Sunday, July 15, 2007

Pope Benedict Claims as Fact that Which is Falsehood and Fraud! (Contribution)

Benedict’s claims to the contrary, the Roman Church is not Christ’s church nor is it the only way to heaven and it is asinine, arrogant, and audacious to suggest otherwise.

He bases his claim on apostolic succession; however, he is reaching for straws.

There are many problems with his theory but the big problem is that Roman Bishops and Popes cannot be linked back to the Apostles so there is no apostolic succession and no authority—and no legitimate church!

Pope Stephen VII (896-897) had Pope Formosus (the former Pope) dug up, dressed him in regal papal vestments, propped him upon a throne, tried him and found him guilty!

He was mutilated and his corpse thrown to a howling mob who dragged him to the river and pitched him in.

But Pope Stephen was not finished because he had all Formosus’ ordinations declared invalid.

Evidently, Pope Stephen didn’t realize the problem he was making for hundreds of priests, Bishops, and future Popes.

To them, he had broken the link with the Apostles!

Pope Steve had ordained numerous priests and Bishops who in turn ordained many others, who ordained many others so the line was further corrupted and any church official living today who was ordained by a protégé of Pope Steve is an imposter.

It is interesting that both Pope Stephen and Pope Formosus are Popes-in-good-standing down at the Vatican.

What a mess!

The Catholic “bloodline” or apostolic succession from the Apostle Peter (who was never a Pope) has been corrupted, really corrupted, hundreds of times. It is disingenuous, deceptive, and dishonest for Benedict to claim as a fact that which is falsehood and fraud. Evidently Ben has no shame.

Moreover, Christ did not tell Peter he was the foundation for the Catholic Church as Rome teaches. It was Peter’s confession that was to be the foundation.

Catholics don’t like to admit that Augustine, one of their “saints,” backed off believing in Peter being the Church’s foundation.

He later confessed that Christ’s church was based upon Peter’s confession: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”

Peter was neither a pope nor the foundation for any church. Christ was and is.Of course, there was a succession of Bishops (pastors) in the church at Rome but they were not Popes until hundreds of years after Christ ascended into Heaven, and the “succession” was not unbroken.

Slowly the early church was polluted with false doctrine and wicked, influential pastors grabbed power from less influential pastors.

As the Roman Empire decayed, the Christian church in Rome advanced toward hierarchical control of the other churches in the empire.

A point that must be emphasized: even if Peter (a married man) had been the first pastor at Rome, that does not prove apostolic succession nor does it provide a foundation for popery!

Roman priests and bishops are not raising the dead and giving sight to the blind! Nor do they say, “Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.” (Acts 3:6)

They are obscenely wealthy but have no power to heal the lame.

Jesuit John McKenzie, when professor of theology at Notre Dame, wrote: “Historical evidence does not exist for the entire chain of succession of church authority.” The Roman Catholic Church (New York, 1969), p. 4.

Moreover, the New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “. . . the scarcity of documents leaves much that is obscure about the early development of the episcopate . . .” (1967), Vol. I, p. 696.

So honest Catholics admit the lack of historical foundation for apostolic succession.

The early Christian churches started to splinter not long after the Apostle John died.

Historian, Will Durant states: “Celsus [second-century opponent of Christianity] himself had sarcastically observed that Christians were ‘split up into ever so many factions, each individual desiring to have his own party.’ About 187 (A.D.)

Irenaeus listed twenty varieties of Christianity; about 384 (A.D.) Epiphanius counted eighty.”—The Story of Civilization: Part III—Caesar and Christ. p. 616.

All this simply proves that men are often self-serving sinners and conferring ordination on them does not change anything.

The Roman Catholic Church faction simply came out on top with the money, churches, leadership, political contacts, etc.

However, true New Testament Churches were still in existence and because they resisted the heretical innovations of the early power grabbers, the genuine Christians were identified as heretics when it was the bejeweled pontiffs who were the heretics.

