An Open Invitation to Civil Discussion

[meshak]

I cannot tell you how good it is to me to hear from you sometimes.

Well done to you.

Your interaction to the OP is an excellent.

 

[jsanford108]

No, the wafers in the box.
I would have never of guessed that you thought I was saying the Catholics thought a box was the body of Christ.

My apologies; that was completely my fault. I misinterpreted what you said, which was quite easy to see once I went back and reviewed it several times.

It is not the literal body of Christ.
Jesus died once.
Catholics believe that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice, a sacrifice every Mass where the priest turns the wafers into Jesus’ body. Catholics believe they are experiencing a miracle when the priest does this. However, read what the word of God says. The word of God tells us that Jesus is the Sacrificial Lamb. When Jesus offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Jesus is not in a wafer, he is at the right hand of the Father.

Catholics do not believe that every Mass is a new sacrifice; rather, it is a remembrance of Christ's Sacrifice. Therefore, when this is considered, along with the truth that Christ died once, for all, this is logical.

Christ's sacrifice is eternal, correct? If not, then anyone born after His death could not be covered by His Blood. So, by knowing that Christ's Sacrifice is eternal, no new sacrifice is ever needed. Mass is not a new sacrifice, but an active recollection and remembrance of that one which Christ fulfilled.

Now, the reason I asked you how Christ can be within us is to point out the logical contradiction of your stance regarding the Eucharist. You claim "Jesus is not in a wafer, he is at the right hand of the Father." Yet, you also claim that Christ is within us. This is a paradox within your own view and logic. If Jesus cannot be physically/spiritually present in a Host, due to being physically/spiritually present at the right hand of the Father, then He cannot, by this same logic, be present within us.

I say that Christ is within us. Thus, my logic is consistent.

Water is symbolic of the Holy Spirit.

But, Christ is not the Holy Spirit. Many times, Christ calls Himself the "living water." So, water is not limited to solely being symbolic of the Holy Spirit. So, again: why does Jesus use Bread and Blood as elements in John 6? If He was being symbolic, why not say His Body and Water? After all, it would be further supported at the Crucifixion, since water sprayed from His pierced side.


He said it was SPIRITUAL.
Here Jesus explains that it is Spiritual and not literal flesh and blood for them to eat.

John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.

Jesus explained to his disciples that it was spiritual. The ones who walked away rejected it.[/QUOTE]There are two issues within this point.
1.) Those who walked away, walked away before verse 60's "explanation."
2.) If you apply your claim to the entire passage of John 6, beginning with verse 34 (which is where you begin to see it as symbolic), then you must claim that Jesus' flesh profits nothing. Therefore, that His Sacrifice was superfluous, since "flesh profits nothing." By your logic, if consistently applied, Jesus did not need to physically die, but only symbolically.

To be consistent within your argument, you must conclude that Jesus' Body, since symbolic in John 6, profits nothing, as it is flesh; therefore, His physical death was unnecessary.

However, if you apply literal emphasis on John 6:34-58, then the physical sacrifice and death is necessary. The explanation of the flesh profiting nothing would apply therefore to things of this world. This is consistent with my logic, as verse 59 in taken into account and context.

If you would accept them, I have many early Christian sources which also support and adhere to the Eucharistic doctrine. Sure, these are not within the canon of the Bible; but they are disciples of those who authored the New Testament.

 

[God's Truth]

Catholics do not believe that every Mass is a new sacrifice; rather, it is a remembrance of Christ's Sacrifice. Therefore, when this is considered, along with the truth that Christ died once, for all, this is logical.

You are wrong about saying Catholics do not believe that.

Christ's sacrifice is eternal, correct? If not, then anyone born after His death could not be covered by His Blood. So, by knowing that Christ's Sacrifice is eternal, no new sacrifice is ever needed. Mass is not a new sacrifice, but an active recollection and remembrance of that one which Christ fulfilled.

It seems that you are not fully accepting what Catholics believe.
Catholics believe that the wafer is really Jesus’ flesh.

Now, the reason I asked you how Christ can be within us is to point out the logical contradiction of your stance regarding the Eucharist. You claim "Jesus is not in a wafer, he is at the right hand of the Father." Yet, you also claim that Christ is within us. This is a paradox within your own view and logic. If Jesus cannot be physically/spiritually present in a Host, due to being physically/spiritually present at the right hand of the Father, then He cannot, by this same logic, be present within us.

