Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Catholic Chronicles - Keith Green

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Catholic Chronicles - Keith Green

    I don't like the Catholic 'Church'

    In the future I'd like post the Catholic Chronicles and comment on them as I go, but I figured I start first with the concluding statement given by Keith Green regarding the work:


    "Conclusion"
    It is obvious by even this brief glimpse into the doctrines of mortal and venial sins, confession, penance, and purgatory, that the Roman Catholic Church has constructed one of the most unbiblical doctrinal systems that has ever been considered "Christian". The fear, anguish, and religious bondage that such a system of "reward and punishment" creates, has tormented millions of lives for centuries, and continues to prey on those who are ignorant of the biblical way of salvation.

    To merely call such a system "a cult", would be to throw it into the vast category of religions and quasi-religions that are currently making the rounds of our college campuses and city streets, snatching up many an unsuspecting youth. No, the Roman Church is not a cult. It's an empire!

    With its own ruler, its own laws, and its own subjects! The empire has no borders, it encompasses the globe with its eye on every person who does not vow allegiance. It calls the members of other faiths "separated brethren" (The term used by Vatican II to describe the members of Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant churches.) and has as its goal the eventual bringing together of everyone under its flag.

    I know that many will not be convinced or moved by this article (or any of the others) to make such a conclusion. They are impressed by what they've heard about recent stirrings among the Catholics in the "charismatic renewal". Many evangelicals (especially Charismatics) have been thrilled by the reports of Catholics speaking in tongues, dancing in the Spirit, having nights of joy and praise, even attending "charismatic masses".

    Mouths that used to speak out boldly against the Church of Rome have been quieted by the times. It no longer is in vogue to speak of the pope as "the antichrist" (Although the following people unhesitatingly did: Martin Luther, John Bunyan, John Huss, John Wycliffe, John Calvin, William Tyndale, John Knox, Thomas Bacon, John Wesley, Samuel Cooper, John Cotton, and Jonathan Edwards.) or the Catholic Church as the "whore of Babylon". Now Protestants unwittingly believe that "our differences are not so great". Ah, that is just what She needs us to think!

    I've never completely understood why God led me to write these articles. But it becomes more clear with each day of study, and each page of research. Never has something so black and wicked, gotten away with appearing so holy and mysteriously beautiful . . . for so long!
    Last edited by Travis; December 22, 2014, 09:14 PM.

  • #2
    Now I'm anxious to read the article(s) that led up to the Conclusion you posted, Travis.
    In the end, I believe there really are only two religions: those who follow Jesus and those who don't.

    Having been raised catholic, I know which group they belong to.
    You know not what you do because you know not who He is.
    - Paul Washer
    Satan is the angel of knowledge and he does not waste his time on anything for no reason.
    - Lou Newton

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jules View Post
      In the end, I believe there really are only two religions: those who follow Jesus and those who don't.
      Likewise.

      The ones that claim to follow Jesus/The God of the true Bible, but actually do not are even more dangerous than the others, IMO.

      Travis

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Travis View Post
        I don't like the Catholic 'Church'

        In the future I'd like post the Catholic Chronicles and comment on them as I go, but I figured I start first with the concluding statement given by Keith Green regarding the work:


        "Conclusion"
        It is obvious by even this brief glimpse into the doctrines of mortal and venial sins, confession, penance, and purgatory, that the Roman Catholic Church has constructed one of the most unbiblical doctrinal systems that has ever been considered "Christian". The fear, anguish, and religious bondage that such a system of "reward and punishment" creates, has tormented millions of lives for centuries, and continues to prey on those who are ignorant of the biblical way of salvation.

        To merely call such a system "a cult", would be to throw it into the vast category of religions and quasi-religions that are currently making the rounds of our college campuses and city streets, snatching up many an unsuspecting youth. No, the Roman Church is not a cult. It's an empire!

        With its own ruler, its own laws, and its own subjects! The empire has no borders, it encompasses the globe with its eye on every person who does not vow allegiance. It calls the members of other faiths "separated brethren" (The term used by Vatican II to describe the members of Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant churches.) and has as its goal the eventual bringing together of everyone under its flag.

        I know that many will not be convinced or moved by this article (or any of the others) to make such a conclusion. They are impressed by what they've heard about recent stirrings among the Catholics in the "charismatic renewal". Many evangelicals (especially Charismatics) have been thrilled by the reports of Catholics speaking in tongues, dancing in the Spirit, having nights of joy and praise, even attending "charismatic masses".