Yes, churches, one of them being the church at Rome, had succeeding pastors but none with apostolic authority since to be an apostle one had to have seen the risen Lord.

Yes, there is one faith that has been preserved from the apostles until now, but it is not the apostate Roman Catholic Church which in reality is a cult—a corrupted offshoot of a Bible-preaching church established by Christ.

The errors and heresies of Rome include papal infallibility, apostolic succession, worship of idols, praying to saints, purgatory, limbo, confession to priests, absolution, indulgences, penance, Mary worship, celibacy, the mass, works for salvation, and on and on and on.

What a pity.

The Roman Catholic Church is the con job of all time.


No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.

The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.

Sotto Voce


Simon-Peter Vickers-Buckley said...

I'm convinced.

Can I start my own church now?

Anonymous said...

I didn't know Ian Paisley was now moving his soapbox here.
A clear example of a narrow mind.

Sotto said...

Anon if you knew me you would not think I was in the least akin in any way to Rev Ian Paisley...this site is open to all to comment and contribute and you have as much right of reply as anyone else so any time you wish to contribute, by all means feel free to do so

Sotto Voce

Anonymous said...

Actually I was referring to the 'author' of your contributed piece, not you...unless you're the said author. A touch of paranoia perhaps?
And does my comments here not constitute a contribution? Or perhaps you define contribution as being in agreement with you and your agenda?
Normally I wouldn't bother to comment on such tripe as this particular post, but seeing as you allow such a hateful article a place to fester, then I most certainly want to voice my disagreement.
You say that if I knew you then I woudln't liken you to Ian Paisley (or words to that effect). I'm happy to hear that although, in some part, your blog has the same agenda as he, damaging the church. Why would that be?
Are you not happy in the Church father?

Sotto Voce said...

Let me return to you on this, and no it is not a contribution but rather a cooment which as I always say are welcome here at all and any time.

Contribution to this site involves more than just the comments section hence the existence of a comment section and also the inserting of contributions also.

As much as you have the right to comment, so too have others to voice theirs also with the same procedure in place for all...

Therefore, again, if you wish to develop your comments into a contribution then indeed I would have no problem whatsoever in publishing it as a posting.

As for your scurrilous suggestion that this blogspot is somewhat of the same ilk as Rev Paisley in its attempt to downgrade the Church, well lets put it this way...the Church has been rather adept at doing this on its own int he last few years...

This blogspot has brought a lot of information into the public domain that mnay of the people who visit this site have indicated they would not have otherwise known.

Not by any means is it intent on in any way harming the Church and no I am not unhappy with the Church but yes as a human being I do feel there are certain issues that need to be addressed which as of yet need to be so addressed and I am the first to raise my hands and say as much...

This blogspot is indeed for all and if you wish to make a contribution as opposed to a comment please by all means do so...welcome as all and any other

Anonymous said...

I've obviously touched a nerve.
I agree that all have a right to voice their opinions but when articles posted are a direct insult to our Church, the likes of which would even make 'Big Ian' blush, then I wonder what good your blog is doing for anyone.
True, your blog has some useful information and I thank you for that, it's the only reason why I visit. I have no problems with criticism's, we are well able to take them and it's sometimes necessary that we do. But when you allow such venom as the article above then I question your editorial judgement.
Perhaps one day I will take you up on your offer to make a 'contribution', if I find the time in a busy life.
On a final note, you didn't fully answer my question: 'Are you happy in the church?' perhaps I should rephrase and ask: 'Are you happy as a priest?'
Good luck and God bless and, for the side of your work that is good, keep it up, for the rest...may your glass be half full as opposed to half empty.

Anonymous said...

The Catholic church ltd. represents no more than the prosperity of lies. It is the single most harmful organisation in human history. The article above is the equivalent of one lunatic in the asylum getting jealous because another lunatic is getting more pills.

Henry De Butler