Republican predicts he won’t be alone with pope boycott

by Cristina Marcos | The Hill
September 21, 2015

More than one lawmaker may end up boycotting Pope Francis’s much-anticipated address to Congress on Thursday, according to the Republican lawmaker who announced he was skipping the speech.

Catholic Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) made waves Friday when he announced he’d boycott Pope Francis’s speech to protest the pontiff’s views on climate change.

Gosar said he knows of at least one other lawmaker who would skip the pontiff’s address in protest, but he declined to say who.

43 Comments - what are your thoughts?

  • 1inamil says:

    I would boycott also! He has no business in politics!!

  • J_R_K says:

    Question: Where are all the “separation of church and state” people when the pope, with a clearly leftist agenda is planning to address our congress?

    I think I can guess… leftists only care about “separation of church and state” when socialist or communist ideologies and policies are threatened, but they embrace any church leader who would promote those policies and ideologies?

    I see no reason why the pope, a foreign church official should be addressing the United States Congress. Lets hope that what ever he has to say in his efforts to shape American policy to his leftist view of global warming will be ignored by our congress at least as much as our congress ignores the best interest of the American people.

  • Diane Brenner says:

    Vatican City, home of Pope Francis, is a country unto itself. Therefore, the Pope is basically the President of Vatican City. This gives him every right to be involved in political issues. The man deserves the same respect as any other foreign leader. As a Catholic, I don’t agree with everything he says or does, but that’s true with any dignitary; most especially our own President. The bottom line is RESPECT.

    1. J_R_K says:

      “The man deserves the same respect as any other foreign leader”

      Frankly I can think of quite a few foreign “leaders” who deserve absolutely no respect. So that argument is empty. The pope is not coming here as the leader of a nation. He’s coming here as the high muckity muck of the Catholic church and the only reason he is being welcomed is because of his leftist views on global warming that fit into the world wide communist narrative and agenda to control every economy on the planet. For him, as such a powerful church leader to be addressing our congress on such a political issue is clearly a violation of church and state as it is outlined by the left that is now welcoming him. “The man” is getting involved in politics, in my country where he clearly has no business doing so.

      Question: How long do you think he’d be welcome in Congress if he was addressing them on the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ? How about if he were coming to talk on and tell the truth about America’s Christian heritage? What if he were coming to assert that the Bible is the inerrant word of God? How welcome would he be? This whole thing is about politics. It is one thing to respect the pope as a religious leader, it is quite another to accept him as a political authority.

      1. Diane Brenner says:

        Okay, so I’ll change that. The Pope deserves the same respect Queen Elizabeth was shown when she came to America. Better?
        And, yes. He is the highest leader of the Catholic Church. But, he is not coming on a religious basis, but a political basis. As a sovereign leader, world wide issues are very much his business. I don’t agree that we need climate control, but apparently he does. As does Obama.
        Your statement of separation of Church and State is wholly inappropriate. What you are saying is that a Minister, Reverend, Deacon, Pastor of one of the many religious denominations in this country, that because they are men of religion, they should not be allowed to participate, lead, or be elected in our government. Besides which, he will be a guest in our country and separation of Church and State would not be an issue, any more than when Obama had the King of Saudi Arabia as a guest in the White House. You are looking for trouble where none exists. And, no. The Catholic Church has not, and will not ever endorse socialism.

        1. J_R_K says:

          “What you are saying is that a Minister, Reverend, Deacon, Pastor of one of the many religious denominations in this country, that because they are men of religion, they should not be allowed to participate, lead, or be elected in our government.”

          No, I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that the left always takes that position … except when a minister, reverend, deacon, pastor or pope supports a leftist agenda, then he is welcome by the left. My point is that the left is wholly hypocritical on the whole concept of “separation of church and state”, which is wholly a false idea as the left presents it to begin with.

          Another example of the hypocrisy of the left on the idea of “separation of church and state”: Where were they when Bill Clinton passed the first ever extra tax on legal products, alcohol and tobacco, calling it a “Sin Tax” which opened up a regular Pandora’s box on taxes that target specific items according to the whims of leftist bureaucrats? Where was the hypocritical left when a president of the United States decreed that people could be taxed for being sinners? Of course, the left has no problem with the sins of lying, cheating, stealing, adultery and homosexuality.

          For what it’s worth, I do think the pope is due a certain respect. I think Barack Obama ought to be rabbit slapped for inviting homosexuals and transgender perverts to the reception of the Pope.

          “As a sovereign leader, world wide issues are very much his business.”

