Good morning.
Welcome to Inquisition Update.
My name is Tom Friess and I'll be your host for the next hour.
You're listening to firstamendmentradio .com.
Thanks for tuning in, everyone.
We're going to, having left our discussion about Rome's dominion over the kings of
the earth in fulfillment of Bible prophecy, marking her as the whore of
Revelation chapter 17.
We'll continue in Dave Hunt's book, A Woman Rides the Beast, with the next
chapter.
It's entitled, Papal Infallibility and Apostolic Succession.
These are critical foundations upon which the papacy totters.
And this chapter begins with a quote from Brian Kearney in his Origins of Papal
Infallibility.
He says, quote,
So, as late as the 14th century, it was still considered ridiculous to
assert that the papacy was infallible.
And here, a quote from St. Augustine that appears on its face to support papal
infallibility.
It says, quote, Rome has spoken.
The dispute is at an end.
Unquote.
We're going to talk more about this quote from St. Augustine.
It's not what it appears.
Papal Infallibility and Apostolic Succession.
Dave says,
One example is the quote by Augustine on the facing page.
If, as the argument goes, Augustine, the great theologian of the Roman Catholic
Church, was willing to submit to whatever Rome, that is, the Pope and its hierarchy,
decreed, then surely ordinary Roman Catholics ought to do the same.
Such submission, however, is not what Augustine proposed.
In context, taken in context what he said, the quote means something entirely
different.
Two synods had ruled on a disputed matter, and the Bishop of Rome had concurred,
which, quote, appeared to Augustine more than enough.
And so the matter might be regarded as at an end.
That a Roman judgment in itself was not conclusive, but that a concilium
planarium, that is, a council of the entire church, was necessary for that
purpose.
He had himself maintained, unquote.
It was simply taken out of context, and used by the Roman Catholic Church to
support the idea of papal infallibility and apostolic succession, when in fact it
was the opposite.
Such is the deception of the Roman Catholic Church.
Even taking out of context its own theologians, in order to prop up this
phony infallibility of the Pope.
Dave continues, he says, nowhere else in his voluminous writings did Augustine even
come close to suggesting that the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, had the final say on
issues of faith and morals.
In fact, Augustine said that the African church had been correct in rejecting Roman
Bishop Stephen's opinion on settling a baptismal dispute.
Never once in all the arguments that Augustine proposed on many issues did he
suggest that the Bishop of Rome should be consulted as the final arbiter of
orthodoxy, or even that he should be consulted at all.
Interestingly enough, though the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD decreed that the three
bishops of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, the concept of a Pope still yet unknown,
be designated as quote-unquote superior to other bishops of less important Christian
centers, the Bishop of Rome at that time refused to accept such a distinction for
himself.
Historian Lars Qualben further comments, quote, the General Council of
Constantinople in 381 designated the Bishop of that city a Patriarch,
and the General Council of Chalcedon in 451 gave the same title to the Bishop of
Jerusalem, leaving out the Bishop of Rome, and the Patriarch of Constantinople,
not of Rome, was voted the Chief Bishop of the entire Church.
After the Western Empire was destroyed in 476 AD, the Emperor of Constantinople
became the sole Emperor of the world, and this new dignity naturally added some
prestige to the Patriarch of that city.
The Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople became leading rivals for
Church supremacy.
So where is the apostolic succession in that?
Where is papal infallibility in that?
It's simply not there.
A doctrine first declared by emperors.
Dave says emperors had in fact declared the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome over
the Western Church, but not over the Church universal, and called him the Roman
Pope as early as the 5th century.
An edict of the emperors Valentinian III and Theodosius II of 445 AD declared,
we decree by this perpetual edict that it will not be lawful for the bishops of Gaul
or of other provinces to attempt anything contrary to ancient custom without the
authority of that venerable man, the Pope of the Eternal City.
It must be noted that this recognition of papal authority comes from emperors,
not from an ecclesiastical council representing the whole church.
The purpose on the part of the emperors was not to conform to scripture,
but to maintain unity in the empire.
It was for political purposes.
And unity among the rival bishops and their followers was essential to that end.
