And upon a set day Herod [a type of the antichrist/pope], arrayed in royal apparel,
sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them.
And the people gave a shout, saying,
It is the voice of a god, and not of a man.
And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him,
because he gave not God the glory:
and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost"
Roman pontiffs have never been known to be humble.
This rather crude and almost posed-looking picture of Pius XII (aka Hitler's pope), and very much a favourite of the pre-Vatican II catholic church, certainly reflects the same dangerous folly to that of king Herod, who also thought nothing of being paraded around like a little presumptuous god, to be worshipped by his ignorant and deceived subjects.
Oh, how foolish and arrogant is unregenerate man!
Before I get into gear and take a methodical look at this nonsensical and heretical doctrine of a mere man having the audacity to be crowned 'infallible,' one who is well versed in Holy Scripture will no doubt see the glaring similarities between the rebellious and wicked Jews back in the Old Testament (who stubbornly refused to have God rule over them and for them, but opted instead for literal, and on many occasions, despicable and depraved kings to be their physical figureheads) and catholics today, who also reject God as their ultimate King and opt instead for the contemptible office of the papacy (see 1 Sam. 8:4-7).
Roman catholics certainly fit into the same category as the apostate Jews (found also in the New Testament, see John 19:15), for they appear totally lost and unable to approach God without a literal physical head over their church system to look up to and 'intercede' for them. And because of this inbred insecurity, a sense of endemic tribalism (especially prevalent in organised religion, the church of Rome, and others too) has successfully been able to perpetually tap into this feeling of needing to be a part of something, and in the process, to replace God with a man. This not only steals the glory from God, but actually enslaves lost sinners even more to man, making him more a child of Hell than before (Matt. 23:15). Conversely, the true Bible believer, whether during Biblical times or now, is more than happy to have God and only God rule over them, lead them, and if necessary, fight for them.
Jesus and His word really should be more than enough for the sincere seeker of salvation and solace. But sadly, if there is one thing from history that man learns from history, it is that man never learns from history.
When Pius XII officially decreed that 'the bodily assumption of Mary' be made doctrine, he made the following dictatorial statement:
"It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God" (1 Nov. 1950).
However around this time in Pius' life, he was receiving controversial sheep/foetal cell treatment, pioneered by Dr. Paul Niehams to 'rejuvenate' the aged human cells of his rich patients when they arrived at his clinic.
Niehams' celebrity client A-list included other names, such as Churchill, Adenauer, the cross-dresser Marlene Dietrich, and that grand old man of letters, Somerset Maugham. (Maugham once claimed to have seen the image of Jesus turn and look at him from an oil painting he had viewed in Venice. This seems to have unsettled him so much that he left the building in haste. Yet he would later write rather facetiously: "I believe neither in the existence of God nor in the immortality of the soul." The old degenerate would end his own days screaming in fear and terror of what he was seeing in his dreams and elsewhere. What a way to go for the unsaved. Truly a picture of Hell for the lost.)
Pius would also die painfully in his own last days blighted with recurring hiccups. This was an expensive trial and of course the pope could not travel to Switzerland to receive the so-called "youth jabs," so Niehams personally flew to Rome with two heavily pregnant ewes secured in the hold of his flight. Were the wretched sheep then later slaughtered in the Vatican perhaps? The live foetus was extracted to obtain their living cells to be later processed and injected into the pope’s exposed backside, perhaps by the good doctor himself. How disgusting this all seems from a so-called 'successor' of Peter!
Today, when I look at the faces of some of Niehams' recipients after their own expensive treatment, I can see no difference at all. In fact, did not Churchill suffer another stroke around the same time as he returned to Downing Street (which saw him go on to abolish the Witchcraft Act!)? As they say, a fool and his money are easily parted.
Another spurious aspect of Pius' XII time as pope is of him one morning claiming to have seen in his shaving mirror the face of the Lord Jesus looking at him. This 'account' gave way to one unsaved comedian to remark, blasphemously, 'we wonder who was most surprised' (see Romans 2:24).