        Mouths that used to speak out boldly against the Church of Rome have been quieted by the times. It no longer is in vogue to speak of the pope as "the antichrist" (Although the following people unhesitatingly did: Martin Luther, John Bunyan, John Huss, John Wycliffe, John Calvin, William Tyndale, John Knox, Thomas Bacon, John Wesley, Samuel Cooper, John Cotton, and Jonathan Edwards.) or the Catholic Church as the "whore of Babylon". Now Protestants unwittingly believe that "our differences are not so great". Ah, that is just what She needs us to think!

        I've never completely understood why God led me to write these articles. But it becomes more clear with each day of study, and each page of research. Never has something so black and wicked, gotten away with appearing so holy and mysteriously beautiful . . . for so long!
        Keith Green did a good job in these articles. I encourage you, Travis, to post all of them.

        The RCC leadership is simply antichrist.

        Any man who would allow others to call him The Holy Father and to kiss his feet is promoting an evil that is impossible to overstate. This man then takes the title of The Pope - which mean The Supreme Ruler.

        There is One and Only One Holy Father and He is in heaven.

        There is One and Only One Supreme Ruler and that is The Lord Jesus Christ. For all rule and authority have been given to Him.

        This evil man is calling himself both The Father and The Lord Jesus Christ.

        Then that same man promotes the demotion of The Lord Jesus to little baby Jesus. Go look at any statue of Mary holding The Lord Jesus across her lap after his death, in any RCC. Mary is shown as far larger that Jesus and then the words under the statue will speak of the sacrifice of Mary, instead of the one who had the nails pounded through his hands and feet.

        Mary would break down in tears to see that they have made an idol out of her. She would be broken hearted to see The Lord Jesus, who she bore into this world, looked upon as less than her. She was of course a mere sinner in need of The saving blood of the Lord Jesus just as we all are.

        Comment


        • #5
          Speaking of Mary and the pope....here's an article you will NOT enjoy:

          http://christiannews.net/2014/12/10/...te-conception/

          a snippet...more at the link:

          ROME – In one of the feasts and celebrations marked on the Roman Catholic liturgical calendar leading up to Christmas, Catholics around the world observed the Feast of Immaculate Conception on Monday, a day in which those who follow the religion commemorate their belief that Mary was born without sin.

          The pontiff known as Pope Francis led Catholics in the annual observance of the holiday, delivering an Angelus address in St. Peter’s Square.

          “Oh Mary, our mother, today the people of God in celebration venerates you, the immaculate, preserved from the contagion of sin from the beginning,” he prayed. “Accept the gift I offer on behalf of the church in Rome and throughout the whole world.”

          “In this time that leads us to the feast of the birth of Jesus, teach us to go against the tide,” Francis continued. “The power of God’s love, which has preserved you from original sin, freed all of humanity through your intercession from every spiritual and material slavery and made the designs of God’s salvation victorious within hearts and events.”
          You know not what you do because you know not who He is.
          - Paul Washer
          Satan is the angel of knowledge and he does not waste his time on anything for no reason.
          - Lou Newton

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Travis View Post
            Likewise.

            The ones that claim to follow Jesus/The God of the true Bible, but actually do not are even more dangerous than the others, IMO.

            Travis
            So true, Travis. So so sadly true.
            You know not what you do because you know not who He is.
            - Paul Washer
            Satan is the angel of knowledge and he does not waste his time on anything for no reason.
            - Lou Newton

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jules View Post
              Speaking of Mary and the pope....here's an article you will NOT enjoy:

              http://christiannews.net/2014/12/10/...te-conception/

              a snippet...more at the link:
              Sometimes people mistakenly believe that the term "immaculate conception," refers to Jesus's conception by the Holy Ghost in her womb. Instead, it's a reference to Mary's conception. Chapter and verse on that one please... The absolute nonsense that is taught in Roman Catholicism blows me away sometimes.

              Thanks for the article.

              Travis

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Lou Newton View Post
                Keith Green did a good job in these articles. I encourage you, Travis, to post all of them.
                I'm glad you appreciate them Lou.

                I knew Keith was a composer and musician, but I hadn't realized how good he was at writing as well until I first saw these a while ago. He does a really good job of revealing what's under the covers of the Babylonian cult (empire) that is the RCC, while keeping it really brief and easy to understand. That takes skill.

                Travis

                Comment


                • #9
                  Beginning of Part 1

                  Part 1 - The Holy Eucharist: Eating the Flesh of Deity


                  One might wonder why, in a scriptural look at the doctrines of the Catholic Church, I would choose this subject - The Roman Interpretation of the Lord's Supper (more commonly known as "Communion") for the first of the "Catholic Chronicles." Most Protestants (1) would expect me to deal with what they might consider the more obvious departures from biblical foundation - such as the worship of and prayers to the Virgin Mary, the infallibility of the pope, purgatory and prayers for the dead, or the history of the torture and burning of accused "heretics" and such like that.