Rome, being the capital, had to be the center of ecclesiastical authority,
even as it was the civil.
Moreover, for a Catholic to take comfort in such declarations, he must also accept
the fact that at the same time the emperors honored the bishop of Rome's
authority, they made it clear that they were above him.
The emperor was above the pope.
Where's the papal infallibility in that?
Seems to me that if the pope were regarded as infallible, he would be above the
emperor, right?
That's not the way it started out.
Now, the emperor Justinian, for example, in his edict of April 17th, 535 A.D.,
on the relations between church and state declared, quote, There is indeed a
recognition of the distinction between the clergy and lay elements in Christian
society.
But for all practical purposes, the emperor is to be the controller of
both, exercising, as he apparently is to do, a supervision over the, quote,
moral well-being, unquote, of the clergy.
Close all quotes.
Boy, we need somebody to be in charge of the moral well-being of the Roman Catholic
clergy these days, don't we?
Time for an emperor to stand up and give the Roman Catholic hierarchy a good
spanking for all the pedophilia Not to mention all the other crimes of the
papacy.
The only one that gets any press these days is the corruption of the Vatican Bank
and the pedophile priest pandemic around the world.
Those two alone are enough to have a complete audit of the Roman Catholic
Church.
But the church skates.
No one dares say a word against the Roman Pontiff, the infallible successor of the
Apostle Peter.
Now, it would be centuries before the popes would establish their authority over
emperors and kings, and even longer before papal infallibility and dominion over the
entire church would be thoroughly established.
In fact, councils asserted their authority over the popes.
More than one council deposed rival claimants to Peter's throne who were
simultaneously insisting that each one was the true vicar of Christ.
That's right.
Many times in Roman Catholic Church history, there were at least two popes
fighting over the throne, each claiming to be the vicar of Christ, the infallible
vicar of Christ.
And at one time, even three popes fighting over that throne.
He says, Though now and then the Bishop of Rome, for his own selfish reasons,
attempted to assert his authority over the rest of the church, it was not accepted by
Christendom in general until near the second millennium, nor could he point
either to tradition or to conciliar decrees to support the idea.
Papal infallibility and apostolic succession have been a controversy within
the Roman Catholic Church for centuries.
No wonder it was a controversy among the Protestant Reformers.
It says the claim was finally made to stick in the West 19 years after the great
schism of 1054 AD, when in 1073, Pope Gregory VII forbade Roman Catholics
to call anyone Pope, except the Bishop of Rome.
Before then, many bishops were fondly addressed as Pope or Papa.
And though the Roman Catholic Church lists Popes going back to the very beginning,
and all the alleged bishops of Rome are now commonly referred to as such,
in actual fact, this title was not commonly accepted in its present meaning
prior to 1073 AD.
Now, under the subtitle, Saving Infallibility by Denying It, Dave Hunt
writes, We have shown that the manner in which many Popes attained that office,
the papacy, through military might, the maneuvering of prostitutes,
purchase, that is, simony, buying the papal throne, patronage of emperors,
mob violence, etc., disproves the claim that the papacy has come down from Peter
by an unbroken line of apostolic succession.
It's a joke.
And God has made it a laughing stock.
For our benefit, God has openly exposed the papacy to this shame, so that no one
would be deceived by him.
He says that more than one Pope occupied Peter's chair at one time, each claiming
to be the one true, infallible, supreme head of the church, and each using
his alleged power to excommunicate the others, also proves the theory of
apostolic succession to be a fiction.
The last time more than one aspirant made simultaneous claims to the papacy,
the issue was settled in a manner which, in fact, also pulls the rug out from under
any valid claim of the Popes to be infallible.
Early in the 15th century, there were three men who each claimed to be the Pope.
They were Gregory XII, who reigned from 1406 to 1415, whose first pontifical act
was to pawn his papal tiara for 6,000 florins to pay his gambling debts.
Benedict XIII, who reigned from 1394 to 1423 of Avignon, one of a number of Popes
who resided at Avignon's papal palace during a schism that lasted for more than
100 years, with rivals in Rome and Avignon each claiming to be the true Pope and
excommunicating each other, and I will add calling one another Antichrist.
