involves being at peace and you cannot have happiness if you keep wanting it for then you have no peace. If you forget about it, you get it. Forgetting about happiness then to be happy is not selflessness at all. It may be objected that just because you forget about happiness does not mean you are forgetting to be happy. You might be just forgetting. But you would not be forgetting unless you believed you would be okay or if you felt it or both.
Forgetting about happiness then to be unhappy would imply that it is reasonable for somebody to ask you to carry them on your back from Edinburgh to London. So would forgetting about happiness to be neither happy or unhappy. You wouldn't want that. So you wouldn't be doing the forgetting unless you believed or felt you were going to be okay. Death does not seem real to the person risking his life who jumps into the water to save you from drowning and that is why he is able to take the risk. He enjoys the forgetting and this enjoyment takes over. It is not the best kind of enjoyment but it is still enjoyment.
The pope would say that if you love your father but help him mainly for the money and not exclusively for the money you must be called selfish. He would say you demean the unselfish part of your love so you use it to become selfish. You are selfish for demeaning it.
The pope holds that being self-sacrificing in your motives is more important than what you do. He says you are bad if you look after your father simply because he pays you. He says you are good if you look after your father just for your father's sake and if you refuse the money. But is the motive more important than the action? If it is, must we refrain from helping our father if we don't have selfless reasons for doing it? The answer is yes in principle. In practice, we would still have to help him. The person who does grave wrong deserves no kindness at all from others. Deserving the evil implies that. That is what deserving means, what you should get for what you did or didn't do. But the Church says there are other reasons why we can't treat evil persons as they deserve. The help they get is grudging help. By saying that we never deserve to have God with us as the Catholic Church does is just evil. It is better to be a secularist. Any moral laws that are unnecessary are evil. Morality sticks with what you need to believe is bad action and what you believe is good. More or less is immoral. Religion makes extra rules so it is immoral.
The basic doctrine of Catholicism is that doubt is a sin and calling God a liar for he set up and revealed the Catholic faith. If you can doubt and not sin then there is no point in the pope claiming to have authority. Authority is the right to give commands that people are obligated to obey. But if you doubt that God really revealed you are not calling him a liar. So there can be no sin in that. You could doubt for that reason thus escaping the possibility that you might be accusing God of lying. Thus this religion is opposed to you trying to find out if it is wrong. It commands love but makes it impossible with its manipulations. Like the worship of the Pharisees that Jesus condemned as being in vain, the love of the Catholics is in vain.
The pope knows that one of his major doctrines, loving the sinner and hating the sin, is ridiculous. Trust is a part of love. Love will do you no good if you are not trusted at all. Trust the sinner and don't trust the sin is a hidden teaching and it is in love the sinner and hate the sin. It makes no sense at all. The rule is just a way of ordering people to hate others on religious grounds while helping them to pretend that they don't hate the persons.
The Catholic trash, The Handbook of Christian Apologetics, page 127, says that you cannot hate the sin without becoming a Pharisee, or a self-righteous prig. It says too that we cannot hate sin without hating the sinner. It makes a final point that to hate at all makes you hard and negative and that hating evil and sin makes us haters or vindictive.
It says that to love evil and sin is to succumb to them. I will call this option one.
It says that to hate evil and sin is still giving in to the evil of hate. I will call this option two.
I would add that to do neither is really to do both. It is still giving in to evil. If you don't care about evil and sin then you succumb to them. If you don't care about the hating of evil and sin then you are agreeing with the evil of hate. I will call this option three.
To do neither which means to do both is worse than picking one or the other. The second option, the option of hating sin and evil is the only one that can be taken. Thus the doctrine of hate the sin and love the sinner incites to hatred.
The pope would say that the solution is forgiveness but even if you forgive a sin that does not mean you are supposed to stop hating the sin. If you love your husband, you will hate his alcoholism that nearly killed him years ago even though he has never touched a drink since. So it is a hypocritical solution. But we can glad he admits that loving the sinner and hating the sin is impossible though he argues that a miracle can make it possible.