                  But for this first article I believe that we should get right to the root, before we begin exploring the branches of Roman doctrine and practice. And any Catholic who has even a small knowledge of his church knows that the central focus of each gathering (known as the "Mass") is the Holy Eucharist.

                  I. The Eucharist

                  The word "Eucharist" is a Greek word that means "thanksgiving." In the gospel accounts of the Last Supper, Jesus is described as "giving thanks" before breaking the bread (Luke 22:19), and so this word became a proper name for the Lord's Supper in the early Catholic Church. Today, it is more commonly associated with the elements in communion, especially the host or "wafer," although the ceremony itself is still called "The Holy Eucharist."

                  Now, you might be wondering why I'm taking so much time and effort to explain something as harmless as the ceremony known around the world as communion. You've probably taken part in a communion service. So why make all this fuss about bread and wine? Why? Because that's where the similarity between evangelical communion services and the Roman Catholic Mass ends - at the bread and the wine!

                  II. Transubstantiation

                  That 18-letter word above is a complete theological statement . . . and the name of a doctrine, out of which springs the most astounding set of beliefs and practices that has ever been taught in the name of religion. Very, very few people know what the Catholic Church actually believes and teaches concerning this subject, and I am convinced that even fewer Catholics realize themselves what they are taking part in. From earliest childhood, "This is the body of Christ" is all they've ever heard when the priest gingerly placed the wafer on their tongue. And as they grew up, it was such a natural and normal part of religious life, that their minds never even questioned the fact that Jesus Christ, Himself, was actually in their mouth!

                  It might be hard for you to believe, but that's exactly, literally, what "transubstantiation" means. The Roman Catholic Church teaches their flocks that the bread and the wine used in the Mass actually, physically, turn into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ after the priest blesses them during the liturgy (ceremony). Although this in itself might shock you, it is really only the beginning. For the implications and practical conclusions of this doctrine are absolutely mind-boggling.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Travis View Post
                    Part 1 - The Holy Eucharist: Eating the Flesh of Deity


                    One might wonder why, in a scriptural look at the doctrines of the Catholic Church, I would choose this subject - The Roman Interpretation of the Lord's Supper (more commonly known as "Communion") for the first of the "Catholic Chronicles." Most Protestants (1) would expect me to deal with what they might consider the more obvious departures from biblical foundation - such as the worship of and prayers to the Virgin Mary, the infallibility of the pope, purgatory and prayers for the dead, or the history of the torture and burning of accused "heretics" and such like that.

                    But for this first article I believe that we should get right to the root, before we begin exploring the branches of Roman doctrine and practice. And any Catholic who has even a small knowledge of his church knows that the central focus of each gathering (known as the "Mass") is the Holy Eucharist.

                    I. The Eucharist

                    The word "Eucharist" is a Greek word that means "thanksgiving." In the gospel accounts of the Last Supper, Jesus is described as "giving thanks" before breaking the bread (Luke 22:19), and so this word became a proper name for the Lord's Supper in the early Catholic Church. Today, it is more commonly associated with the elements in communion, especially the host or "wafer," although the ceremony itself is still called "The Holy Eucharist."

                    Now, you might be wondering why I'm taking so much time and effort to explain something as harmless as the ceremony known around the world as communion. You've probably taken part in a communion service. So why make all this fuss about bread and wine? Why? Because that's where the similarity between evangelical communion services and the Roman Catholic Mass ends - at the bread and the wine!

                    II. Transubstantiation

                    That 18-letter word above is a complete theological statement . . . and the name of a doctrine, out of which springs the most astounding set of beliefs and practices that has ever been taught in the name of religion. Very, very few people know what the Catholic Church actually believes and teaches concerning this subject, and I am convinced that even fewer Catholics realize themselves what they are taking part in. From earliest childhood, "This is the body of Christ" is all they've ever heard when the priest gingerly placed the wafer on their tongue. And as they grew up, it was such a natural and normal part of religious life, that their minds never even questioned the fact that Jesus Christ, Himself, was actually in their mouth!

                    It might be hard for you to believe, but that's exactly, literally, what "transubstantiation" means. The Roman Catholic Church teaches their flocks that the bread and the wine used in the Mass actually, physically, turn into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ after the priest blesses them during the liturgy (ceremony). Although this in itself might shock you, it is really only the beginning. For the implications and practical conclusions of this doctrine are absolutely mind-boggling.
                    The RCC is not the only one to teach this error. The Lutheran church also believed this in Johannes Kepler's time ( 1571-1630). He had saved a town from starvation by his prediction of the weather but that same town threw him out of town when they found out that he did not believe the wine was the actual blood of Jesus. He lost everything he had, except what he could get in a wagon, more than once because he would not say he believed the wine was the blood of Jesus. All he had to do was to say he believed this and he could have avoided losing everything. It would appear that Kepler was man of genuine faith.