          Speaking as an American who believes this nation truly is exceptional because we have demonstrated the potential and possibilities available to individual people to live an abundant lifestyle in a nation founded upon the Christian idea that rights descend from God, not men, not government, I believe the sovereignty of the United States and the right of our citizens to enjoy that sovereignty and the freedom it has given us trumps the ideas, thoughts, desires and agenda of ANY foreign sovereign leader. Especially those with a leftist, essentially if not deliberately anti-capitalist and therefore anti-American mind set.

          I also happen to remember very how extraordinarily well Pope John Paul ll helped to bring down the Berlin wall, destroy the iron curtain and liberate millions of people from communist oppression. this popes leftist agenda is turning back the clock on all that John Paul ll helped to accomplish in the cause of freedom. …. which brings me back to my original point… that that is the reason the hypocrites on the left are not complaining about the pope addressing our congress. The left is progressing us into economic and governmental oppression, and they’ll take any help they can get. To Catholics, the pope is a spiritual leader. To the left in this country, he is a political pawn that can be used for the accomplishment of their leftist ends and if they did not see him that way, because he is a religious man, they’d be raising more hell about his addressing our congress than they did about Benjamin Netanyahu addressing our congress.

          1. Diane Brenner says:

            JRK. You have me somewhat confused. I hear you say one thing, then the next post you say another. Either you respect the Pope as a religious leader, or you respect him as a Politician concerned with global affairs, OR you respect him in both capacities.
            You seemed offended by the thought of the Pope addressing our Congress.
            What is the difference with him addressing our congress on a political issue, or our Ambassadors and/or President, going to other countries to espouse our views to their governments?
            With the reputation the U.S. is acquiring, I feel honored that the Pope would still want to come here. America is quickly becoming a cesspool of evil. I can only assume you are against climate control. On that we agree, but perhaps the Pope can give congress a clearer idea of how to go about it, or perhaps members of congress can give the Pope a clearer idea. In either case, his presence in our country is greatly welcomed if only by me.

          2. J_R_K says:

            I guess the reason you are confused is because that in my first comment, I was expressing, sarcastically, I suppose, the hypocrisy of the left concerning religious involvement in our government.

            Am I upset at the pope addressing our congress? Not nearly as much as I am at the leftists hypocrites who will no doubt use the fact that he is for their own political expediency. I am no more personally upset that he is to address congress than I was that Netanyahu did.

            I suppose part of the reason I came across the way I did to you is was some misunderstanding on my part of what you had to say in your original comment.

            I confess, while I do not object to his doing so, I do not feel as “honored” as you do that he is coming as I believe he is carrying a socialist message that the left will make every possible, conceivable effort to exploit politically.

            But, I do agree, we are certainly in a mess.

            Am I against climate control?I think I’d love it, if mankind were capable of it. We’re not, and even if we here in the United States buy into that, much of the world, particularly China which dwarfs any impact the US has on the environment, will not.

            Yes, I do believe in climate change. In fact, I believe that’s been going on since the planet was formed and will continue until the sun goes nova. but no, I do not believe mankind is the cause of it or can change it. I believe that whole argument is a communist attempt to subjugate the world under one world authority, and it frankly disgusts me to see the pope climb aboard the coming world wide economic train wreck that the whole thing is leading us in to.

            As for his presence being welcomed in this country, while I would not like to see him be used as a political tool, I certainly have no objections simply to him being here. I am sure that means a great deal to a great number of Americans. It just doesn’t mean much to me personally, but I would argue against any one saying he is just not welcome, but I would just do it for my own reasons, not for the same ones the Democrat party would offer. I am sure that if they didn’t think he could be used in some political fashion, they wouldn’t be wanting him here. The leader of the worlds largest Christian denomination is just not someone the leftist liberals would celebrate for any reason other than politics. I think even you can agree with that. Liberals have NO USE for anything Christian or even appearing to support Christianity unless they can use it for their own purposes. That is how and why we have become the moral cesspool that you mentioned, and I agree, we have.

