Jump to content
IGNORED

The C0uncil 0f Trent


existential mabel

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Non-Trinitarian
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  187
  • Content Per Day:  0.08
  • Reputation:   38
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  07/13/2017
  • Status:  Offline

3 minutes ago, Wayne222 said:

The great prostitute is not the RCC. No one can identify who she is till the end during the tribulation period of three and a half years. You can only speculate. 

GINOLJC, not saying that any is right or wrong. but the great prostitute is identified. there are two churches, for a woman is symbolic of a church. Zion, spiritual, and Jerusalem fleshly. the fleshly Jerusalem is symbolic as a city, that represent people, languages and tongues.. Revelation 17:18 "And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth". now that we know that the woman is representing a city, which one? Revelation 11:8 "And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified". Jerusalem, question was Jerusalem called Sodom?  as a city, its people, Isaiah 1:9 & 10 "Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah. 10 Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah". Isaiah 51:9 "Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon?". Rahab here is in reference to Egypt. just as he, (the Lord) did to Egypt likewise he is going to do to the inhabitants of  Jerusalem. 

the GREAT CITY is Jerusalem, the woman the synagogue of Satan. Revelation 2:9 "I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan". this woman is pure evil, which our Lord called an evil generation. Matthew 12:38 & 39 "Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. 39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas". of course this is my view.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  7
  • Topic Count:  151
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  3,146
  • Content Per Day:  1.06
  • Reputation:   2,063
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/12/2016
  • Status:  Offline

On 27/06/2017 at 8:22 PM, OakWood said:

It's not just the Popes who declared such blasphemies. Many members of the clergy have uttered them:

The Pope is not simply the representative of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, he is Jesus Christ himself, under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ who is speaking.

 

Cardinal Guiseppe Sarto (Pope Pius X)

 

 

Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest in his bosom. He who rebels against our father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him, we do to Christ. We honour Christ if we honour the Pope.

 

Catherine of Sienna (later canonised as St. Catherine)

 

 

i have always found it incredible that a very olde not long for this world chap is chosen to be next pope. why do they end up being in the twilight years.  is it to do with wisdom?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  7
  • Topic Count:  867
  • Topics Per Day:  0.24
  • Content Count:  7,331
  • Content Per Day:  2.01
  • Reputation:   2,860
  • Days Won:  31
  • Joined:  04/09/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/28/1964

2 hours ago, existential mabel said:

i have always found it incredible that a very olde not long for this world chap is chosen to be next pope. why do they end up being in the twilight years.  is it to do with wisdom?

Age can bring wisdom but it can also bring stagnation. The longer you are accustomed to a doctrine, the longer you are set in your ways. Old dogs can't be taught new tricks. Old dogs are therefore more likely to toe the line!!!

In the case of the present Pope, Francis I, it's simple; He's a Jesuit, and his great age reveals that he has had time to rise to the highest ranks of Jesuitism. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing and he was deliberately chosen to be the first ever Jesuit Pope.

Why do you think the last Pope (Benedict) resigned?

Popes don't resign (very rarely). They hold the office until their death.......

Benedict didn't resign of his own accord. He didn't jump.

He was pushed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  32
  • Topic Count:  471
  • Topics Per Day:  0.17
  • Content Count:  6,542
  • Content Per Day:  2.30
  • Reputation:   7,619
  • Days Won:  9
  • Joined:  06/12/2016
  • Status:  Offline

How do you really know? He had health problems. I don't think the anti Christ will be a pope but a Muslim. I could be wrong. The Catholic Church is part of the body of Christ. Not everything is right about it. Just like other churchs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  7
  • Topic Count:  867
  • Topics Per Day:  0.24
  • Content Count:  7,331
  • Content Per Day:  2.01
  • Reputation:   2,860
  • Days Won:  31
  • Joined:  04/09/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/28/1964

7 minutes ago, inchrist said:

A little shorter than i imagined.....