If you hate the sin you hate the person who freely causes the sin. There are no sins without persons. Being against somebody's sin is being personal. It feels personal. You can't and don't hate the door you hit your head on but you can hit the person who strikes you on the head. Sin may be described in our language as if it were separate from the sinner but in actual fact the person is the sin for there is no such thing as a sinful act as such but only sinful characters or people. When the pope is lying and advocates his lying doctrine, owing to the fact that it is so fundamental, it makes his whole system and life built on a lie. It is like a marriage built on lies.
Hate is vindictive. Hate implies a dislike of a person that inclines you to want to see the person hurt for your pleasure. You can't want to see a sin hurt. It is the sinner you want hurt. Hate is not necessarily an intense dislike. But it can be. To hate evil is to give evil power over you and to become evil.
The Church believes that it is love to want to see a person hurt in a way that will help them or make them become better people. This shows that hate is not forbidden because it can hurt people. This shows that the Church approves of your arrogance in deciding that the person needs to be hurt to be changed. You don't know the future. You don't know if it is the best road. You can't even prove that your moral code is correct - such codes are relative. The doctrine is vicious and vengeful because pain never changes people - it is only how they respond that effects a change. Yet Jesus wished evil on people supposedly for their good. We read that the apostle Paul handed a man over to Satan for tormenting that he might repent and be saved. Hate is not forbidden because it hurts you for it hurts you to wish pain on another. Hate is really just forbidden because God forbids it and concern for the hater and the hated doesn't come into it.
The hypocritical claim that you can love the sinner not the sin is foundational to the Catholic system so the whole system is based on a lie. Would you believe a person who said to you, "I have nothing against you. It is just your sin I have something against"? Love the sinner and hate the sin means love the sinner in spite of the sin which you hate so it is grudging love - if it can be called love at all. It can hardly mean you must love the sinner because of the sin you hate for that is impossible - you can't both hate the sin and love it. Religious love is fake love. Religious people are required to hate sin more than non-religious people are and do. Religious have to see it as an insult to such a good God and see it has necessitating the death of Jesus Christ for sinners. Religion encourages hate.
Contrition is when you repent your sin because it is sin and offends God. Attrition is when you vow to stop your sin because you want to avoid punishment or shame. It has no concern for God. Attrition is called repentance by the Catholic Church though it is not. It may look like it a bit but that is all. Repentance is turning away from the sin because it is a sin. It is an act of love. Attrition is just fearing the punishment and not despising the sin and is an act of selfishness - it is a bad manifestation of self-interest. Attrition is wanting the sin but not the punishment. If that is not a sin in itself then what is? The pope advocates the sacrament of confession - the need for this sacrament is based on the idea of attrition. God does not forgive people who have attrition unless they go to confession and absolved by the priest. The confessional then is totally immoral. If Jesus provided the sacrament for attrition and to reward such fake repentance then he was immoral. The confessional is really about rewarding sin more than eradicating it.
The doctrine of the sufficiency of
attrition is official "infallible" Catholic doctrine. The Bible God says
that if a prophet teaches things that match what God says or predicts the future
accurately but makes one false report in his capacity as prophet he is to be
rejected. Presumably Satan is keeping him right but uses him to teach
error. Satan as counterfeiter has to teach mostly truth and deliver some
error with the package to lead people astray. Even if the acceptance of
attrition were the only error Roman Catholicism made, it would prove that it is
not the true Church and not infallible. The
Council of Trent
said, “If the person in confession is sorry for he will burn in Hell if he
doesn't that will do for absolution” (Session 14).
The Church does not censure the belief that repenting out of the fear of punishment or repenting out of shame is enough to get you forgiven in confession (Denz 2071, New Catholic Encyclopaedia, Contritionism). But it is certain that the Church believes that it is sufficient in confession. The doctrine of Genesis that God rejected Cain's offer of fruit and accepted Abel's offering which was a better one comes to mind. The Catholic Church offers rubbish to God.