                    From the Augsburg Confession - the confession of faith for Lutheran's

                    X Of the Lord's Supper - Lutherans believe that Christ's body and blood is truly present in, with, and under the bread and wine of the sacrament and reject those that teach otherwise.
                    So the Lutherans not only teach this error, but they go further and reject anyone as a brother if they do not believe this.

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augsburg_Confession

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Travis

                      I knew Keith was a composer and musician, but I hadn't realized how good he was at writing as well until I first saw these a while ago. He does a really good job of revealing what's under the covers of the Babylonian cult (empire) that is the RCC, while keeping it really brief and easy to understand. That takes skill.

                      Travis
                      Good stuff, Travis. Thanks for starting this thread.

                      Blane

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Lou Newton View Post
                        The RCC is not the only one to teach this error. The Lutheran church also believed this in Johannes Kepler's time ( 1571-1630). He had saved a town from starvation by his prediction of the weather but that same town threw him out of town when they found out that he did not believe the wine was the actual blood of Jesus. He lost everything he had, except what he could get in a wagon, more than once because he would not say he believed the wine was the blood of Jesus. All he had to do was to say he believed this and he could have avoided losing everything. It would appear that Kepler was man of genuine faith.

                        From the Augsburg Confession - the confession of faith for Lutheran's



                        So the Lutherans not only teach this error, but they go further and reject anyone as a brother if they do not believe this.

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augsburg_Confession
                        I did not know this,

                        A friend pointed me to the Augsburg confession about half a year ago. It is really long, so I didn't read it. I'm going to run this by him when I get a chance. Here is the whole section (Article X) on the Lord's supper out of that document for anyone who is interested:

                        http://bookofconcord.org/defense_8_holysupper.php

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Travis View Post
                          I did not know this,

                          A friend pointed me to the Augsburg confession about half a year ago. It is really long, so I didn't read it. I'm going to run this by him when I get a chance. Here is the whole section (Article X) on the Lord's supper out of that document for anyone who is interested:

                          http://bookofconcord.org/defense_8_holysupper.php
                          The Reformation did not get rid of all of the RCC error.

                          Another example of this is where the Protestant church got it's doctrine of the creation.

                          The earth centered creation doctrine was started by a Pope who did not even believe in Christ at all. He thought the whole thing about Jesus was a useful fairy tale to control the people.

                          The six 24 hour earth day creation is left over from this earth centered doctrine.

                          Lou

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Thank you for starting this, Travis. At first I was like hmm (intrigued). I wasn't expecting it, so when Keith started in on communion I was like HMM. I agree it is a foundational error.

                            Someone showed me this Society of Saint Paul X web site. SSPX is old school ultra-conservative. The Vatican 2 crowd excommunicated the SSPX over doctrinal disputes. SSPX faults Vatican 2 for being liberal, Vatican 2 faults SSPX as being non-progressive. One of their major disputes is over the doctrines of the Eucharist, which I surmise changed over time and officially at Vatican 2.

                            The founder of SSPX, Marcel Lefebvre, gave the following speech on the old school Eucharist. I heard these these things from others and I was confounded. How could they believe this? But it's far worse straight from the horse's mouth, laid out in logical detail.

                            http://sspx.org/en/true-holy-sacrifi...esthood-christ

                            I'm looking forward to the rest of these, Travis.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Baruch View Post
                              Thank you for starting this, Travis. At first I was like hmm (intrigued). I wasn't expecting it, so when Keith started in on communion I was like HMM. I agree it is a foundational error.

                              Someone showed me this Society of Saint Paul X web site. SSPX is old school ultra-conservative. The Vatican 2 crowd excommunicated the SSPX over doctrinal disputes. SSPX faults Vatican 2 for being liberal, Vatican 2 faults SSPX as being non-progressive. One of their major disputes is over the doctrines of the Eucharist, which I surmise changed over time and officially at Vatican 2.

                              The founder of SSPX, Marcel Lefebvre, gave the following speech on the old school Eucharist. I heard these these things from others and I was confounded. How could they believe this? But it's far worse straight from the horse's mouth, laid out in logical detail.

                              http://sspx.org/en/true-holy-sacrifi...esthood-christ

                              I'm looking forward to the rest of these, Travis.
                              This priest is actually saying that he is worthy, because he is a virgin to put Christ on the cross again so that they can consume His body and blood. When he speaks of The Holy Father he is not speaking of God, but the Pope. He also says that it is because of the beautiful church's that they have built that Christ comes down to sacrifice himself again. Very sad and even disgusting.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X