And then there was Alexander V, the third contestant for the Holy Throne
of Peter, who reigned from 1409 to 1410, whose chief pastime was feasting,
and who was attended in his regal palace by 400 servants, all of them females.
The latter Pope was poisoned by Baldassare Cosa, who took the pontificate in his
place as John XXIII, who reigned from 1410 to 1415.
Now I'll just add that this John XXIII was such an abhorrent criminal, so exceptional
in his criminality that the Roman Catholic Church made him an antipope, and his
crimes were legion.
Rome would love to repudiate ever having a John XXIII in its list of Popes.
The shame that he brought upon the papacy, well, is ghastly.
How would I describe it?
Diabolical is the only word that suffices.
It says these three Popes were all deposed by the Council of Constance.
Yeah, it was a controversy in the church.
Three men fighting for the crown of Peter, the throne of Peter, all wanting to be the
Antichrist of the Bible.
And it took a church council to settle the issue.
It says these three were all deposed by the Council of Constance, until then the
largest council in the West, with 300 bishops present, 300 doctors, and the
deputies of 15 universities.
Although he is now shown as an antipope, it was Pope John XXIII who formally opened
the council on All Saints Day of 1414.
Such was the intrigue surrounding this gathering of church leaders that some 500
bodies ended up in nearby Lake Constance in the four-year course of that allegedly
holy convocation.
500 bodies, 500 murders, because of the calling of this council to settle the
issue of these three simultaneous Popes.
You see how God has made an open mockery of this system?
And why Rome would so much love to sweep this all under the rug?
We dare not let anybody sweep this history under the rug.
Because the papacy claims the divine right to rule the whole world, every man,
woman, and child in it.
To create a new world order, the very image of the old world order, and we dare
not forget this history.
He says, it was also reported, get this, that 1200 prostitutes had to be
brought in to keep the bishops and the cardinals and their assistants in good
humor during the council.
And even with all this preoccupation with prostitution during the council,
there were 500 murders.
I dare say it didn't keep many in good humor.
Yet this same council, this same council, that was there to settle the issue of the
three contesting popes that bathed in prostitutes the whole period, who
conducted 500 murders during the course of this council.
It was this same diabolical council that condemned the incorruptible John Huss to
the flames in 1415 A.D.
for preaching that there was no higher authority than Holy Scripture,
which all men, even the priests and popes, ought to obey by living Christ-like holy
lives.
You see the irony?
The hypocrisy?
This is what God has laid out before the whole world.
That while this council was doing its diabolical best to out-sin Satan,
they burned at the stake John Huss, a proclaimer of the gospel, and one whose
very life shamed the whole Roman Catholic Church, and no one more so than this
council and these popes.
He was burned at the stake.
Of the three above-named popes who each claimed to be the one true vicar of
Christ, only Gregory XII is now shown in the official lists as a legitimate pope,
though even he was deposed by this council, the other two as anti-popes.
When in 1958 Pope Pius XII's successor took the name John XXIII, more than one
Catholic cathedral, finding that its lists of popes already contained a Pope John
XXIII, had to make a hasty correction.
The original Pope John XXIII has been described as a quote, former pirate,
mass murderer, mass fornicator, with a partiality for nuns, adulterer on a
scale unknown outside fables, demoniac, par excellence, blackmailer, pimp,
master of dirty tricks, unquote.
In a twist worthy of a soap opera, this Pope John XXIII, who opened the
council with great pomp, was condemned by it to prison.
He was treated far more lightly than he deserved.
The original 54 charges brought against him being reduced to a mere five.
They just simply eliminated all but five of the charges.
Edward Gibbon wrote sarcastically in his history of the decline and fall of the
Roman Empire, quote, the most scandalous charges against Pope John XXIII were
suppressed.
They were suppressed.
They didn't even talk about them.
The vicar of Christ was only accused and found guilty of piracy, murder,
rape, sodomy, and incest, unquote.
Why, he was only found guilty of piracy, murder, rape, sodomy, and incest.
He wasn't all that bad.
