A Reflection on Apostasy

Hi -- this is off topic --- but if you're ever visiting Minnesota make sure to attend mass at St. Agnes in St. Paul (not SSPX --but offers the Mass in Latin PJPII made a special visit to this Church and gave it his blessings). Absolutley a beautiful church and it's a plus that there is the high mass...it's in a kinda sketchy neighborhood, but don't let that scare you....

Also - the priest that administers reconcilliation there is in very popular from what I hear...a wait to see him can last up to two hours on a Saturday.

There's no evidence that Peter ever even went to Rome; the word Peter [small rock] is a different Greek word from "this rock" [huge stratum of rock]. Christ is the rock, not Peter. Besides, if the current Pope was a direct descendant of Peter physically, if he condones heresy, then he should be rejected.

Matt.21:42 Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: `The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. This was the Lord's doing, And it is marvelous in our eyes'? 43 "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. 44 "And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder."

Acts 4:10 "let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11 "This is the `stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone .' 12 "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

Rom.9:33 As it is written: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."

1Cor.10:1 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.

[tell us, Peter, who is THE ROCK on whom the church is built]1Pet.2:4 Coming to Him [as] [to] a living stone , rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God [and] precious...6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, "Behold, I lay in Zion A chief cornerstone, elect, precious, And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame." 7 Therefore, to you who believe, [He] [is] precious; but to those who are disobedient, "The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone," 8 and "A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense." They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.

Paul made it clear that if anyone else, or even an angel, or even Paul himself, if they begin to preach a new and different Gospel, they are accursed of God.

Gal.1:6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

And since the reformers didn't choose to go with Orhtodoxy

The reformers probably didn't know much about orthodoxy, what with the relative geographic and communication isolation of the times. The reformers were predominately from northern Europe and weren't widely travelled.

Please correct me if I am wrong about the travelling. Luther went to Rome, but I don't know if Calvin, Zwingli or the English reformers ever travelled, unless they had been to Greece or Russia, which I doubt.

Wait, wasn't it Urban II who called for the first Crusade in 1095? Misguided (and unsuccessful) as it may have been to go to war like that, I think the idea of freeing the Holy Land from ruthless, tyrannical, barbarian Muslim fanatics who were attacking Christian pilgrims was a pretty solid one!

The Crusaders slaughtered jews, muslims, children, anyone else who stood in their way. They sacked Constantinople - a Christian city. The Crusades were conducted in the name of Christ, but they certainly were not just and they certainly were not in accord with Christ's teachings. The Crusades was about money mostly - opening a trade route to the east - Christianity was only an excuse. God's work? hardly. Were the inquisitions God's work too? When they burned godly men at the stake for the horrible crime of translating scriptures into english so the common people could be blessed by the Word of God, or for rejecting the false teachings of the corrupt catholic church (indulgences, for example)? Was that godly too?

As I pointed out, the Pope's opinions on scientific questions have nothing to do with Catholic doctrine or papal infallibility.

Baloney. If evolution is true, Genesis MUST BE allegory. Which is it? That is not a matter of science. Who told you that science was outside of the domain of and sovereignty of God? God created everything, including the laws of physics. By your very statement you are presupposing the naturalistic view of science. My point is that by presupposing evolution is true, the Pope has relegated Genesis to a mere story! Why don't you address this? Because you know I am right! The moment you admit that Genesis is allegory, I will pounce, and it will be all over.

What about the catechism (vatican II) which states that muslims are saved because they believe in the same creator as we? Need a reference? I can bring it tomorrow (exact quote verbatim) - I have this quote from the catechism? This is pure unadulterated BLASPHEMY. Salvation is THRU CHRIST ALONE. Period. To believe anything else is apostasy.

Let me get this straight. The Pope prays with Hindus, etc., and this doesn't affect his authority on doctrine? Hahahaha. Logic would dictate that if he prays with pagans, he is following some doctrine (his own) that praying to false gods is okay. There is no way to reconcile that. You are whistling in the dark.

No, I wouldn't mention your Catholic-hating bigotry (you did). BTW, I am not RC. But your inferences and conclusions have to be considered pretty . . . weird by any non-biased, rational observer.

Take your example of the Nazi Holocaust being a failed Satanic project. I can make just as good a case that it was a successful Divine project, since there are Biblical precedents (Job, the enslavement, etc.) and that the result was the reestablishment of Israel. But I won't make it, because it is silly, just like your case.

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.