Perhaps Pius' long-term mental state was in question throughout his torturous life, or maybe an all too familiar evil spirit visited him. However, barring his drug intake during this period and his fragile emotional condition, the so-called 'assumption of Mary' is nothing more than a fifth-century forgery by Dionysius the Areopagite (O. C. Lambert, Catholicism Against Itself, p. 76).
The word of God knows absolutely nothing about this fanciful fable. The only person who was bodily assumed into heaven upon death was, of course, the blessed Lord Jesus Christ. One must always remember that the church of Constantine is not a Bible-believing church, but a church which very much follows mystics (past and present), and instead of checking their 'visions' and 'experiences' in light of the infallible word of God, they all too willingly incorporate such into their evolving system of theology and dogmas.
Thomas Aquinas was also swallowed up with this infatuation of the non-Biblical papacy, for he had the gall and impudence to say:
"There is no difference between the Pope and Jesus Christ" (Summa Theologica XXXIV (Paris, 1871-1880), edited by Frette and Mare, p. 549. See also papal bull of Pope Pius V in 1570).
With such an horrendous and blasphemous statement as this, is it any wonder why certain people consider the papacy to be the Antichrist of Scripture!
Just when one thought such sacrilege from an unsaved and so-called 'saint' of the church of Rome couldn't get any worse, pope Pius XI, said the following:
"I am God on this earth" (30 April 1922, The Anti-Christ, 1920, Baron Porcelli, p. 31).
Of course, we know that there are many people in mental institutions who also believe in such hallucinations, but thankfully they are sedated, and for the most part are kept safely out of reach and interference with those in society. Sadly, the same cannot be said of the popes of Rome, or other religious egomaniacs for that matter!
Pius IX (the first pope to 'officially' and 'humbly' crown himself 'infallible'), would continue on with this diatribe:
"I am the way, the truth, and the life" (Lord Acton, Quirinus, Letters on the Council, p. 285).
Also from this deranged pope (as if he hadn't already condemned himself enough with his stupidity), he offered the final parting shot, sounding more devil-possessed as his papal days decreased:
"I am Caesar" (Discourses Vol. 1, p. 253).
To the unlearned, one would probably just brush this off and consider such statements to be comical. But to the Bible believer, what he is actually saying in essence is that he is the Antichrist, meaning he sits in the place of the true Christ, that being the Lord Jesus Christ. He now demands total 'submission,' directly or indirectly from his subjects (worldwide catholics), to worship him!
In fact, for the popes of Rome to have felt confident enough to even make such insane statements in the first place declares Lucifer truly is at the top of the world's largest false religion, and of course has always been there!
The following Scripture shows such a striking resemblance between the popes who desire to be worshipped and Lucifer wanting to replace God, that it should scream to any open-minded and sincere catholic to examine, take heed, and then run to the nearest exit:
"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit" (Is. 14:12-15).
And yet to the contrary, the much blighted and often slandered King James at least had the good sense to say:
"I am neither a god nor an angel but a man like any other."
Here are some quick facts about Pius IX, the man who dared to be made 'infallible' and subsequently 'worshipped' by catholics worldwide. However, those who would not risked 'eternal damnation:'
The Catholic Truth Society published a pamphlet, which read in part:
"The Catholic Church is essentially, and by divine institution, papal in its nature...that to be a Catholic means precisely to be in communion with the Pope and nothing else" (Rev. P. H. Malden, Anglo-Catholics, Have They Grasped the Point?, p. 12).
So to be 'faithfully' in communion with the pope, by his 'divine appointment,' catholics are expected to believe in Mary's 'immaculate conception/bodily assumption,' 'the infallibility of the pope,' and the 'perpetual sacrifice of the mass,' all of which are totally blasphemous and foreign to Scripture!
And if the above statements weren't bad enough, the following quote is even more ridiculous and idolatrous:
"All the devotion to Jesus as Priest, Shepherd and Father that enlightened faith can inspire is summed up practically and effectively in devotion to the Pope...If one would have a devotion to the sacred Scriptures, the Pope is the living and speaking Bible. If it is the duty to be devout to the Sacraments, is not the Pope the Sacrament of Jesus by the mere fact that he is His Vicar" (M.D. Petrie, quoting Monsignor Gay in Modernism, p. 189-190).