Whereas incorruptible John Huss had been burned at the stake by the Council of
Constance for pleading church reform, John XXIII was given a mere three-year
prison sentence for his numerous and appalling crimes.
There's what God laid in front of the whole world to witness.
And still, there are so many adherents to the Roman Catholic Church.
And not only that, but the ecumenical evangelic bellies that think it would be a
good thing to reunite with the Roman Catholic Church.
The Roman Catholic Church, now this diabolical institution called
Christianity, is going to Christianize America in the New World Order.
And burn the John Husses of this society.
Cardinal Odo Colonna was named the new Pope by the Council of Constance and
called himself Martin V.
He reigned from 1417 to 1431.
Upon former John XXIII's release from prison, Pope Martin V reinstated this
master criminal and murderer as Bishop of Frascati and Cardinal of Tostum.
Thereafter, exercising the power of the Roman Catholic Church, Cardinal Baldassare
Cosa ordained priests and solemnly turned the wafer and wine into the body and blood
of Christ.
At least, that's what the faithful believed.
As a cardinal, the former Pope John XXIII, now an ex-convict, was qualified to cast
votes for the new popes along with fellow cardinals, many of whom were not far
behind him in the list of their crimes as well.
The Church of Criminality.
And they call it Christian today.
What a horror.
We'll be back right after the message.
You're at first on firstamendmentradio.com and firstamendmentradio.net I know you all
want answers and believe me so do I and I'll do my best to get them.
Have you seen the Left Behind movies?
Have you read the Left Behind fictional book series?
Not everyone believes Left Behind is true prophecy.
Some may even regard as conspiratorial the mainstream re-release of the Left Behind
movie with actor Nicolas Cage portraying the main character as an attempt to
further reinforce, in the minds of all, this perception of false prophecy.
In order to condition the masses for the play about to begin.
Because they see the world stage shaping to fulfill what they have been led to
believe is sound biblical interpretation, a Left Behind rapture scenario,
this false view of prophecy is reinforced in the mind.
Not only of its adherence but also includes those who have been merely
exposed to the specific media.
Is it possible that false prophecy can be fulfilled?
The rapture theories have always been in dispute.
Pre-trib, mid-trib and post-trib disputes have risen up in exclusively evangelical
circles of recent history.
So that when true believers don't suddenly disappear, this element will easily go by
the wayside when all see a new Jewish temple begin to be built.
Will this be part of the great delusion that will come upon the whole earth?
It seems that this great prophetic delusion has already overcome practically
the entire American evangelical and Christian world.
Get the book, The Rapture Will Be Cancelled.
To learn more, visit crosstheborder.org That's C-R-O-S-S, crosstheborder.org
Since the beginning of time, kings have sought it, nations have fought for it.
It has been traded, it has been borrowed, it has been purchased, it has been stolen,
there's a reason for it.
To secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity,
invest with the security of gold and silver.
Call Discount Gold and Silver Trading at 1-800-375-4188 or visit
DiscountGoldandSilverTrading.net Listen to Financial Survival with your host,
Melody Sederstrom, right here on FirstAmendmentRadio.com at 4 p.m.
Eastern or 1 p.m.
Pacific Time.
Visit DiscountGoldandSilverTrading.net or call DiscountGoldandSilverTrading at
1-800-375-4188.
Toll free, 1-800-375-4188.
The book of Revelation says, the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus Christ.
This is at the very heart of FirstAmendmentRadio.com.
In that spirit, we have created the Prophecy Reality News app for all of your
mobile devices.
Streaming FirstAmendmentRadio 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Available for your Apple, Android device and Smartphone absolutely free.
Get the Prophecy Reality News app installed today, so you can listen to
FirstAmendmentRadio wherever you are.
The Prophecy Reality News app.
Get it now.
Welcome back from the break.
You're listening to the second half hour of Inquisition Update on
FirstAmendmentRadio.
If you'd like to support the program, please support FirstAmendmentRadio,
who sponsors the program.
Now, we're talking about this Council of Constance.
Called to settle this... well, this glaring contradiction of three popes
all reigning at the same time.