To teach such an evil doctrine such as attrition being enough for salvation belittles those who go to Hell which is for all eternity. It shows the Church does not love them at all. It hates them. The pope expects people to assume Hell exists and believe in it even if they have poor evidence for it. This is virtually asking them to want there to be a Hell. The pope cannot say he wishes the doctrine of Hell wasn't true for that suggests that there should be no such fate for those who go there and that the doctrine does not give dignity to God. Yet if he said he wished that we would plainly see how vindictive his religion is.
The doctrine that attrition is enough shows that the Church hates the sin but loves the sin when the person comes to confession. Is this fair or sensible? How could a paedophile priest feel bad about his sin of child molestation with a doctrine like that? It would be an encouragement to the paedophile tendency to feel that he has done nothing wrong.
An immoral Church urging people to resist using contraception even in the face of rape and in the danger of AIDS is doing something extremely vile.
Protestants who want to see the Church as the mother of abominations should find justification for doing that in the doctrine of attrition being acceptable to God but in confession.
The pope could go to a nightclub. He knows that most of the boys and girls there will be having sex at the end of the night. Yet he would go and ask the sex health activist giving out condoms to them not to do it even if the area was a hotbed for AIDS. Even if he doesn't he would see it as his obligation to do so.
The pope condemns safer sex. Safe sex is possible if the man uses condoms properly but still ejaculates outside the body. The pope will not advise those who use condoms to try this strategy. He would rather bury his head in the sand and be reckless. He follows John Paul II's ridiculous theology of the body. This theology says that the language of sex is, "I take you as mine for ever for I give you my whole self and I give you myself to the exclusion of all others," resulting in the laughable and judgemental idea that divorce and contraception and sex outside marriage make sex a lie. The pope believes divorce happens at death though the husband or wife survives death. So much for one giving ones whole self! He permits separation under certain circumstances though it can express greater discord between husband and wife than a divorce ever could. A divorcing couple could be in greater union than a separated husband and wife! It is madness to hold that having sex should imply that if you can't live with your partner you should still give your whole self to her or him by leaving her or him but marrying no other. How can not marrying another be more important than living together in a real marriage?
The pope permits natural family planning which like contraception implies that the husband and wife do not want the gift of fertility to work. Yet he condemns contraception for allegedly implying that. He claims natural family planning makes conception unlikely but it is okay as it is still open to life. But why not let the couple use a condom with a pin-prick in it then? That would be open to life despite reducing the risk of pregnancy!
The pope teaches that a Catholic judge who issues a decree of divorce is only saying that the marriage does not exist any more in the eyes of the law but not saying it ceases to exist in the sight of God and so the judge is free from sin (page 307, Question 1265, Radio Replies, Volume 3). The Church says that the judge is not to blame for the law. He only gives the effects of the law so his declaring a marriage to be dissolved is a merely legal one and does not imply he is trying to end a marriage that God has made.
But why not let somebody that believes in divorce do the job? The Church says that divorce is evil because it declares a marriage that still exists to be non-existent and then it lets the judge give a divorce. The damned hypocrisy! Would the Church permit a Catholic judge give out a court decree that permitted a person to be raped? It would not argue then that he should abide by the law and that he is not commenting on or opposing God's law.
If the law opposes God or endangers marriage, the judge cannot give out a decree of divorce and must resign. The law is claiming that it is more important for it to treat a marriage that still exists in the sight of God as a non-marriage than for it to respect God.
If the Church really believes the judge is acting without sin, then why does it fight so hard against legal divorce? To take a parallel case why fight the legalisation and liberalisation of contraceptives?
The pope can go to Africa and as soon as he touches African soil, he can try to make the naive and the superstitious believe that condoms do not protect against AIDS. He lies for he knows fine well that condoms have protected porn stars who are having loads of sex with different partners every week from AIDS.