But he is dressed in white (as many people suspect)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  430
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   131
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2017
  • Status:  Offline

People are obsessed with Rome and the Popes, it's a Protestant thing.  There's no reason to be because Rome and the Popes have NO prophetic significance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  430
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   131
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 6/26/2017 at 0:27 PM, OakWood said:

I agree. We all know that there will be a falling away. Many churches have already fallen.

I keep telling you guys that "the falling away" has nothing to do with Church!  I know people love to demonize their own form of Christianity, but the APOSTASY has ZERO connection to Christians or the Church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  430
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   131
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 6/27/2017 at 9:33 AM, OakWood said:

Protestantism was NOT started by a disgruntled Augustinian monk. Protestantism was started by lots of different people who once they had read the Bible for themselves discovered the heresies found in Catholic doctrine.

We had the Albigensians, John Wycliffe, the Hugenots, Jan Huss, William Tyndale all who came before Luther. Then there was John Calvin and John Knox. All these are different people from different backgrounds  and different times in history and they had discovered for themselves how Catholicism had corrupted the word of God.

What is different about Luther is that his reformation was successful and this was due in no small part due to the invention of the printing press. Roman Catholics were burning bibles because they didn't want people to discover the truth for themselves. Fancy that, eh? A so-called Christian organisation wilfully destroying the word of God!

But in Luther's time they couldn't burn the bibles fast enough thanks to the Guttenberg press which managed to churn out 3,000 copies a day. The Pope knew the game was up, the cat was out of the bag...... there was no going back.

Protestant's get very little right about anything, especially the Catholic Church.  They are too busy badfmouthing the Popes when Wycliffe, Tyndale, and especiall CALVIN were also corrupted.  I'm not a Catholic, but I will never call myself a Protestant as they are the most offensive of people.

After the 14th century when English finally became the popular language of England, vernacular Bibles were used as vehicles for heretical propaganda. John Wycliffe, a dissentient priest, translated the Bible into English. Unfortunately his secretary, John Purvey, included a heretical prologue, as noted by St. Thomas More. Later William Tyndale translated the Bible into English complete with prologue and footnotes condemning Church doctrines and teachings. [2] St. Thomas More commented that searching for errors in the Tyndale Bible was similar to searching for water in the sea. Even King Henry VIII in 1531 condemned the Tyndale Bible as a corruption of Scripture. In the words of King Henry's advisors: "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people, and not be suffered to go abroad among his subjects." [4] As food for thought, if the Wycliffe or Tyndale Bibles were so good, why do Protestants today not use them as they do the King James Bible?

One action that Catholic Christians pursued to stop this propaganda was to burn these books. Does this action make the Church anti-Bible? No. If it did, then the Protestants of this period were also anti-Bible. John Calvin, the main Protestant Reformer, in 1522, had as many copies as could be found of the Servetus Bible burned, since Calvin did not approve of it. Later Calvin had Michael Servetus himself burned at the stake for being a Unitarian. [5] In those days it was common practice on both sides to burn unapproved books. Finally it is one matter to destroy the real thing and another to destroy a counterfeit.

The Church did not oppose faithful vernacular translations but heretical additions and distortions to the Bible. The Church prohibited these corrupt Bibles in order to preserve the integrity of Holy Scripture. This action was necessary if the Church is to preserve the truth of Christ's Gospel. As St. Peter in his Epistle (in the Bible) warns us, the ignorant and unstable can distort the Scriptures to their own destruction [2 Peter 3:16; see front panel].
Should good Christian parents allow their children to read a Bible with anti-Christian propaganda or profanity in the footnotes? I certainly would not. Finally if the Catholic Church truly wanted to destroy the Bible, she had ample opportunity to do so for 1500 years.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/apologetics/controversies/bible-burning-and-other-allegations/

I'm a disgruntled Christian ready to cannthe entire religion of Christianity.  the religion if FULL of evil!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  7
  • Topic Count:  151
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  3,146
  • Content Per Day:  1.06
  • Reputation:   2,063
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/12/2016
  • Status:  Offline

eeee i used to live next door to the Popes ah yes those were the days

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...