This Council of Constance that resulted in 500 murders, that kept busy 1,200
prostitutes, that slapped on the wrist a diabolical pope, and then burned John Huss
at the stake for preaching the gospel and calling for reform in the Roman Catholic
Church.
This same Council of Constance, Dave Hunt says, saved the church from
three rival popes by asserting its authority over the papacy.
There's your final contradiction.
This diabolical council claimed authority over these diabolical popes.
Where is the papal infallibility here?
Where is apostolic succession here?
The council ruled over the popes.
They decided the issue on these three popes.
And they burned John Huss.
He says the vote was unanimous in establishing the following principle.
Every lawfully convoked ecumenical council representing the church derives its
authority immediately from Jesus Christ, and everyone, the pope included,
is subject to it in matters of faith, in the healing of schism, and the
reformation of the church.
Clearly, the council was asserting its authority over the popes.
Now had papal infallibility as it is known today been accepted then, this solution to
the dilemma of three rival popes would have been impossible.
The very dogma of papal infallibility, which was established at the first Vatican
council as late as 1870 A.D., is a denial of the authority which a previous council,
the Council of Constance, had asserted over popes in order to save the church.
They had to save the church.
The church would have collapsed if this feud between three rival popes would have
continued.
Von Dollinger, the historian, comments are interesting, especially since his book
came out a few weeks before Vatican Council I would contradict Constance on
the important issue of conciliar versus papal power.
Quote, Gregory XII and Benedict XIII had been deserted by their cardinals,
and all that could be held to constitute the Roman Catholic Church took part in the
Council of Constance.
If a pope is subject to a council in matters of faith, he is not infallible.
The church and the council, which represents it, inherit the promises of
Christ and not the pope, who may err apart from the council and can be judged by it
for his errors.
And they, the council's decrees, deny the fundamental position of the papal
system, which is thereby tacitly but very eloquently signalized as an error and
abuse.
Yet that system had prevailed in the administration of the church for centuries
and had been taught in the canon law books and the schools of the religious orders,
especially by Thomas divines, and assumed or expressly affirmed in all
pronouncements and decisions of the popes the new authorities of the laws of the
church.
And now not a voice was raised in its favor.
No one opposed the doctrines of Constance.
No one protested.
Unquote.
So that pretty well puts a period on who really ruled the church before 1870.
It was the councils.
The popes had to obey the councils.
And in many instances they did, until the papacy could gather up enough
strength to overthrow the councils.
And it was finally, papal infallibility was finally made a doctrine, a dogma in
the church in 1870.
It's very new, according to the history of the Roman Catholic Church.
But yet it is papal infallibility that forms the shifting foundation of the new
world order.
Simply a recreation of the old.
Now we'll continue in Appendix E.
We're going to deal with papal heretics, the Bible, and Galileo.
As we've noted, heresy brings automatic excommunication in the Roman Catholic
Church.
Even one papal heretic, if he were not restored by repenting of his heresy,
would bring the line of alleged apostolic succession back to Peter.
As we've shown, there are many popes who were accused of heresy by other popes and
by councils, and a number of popes were formally excommunicated.
Where is the apostolic succession in that?
Pope Adrian VI from 1522 to 1523, who personally pronounced Pope Celestine
III a heretic, declared that John XXII was only one in a long line of papal heretics.
Here we have, again, God making a mockery of the papacy.
Outwardly, in front of the whole world, so that no one would be deceived.
We have popes denouncing other popes.
Infallible popes denouncing other infallible popes of heresy.
Popes that were excommunicated from the Church.
Under the subtitle, A Long Line of Papal Heretics, he continues, he says,
Among the earliest known heretics to sit on Peter's alleged throne was Pope
Liberius, who reigned from 352 A.D.
to 366.
Forced into exile because of a quarrel with the emperor.
You might imagine the emperor was trying to assert himself over the pope.
Liberius was offered repatriation if he would denounce Athanasius, who had led the
fight against the Arian heresy.
No stickler for doctrine, Liberius obliged the emperor and thereby sided with those
who said that the son was less than the father.
An opinion which the Church has consistently denounced as heresy of the
worst sort.
Heretical popes came along quite regularly.