That is a really witty sounding conclusion, except that you forget that Catholic believe the wafer IS THE REAL FLESH of Jesus. Jesus living within us is by His Spirit. Jesus says the flesh counts for nothing.

 

[God's Truth]

But, Christ is not the Holy Spirit.

Of course he is.

Many times, Christ calls Himself the "living water." So, water is not limited to solely being symbolic of the Holy Spirit. So, again: why does Jesus use Bread and Blood as elements in John 6? If He was being symbolic, why not say His Body and Water? After all, it would be further supported at the Crucifixion, since water sprayed from His pierced side.

Jesus is the Holy Spirit. Jesus gives us water to drink; it means he himself will live in us.

There are two issues within this point.
1.) Those who walked away, walked away before verse 60's "explanation."
2.) If you apply your claim to the entire passage of John 6, beginning with verse 34 (which is where you begin to see it as symbolic), then you must claim that Jesus' flesh profits nothing. Therefore, that His Sacrifice was superfluous, since "flesh profits nothing." By your logic, if consistently applied, Jesus did not need to physically die, but only symbolically.

I really do see how you would get that, except that Jesus really did live as a man and die, and it is fully for the SPIRITUAL.

To be consistent within your argument, you must conclude that Jesus' Body, since symbolic in John 6, profits nothing, as it is flesh; therefore, His physical death was unnecessary.

No. Jesus says that actually eating the flesh of a human profits nothing.
He is speaking of spiritual things.

However, if you apply literal emphasis on John 6:34-58, then the physical sacrifice and death is necessary. The explanation of the flesh profiting nothing would apply therefore to things of this world. This is consistent with my logic, as verse 59 in taken into account and context.

If you would accept them, I have many early Christian sources which also support and adhere to the Eucharistic doctrine. Sure, these are not within the canon of the Bible; but they are disciples of those who authored the New Testament.

Look to the Holy Bible only.

 

[jsanford108]

You are wrong about saying Catholics do not believe that.

I am Catholic. Does it not seem logical that I would know what I believe?

And yes, that is what Catholics believe. Reference the Catechism, passage 1356-1358. Catholicism is the only denomination that has an actual, physical book, which contains every piece of doctrine that we believe (The Catechism of the Catholic Church). So, to say that isn't is false or just preferring ignorance.

It seems that you are not fully accepting what Catholics believe.
Catholics believe that the wafer is really Jesus’ flesh.

I agree that Catholics, myself included, believe that the Host is the literal flesh of Jesus. I have not disagreed with that in any capacity.

That is a really witty sounding conclusion, except that you forget that Catholic believe the wafer IS THE REAL FLESH of Jesus. Jesus living within us is by His Spirit. Jesus says the flesh counts for nothing.

My conclusion would be inclusive of the fact that Catholics, myself included, believe the Eucharist.

Yes, Jesus says the flesh counts for nothing. But, if that is your defense against the Eucharist being the literal Body of Christ, then logical consistency would state that Christ's Body, because it is literal flesh, profits nothing. Is that your position?

If not, then you have a paradoxical fallacy within your position.

This particular quote of yours also does not in any way address the issues that I mentioned, correlating Christ being at the right hand of the Father and within us. Of course it was "witty;" but it is also accurate.

Of course he is.


Jesus is the Holy Spirit. Jesus gives us water to drink; it means he himself will live in us.

I agree that Jesus/Holy Spirit dwell within those who by grace have been saved. I have not denied that, nor contested it. You, on the other hand, have said that Jesus cannot be in the Eucharist because He is at the right hand of the Father. To use this logic, one must also conclude that He cannot be within us, because He is at the right hand of the Father.

I really do see how you would get that, except that Jesus really did live as a man and die, and it is fully for the SPIRITUAL.

So, you would posit that Jesus' physical sacrifice profited nothing?

As you said, Jesus really did live and die. He also rose again. There is no need to point any of this out, as we both accept and believe it, yes? I simply do not accept that such actions are purely spiritual, since Christ, as a physical being and sacrifice, was necessary for salvation.

No. Jesus says that actually eating the flesh of a human profits nothing.
He is speaking of spiritual things.