            I guess I can’t blame you for your confusion. Sorry about that :o)

          3. Diane Brenner says:

            Okay, misunderstanding eliminated. I am quite particular as to who I choose to debate with. Sometimes I have to draw a person out, but I will not debate with someone who is insulting, denigrating, or childish. You, on the other hand, appear to be more serious and I am beginning to enjoy our discussions.
            Referring to your posts, I am saddened that during the Pope’s first visit to our country he has to be met by Obama and his choice of guests. The Pope will most likely return to Rome shaking his head about the type of people supposedly leading this country. I’m certain he will not return with a favorable opinion. But, now. What makes you think the Pope has a socialist agenda? I may disagree with some of his thoughts, but I don’t see socialism in him, but I do see socialism creeping into the U.S. and that worries me. The Pope’s stance on abortion will never change, nor will mine. Abortion is legalized murder no matter how you look at it. I don’t like his stance on illegal immigration. Jesus may have been able to spread his arms and encompass the world, but the United States has limits to what it can enfold. The Pope feels that we should be more Christlike towards people trying to escape the rampant criminal activities that threaten their lives, and if they come to this country for a better way of life, they should know that entering the country illegally is not going to help their cause. This nation has never turned its back on anyone who enters this country legally. That makes a great difference.
            His stance on the Syrian refugees also rubs me the wrong way. I would gladly open my door to a refugee and their family if it wasn’t for the fact that their very religion is a threat to American citizens.
            However, none of these issues pertains to socialism. Not even climate control. Obama is doing his utmost to create a path towards that end, but he’ll never be successful. We even have a man who is an admitted socialist running for President and is becoming a man to contend with. Now, that truly bothers me.

          4. J_R_K says:

            ” What makes you think the Pope has a socialist agenda?”

            Actually, I’ve heard many things on that subject, but I haven’t been taking notes so at this point, any personal comment I might make on the subject would no doubt come across as purely subjective opinion. The next best thing I can do is a little online research, which I just did. I am sure that if you likewise do some research on you’re own, you’ll find much more evidence on the subject than I can present here. I don’t know if this link will post or not, but, here it is, written by someone who is evidently glad that the pope espouses a socialist agenda:


            On the subject of “climate control” … being that the entire premise for the need to do as we are being directed by those who literally hate, and if they could, would punish “climate deniers” the whole thing is evidently and obviously based on a lie for the express purpose of seizing control of national economies, especially that of the US through socialist means by the authority of the United Nations, which, if I recall correctly, the pope is has expressed his alignment with.

            I am sure the pope already has a pretty negative view of the United States. I am also sure that he had a negative view of us even before Barack Obama turned and the liberals turned us into an even greater abomination than we were before he stole his way into the Rainbow House.

            I do not believe the pope, nor the Catholic church should change their opinion regarding abortion. I happen to agree with their opinion on the subject.

            I do not believe immigration into the United States is of any business or concern of the pope. That is a political issue that strikes at the heart of American strength, sovereignty and national security. I think on that subject, he should just mind his own business.

            I think you will have to agree that any wish to alter the capitalistic system of the United States for the purpose or redistribution of wealth by government means is a socialistic or even communistic assault on the United States economy. The pope has clearly expressed his ideas on inequality and while there is much to agree with him on regarding what is a righteous attitude towards the poor, the fact is that he fails to address the failings of many who are poor not because they have been taken advantage of, but because they willingly fail to do anything with their lives. In any case, redistribution of wealth by arbitrary governmental force is as evil as neglecting those who have honest needs. Socialism will not remove the greed, power and abusive factors from human nature. All it will do is relocate them into a socialistic system that will prove even less effective in dealing with disparity than capitalism.

            The solution is not to change governments, not to change the power structure of the world. The solution is to change the hearts and minds of men. I believe the pope ought to stick with that and leave the political world alone. While the Marxist concept of “From each according to his ability to each according to his need” may have a certain emotional appeal, it fails to recognize that such a system is wide open to corruption and theft by greedy people in high places .. exactly the same things the pope speaks against in a capitalistic economy. Even the Lord Jesus would not support government authorities either confiscating the fruits of peoples efforts in order to redistribute, nor would he sanction government restrictions on what people are able to achieve. He would love the cheerful giver, but he had no use for tyranny and those who claim that socialism only promotes the Christian view on wealth and helping your neighbor, the fact is that it does exactly the opposite. Capitalism may not free every one, but government mandated socialism will enslave every one. This is why Communist exists. When socialism is put in place in every aspect of a society, the only way to keep it is by government coercion.. communism.. even if folks call it progressivism, the end result is the same. The masses are not freed, they are enslaved.