According to official catholic doctrine, lay and clergy members are not allowed to have their own opinion as to what should be doctrinal. This may stun many people in the post-modern world, but Rome has long retained this erroneous view, and even adds that for those free thinkers who desire to check such claims for themselves is simply madness (Leo XIII Immortale Dei and Gregory XVII Mirari Vos).
No doubt, Cuba's secret police could take lessons from them! But their cousins in Russia, the ruthless and former mind-controlling KGB, spent decades also imposing their unwanted and non-elected atheist 'gospel' on pitiable beaten-down subjects.
A former Anglican bishop of Gloucester stated:
"The Papacy as authority is inconsistent with the very essence of Christianity... Again and again in its history the Papacy had adopted such methods and violated the rules which should guide Christian action. We may find in this imperialistic ambition the worst perversion that Christianity has ever undergone" (The Doctrine of the Church, p. 194).
Yet, so-called papal 'infallibility' was never practiced or even spoken about during the first thousand years of Christendom, at least not officially anyway.
One of Rome's most well-known canon lawyers Gratian said the following about Peter's fallibility:
"He compelled the Gentiles to live as Jews and to depart from Gospel truth" (Gal. 2:11-14).
Please permit me to quote the Scripture in question:
"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"
There is no doubt that what Gratian said is very serious, and quite right.
The writer Leon Morris offers his own stinging condemnation on Peter, by quoting two sources, which both line up to justifiably critique the apostle and his actions:
"The same Peter who had denied his Lord for fear of a maidservant now denied Him again for fear of the circumcision" (Stott).
Morris then quotes Luther:
"If Peter dissembleth, sinneth not of ignorance, but deceiveth by a colour which he knoweth himself to be false" (Galatians: Paul's Charter of Christian Freedom, 1996, p. 79).
Peter was indeed preaching (if only for a short while) a different gospel to that of Paul. One can understand, therefore, the righteous fury Paul would have felt when he publicly confronted Peter and demanded his repentance. In fact, the beginning of Galatians could so easily have been aimed at Peter, albeit in a rather limited sense. We read:
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:6-9).
It should also be pointed out that Peter was successfully corrected thanks to Paul's personal discipleship and would go on to uphold all that Paul taught in his epistles:
"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" (2 Pet. 3:15-16).
So clearly there was never any 'infallibility' on Peter's part, just gross errors and human weakness, something all saints are guilty of (Mark 14:38).
I would further add that Rome's official definition of 'papal infallibility' is only relevant when the pope speaks on matters of faith and morals. Based on Gal. 2, Peter would have been automatically disqualified therefore!
On the two occasions when a pope has spoken ex cathedra (meaning he is totally 'infallible,' something only the writers of the Bible were when they wrote the Bible), their main interest was to elevate/worship Mary.
The first of these occasions was in 1854 (however, only 451 bishops out of 1,084 voted yes in the first round to this new and unheard-of authority; so it was only passed after a split vote) when Pius IX 'infallibly' decreed that Mary was not 'conceived in original sin.'
Former Jesuit priest George Tyrell had the following to say about this type of theatre:
"Why should men of today be forced to believe under pain of eternal damnation what St. Thomas (Aquinas) and St. Bernard (and St. Bonaventura, not to mention the Franciscan and Dominican orders) denied with impunity" (Medievalism, p. 49).
But today's catholic can pretty much believe what they want until, that is, they correct or question the papacy; then they are kicked out. But a cold-blooded murderer like Al Capone, or a notorious womanizer like JFK, are both 'good to go.' In fact, both 'faithful sons' of the church of Rome were never excommunicated but received public and lavish requiem masses. How obscene is that!
Pius XII 'infallibly' decreed Mary's so-called 'bodily assumption to heaven' even though there is absolutely nothing in Scripture that even hints at such a fairy-tale and pope Gelasius had taught that anybody who believed in such a thing would be anathema.