Where is this explicit clarification? I pointed out the two issues with such application. The second one specifically deals with the inherent logical paradox within such a view: If you apply your claim to the entire passage of John 6, beginning with verse 34 (which is where you begin to see it as symbolic), then you must claim that Jesus' flesh profits nothing. Therefore, that His Sacrifice was superfluous, since "flesh profits nothing." By your logic, if consistently applied, Jesus did not need to physically die, but only symbolically.

I am not trying to beat a dead horse by repeating myself; but rather than address the illogical natures presented by your argument, you continue to simply assert your interpretation.

Look to the Holy Bible only.

That is fine. It would only serve to educate one on historical interpretations and accepted beliefs/teachings being consistent with Catholic Eucharistic doctrine.

 

[God's Truth]

I am Catholic. Does it not seem logical that I would know what I believe?

So you don't think that you could be wrong about anything they teach? All my ancestors were Catholic. I was raised Catholic; it was my mother's religion and my father's.
There are different kinds of Catholics. There are Traditional Catholics...that is what I was. It is probably the 'original' Catholics, it is what Mel Gibson was raised as; and a good eye can see the mistakes in his film Passion of the Christ. There are other types of Catholics; even some who believe in the nowadays speaking of tongues.

And yes, that is what Catholics believe. Reference the Catechism, passage 1356-1358. Catholicism is the only denomination that has an actual, physical book, which contains every piece of doctrine that we believe (The Catechism of the Catholic Church). So, to say that isn't is false or just preferring ignorance.

I know what Catholics believe.

I agree that Catholics, myself included, believe that the Host is the literal flesh of Jesus. I have not disagreed with that in any capacity.

Well, you have. You must know that you did in what you wrote here. Now though, you accept that is what they believe.

My conclusion would be inclusive of the fact that Catholics, myself included, believe the Eucharist.

I believe Jesus Christ.

Yes, Jesus says the flesh counts for nothing. But, if that is your defense against the Eucharist being the literal Body of Christ, then logical consistency would state that Christ's Body, because it is literal flesh, profits nothing. Is that your position?

Jesus is NOT in a wafer.
Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father.
JESUS SAYS the flesh profits NOTHING...eating flesh PROFITS NOTHING.

There are NOT thousands of Catholic priests turning the wafer into the real flesh of Jesus EVERYDAY, day after day.

Jesus LIVES IN THE SAVED SPIRITUALLY. He is there whether you ate a wafer or not. He is there inside your heart and mind whether you had sex on a Sunday before Mass and the taking of the Eucharist, for which you should not, according to the Catholics; Jesus is still in your heart whether or not you fasted, or had a piece of meat to eat, whether or not you had a bath, or were on your menses, or had a baby, ETC.

Jesus' FLESH BODY is in heaven, but his SPIRIT lives in the hearts and minds of the saved.

His flesh is NOT in a wafer that the Catholic priests turn it into.

 

[God's Truth]

As you said, Jesus really did live and die. He also rose again. There is no need to point any of this out, as we both accept and believe it, yes? I simply do not accept that such actions are purely spiritual, since Christ, as a physical being and sacrifice, was necessary for salvation.


Where is this explicit clarification? I pointed out the two issues with such application. The second one specifically deals with the inherent logical paradox within such a view: If you apply your claim to the entire passage of John 6, beginning with verse 34 (which is where you begin to see it as symbolic), then you must claim that Jesus' flesh profits nothing. Therefore, that His Sacrifice was superfluous, since "flesh profits nothing." By your logic, if consistently applied, Jesus did not need to physically die, but only symbolically.

I am not trying to beat a dead horse by repeating myself; but rather than address the illogical natures presented by your argument, you continue to simply assert your interpretation.
That is fine. It would only serve to educate one on historical interpretations and accepted beliefs/teachings being consistent with Catholic Eucharistic doctrine.

The eating of anything profits nothing, according to be saved or not.
Jesus says what goes in a man’s body goes out his body.
So you want to say you are eating the flesh of Jesus?
Think again, for you have fallen for the smoke and mirrors of the false church of the Catholics.

 

[jsanford108]

So you don't think that you could be wrong about anything they teach? All my ancestors were Catholic. I was raised Catholic; it was my mother's religion and my father's.
There are different kinds of Catholics. There are Traditional Catholics...that is what I was. It is probably the 'original' Catholics, it is what Mel Gibson was raised as; and a good eye can see the mistakes in his film Passion of the Christ. There are other types of Catholics; even some who believe in the nowadays speaking of tongues.