          5. Diane Brenner says:

            I believe you said you were a
            Protestant. As such, you do not accept
            him as your spiritual leader. However,
            his concerns as a Pope does not end with just Catholics. His concern is for the souls of all mankind,
            Protestant, Jewish, Atheist etc. There
            are over a billion Catholics world wide.
            Needless to say, Catholics are not all gathered in a single country. They are in the farthest reaches of the world
            and in practically all countries, including of course, the U.S. Now, the Pope can sit in his Vatican and
            broadcast sermons for those who wish to hear them, but this Pope, as several
            others before him, knows the best way to reach the members of the Church is to
            go to them. Mingle with his flock. Get to know them on a more personal level,
            while allowing them to get to know

            I watched his arrival earlier today and
            the expressions on so many faces displaying their emotions at being there with
            him, in person,.were unbelievable. To a
            Catholic, the Pope is second only to Jesus Christ. We’ll never get any closer to our Lord. Granted, Jesus is God, and the Pope’s a mere
            man, but that mere man was directed by Christ to act in His stead. And, who knows. Maybe he’ll snag an unsuspecting atheist
            during one of his sermons. Not by any
            type of coercion, but by causing him to think.

            I don’t believe there is a Catholic
            alive who wouldn’t give their all to be in his presence, to be blessed by him,
            to acknowledge him, and him us. And,
            with 1.2 billion members of his church, only a precious few actually get to see
            him in person.

            Now, that’s the spiritual nature of the
            Pope. There is also the political nature
            of a man who heads a tiny, but recognized country called Vatican City. So, in addition to being the Pope, he was
            also the President of Vatican City. Not
            called a President, but the same capacity.
            When a world wide issue comes up, such as Global Warming, the issue is
            just as important to him as it is to any other country. There’s nothing unusual about the leaders of
            the countries getting together to discuss various issues. Abortion is an issue that is both secular and
            religious, and he has every right to want to speak directly to Catholics, and
            as I said before, hoping to snag a few non Catholics into listening to his

            You say he should mind his own
            business. You may not like it, but that’s
            exactly what he IS doing.

            I don’t see any of that as being a

            I’LL finish this in a separate post.

          6. Diane Brenner says:

            As far as redistributing wealth to
            bring about a greater equality across the nation, I don’t agree with any of it. Anyone with the knowhow and intelligence to
            amass a fortune is simply the fulfillment
            of the American Dream. However,
            that dream should not create a nightmare for those Americans struggling just to
            survive. I do not believe the wealthy
            should be permitted tax cuts. If the
            rest of America pays 20% on their earned income, so should the wealthy. This would radically raise the revenue
            collected by IRS and be used for the betterment of this country. In addition, I would make it that those
            companies that outsource their production lines
            would find it equally as profitable manufacturing in the states, giving
            millions of Americans well paying jobs.
            This outsourcing is detrimental to our country. American corporations should consider America
            first before striving to reach a goal of highest profits at the expense of
            Americans. In this manner, the wealth
            would be distributed among American
            workers, raising the living standards of working Americans. The average American does not expect to
            become a millionaire. They just want a fighting chance at a little
            prosperity, a little financial security, and a wee bit of luxury. Something to show for their work.

            I don’t feel the wealthy should be
            responsible for his fellow Americans, but he shouldn’t create a situation that
            prevents workers from profiting from that wealth. The Pope automatically sides with the poverty
            class world wide, as well he should,, but a redistribution of wealth is not the

            Catholicism teaches that we are all our
            brothers keepers, and at one time, this was strongly shown by the American
            people. A family out of work was helped
            by neighbors, Church, or other family members.
            When a farmer’s crops were at risk, neighboring farmers gathered to help
            save his crops. People once cared about
            people. That is what America lost with
            their greed, lust, immorality, expectations, anger, and apathy. This is what America needs to get rid of and
            return to the better days of yesterday.
            This is what the Pope would like to express to the people of this
            country, or any country suffering the same sordid demise.

          7. J_R_K says:

            No, I did not say I am a protestant. In fact, I said that by their own reasoning (protestants), if the Catholic church is the spiritual harlot that they claim, then they (protestants) having come out of the Catholic church are the off spring of what they themselves call a spiritual harlot.

            The fallacy is that people think someone calling themselves “Christian” is by default either a Catholic or a protestant. The reality is that neither the words “Catholic” nor “Protestant” appear any where in the Bible.

            My point is that one is either a follower of Jesus Christ or one is a follower of something else. If men have organized it, created titles for men to wear not as defined and outlined by scripture but as positions of authority over the Lords Church and the Lords people in ways errant from the Bible, and if they have created names other than “Christ” or “Christian” to put on the church, then they are not following Christ. They are following the doctrines and traditions of men.

            In other words, just because the protestants accuse the Catholics of following the doctrines and traditions of men (they do) that doesn’t mean that Protestants don’t do the same thing (they also do)

            I am neither Protestant nor Catholic. I consider myself to be a Christian and nothing else but a Christian. Think of it this way: We have “African-Americans” “Mexican-Americans” “Hispanic-Americans” “Japanese-American” and now, coming to a house on your block soon enough, “Muslim-Americans” … just to name a few. If I listed them all, the list would be a mile long, just like a church directory that might list all the various “Christian” churches… What difference would it make in America if the hyphen were to just be dropped? What if we were all content to just be “Americans” and only Americans?