So, one must ask, is pope John Paul II cursed? And what about every other pope that has gone on to worship this infamous 'queen of heaven?'
In fact, is it even possible for a pope of the past to curse a future or living pope, like John Paul II, who was made a 'living saint' in 2014 by the first Jesuit pope in Rome's long and bloody history?!?
Peter Ruckman offers the following on this type of folly:
"For example, the Roman Catholic Bishop Strossmayer pointed out to Pius IX and his half-insane hierarchy that pope Victor (192) approved of Montanism and then condemned it. Pope Marcellinus (296-303) was an idolater. Gregory I (785-790) called anyone "ANTICHRIST" who took the name that Pope John Paul II took (and John XXIII took and Paul VI took!) Pope Paschall II and Pope Eugenius III authorised dueling. Julius II and Pius IV forbade it. Pope Eugenius IV approved of the Council of Basel. Pius II revoked it. Hadrian II (867-872) declared civil marriages to be valid. Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) said they weren't, etc, etc" (History of the New Testament Church, Vol. II, p. 439).
One former Anglican bishop said the following:
"In the thirteenth century the Franciscan order was convulsed by a controversy about holding to the principles of their founder. George IX in 1231 issued a bull that it was not lawful for them to have property. In 1279 the bull of Nicholas III, Exiit, endorsed this and stated that Christ taught by word and example. Pope John XXII, however, in his bull Cum inter nonnullos, 1332, denounced the tenet of the absolute poverty of Christ as contrary to Scripture and heretical. Where is certitude to be found."
Other popes have wanted to speak ex cathedra, such as in 1968 when Paul VI tried to enforce catholic contraception, but a backlash from clergy and laity made the papal decree not worth the paper it was written on (this was the first open rebellion his church had witnessed).
Paul VI never emotionally recovered from this assault on his 'papal authority,' and indeed he would never issue another papal encyclical, until his 'official' death in 1978 - the year of three popes). Therefore, pontiffs are understandably reluctant to see another form of open and embarrassing rebellion within catholicism.
One further thought on the preposterous notion of a mortal man being 'infallible': the Scripture makes it abundantly clear how Peter, their so-called 'first pope,' was called Satan by Jesus when he tried to correct and rebuke Jesus for His soon death on the cross. In fact, before I share the Scripture in question, it must further be stated for the record that Matthew and Mark both have this account, whereas only Matthew has the Lord's commendation of Peter's faith in Him. Clearly, the Holy Ghost considered the following stinging chastisement of Jesus to Peter to not only be of greater importance, but also a warning and maybe even a prediction against the dreadful elevation of man to almost 'deity,' once the catholic church officially commenced in the fourth century:
"But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men" (Mark 8:33).
This gospel was also written by Peter's personal disciple, Mark, who got it, as they say, straight from the horse's mouth. Obviously Peter didn't consider himself to be 'infallible' either.
As a Bible-believing Christian and former catholic, I believe the only time mortal man was ever infallible was when the holy prophets and apostles penned the Holy Bible. And even then, their writings were inspired and infallible, not the writers per se. Once they wrote the Bible over a period of around 1600 years, such infallibility never occurred again!
And just in case anybody thought all this foolish talk of a mere man being 'infallible' and therefore practically 'deity' was something out of the dark ages, the above picture really does paint a thousand words, and needs little commentary from me. Clearly, the power and evil influence of the papacy is still very much prevalent for all who have eyes to see and ears to hear!
Isaac Barrow couldn't have put the wickedness of the papacy any better:
"If this point be of so great consequence as they make it; if, as they would persuade us, the subsistence, order, unity, and peace of the Church, together with the salvation of Christians, do depend on it; if, as they suppose, many great points of truth do hang on this pin; if it be, as they declare, a main article of faith, and not only a simple error but a pernicious heresy, to deny this primacy; then it is requisite, that a clear revelation from God should be producible in favour of it, (for upon that ground only such points can firmly stand)" (A Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy, p. 85).
(All Rights Reserved)