But even if they did protect from AIDS he would still ask people not to use them. Some say it is his job to say this. Is it?
a What if another popes teaching that condoms should be used? Which pope then is doing his job?
b Catholicism has far more teachings than just that using condoms is immoral. It can't and doesn't relay these teachings to everybody so why can't it keep away from such controversial stuff? If you really believe your religion is right, that does not mean you should obsess about teaching doctrines that most people say are harmful and irresponsible.
c Is the pope acting in good faith? Why demean people by praising that good faith that orders them to prefer sex without condoms? Why demean people by praising that good faith that says they sin far more by using condoms when they have pre-marital sex? The pope should be repelled by the doctrine even if he has to teach it and he isn't so the good faith defence fails.
d If the pope can declare that it is better for people who have AIDS to have sex without using condoms if they are going to have sex whether they have condoms or not and still be considered a good and well-meaning man then why stop with him? Why not say the "sweet" person who refuses to ring the police as her son batters his wife to a pulp is well-meaning? Why not say the local gossip monger means well and is just trying to use the tongue to deter wrongdoers?
e The pope knows his doctrine is unreasonable but he may say that this is because it is one of God's laws that cannot be understood and we would understand if we had God's eyes. So it is unreasonable to us even if it is not unreasonable in itself. A man then who teaches such a doctrine needs to admit that this gives him awesome responsibility. If you teach hard doctrine, you should work even harder for those who the doctrine hurts. The Vatican art should be sold for them. The pope should give away his salary. And we must remember that his view that the doctrine makes sense in itself is just the same excuse that religion has made all the years for declaring wars and persecuting people and so on. Until the pope sells St Peter's for the sake of those who are naive enough to listen to him he has no business claiming to be well-meaning. The Church teaches that sin taints all that we do. Sin taints then what the pope teaches. When the pope avails of the sin in his teaching and the teaching is so severe he should atone that sin by making tremendous sacrifices for those who will get AIDS in obedience to his teaching.
f The pope speaks as if the matter is final. There is going to be no negotiation. His arrogance means more to him than the people he will kill by his teaching. They are nothing to him.
Those
who accuse the pope of being a force for evil and of inciting to hatred
against abortionists and gays and whoever are right though he pretends he does
not condemn them personally. He knows
what he is. He is like a racist who
covers it up by saying foreign people should stay in their own country and
better it.
The
Church of Rome teaches that it is never right to let others err and be confused
about religious truth. Catholicism
condemns saying nothing while others err as mortal sin (sin that puts God out
of your soul and heart and if you die unrepentant you will burn in Hell forever
without hope) for the promotion of heresy is mortally sinful. To let others do evil is to will that evil
and carry the same guilt as they carry or the same guilt they would carry if
they knew it was evil. It is a kind of
deception to let others err. Catholicism
strongly insists that the truth of God should be told even if it upsets others
for then he will take care of things and Jesus said the truth will set you
free. It says that if man is upset by
God’s truth man is the one with the problem.
The Bible says the Lord Jesus and his apostles told the truth even
though it meant great trials for themselves and for
those they hit between the eyes with it.
Preaching
the truth of the gospel is God’s law.
Jesus
said that if you are popular then you are doing something wrong (Luke 6:26;
Matthew 5:11,12).
He said that the one trusted with a lot can be trusted with little and
the one that cannot be trusted in little cannot be trusted in bigger things
(Luke 16:10). The true follower of Jesus
then is very strict and methodical.
Jesus said that you should hate sin so much that you would rather lose a
limb than commit it.
There
is no person in this world who can avoid being talked about and despised by
uncharitable people. It is certain that
Jesus meant that you have to be unusually hated and exceptionally smeared to be
a good person. His words were spoken to
ordinary people most of whom considered themselves good. They were spoken to Jews and at that time
Jesus hadn’t even claimed to be Christ publicly. He was saying anybody good Christian or not
must be persecuted. He expected a high
standard of goodness.
The
pope should use his infallibility as much as possible to prevent the Church
from being beset by confusion, schism and division over doctrinal and moral
problems now and in the future. He won’t
tell countries on the brink of war what to do - what the best solution is. He could use his infallibility to determine
the moral thing to do. Though the Church
doesn’t believe in relativism it does admit that there is some truth in
it. For example, whether a war is just
or not has to be decided according to the situation. Morality, for the vastly most part is, about
these decisions and the Church used to use the casuistry system to deal with
them. Jesus according to the gospels
focused more on ethics than on rubbish such as God being this or that. Curiously the infallibility of the Church is
more concerned about dogma such as Mary being without sin than in morals. Infallible moral statements have been issued
by the Church extremely rarely – with the nasty ban on contraception being a
notable example. Here we have a God who
supposedly wants us to live good lives above all things and who is more
concerned about what we believe than what we do. The Church knows fine well that it is not
infallible. That is why it avoids making
infallible statements on morals for it knows that it will get caught out for
making wrong statements.
