Is the Pope a False Prophet? By Andrew P. Napolitano

So am I wrong for praying for his repentance?

I wouldn't say it is wrong to pray for his repentance, the only thing that I could say for certain would be wrong to pray for on account of the pope would be for him to succeed in his office, as it would be tantamount to praying for Christ's Church to suffer further persecution and attack. If you decide to continue in doing this, my only advice would be not to do this with any expectation of success, there is a determinism to God's providence that is tied in with his most visible enemies, and the Papacy presents a key antagonist to the western church that will be dealt with at the time of the eschaton.

I don't want to read too much into it, but I read something by Benedict lately that seemed rather soteriologically Lutheran. And he was among the most vocal conservatives in the RCC. And then he retired. A friend and I were talking about this recently and it seems suspicious. I'm not saying Benedict is a believer (I do sorta doubt it) but I find this interesting nonetheless.

From a providential angle, his retirement was curious, and even more curious was that the Jesuits would be brazen enough to actually put one of their own in charge at this stage of things. One thing I should stress is that I don't believe that the church can speak infallibly on matters of anyone's salvation (that's what separates us from Rome), but there are certain cases where a certain level of certainty can be attained regarding who is a permanent enemy of the faith, and the Papacy is one of those cases. Historically I could argue that a number of Bishops who have been designated with the title of Pope in Church antiquity were elect, particularly up until Gregory I, but following the Medieval Period this gets much harder to argue if one uses scripture consistently, particularly when considering how the church dealt with the Waldensian believers, Wycliffe and Hus.
 
@ moostraks

The one noteworthy line is the last one. Only through God's grace to the believer, is one able to repent and live the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is no human action that can be added to the finished work of Christ on the Cross, for His own.

Much of this does not even make sense, as it is a theological mess.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't say it is wrong to pray for his repentance, the only thing that I could say for certain would be wrong to pray for on account of the pope would be for him to succeed in his office, as it would be tantamount to praying for Christ's Church to suffer further persecution and attack. If you decide to continue in doing this, my only advice would be not to do this with any expectation of success, there is a determinism to God's providence that is tied in with his most visible enemies, and the Papacy presents a key antagonist to the western church that will be dealt with at the time of the eschaton.



From a providential angle, his retirement was curious, and even more curious was that the Jesuits would be brazen enough to actually put one of their own in charge at this stage of things. One thing I should stress is that I don't believe that the church can speak infallibly on matters of anyone's salvation (that's what separates us from Rome), but there are certain cases where a certain level of certainty can be attained regarding who is a permanent enemy of the faith, and the Papacy is one of those cases. Historically I could argue that a number of Bishops who have been designated with the title of Pope in Church antiquity were elect, particularly up until Gregory I, but following the Medieval Period this gets much harder to argue if one uses scripture consistently, particularly when considering how the church dealt with the Waldensian believers, Wycliffe and Hus.
Excellent post.
 
@ moostraks

The one noteworthy line is the last one. Only through God's grace to the believer, is one able to repent and live the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is no human action that can be added to the finished work of Christ on the Cross, for His own.

Much of this does not even make sense, as it is a theological mess.

And I also ran across this:

He spoke of Mercy as an expression of God's love. He told us that this kind of mercy is our mandate, if we are truly sincere about living the the Christian Way of Life in this present age.

He explained that mercy is, "the true force that can save man and the world from the 'cancer' of sin, of moral and spiritual evil."

The three parables were summarized by Francis as "the lost sheep, the lost coin, and then the longest of all the parables, which is typical of Luke, the father and his two sons, the ' prodigal ' son and the self-righteous son who thinks he is holy."

He spoke of a joyful God, noting "all three parables speak of God's joy. God is joyful! That is something interesting. What is God's joy? Forgiveness. God's joy is forgiveness!

"It is the joy of the shepherd who finds his sheep; the joy of the woman who finds her coin; it is the joy of the father who welcomes home a son who was lost, who was as good as dead, but is alive again, back home. This is the whole Gospel. This is the whole of Christianity!"