Are you trying to distinguish those Catholics who accept Vatican II from those who reject it?

Either way, Catholicism adheres to the Catechism. So, I am unsure why you assert that I could be wrong, since I have a literal, physical book to reference for the teachings of the Church.

I know what Catholics believe.

Thus far, you have demonstrated that to be fairly accurate.

Well, you have. You must know that you did in what you wrote here. Now though, you accept that is what they believe.

I have not altered my stance in any capacity. I have accepted what Catholicism teaches and remain unchanged in that stance.

So, could you provide where I disagreed with the Eucharistic teachings? It should be easy, since you claim that I have done so.

I believe Jesus Christ.

I accept that you do believe in Jesus. I have never stated otherwise.

You seem to be making responses that are not contributing to the conversation. Perhaps I am wrong, and if so, I apologize. But, what does your statement above have to do with this Eucharist portion of our discussion? (I am just trying to keep us focused)

Jesus is NOT in a wafer.
Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father.
JESUS SAYS the flesh profits NOTHING...eating flesh PROFITS NOTHING.

You keep saying this. Yet, you are not addressing the paradox of your view. If you are just accepting that paradox as a reality, then your view is illogical, and thus not representative of truth. Truth cannot be illogical.

Please, specifically address the paradox that I pointed out within your view and subsequent claims. For easy reference, here are the paradoxes:
1.) Jesus says the flesh counts for nothing. But, if that is your defense against the Eucharist being the literal Body of Christ, then logical consistency would state that Christ's Body, because it is literal flesh, profits nothing. Is that your position?
2.) The reason I asked you how Christ can be within us is to point out the logical contradiction of your stance regarding the Eucharist. You claim "Jesus is not in a wafer, he is at the right hand of the Father." Yet, you also claim that Christ is within us. This is a paradox within your own view and logic. If Jesus cannot be physically/spiritually present in a Host, due to being physically/spiritually present at the right hand of the Father, then He cannot, by this same logic, be present within us.
3.) If you apply your claim to the entire passage of John 6, beginning with verse 34 (which is where you begin to see it as symbolic), then you must claim that Jesus' flesh profits nothing. Therefore, that His Sacrifice was superfluous, since "flesh profits nothing." By your logic, if consistently applied, Jesus did not need to physically die, but only symbolically....To be consistent within your argument, you must conclude that Jesus' Body, since symbolic in John 6, profits nothing, as it is flesh; therefore, His physical death was unnecessary.

There are NOT thousands of Catholic priests turning the wafer into the real flesh of Jesus EVERYDAY, day after day.

If you are right. Which, based on your claims thus far, presents several illogical issues, fallacies, etc.

Thus far, I have a logical consistency within my argument.

He is there inside your heart and mind whether you had sex on a Sunday before Mass and the taking of the Eucharist, for which you should not, according to the Catholics

Where is this found? It certainly isn't the Catechism, or any Catholic doctrinal teaching. This seems to be misinformation and falsehood. And if it is Catholics who have told you this, then they are wrong, misinformed, etc.

Jesus' FLESH BODY is in heaven, but his SPIRIT lives in the hearts and minds of the saved.

So, his Body and Spirit are separate? That goes against the Scripture based doctrine of Christ's hypostatic nature. This verges on Gnostic or Mormon belief.

So, I disagree. Jesus must be unified in Body and Spirit, as He is eternally constant ("eternal").

 

[jsanford108]

The eating of anything profits nothing, according to be saved or not.

Well, this is obviously false, since we must eat. Otherwise we die of self-starvation (suicide).

So you want to say you are eating the flesh of Jesus?

Yes, I believe I have been quite clear on my acceptance of Eucharistic doctrine.

Think again, for you have fallen for the smoke and mirrors of the false church of the Catholics.

How do you know that the Catholic Church is the false church? It can't be based on Scripture, since the phrase "Catholic Church" is not found therein. You must be relying on extra-biblical evidence for this position.

 

[jsanford108]

Once you address the issues within your view, presented in post 128, I think we should progress to the next claim you wish to discuss.

I feel that we are reaching an impasse due to you not wanting to recognize various logical issues within your stance on the Eucharist. And, it appears that you just keep stating your initial points (with no further clarification given despite adequate refutation on my part), rather than addressing questions posed.