Innocent I, who reigned from 401 to 417 A .D.
And Galatius I, who reigned from 492 to 496 A.D.
Proclaimed that babies went straight to hell, not to the fictitious purgatory,
if they died, though baptized, before receiving communion.
In other words, if a baby in the Roman Catholic Church, baptized in the church,
then dies before taking the Eucharist, they taught that the baby goes straight to
hell.
Now Dave continues, he says, after all, if one takes John chapter 6 verse 53
literally, quote, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood,
ye have no life in you, unquote, and the Catholics interpret this to be the
Mass, the Eucharist, then these popes were correct.
That view was condemned as heresy by the Council of Trent.
See the contradiction?
God making an open, laughing stock of the pontificate and of the Roman Catholic
Church in its totality?
During the last two years of his pontificate, Sixtus V, who reigned from
1585 to 1590, rewrote the entire Latin Bible, adding phrases and sentences at
whim, leaving out entire verses, changing the titles of the Psalms,
and inventing his own system of chapters and verses.
In a papal bull entitled Aeternus Illi, an allegedly infallible declaration on
faith and morals to the entire church, he declared by, quote, the fullness of
apostolic power, unquote, that this new so-called translation of the Bible must
be, quote, received and held as true, lawful, authentic, and unquestioned in all
public and private discussions, readings, preachings, and explanations,
unquote.
Anyone who disobeyed was excommunicated.
So Sixtus V just wrote his own Bible.
And he forced, as a matter of his infallibility, that it be believed by
every Roman Catholic.
It turned out to be a terrible embarrassment for the church.
It says, of course, when the clergy saw the Pope's astonishing handiwork,
which instantly had made obsolete Council of Trent's approval of the Latin Bible and
all textbooks based upon it, they were horrified.
Fortunately, Sixtus died a few months later, and a cover-up was devised by
Cardinal Bellarmine.
As Peter DeRosa explains, quote, A Bible had been imposed with the
plentitude of papal power, complete with the trimmings of excommunication on the
whole church, and it was riddled with errors.
The academic world was in turmoil.
Protestants, and get this, Protestants were deriving enormous pleasure and
amusement from the predicament of the Roman Catholic Church.
Why do you suppose the Protestants were amused?
Because they all knew the papacy was the Antichrist spoken of in the Bible.
And the papacy was proving it!
I mean, how easy is it to prove the Pope is the Antichrist when he's literally
rewriting the Bible and making a mockery of the entire papacy through all the
ridiculous errors that he put into his Bible.
There was no greater testimony for the diabolical origin of the papacy than
through Sextus V, who had corrupted, obviously corrupted, the Bible.
It says on 11 November 1590, Cardinal Bellarmine returned to Rome, personally
relieved that Sextus, who had wanted him on the Index of Forbidden Books and
Authors, was dead.
He feared for the prestige of the papacy.
Bellarmine was afraid that the papacy would topple because of this corrupt
Bible.
The Protestants were making great hay with it.
He says, furthering the quote, it says, Bellarmine advised the new Pope
to lie.
Some of his admirers have disputed this.
Their task is formidable.
The options were plain.
Admit publicly that a Pope had erred on a critical matter of the Bible, or engage in
a cover-up whose outcome was unpredictable.
Bellarmine proposed the latter.
A cover-up.
Typical Roman option, isn't it?
And it says, Bellarmine and a group of dedicated scholars, sworn to secrecy,
went to work, and in about six months corrected the Pope's errors.
A new edition of the Sextus Bible was published as though it were merely another
printing of the original, and a massive effort was made to recover the original
copies of the heretical publication, which were then destroyed.
As one would suspect, a few copies escaped the search, and have been preserved,
one in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
These so-called Bibles constitute one more proof that Popes are not infallible,
and that to maintain this lie, the Roman Catholic Church is willing to
tell other lies as well.
Imagine!
And of course, Rome's corruption of the Bible is a permanent fixture.
This is where we get all these new Bible perversions that everybody is so raving
about.
The best hope is to read God's words, pristine and preserved, without any
infallible insertions by infallible Popes.
And I highly recommend the King James Version of the Bible for English-speaking
people.