"Yet, there is nothing sentimental about it, nor a sense of 'doing good'! On the contrary, mercy is the true force that can save man and the world from the 'cancer' of sin, of moral and spiritual evil. Only love fills the emptiness, the negative chasms that evil opens in hearts and history. Only love can do this and this is God's joy."

"Jesus is all mercy, all love. He is God made man. Everyone here is the lost sheep, the lost coin, and each of us is the son who has wasted his freedom following false idols, the illusions of happiness, and lost everything. He is a patient father. He respects our freedom, but remains loyal".

"And when we return to Him, he welcomes us as children, into his house, because he never stops, not even for a moment, to wait for us, with love. And his heart celebrates every child who comes back. He celebrates because it is joy. He celebrates when one of us sinners comes back."

"What is the danger? To think that we are just; that we can judge others; that we can judge God because we think he should punish sinners; condemn them to death, instead of forgiving them. That is when we risk remaining outside of our Father's house! "

"Like the older brother in the parable, who instead of being happy because his brother was back, got angry with his father who welcomes him and celebrates. If, in our hearts there is no mercy, no joy of forgiveness, we are not in communion with God, even if we observe all of his precepts because it is love that saves, not only the practice of the precepts. Love for God and one's neighbor fulfils all the commandments. This is his joy: forgiveness."

He contrasted the limitations of a merely human notion of justice with the Mercy which reveals Gods justice and insisted that "only God's justice can save us! And God's justice revealed itself on the Cross. The Cross is God's judgment on all of us and on this world. But how does God judge us? By giving his life for us.

Behold the supreme act of justice that defeated once and for all the Prince of this world. This supreme act of justice is also one of mercy. Jesus called us all to follow this path. "Be merciful," he said, "just as [. . .] your Father is merciful"(Lk, 6:36).

He called us to participate in God's mercy by becoming mercy to others. "Now I ask you one thing. Let each one of you think about a person with whom you do not get along, with whom you are angry. In silence, think about this person, pray for this person and let yourself become merciful towards this person."

Francis is a Pope of Mercy. In his words and his life witness he makes mercy real to a world desperately in need of experiencing its liberating effect.

He cautioned us that "if we live according to the law of 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth', we cannot come out of the spiral of evil. The Evil One is smart. He dupes us into thinking that human justice can save us and save the world. In fact, only God's justice can save us! And God's justice revealed itself on the Cross."
http://www.catholic.org/news/national/story.php?id=59649
 
  • Like
Reactions: TER
Yes, more theological gibberish. Enjoy it if you'd like, moostraks.
 
I answered you with a sufficiently descriptive passage. It was not merely one line within the passage or I, myself, would have chosen to only quote said line.

As for your question about NA pagans you could look here:



Or here as it apples to what you are angling at:



Neither passage of which should be boiled down to a seven word phrase to grasp the concepts being imparted within them.

~~~peace on your path

Oh, okay then. So you believe Native Americans are lost and condemned.

You quoted form Romans 2:
12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.

Native Americans sin apart from the law, so they will perish in Hell.

13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

Not even the Jews who heard the law every day were righteous, because they weren't doing it. It is impossible for a man to do the law (Romans 3).

14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

The "requirements of the law" are written on the Native American's hearts, and the law condemns them, so they will perish in Hell.

I'm glad you answered this question with Scripture!
 
Traditional Roman Catholics seem to be concerned about this pope. Some are calling for his resignation, some think him a false prophet. Those who are faithful to the Magisterium think he is heretical on some topics. Trips like these bring out all sorts of thoughts and opinions. Let the dust settle a bit. His agenda is clear.

When listening to him over these many months and now in the USA, one does not hear him speak of the gospel, and the call for sinners to repent and come to faith in Jesus Christ.

Yes, more theological gibberish. Enjoy it if you'd like, moostraks.

It was brought forth because of your proclamation that he was not calling for repentance nor coming to faith in Christ. In curiosity I briefly looked into your argument and it seems without merit imo.

~~~peace
 
I wouldn't say it is wrong to pray for his repentance, the only thing that I could say for certain would be wrong to pray for on account of the pope would be for him to succeed in his office, as it would be tantamount to praying for Christ's Church to suffer further persecution and attack.