The
pope doesn’t like helping the world out of confusion by his infallibility. He can’t pretend that there is no point for it won’t make a difference for he doesn’t know if it
will or not so it is worth a try.
So much for his confidence in the Holy Spirit’s power
to guide him in resolving difficulties.
The
pope will say that any divisions caused by his silence are not his fault. That is only an excuse with a man of his
influence.
He will
say that the persons responsible should unite but agree amicably to differ or
look into the problem thoroughly. This
is no excuse for he has no right to keep his lips shut when he knows it tempts
people to tear the Church apart. In his
wonderful and sincere way, he says this while he condemns unnecessary actions
which give others an excuse for evil works.
It is
clear by now that the pope does not really believe that he is infallible for he
is afraid to use his alleged gift too much in case he gets found out. He is a con.
He devises rules that cause suffering and death like the ban on
contraceptives and he doesn’t believe a word of it! He is a murderer!
If the
pope really believed in his infallibility he would have given an infallible
interpretation of the Bible to the world considering the Church considers the
Bible so important and devotes much of the Mass to reading it. It would save scholars a lot of bother. The Church claims to have the power to
interpret scripture without error and has made some statements about the
meaning of some Bible texts. Today, most
Bible scholars give out interpretations and criticise the Bible in a way that
must horrify the Church but the pope is silent.
Why is
it that the Church says that Catholics do not believe doctrines because they
are defined but the Church defines them because they are believed by the people
(The Church and Infallibility, page 18). That is an admission that the Church courts
popularity. It is an arbitrary standard
for it is only in recent years that most Catholics have rejected the ban on
birth-control and are slammed as unorthodox and going to Hell. Before then, it was a different story. The whole Christian world disapproved of it.
Sometimes
the Church defines to keep a grip on its power over the people. The Church usually defines when a popular
doctrine starts to be threatened by large numbers and sometimes even most
members challenge the doctrine. The
doctrine of the Church that no dogma is an article of faith until the Church
infallibly proclaims it (page 20, The Church and Infallibility) is an
admission that the Church is not interested in what evidence says at all. You can’t make a dogma just because everybody
or most people believe it. That is not evidence
that they are right. Given the
negativity the New Testament bears towards human reliability when it comes to
matters of God, it is downright heretical and reckless.
The
Church used to believe from the start that usury was wrong and in recent centuries
it has dropped this doctrine without trace (chapter 18, Rome has Spoken). Another tradition that was universal in the
early Church in the second century and that has been scrapped by
The
pope is not a Roman Catholic for he does not believe in his own infallibility. The Catholic Church cannot be the true Church
when a fake pope runs it for then it would be right to break from his Church to
continue the true Church and elect a new pope.
To say
the pope would excommunicate himself if he tried to deliberately fake an
infallible declaration and that God would kill him before he would commit this
act conserves the idea of God protecting the Church from error. But it makes no sense to say that the pope
can mislead the Church in a far worse way by not defining a dogma that needs to
be defined and not excommunicate himself or prove that
Jesus’ alleged promise that the Church would never err was false. Not defining is always an indication of
disbelief in infallibility though the Church says it is often inopportune to do
it which is why it declines to define some teachings as dogmas. For example, the definition of Mary being the
co-redeemer with Jesus has been put off in case it does damage to the ecumenical
process. The Church and the Bible both
teach that the Holy Spirit uses us to convert one another and it is he who is
entitled to most of the credit through his interior graces. If the Church really had confidence in him it
would go ahead and define that Mary is co-redemptrix. After all it is impossible to be very sure it
would harm ecumenical relations or that no solution for this problem could be
found if it does happen especially if the Holy Spirit has any power at all. Any corporation can do something at a bad
time and the Holy Spirit will do all he can if the Catholic Church does the
same. The Spirit can’t expect the Church
to be infallible in its diplomatic relations.
