Chief exorcist says Devil is in Vatican

[Jazzy]

The Devil is lurking in the very heart of the Roman Catholic Church, the Vatican's chief exorcist claimed on Wednesday.

Story Link: Chief exorcist says Devil is in Vatican - Telegraph

[gmc]

You wouldn't in any way be hinting, suggesting or in any way implying he's a nutter would you?



So how come you're reading a british tory rag like the telegraph?

[Odie]

gmc;1296342 wrote: You wouldn't in any way be hinting, suggesting or in any way implying he's a nutter would you?



So how come you're reading a british tory rag like the telegraph?




because their possessed!:yh_rotfl

[Snowfire]

Well Well ! Father Amorth has a book out "Memoirs of an Exorcist"

If the Vaticans foremost exorcist cant keep the vatican clean, we're all doomed.

Good job I don't believe in the devil or I'd be vomiting shards of glass at the thought of those evil possessed priests

[DrLeftover]

Well damn.

And all this time I thought he was in Congress.

[flopstock]

My daughter asked me the other day what the difference was between the Lutheran church she picked to go to and the catholic church she was baptized in as a baby.



I told her that the only difference I'd noticed was that in her church the paster can be married. she did a 'huh?' I told her that catholic priests can't get married and when she asked why -I said that I think they are considered married to the church.



She says that's the freakiest thing shes heard all year..:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

[hoppy]

flopstock;1296562 wrote: My daughter asked me the other day what the difference was between the Lutheran church she picked to go to and the catholic church she was baptized in as a baby.



I told her that the only difference I'd noticed was that in her church the paster can be married. she did a 'huh?' I told her that catholic priests can't get married and when she asked why -I said that I think they are considered married to the church.



She says that's the freakiest thing shes heard all year..:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl


That's pretty much it. I was raised Catholic. My X wifey is Lutheran. I went to her church enough to notice that their services were very similar to ours in some ways.

As far as priests being married to the church, nothing freaky about that. Look how many people become "married" to their jobs or profession.

[Ted]

Being married to the church is a very ancient concept of the RC church. I don't particularly like it but it is tradition. I'm not RC though and not likely ever to be one.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[K.Snyder]

This brings up an interesting debate...

Are people more or less psychotic nutcases with hints of delusional schizophrenic tendencies accompanied with sever sociological impairment relative to 2000 years ago?

Perhaps the percentages are the same associated with the overall number of the World's population?

[gmc]

hoppy;1296568 wrote: That's pretty much it. I was raised Catholic. My X wifey is Lutheran. I went to her church enough to notice that their services were very similar to ours in some ways.

As far as priests being married to the church, nothing freaky about that. Look how many people become "married" to their jobs or profession.


Try a free church of scotland church service, no fancy decorations, no cushions on the seats, no heating and don't dare enjoy yourself. Serious business going to church it's no place for levity.

[Ted]

gmc:-6

I definitely will stay out of that church. No cushions. My behind is hurting now at the thought.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[theia]

Ted;1302315 wrote: gmc:-6

I definitely will stay out of that church. No cushions. My behind is hurting now at the thought.

Shalom

Ted:-6


Brilliant, Ted :yh_rotfl

[Mark Aspam]

Actually, the devil is in the DETAILS. Always has been.

No question, though, that there is evil all 'round us. I suppose blaming it on a supernatural being is as good a rationalization as any.

[hoppy]

gmc;1301033 wrote: Try a free church of scotland church service, no fancy decorations, no cushions on the seats, no heating and don't dare enjoy yourself. Serious business going to church it's no place for levity.


Sounds like hell to me.:yh_rotfl

[K.Snyder]

The Devil is God in the eyes of those that have been sent to "hell" by God. If God sent "you" to burn for an eternity then I sincerely doubt "you're" perception of God would be pleasing then would it?

[K.Snyder]

Mark Aspam;1304057 wrote: Actually, the devil is in the DETAILS. Always has been.

No question, though, that there is evil all 'round us. I suppose blaming it on a supernatural being is as good a rationalization as any.


You differentiate ignorance from "evil"? I surely don't

[Mark Aspam]

K.Snyder;1304313 wrote: You differentiate ignorance from "evil"? I surely don't
Have anything to add that MAKES SENSE, K?

[K.Snyder]

Mark Aspam;1304345 wrote: Have anything to add that MAKES SENSE, K?


Here let me try and explain this in a way you can understand it better, or at least give it a good try :yh_wink

Ignorance, in my mind, IS "evil". There...Was that better at all?...

[xyz]

Jazzy;1296327 wrote: The Devil is lurking in the very heart of the Roman Catholic Church, the Vatican's chief exorcist claimed on Wednesday.
The comment leads one to suppose that this claimed exorcist believes that the Roman Catholic Church is not normally influenced by the devil- which may not be the case. Anyone who believes that Paul was correct in writing that man is justified before God by faith must believe that Roman Catholicism itself is inherently of the devil. This is because that organisation believes that those who state that one is justified before God by faith is cursed (anathema), justification being available only through the administration of the RCC's own employees.

So this piece of news is possibly merely the reporting of spin- though spin of the most dangerous kind.

