Posted on 07/24/2017 9:28:32 AM PDT by Roman_War_Criminal
Probably Peter the Roman though.
I wish the anti Francis movement would get after this fraud for defending Islam seemingly because of its monotheistic claim. Where its version of deity commands followers comply with the theistic assertions and claims. Professed in their codex which Francis should be condemning,known as Sharia law .
Sharia portrays a duplicitous corrupt deity who denies free will. Urges the use of deceit and deception when which would otherwise violate God’s laws. Plus are given an order by that deity to murder those who refuse to accept that deity. Yet the best Francis can do is warn of man made climate disaster.
Actually it’s not.
All people are God’s creation, but only born again Christians can have the luxury of being called His children. It’s a grave error to think that an Islamist, Atheist, or anybody else dead in sin is a child of God.
Francis doesn’t know the Bible, which isn’t surprising.
John 1:12
1 John 3:1-10
Galatians 3:26
Galatians 4:5-6
Ephesians 1:5
Romans 8:14-17
Unrighteous children:
John 8:42 & 8:44
1 John 3:10
The antichrist is a political figure not a religious one. I believe Francis could easily be the false prophet however
Correct - I believe I point that out up thread about the title being a bit deceiving.
When’s Bergoglio coming out of the closet?
a non confirmed quote attributed to John Calvin- one of the 1st Protestant Reformers
John Calvin (1509 - 1564)
“Though it be admitted that Rome was once the mother of all Churches, yet from the time when it began to be the seat of Antichrist it has ceased to be what it was before. Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman Pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt .. I shall briefly show that (Paul’s words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy.” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol.3, p.149)
They were calling the papacy and the pope antichrist back then.
And the pope didn’t even come out with a calendar yet.
I would suspect if that is an accurate quote, John Calvin would have called the pope gregory calendar (gregorian), antichrist calendar. If only on principle of his original premise.
It appears that he wasn’t alive when the pope had his own calendar so we can’t gain his opinion. Only speculate.
The Bible describes the Antichrist as incredibly intelligent.
This man is a fool.
He is absolutely a fool and a tool. I should Photoshop John Paul II giving him a whack on the backside of the head...
Not as meaning spiritual children, as distinct from "offspring of God" (Acts 17:29) as regards being part of creation. Instead, until you are born from above via wholehearted repentant faith in the risen Lord Jesus to save you on His account, with the faith which effects obedience, then I"Ye are of your father the devil , and the lusts of your father ye will do." (John 8:44) Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath , even as others. (Ephesians 2:3) In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil : whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. (1 John 3:10) The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one ; (Matthew 13:38) And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil , thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? (Acts 13:10) And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (Genesis 3:15) Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, (Ephesians 1:5)
While Catholicism itself is the most manifest deformation of the NT church, with her distinctives not being manifest in the wholly inspired record of what it believed .
And in Catholicism a faithful RC is not to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences (for that reason). For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth
Instead,
It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906:
And it was the body of RC bishops from across the world who elected Bergoglio/Francis.
What does the Book that Rome assembled so long ago have to say on the subject?
So; does Francis fit any of these verses?
great PLAN!
How does it match up with what GOD knows??
Psalm 139:16
Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
OH?
It DOES?
IF God hadn’t given me a very sturdy body and the temperament to keep it healthy, I wouldn’t be so healthy. I feel very blessed. And I do my part to honor that blessing..
Because the majority of bishops who elected him are likely in favor of him, as with most of those Rome considers members
In addition, where it is possible to depose a pope is a matter of debate.
For in contrast to the NT church church, the record of which does not manifest the distinctives of Catholicism , the church of Rome became much like the empire in which it was found, with a Caesariopapacy, in which her leader became an autocratic exalted supreme head, and who could employ the sword of men of secure and achieve her ends (as Damasus 1, for one, did) .
Thus a pope would have to agree to the body of bishops disposing him.
Arguing against Cardinal Cajetan Bellarmine states,
For if the Church deposes the Pope against his will it is certainly above the Pope...it must be observed in the first place that, from the fact that the Pope deposes bishops, it is deduced that the Pope is above all the bishops, though the Pope on deposing a bishop does not destroy the episcopal jurisdiction, but only separates it from that person. In the second place, to depose anyone from the pontificate against the will of the deposed, is without doubt punishing him; however, to punish is proper to a superior or to a judge. In the third place, given that according to Cajetan and the other Thomists, in reality the whole and the parts taken as a whole are the same thing, he who has authority over the parts taken as a whole, being able to separate them one from another, has also authority over the whole itself which is constituted by those parts.
Yet it is also argued that.
...according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church.
. https://www.fisheaters.com/bellarmine.html
However, it would be consistent with his exaltation for the pope to be the supreme judge of what heresy is.
Canon law 1404 states, The First See is judged by no one.
Dictatus papae [1075] (a compilation of 27 statements of powers arrogated to the Pope that was included in Pope Gregory VII's register under the year 1075), likewise asserts,
That he himself may be judged by no one. - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-dictpap.asp
>The First Vatican Council, which infallibly declared papal infallibly (overcoming opposition) stated:
So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. [so much for the EOs] — First Vatican Council, Chapter 3 (1869-1870) http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm
"We read that the Roman Pontiff has pronounced judgments on the prelates of all the churches; we do not read that anybody has pronounced sentence on him"... The reason for which is stated thus: "there is no authority greater than that of the Apostolic See"... "That which the First See has not approved of cannot stand;..." — Leo XIII - Satis cognitum; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html
I hope this answers your question, and now go read the gospel of John and the rest of the NT,and may you find its center, the manifestly risen Lord Jesus, as your Lord and savior, on His account and expense. Thanks be to God. - http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org /
2 Thessalonians 2
Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
[The anti-Christ is also triune. :)]
exactly. The antichrist is the political leader the false prophet the religious leader and satan the emplowering “spirit”
I call that a devil.
Putting it that way, I agree!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.