 

[God's Truth]

Are you trying to distinguish those Catholics who accept Vatican II from those who reject it?

That is right and others.

Please, specifically address the paradox that I pointed out within your view and subsequent claims. For easy reference, here are the paradoxes:
1.) Jesus says the flesh counts for nothing. But, if that is your defense against the Eucharist being the literal Body of Christ, then logical consistency would state that Christ's Body, because it is literal flesh, profits nothing. Is that your position?
2.) The reason I asked you how Christ can be within us is to point out the logical contradiction of your stance regarding the Eucharist. You claim "Jesus is not in a wafer, he is at the right hand of the Father." Yet, you also claim that Christ is within us. This is a paradox within your own view and logic. If Jesus cannot be physically/spiritually present in a Host, due to being physically/spiritually present at the right hand of the Father, then He cannot, by this same logic, be present within us.
3.) If you apply your claim to the entire passage of John 6, beginning with verse 34 (which is where you begin to see it as symbolic), then you must claim that Jesus' flesh profits nothing. Therefore, that His Sacrifice was superfluous, since "flesh profits nothing." By your logic, if consistently applied, Jesus did not need to physically die, but only symbolically....To be consistent within your argument, you must conclude that Jesus' Body, since symbolic in John 6, profits nothing, as it is flesh; therefore, His physical death was unnecessary.

The answer to all your questions is that eating the flesh of anything, or anyone in this case, PROFITS NOTHING SPIRITUALLY.

Where is this found? It certainly isn't the Catechism, or any Catholic doctrinal teaching. This seems to be misinformation and falsehood. And if it is Catholics who have told you this, then they are wrong, misinformed, etc.

No, you can’t play it that way, you can’t play it that way because the Catholics teach that their popes and what they say is INFALLIBLE.
You don’t even know that there are reasons for a Catholic to be forbidden to eat the Eucharist!

So, his Body and Spirit are separate? That goes against the Scripture based doctrine of Christ's hypostatic nature. This verges on Gnostic or Mormon belief.

Jesus’ body is in heaven and his Spirit goes out without limit.

So, I disagree. Jesus must be unified in Body and Spirit, as He is eternally constant ("eternal").

No one is eating the real flesh body of Jesus Christ.
Come to your senses and escape the influence the Catholics have on you.

 

[God's Truth]

Well, this is obviously false, since we must eat. Otherwise we die of self-starvation (suicide).

Yes, I believe I have been quite clear on my acceptance of Eucharistic doctrine.
How do you know that the Catholic Church is the false church? It can't be based on Scripture, since the phrase "Catholic Church" is not found therein. You must be relying on extra-biblical evidence for this position.

I am proving to you that the Catholic church went apostate a long time ago.

 

[God's Truth]

Once you address the issues within your view, presented in post 128, I think we should progress to the next claim you wish to discuss.

I feel that we are reaching an impasse due to you not wanting to recognize various logical issues within your stance on the Eucharist. And, it appears that you just keep stating your initial points (with no further clarification given despite adequate refutation on my part), rather than addressing questions posed.

You deny that your Catholic denomination has guidelines to eating the Eucharist.

You don't know that you are not supposed to eat of it at certain times and there are many guidelines.

 

[God's Truth]

I just want to say publicly that jsanford is better to me than many of my closest relatives.

We are debating hard and with obvious constraint because of the love of God.

Who does that? Not many.

What is this that Jesus says...he says come out of her MY PEOPLE.

He says do not share in her sufferings.

So then, we see that Jesus calls them who can be in false denominations 'my people'. However, he says to come out of her.

 

[jsanford108]

That is right and others.

There are many who call themselves "Catholic," and are not. The same goes for "Christian."

The answer to all your questions is that eating the flesh of anything, or anyone in this case, PROFITS NOTHING SPIRITUALLY.

So, would you say that you accept the illogical circumstances present within your doctrine?

No, you can’t play it that way, you can’t play it that way because the Catholics teach that their popes and what they say is INFALLIBLE.
You don’t even know that there are reasons for a Catholic to be forbidden to eat the Eucharist!

You deny that your Catholic denomination has guidelines to eating the Eucharist.

You don't know that you are not supposed to eat of it at certain times and there are many guidelines.

This simply isn't true though, GT. What an individual says, be they Catholic or not, is not "infallible," unless it truly is the Holy Spirit speaking through them, or they are just stating simple honest facts.