If the pope is wrong to say that
he is the visible head of the Church then he wants to deceive. He knows he should make sure he is the Vicar
of Christ and has the theologians and books to assist in his research. If he is not then he knows he is not or he
doesn’t care. He should set up his
tribunal and then step down as pope if his office is illegitimate. He should go back to being just the bishop of
The
pope is indeed a man of sin or THE man of sin who planks himself in the
To
claim that you know that a person like him is being sincere is evil for you
know how much pretending you do yourself.
Roman
Catholicism is a religion that is led by a man who is unashamedly called, “Your
Holiness.” They say that the pope can be
called this even if he is no saint for he is holy to God in his office as
pontiff. In other words, his job is holy
and not necessarily him. That is seen to
be false when you think for a minute. It
contradicts the very way they address him.
You don’t say, “Your Importance”, to a person who is not important but
whose job is. Why can’t the pope be
called the Vicar of Christ instead of His Holiness? The pope is boasting of his spiritual and
moral superiority. He is a
Pharisee. I don’t want to call him a
religious snob but many would.
Reverence
means treating something as holy to God.
Reverend is the title that comes from this. Priests and clergy bear it,
they have no shame though they condemn pride as a sin. They are telling people to revere them as if
they were something special. Snobs. They are not
indispensable if there is a God of power and might.
When
you jail a killer it is not because you know he meant to kill – maybe he was
possessed? - but because the evidence tells you to
jail him to be on the safe side. The
pope doesn’t want safe sides. He wants
to be regarded as the Vicar of Christ and obeyed . The
office of the papacy contradicts the wisdom and the justice endorsed by this
principle therefore it is an evil office.
Catholics believe that the bread and wine of communion become the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the literal sense on the altar. Jesus becomes present in every part of them. Yet the pope allows communion in the hand which inevitably means that small particles of the host, each of which are the Lord, are lost. There would be less chance of this happening if communion were only placed on the tongue. And the pope excommunicates people who sacrilegiously defile communion hosts though his policies do the same sacrilege. The pope defiles the communion host himself for unnecessary loss of the body and blood of Christ occurs when communion in the hand is allowed. Therefore he, by justice, has excommunicated himself and is not a Catholic. A non-Catholic pope is not entitled to obedience in matters of faith and dogma.
The popes entered the priesthood knowing it facilitated a culture of secrecy about clerical child sex abuse and such abuse was rife in Catholic schools even at the hands of lay teachers though the priests were their bosses and the patrons of the school. That is what is so disgusting about the alleged compassion of the likes of Benedict XVI about the clerical sex abuse scandals.
It is
frightful for a man to give out teachings which he claims are not infallible
but nevertheless to be obeyed for they cannot be wrong. He knows that much of Catholic Tradition,
which the Church says is the word of God, cannot be traced back to the time of
Jesus. So much of the teaching he gives
must be man-made because of that. He is
just guessing that he is right. Does he
not care what harm he is doing if he is wrong?
For the Catholic and Protestant and Pagan world to bless and approve the pope and to accept him as a bona-fide teacher is for them to make themselves as bad as he is.
We need to see the enemies of reason as our own enemies. That is what they are! We need to see the pope and the system he stands for for what they are! Then we won't be taken in by their beatific facades! Their goodness is just superstition masquerading as goodness. It is superstition masquerading as morality.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A CONCISE HISTORY OF THE
A
HANDBOOK ON THE PAPACY, William Shaw Kerr, Marshall Morgan & Scott,
A WOMAN
RIDES THE BEAST, Dave Hunt Harvest House Eugene Oregon 1994
ALL ONE
BODY – WHY DON’T WE AGREE? Erwin W Lutzer,
ANTICHRIST
IS HE HERE OR IS HE TO COME? Protestant
Truth Society,
APOLOGIA
PRO VITA SUA, John Henry Newman (Cardinal),
Everyman’s Library,
BELIEVING
IN GOD, PJ McGrath,
BURNING
TRUTHS, Basil Morahan, Western People Printing, Ballina, 1993
CATHOLICISM
AND CHRISTIANITY, Cecil John Cadoux, George Allen
& Unwin Ltd, 1928
CATHOLICISM
AND FUNDAMENTALISM, Karl Keating, Ignatius Press,
CHRISTIAN
ORDER Number 12 Vol 35 Fr Paul Crane
DAWN OR TWILIGHT?