Yes, I would never do this.

If you decide to continue in doing this, my only advice would be not to do this with any expectation of success, there is a determinism to God's providence that is tied in with his most visible enemies, and the Papacy presents a key antagonist to the western church that will be dealt with at the time of the eschaton.

I don't really expect success. This was mostly just my response to people who were celebrating the pope's coming to the US and whatnot.

From a providential angle, his retirement was curious, and even more curious was that the Jesuits would be brazen enough to actually put one of their own in charge at this stage of things. One thing I should stress is that I don't believe that the church can speak infallibly on matters of anyone's salvation (that's what separates us from Rome),
Agreed.

but there are certain cases where a certain level of certainty can be attained regarding who is a permanent enemy of the faith, and the Papacy is one of those cases. Historically I could argue that a number of Bishops who have been designated with the title of Pope in Church antiquity were elect, particularly up until Gregory I, but following the Medieval Period this gets much harder to argue if one uses scripture consistently, particularly when considering how the church dealt with the Waldensian believers, Wycliffe and Hus.

Generally agree. I do wonder if Benedict actually believes Trent after reading one thing he wrote but I haven't seen enough to say. But definitely belief in Trent is damnable.
 
Now your foray into Reconstructionism is causing you to wonder about the gospel. Didn't I warn you of that?

I've always believed the same thing about this. Justification is by faith alone. If you deny that, you're not saved. The Roman Catholic church denies it, thus they are not part of the visible church. There are, nevertheless, some people who are in the Roman Catholic Church who don't believe the damnable theology of Rome. I would not say such people are necessarily unjustified just because they happen to be in Rome. I have NEVER taken a position different from this. You haven't been paying attention if you thought I ever believed differently from this.

What the heck does this have to do with recon?
 
Oh, okay then. So you believe Native Americans are lost and condemned.

You quoted form Romans 2:


Native Americans sin apart from the law, so they will perish in Hell.



Not even the Jews who heard the law every day were righteous, because they weren't doing it. It is impossible for a man to do the law (Romans 3).



The "requirements of the law" are written on the Native American's hearts, and the law condemns them, so they will perish in Hell.

I'm glad you answered this question with Scripture!

jeep-leo-burnett-see-what-ever-you-want-to-see-51.jpg


blog_what-you-see-house.jpg


lead-a-horse-to-water.jpg


~~~peace
 
It was brought forth because of your proclamation that he was not calling for repentance nor coming to faith in Christ. In curiosity I briefly looked into your argument and it seems without merit imo.

~~~peace
Not a proclamation or argument, moostraks, an observation that has merit, given the strange theology he puts forth.
 
Not a proclamation or argument, moostraks, an observation that has merit, given the strange theology he puts forth.

Merit upon what basis? It seems the complaint is that he is not behaving as a Protestant (repetitive complaints about his theology) and not that he has neglected calls to repentance or calls to faith in Christ.
 
Merit upon what basis? It seems the complaint is that he is not behaving as a Protestant (repetitive complaints about his theology) and not that he has neglected calls to repentance or calls to faith in Christ.
The RCC teaches that one comes to faith in Christ based on their own merits. The Christian church teaches, John 6:44. Justification is by faith alone, and the believer is given faith, Solus Christus.

Look carefully at what he says. His words and message are meant to confuse. Didn't he also say, on the site you posted, that even atheists would make it to heaven, based on their good works?
 
Last edited:
Oh, okay then. So you believe Native Americans are lost and condemned.

You quoted form Romans 2:


Native Americans sin apart from the law, so they will perish in Hell.



Not even the Jews who heard the law every day were righteous, because they weren't doing it. It is impossible for a man to do the law (Romans 3).



The "requirements of the law" are written on the Native American's hearts, and the law condemns them, so they will perish in Hell.

I'm glad you answered this question with Scripture!

Matthew 7
1Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
 
This site is filled with exegetically illiterate morons.

I know Sola is busy but I'm going to wait and see if he ever actualy tries to prove that Reconstruction is a denial of the gospel. Unless he does I'm done with this thread as there is very little of value here.
 