[Mark Aspam]

xyz;1323755 wrote: The comment leads one to suppose that this claimed exorcist believes that the Roman Catholic Church is not normally influenced by the devil- which may not be the case. Anyone who believes that Paul was correct in writing that man is justified before God by faith must believe that Roman Catholicism itself is inherently of the devil. This is because that organisation believes that those who state that one is justified before God by faith is cursed (anathema), justification being available only through the administration of the RCC's own employees.

So this piece of news is possibly merely the reporting of spin- though spin of the most dangerous kind.Since there was no Christianity apart from Catholicism prior to the so-called Reformation, one wonders what poster xyz is referring to here.

The Church, from Paul on down, has always acknowledged the indispensible importance of faith to salvation. It is the Lutheran heresy of salvation through faith ALONE that the Church rejects, nor did Paul make any such suggestion.

[xyz]

Mark Aspam;1330878 wrote: Since there was no Christianity apart from Catholicism prior to the so-called Reformation, one wonders what poster xyz is referring to here.

The Church, from Paul on down, has always acknowledged the indispensible importance of faith to salvation. It is the Lutheran heresy of salvation through faith ALONE that the Church rejects, nor did Paul make any such suggestion.
What stale, discredited nonsense, accompanied by the usual ancient Catholic tradition of personal aggression.

One of the egregious and foolish falsehoods that Catholicism attempts to perpetuate (thereby proving itself sociopathic and antichrist) is that Christianity was continually in existence from apostolic times. For one thing, at no time did Protestantism aver that such a thing had occurred, as Catholics very well know. Every Reformer attested that the RCC was the seat of the Antichrist, or similar, which was of course an exaggeration, though a very understandable one at the time, the military and often brutal exploits of powerful Catholics ensuring a monolithic world to many Europeans.

For another, the RC interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is false- as are all specifically RC Biblical interpretations. Jesus did not say that earthly powers would never overcome the church, as Catholics say, but that the power of death to condemn would never overcome the church. There is no firm historic evidence of Christianity for approximately a thousand years, from Theodosius to Wyclif or perhaps earlier. There is some evidence that even Catholics were disobedient to their official teaching and actually believed in justification by faith. Of course history is a partial record, in more ways than one, and there may have been genuine believers in the gospel in outlying places in Europe (there was very little RC presence in the north of England before the Norman Conquest, for example) and also outside Europe and outside the influence of Islam. But there is no need to prove this, because there is no logical or Scriptural imperative to do so.

There is another damnable lie in the idea that faith alone is the issue. Catholics know very well that faith is in the perfection of Christ as atonement for sin, and that alone is sufficient to justify. The added word 'alone' is technically nonsense, and malicious, unless it is crassly ignorant. By teaching that Christ's righteousness needs 'topping up' senior Catholics blaspheme, and indeed deny Christ's divinity. A truly worldly, Satanic cult, in terror of the offence of the cross, fulfilling, ironically, neatly, the prophetic words of Peter in 2 Peter 2:1-3.

[G#Gill]

The devil is everywhere ! Even the Vatican is not immune !

[xyz]

G#Gill;1331090 wrote: Even the Vatican is not immune !
The devil is everywhere.

[Mark Aspam]

xyz;1331091 wrote: The devil is everywhere. Care to identify your own affiliation, x, so that we may explore its history of heresy and error?

Or prefer you to shoot and run?

I'd like to hear more about the periods of time between the apostles and now when Christianity did not exist. I gotta admit, that's a new one on me. Most of the early Christian writers knew at least some of the apostles personally. Even the Anglicans accept the historicity of papal succession from Linus to the present day. They do not regard Peter as having been the first pope nor the pope as their leader, but they don't deny Church history, nor do any of the main line Protestant sects as far as I know.

That would seem to put you out in the never-never land of the cults. Care to tell us which one? JW? SDA?

[fuzzywuzzy]

Excuse me, jehovahs wittnesses are not a cult.

[Mark Aspam]

fuzzywuzzy;1331113 wrote: Excuse me, jehovahs wittnesses are not a cult.As Humpty told Alice, words can mean whatever we want them to mean.

They certainly meet every definition of a cult that I have ever heard.

But that is beyond the scope of this thread.

Nor am I attempting to 'bait' or ridicule the other poster as a person. But claiming that Christianity did not exist between the apostles and the Reformation is so ridiculous that one wonders if s/he's joking!

[xyz]

Mark Aspam;1331096 wrote: Most of the early Christian writers knew at least some of the apostles personally.
We have only their word for that- and knowing it proves nothing about validity. It is typically despicable of the dishonest RCC cult that they take them at their word, and make assumptions about validity, when John, Paul, Jude and indeed Peter mentioned false teachers already in the church as they wrote. There is no person named by an apostle as having authentic belief and practice who is accepted as authoritative by Roman Catholicism, other than those mentioned in Scripture, and of course the RCC has to reach outside Scripture to try to 'prove' its beliefs!

Even the Anglicans accept the historicity of papal succession from Linus to the present day.
What is so despicable and brainless about Catholicism is that it ignores simple facts. The first Anglicans cannot have thought that succession from the Antichrist was worth having! Let's apply just a moiety of intelligence here. And of course it was only due to government interference that the CoE did not become presbyterian!