HM Carson, IVP, Leicester, 1976
DIFFICULTIES,
Mgr Ronald Knox and Sir Arnold Lunn, Eyre & Spottiswoode,
ENCOUNTERS
OF THE FOURTH KIND, Dr RJ Hymers, Bible Voice, Inc,
ETHICS: THE FUNDAMENTALS, Julia Driver, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, 2007
FROM
FUTURIST OR HISTORICIST? Basil C Mowll, Protestant Truth
Society,
HANDBOOK TO THE CONTROVERSY WITH
HANS
KUNG HIS WORK AND HIS WAY, Hermann Haring and Karl-Josef Kuschel,
Fount-Collins,
HITLER’S
POPE, THE SECRET HISTORY OF PIUS XII, John Cornwell, Viking,
HOW
SURE ARE THE FOUNDATIONS? Colin Badger,
Wayside
INFALLIBILITY
IN THE CHURCH, Patrick Crowley, CTS,
INFALLIBLE? Hans Kung, Collins,
IS THE
PAPACY PREDICTED BY
LECTURES
AND REPLIES, Thomas Carr, Archbishop of Melbourne,
NO
LIONS IN THE HIERARCHY, Fr Joseph Dunn, Columba
Press,
PETER
AND THE OTHERS, Rev FH Kinch
MA, Nelson & Knox Ltd,
POPE FICTION, Patrick Madrid, Basilica Press,
PUTTING
AWAY CHILDISH THINGS, Uta Ranke-Heinemann,
HarperCollins,
RADIO REPLIES, 3, Frs Rumble & Carty, Radio
Replies Press,
REASON
AND BELIEF, Brand Blanschard, George Allen & Unwin Ltd,
REASONS
FOR HOPE, Editor Jeffrey A Mirus,
ROMAN
CATHOLIC CLAIMS, Charles Gore MA, Longmans,
ROMAN
CATHOLIC OBJECTIONS ANSWERED, Rev H O Lindsay, John T Drought Ltd,
ROMAN CATHOLICISM,
SECRETS OF ROMANISM, Joseph Zacchello, Loizeaux Brothers,
ST PETER AND
THE CASE OF THE POPE, Vatican Accountability for Human Rights Abuse, Geoffrey Robertson QC, Penguin Special, London, 2010
THE CHURCH AND INFALLIBILITY, B C Butler, The Catholic Book Club,
THE LATE GREAT PLANET EARTH, Hal Lindsay,
THE PAPACY IN PROPHECY! Christadelphian
Press, West Beach S A, 1986
THE
PAPACY ITS HISTORY AND DOGMAS, Leopold D E Smith, Protestant Truth Society, London
THE PETRINE CLAIMS OF ROME, Canon JE Oulton DD, John T Drought Ltd, Dublin
THE POWER AND THE GLORY, Inside the Dark Heart of John Paul II's Vatican, David Yallop, Constable, London, 2007
THE
PRIMITIVE FAITH AND ROMAN CATHOLIC DEVELOPMENTS, Rev John A Gregg, BD, APCK,
THE SHE-POPE, Peter
Stanford, William Hienemann, Random House,
THE
VATICAN PAPERS, Nino Lo
TRADITIONAL
DOCTRINES OF THE
VICARS
OF CHRIST, Peter de Rosa, Corgi,
WAS
PETER THE FIRST POPE? J Bredin, Evangelical Protestant Society,
WHATEVER
HAPPENED TO HEAVEN?, Dave Hunt, Harvest
House,