The RCC teaches that one comes to faith in Christ based on their own merits. The Christian church teaches, John 6:44. Justification is by faith alone, and the believer is given faith, Solus Christus.

Look carefully at what he says. His words and message are meant to confuse. Didn't he also say, on the site you posted, that even atheists would make it to heaven, based on their good works?

So it would then be that he is not putting forth a specific Protestant structure to his Catholic beliefs?

I have no interest in finding hidden meanings or agendas to his statements. I put that behind me years ago.
 
So it would then be that he is not putting forth a specific Protestant structure to his Catholic beliefs?

I have no interest in finding hidden meanings or agendas to his statements. I put that behind me years ago.
Sounds good.
 
IRT the atheist statement by the Pope:

No more than an hour went by and an inquisitive Presbyterian friend of mine emailed me with a link to the HuffPo story. “So doing good on its own is enough for salvation in Catholicism?” he asked. In response, I sent him two links that clarified the pope’s words.

The first link I sent him was this blog post by Fr. Dwight Longenecker. Here is what he wrote:

The Pope is simply affirming certain truths that any somewhat knowledgable Catholic will uphold.

First, that Christ died to redeem the whole world. We can distinguish his redemptive work from the acceptance of salvation. He redeemed the whole world. However, many will reject that saving work. In affirming the universality of Christ’s redemptive work we are not universalists. To say that he redeemed the whole world is not to conclude that all will be saved.

Secondly, the Pope is also affirming that all humans are created in God’s image and are therefore created good. Yes, created good, but that goodness is wounded by original sin.

Thirdly, he is affirming that all men and women are obliged to pursue what is beautiful, good and true. Natural virtue is possible–even obligatory, but natural virtue on its own is not sufficient for salvation. Grace is necessary to advance beyond natural virtue to bring the soul to salvation. The Pope does not say atheists being good on their own will be saved. He says they, like all men, are redeemed by Christ’s death and their good works are the starting place where we can meet with them–the implication being “meet with them in an encounter that leads eventually to faith in Christ.

The second link I sent him was this one from Catholicism.org’s Brian Kelly, who was actually writing in response to a Catholic Online article whose headline read: “Pope Francis says atheists can do good and go to heaven too!”

Here is what Mr. Kelly said in response:

Pope Francis did not say that an atheist who does naturally good things can be saved if he dies an atheist. Yet that is the impression given by Catholic Online’s half truth headline…

The Pope… simply reminded the faithful that there can be, and is, goodness, or natural virtue, outside the Church. And that Christ’s death on the Cross redeemed all men. He paid the price so that every man could come to God and be saved.

If Catholic Online is insinuating that Pope Francis has “reformed” the irreformable dogma, outside the Church there is no salvation, then that is shameful and disingenuous.

At the end of the day, could Pope Francis have been a little clearer about what he was trying to say? Sure. That’s the risk of delivering off the cuff sermons. The real fault, I think, lies with the theologically-illiterate press corps, whose understanding of basic Catholic doctrine is so infinitesimal that it is increasingly unable to report on the Catholic Church without completely embarrassing itself.
https://www.catholicvote.org/what-pope-francis-really-said-about-atheists/

Or read here:

Just one day after the pope's now famous words in Rome on May 22, a Vatican spokesman the Rev. Thomas Rosica released a statement quoting a section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that says people who reject the teachings of Jesus Christ cannot attain salvation.

All salvation comes from Christ, the Head, through the Church which is his body," Rosica wrote. "Hence they cannot be saved who, knowing the Church as founded by Christ and necessary for salvation, would refuse to enter her or remain in her."

However, Rosica wrote that it's not impossible for an atheist to eventually be saved by Christ.

"Rejection of Christianity may not mean the rejection of Christ,” he wrote. "We can never say with ultimate certainty whether a non-Christian who has rejected Christianity...is still following the temporary path mapped out for his own salvation which is leading him to an encounter with God.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/28/vatican-atheists-cant-be-saved_n_3346201.html
 
Back
Top