Get that Bible and don't read the others.
They all have an agenda, and that is to corrupt God's Word, and to make a New
World Order believable.
To deny that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God and the Messiah,
whose blood cleanses us from all sin.
And to make us all hope for a human Savior, the Pope of Rome.
That's the agenda in these new Bibles.
The King James Version of the Bible is the preserved Word of God.
It is the truth.
And it is the one that Rome hates with a bloody passion.
Now, on this controversy about Galileo, Dave says, Further evidence, if it were
needed, that Popes are not infallible is found in the tragic, or rather the comic,
case of Galileo.
In defense of church dogma, Pope Urban VIII, who reigned from 1623 to 1644,
threatened an elderly and very ill Galileo with torture if he would not renounce his
claim that the earth revolved around the sun.
The official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church was that the earth is
stationary, and the sun, the moon, and the planets revolve around the earth.
And Galileo said, no, the sun is the center of the solar system, and the
planets, including the earth, revolve around the sun.
Now, declaring that this belief was contrary to Scripture, the Pope had
Galileo on his knees, in fear of his life, recanting of this heresy before the Holy
Office of the Inquisition.
The geocentric view, that is, that the earth is the center of the universe,
remained official Catholic dogma for centuries, with infallible Pope after
infallible Pope affirming it.
The earth was the center of the universe, and all heavenly bodies, including the
sun, revolved around it.
It was not until 1922, rather 1992, that the Vatican, after a 14 month study,
finally admitted that Galileo had been indeed right.
That admission was, at that same time, an acknowledgement that many Popes who had
affirmed that Galileo was wrong, were themselves fallible creatures capable
of making false interpretations of Scripture.
Yet Vatican Council 2 reaffirmed the dogma that only the magisterium led by the
infallible Pope may interpret Scripture, and that all the faithful must
unquestioningly accept their interpretation.
Vatican Council 2 And no wonder Vatican Council 2 limits its endorsement of
biblical inerrancy to matters of faith and morals.
It states, quote, The books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error,
teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided
to the sacred Scriptures, unquote.
A Knights of Columbus edition paraphrases this section thusly, quote, Hence,
the Bible is free from error in what pertains to religious truth revealed for
our salvation.
It is not necessarily free from error in other matters, for instance, natural
science, unquote.
Apparently, the God who created the universe and who inspired the Bible
doesn't even know natural science.
Again, a laughing stock.
The magisterium which claims to be infallible, and the only interpreter of
Scripture, is obviously far from infallible, and must therefore have an
excuse for the scientific errors it makes.
Thus, it puts the blame on Scripture.
In denying individuals the personal moral responsibility of heeding God's word,
rather than what some hierarchy has to say about it, the Roman Catholic Church clings
to the last vestiges of authority which it once exercised over the lives and
consciences of all men and governments.
And I will simply add what she expects to recreate in the world in the New World
Order.
To re-establish her authority as she once exercised it over every life, over every
conscience, over every man, and over every government.
That's the New World Order.
Now, what about tradition?
Roman Catholicism teaches Scripture and tradition.
What does the Bible say?
Roman Catholicism does not claim to rest upon the Bible alone, but also upon
tradition, allegedly passed down from the apostles.
However, there is absolutely no Catholic tradition which can be traced back to the
apostles.
None!
Roman Catholic traditions arose much later than that era, the Apostolic Era,
and the idea of infallibility was one of the latest traditions of all.
The very concept of ex-cathedra pronouncements, infallible pronouncements,
so central to infallibility, was not even imagined before the 16th century.
Moreover, it is admitted that tradition has gone through many changes.
Vatican Council II acknowledged, quote, Tradition that comes from the
apostles makes progress.
There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed
on, unquote.
Let me just summarize it for you real quickly.
When it comes to tradition, the Roman Catholic Church is the same living
tradition, or evolving tradition, as they ascribe to the living Bible.
When you hear a Roman Catholic talk about the living word of God, the living Bible,
they are simply telling you that it changes, as our understanding changes.
So, fluid is the Bible, and fluid is tradition.
There is nothing that we can take for granted.