The Popes are only infallible when making declarations on moral or dogmatic truths. Since the formal introduction of Papal Infallibility, there has only been one "infallible decree." Literally, just one. Other than when speaking ex cathedra, the Pope is just as fallible and prone to sin as you and I. This is the simple true doctrine.

I honestly think you have been seriously misinformed.

As for guidelines for consuming the Eucharist, yes, there are plenty. Such as one must fast for at least one hour prior, be in a state of grace (meaning having no unrepentant mortal sins), have knowledge and true belief in what you are receiving (being the Eucharist), etc.

There are no forbidden clauses about sexual activity (provided that you are married; obviously, extra-marital sexual activity would be mortal sin). Whoever gave you this information is seriously spreading lies and falsehoods. I would say maliciously so.

Jesus’ body is in heaven and his Spirit goes out without limit.

But, this would make Christ divided, not unified.

 

[jsanford108]

I just want to say publicly that jsanford is better to me than many of my closest relatives.

We are debating hard and with obvious constraint because of the love of God.

Who does that? Not many.

GT, you have given me no indication that you are not Christian, nor severed from the Body of Christ.

We are called to grow in the knowledge of God, both alone and with each other. Sure, we may strongly disagree on doctrine; but if we maintain our focus on Christ, then we are heavenbound. Thus far, you have been civil in our discussion. You have been respectful and considerate.

This is why I gladly opened a thread to specifically have discussion with you (and anyone else who wished to seek a civil, honest conversation). So, thank you.

 

[God's Truth]

There are many who call themselves "Catholic," and are not. The same goes for "Christian."


So, would you say that you accept the illogical circumstances present within your doctrine?

This simply isn't true though, GT. What an individual says, be they Catholic or not, is not "infallible," unless it truly is the Holy Spirit speaking through them, or they are just stating simple honest facts.

The Catholic church says that what their popes say is infallible.

The Popes are only infallible when making declarations on moral or dogmatic truths. Since the formal introduction of Papal Infallibility, there has only been one "infallible decree." Literally, just one. Other than when speaking ex cathedra, the Pope is just as fallible and prone to sin as you and I. This is the simple true doctrine.

Your popes are sinful men, for they wear long flowing robes and take the seat of most importance; they have their feet kissed, and they are called 'Holy Father'.
They sin mightily.

Jesus' little children are the priests.

Jesus' priests are those who are saved by humbling themselves, and it is done by obeying.

I honestly think you have been seriously misinformed.

I will take the time to show you carefully that I am not misinformed.

As for guidelines for consuming the Eucharist, yes, there are plenty.

You said before that there were none.

God's Truth does not change like shifting shadows and waves.

James 1:17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

The doctrines of the Catholic denomination are demonic.


James 3:15
Such wisdom does not come from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic.

There are no forbidden clauses about sexual activity (provided that you are married; obviously, extra-marital sexual activity would be mortal sin). Whoever gave you this information is seriously spreading lies and falsehoods. I would say maliciously so.

What?

So now you claim I am malicious.

You are dead wrong.

I can prove easily that your denomination of choice is a denomination for a haunt of demons.

 

[God's Truth]

The Second Vatican would not exist if not for the First Vatican.

This show the changing teachings of the Catholic church and how it is NOT "infallible" when it comes to the doctrines of the "Church".

 

[God's Truth]

Just some BLASPHEMY FROM THE POPES

* “The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth.” Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, “Cities Petrus Bertanous”.

* Pope Nicholas I declared: ” the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who ,being God, cannot be judged by man.”(Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can 7 Satis Evidentur Decret Gratian Primer Para)

* The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, He is Jesus Christ himself, hidden under the veil of flesh.” Catholic National July 1895

* “We hold upon this earth the place of Almighty God” Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Letter of June 20,1894

 

[meshak]

Just some BLASPHEMY FROM THE POPES

* “The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth.” Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, “Cities Petrus Bertanous”.

* Pope Nicholas I declared: ” the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who ,being God, cannot be judged by man.”(Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can 7 Satis Evidentur Decret Gratian Primer Para)

* The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, He is Jesus Christ himself, hidden under the veil of flesh.” Catholic National July 1895

* “We hold upon this earth the place of Almighty God” Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Letter of June 20,1894

Are they all facts?