There is nothing in Anglican Articles or Canons that even acknowledges such a thing as 'succession'. That applies to all Protestant denominations- or they cannot be Protestant. The CoE and others do indeed recognise post-apostolic teachers, but what Catholics very seldom realise (or admit to) is that the CoE uses the arguments of these teachers against the RCC! The RCC really is wild, out in the cold, with not even the backing of those it supposes back it. Some Catholics know that only too well, and attempt to marginalise those who point out their despicable, pathetic intellectual claim, which is truly on a par with Mormonism and JWism, which bear considerable similarities to the RCC, as it happens! Those modern cults took over among the less fortunate in the USA because the old one was seen as intellectually decrepit and morally discredited, even among them.

There are individuals within the denominations (usually rather pompous types) who talk about succession, true, but they do so entirely on their own account, and cannot take any position of authority or teach any doctrine on the basis of succession. A leading Anglican scholar and archbishop, in response to claims by lower grades of clergy in the 18th century, wrote that there was not a person alive who could claim 'descent' from any apostle. There won't be one in the 21st century, either.

[Mark Aspam]

xyz;1331146 wrote: We have only their word for that- and knowing it proves nothing about validity. It is typically despicable of the dishonest RCC cult that they take them at their word, and make assumptions about validity, when John, Paul, Jude and indeed Peter mentioned false teachers already in the church as they wrote. What is 'valid' about a cult that keeps setting dates for the end of the world, takes its dupes to the tops of mountains to await same, and most of whose founder or co-founder's visions and revelations were plagiarized?

With the possible exception of the Church of the Sub-genius, the SDA has to be the silliest of all extant sects.

There is all manner of vailid criticism, both historical and contemporary, that might be directed at the RCC. That the SDA prefers slander and false witness of the vilest sort is highly significant.

[xyz]

Mark Aspam;1331148 wrote: What is 'valid' about a cult that keeps setting dates for the end of the world, takes its dupes to the tops of mountains to await same, and most of whose founder or co-founder's visions and revelations were plagiarized?

With the possible exception of the Church of the Sub-genius, the SDA has to be the silliest of all extant sects.
It is indeed very silly, but it is more credible than the RCC.

That the SDA prefers slander and false witness of the vilest sort is highly significant.
It just carries on the oldest RC tradition!

[Mark Aspam]

xyz;1331154 wrote: It is indeed very silly, but it is more credible than the RCC.



It just carries on the oldest RC tradition!Well, thanks for expressing your opinion. If you are an Adventist, why not seek a more credible affiliation? If you are not, why not identify yourself as whatever you are?

I understand the point of the original post, which you apparently do not, or are pretending that you do not. The priest was saying that the Church is continually under attack by Satan through its human enemies, such as yourself. I couldn't agree with him more.

The fact that the Church has withstood such attacks for nearly two millenia is in itself an indication of its mandate. It really doesn't need me to defend it; I would rather point out its shortcomings, which I have done in other recent threads here. Even those expressing opinions at odds with mine in the "Arrest the Pope" thread make some valid observations. You just seem to want to hurl vicious slander that has no basis in fact or in history, while being, apparently, so ashamed of your own affiliation that you refuse to name it. Not very convincing!

[xyz]

Mark Aspam;1331158 wrote: The priest was saying that the Church is continually under attack by Satan
That's true, but Satan has used the RCC against the church, and against whole populations, by force majeure, since it was started by Constantine. What this man was trying to do was assure ordinary Catholics that the natural conclusion to be drawn from events over the last few decades, that the RCC itself is a major agent of Satan, is incorrect, and that Satan has somehow got into the RCC's leadership, which is otherwise pure and blameless. What more astute Protestants have been saying for a very long time is that, very often, theology and personal qualities go hand in hand, and that the heresies of the Vatican have been matched by its infamous behaviour, in every age. Long before the Vatican's child abuse was noticed by the media, it was said that Catholic priests corrupted minds and souls, and it was no surprise that they did not stop short at corrupting bodies, too. That truth has been confirmed horribly since then. Far from being an aberration, abuse is the Catholic norm, that needs special, enormous effort to curtail it.

The fact that the Church has withstood such attacks for nearly two millenia is in itself an indication of its mandate.
It's an indication of the power of violence, through continued political association with oppressive rulers, nothing more. The RCC would never have got off the ground without it.

[fuzzywuzzy]

A leading Anglican scholar and archbishop, in response to claims by lower grades of clergy in the 18th century, wrote that there was not a person alive who could claim 'descent' from any apostle. There won't be one in the 21st century, either.


I doubt very much, unless you had the DNA available that any kind of decendency could be proven. And I think it an extremely arrogant thing to do so. But Peter did have a wife and children. In fact a couple of them did. Considering the traditions of the hebrew lifestyle it isn't to hard to assume or imagine that all had brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers wives children etc.. Even Jesus had brothers and sisters. That's stated in a very poignant area of the Bible. (not to make the statement of him 'having' a family, but mentioning it in passing.)