Wrong changes the traditions, and wrong changes the word at her whim.
Again, an open identification of the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church as
that antichrist of the Bible.
All told, this changing tradition and changing Bible is directed at completely
eliminating the word of God altogether, and transforming the world into a global,
humanist society.
Mission accomplished.
That's what Rome's objective has been from the very beginning.
Here's a quote from Vatican Council.
It is clear, therefore, that in the supremely wise arrangement of God,
sacred tradition, sacred scripture, and the magisterium of the church are so
connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others.
Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the Holy Spirit,
they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls." Now, my listeners can
see the serious problems with this.
Roman Catholics need to see the serious problems with this too.
Dave says, serious problems with this view are immediately apparent.
The Bible is not sufficient in itself, it cannot stand alone, and it does not
have all the truth we need for salvation, but it must be supplemented by tradition
and by the interpretations by the magisterium of the church.
Neither the Roman Catholic Church with its magisterium nor its tradition existed
during the 2,000 years of the Old Testament times, and obviously God's word
of that era, which continues today and is larger in volume than the New Testament,
had no need of either.
I always ask the question, how was the world saved before the Roman Catholic
Church?
Look at the power that she invests in herself, in the involvement of the
salvation of every soul, when the Roman Catholic Church didn't exist before the
3rd or 4th century.
What about all the souls prior?
Again, a common sense mockery of this thing called the Roman Catholic Church,
and God has made it apparent that even a moron can understand.
We understand here at Inquisition Update.
There are few commercials on this radio network.
There's a good reason for that.
Corporate advertising dollars come with strings that limit program content.
So without your help, these programs cannot continue on satellite, internet,
or our several affiliates.
If you benefit by the educational law programs, we ask you to give.
If you are admonished or nurtured by the Bible and ministry programs, we ask you to
give.
If some voice a cause that you are passionate about, we ask you to give.
If you believe in any of these, we ask you to support them, as you would a
missionary, on a continual basis, as if giving a tithe for missionary radio.
These programs are not commercially viable and must be supported by those faithful to
the cause of truth.
Look for the button to sponsor your favorite programs at our Listen and
Schedule pages on the internet.
We will also give you unlimited archive access to all of our programs.
We're asking you to give much less than a tithe, so that you may also send support
directly to a particular program host, cause, and anywhere else the Spirit may
lead you.
Do all to the glory of our God and Creator, for His holy nation, the only
kingdom that will last forever.
Thank you for listening.
Visit crosstheborder.org, C-R-O-S-S, crosstheborder.org, to get your print,
e-pub, or PDF version of Nicholas Arthur's new book titled, When the Third Temple is
Built.
That's crosstheborder.org.
When it comes to prophecy today, much of the Evangelical Christian world
has their eyes on Israel, waiting and watching to see when the Third Temple will
begin to be built.
The plans are drawn, the Jewish people are eager, most Evangelical Christians today
believe that the rapture will happen before the Third Temple is built.
Hi, I'm Michael Eugene.
I was taught that Daniel's 70th week was in the future.
Is that really what the Bible teaches?
Have we searched the scriptures and found this to be true?
Why is it so important for a re-established Israel to build a Third
Temple in Jerusalem?
Is it necessary to build a Temple on the same location already occupied by the Dome
of the Rock?
Is it necessary for sacrifices to take place in the Temple on Temple Mount?
Is there really a rapture followed by seven years of tribulation?
What is the New Testament Temple?
Can we identify history and prophecy?
Who is the first beast in Revelation Chapter 13?
Who are the seven kings in Revelation 17?
I have asked all these questions and I have found Nicholas Arthur's new book,
When the Third Temple is Built, answers all these questions and more using
scripture to interpret scripture.
The Bible says that no prophecy of scripture is of any private
interpretation.
Nicholas shows us in his new book, When the Third Temple is Built,
how the Bible interprets prophecy and not man's private interpretation.
Visit crosstheborder.org, c-r-o-s-s, crosstheborder.org, to get your print,
e-pub, or pdf version of Nicholas Arthur's new book titled, When the Third Temple is
Built.
That's crosstheborder.org.