            What if there were no such thing as hyphenated Christianity in the world, what if there was only Christianity?

            Consider the history of the world, of the church, of Catholicism, of Protestantism … For all the good “Christianity” has done in the world, it cannot be denied that much harm and suffering have also been done in the “name of Christ” … but was it really in His name (authority) , or was it in the name of the Catholic Church (authority). In deed, the Protestant “reformation” movement was in response to abuses by the Catholic church… but, in taking onto themselves names other than “Christ” or “Christian” such as “Lutheran” just for one example (a name denotes ownership, authority, identity) they, like the Catholics, became just as at fault as the Catholic church in failing to recognize the ownership, authority over and identity of the Lords body, the church.

            Consider also Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. What was the source of their undoing and the entrance of sin into the world? Every one knows about the “fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”. I’ve heard all kinds of theories: The fruit was an apple. It was a Tomato (also known, I believe as a “love apple”). If any one has ever been able to identify a specific fruit, I am not aware of it. But I would say the question of what physical kind of fruit it was is silly and irrelevant. What got them into trouble may seem to be Eve’s listening to the serpent, and then convincing Adam to do the same… But as true as that is, it is not the whole cause of their entering into sin. The bottom line cause is not that they listened to the falsehood of the serpent. The bottom line cause was that they DID NOT LISTEN TO GOD. They became open to hearing another and, failing to take heed WHAT THEY HEAR and WHOM THEY HEAR, sin entered into the world…. and it has been re-duplicated ever since. What if every one who names the name of Christ were to take personal responsibility onto themselves as to who and what they hear religiously and in matters of the spirit? What if we all just listen to the word of God and neglect every thing else instead of hearing other things and neglecting the world of God?

            Ephesians 4:1-6 (KJV) I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
            One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

            There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism and one God who is father over all Christians. Every name that is not His name that is applied to His people is a false name and it follows that their will be teachings behind a false name that are also false.

            Note: I am not saying every teaching of the Catholic church is false. Certainly not. The Catholic view on abortion is accurate. The Catholic view on women in the priesthood is also accurate, no matter who doesn’t like it. The Catholic views on marriage and homosexuality are accurate no matter who doesn’t like it. Likewise, there are teaching in the various Protestant denominations that are accurate as well. But, if you’re eating a bowl of soup and you find a fly, what does that do to the whole bowl of soup? What does a little false teaching, no matter where it comes from do to the truth? Observe how the liberals of today mix truth and falsehood and what is the result of their being very proficient at it? (oddly enough, they call themselves “progressive” … I am sure Eve was not only the first feminist who thought she could be equal with God, she was also the first “progressive”)

            I certainly do not claim to know every thing about every thing. ANYONE making that claim would obviously be a liar. I certainly cannot claim to be a model Christian. But even though I am not a theologian, I am able to discern certain truths concerning who is the head over ALL things (that would include both spiritual and temporal) to the church which is the Lords body. It isn’t the Pope, it never was. Nor was it Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Joseph Smith, Ellen G. White or Mohammad.

            As imperfect as I am, I am a Christian, only a Christian, as far as I am able to discern, there is no hyphen between myself and the Lord. I like it that way.

            Sorry to have gone on so long on that particular subject. I didn’t get to anything else you said in your last post. One of the downfalls of this type of communication is that it works about like receiving a penny the first day and doubling it every day after that… the whole thing just seems to grow so exponentially that both people end up not being able to count all the points that have been raised.

          8. Diane Brenner says:

            Speaking of socialism, it is my opinion that Obama’s mandate
            for ACA is a socialist act of government controlling one’s personal life. Also, changing the definition of Marriage
            without consent of the people, is also a socialist act. Many things done by Obama these last 7 years
            smell of socialism. “We the people,”
            don’t exist in his mind, and American’s in general are not allowed to have any
            say over what goes on in government other than the opportunity to vote for
            elected officials. That just doesn’t cut
            the mustard with me. Anything of major
            importance to our country should be presented to the people prior to any action
            being taken by the government

            I have to laugh at your closing statements. I was thinking the exact same thing while
            responding to your previous post. I am
            still in the process of finishing a third post to that post. I’ll just tack it on to the end of this post.

            a. (among Roman Catholics) claiming to possess exclusively the notesor characteristics of the one, only, true, and universal church havingunity, visibility, indefectibility, apostolic succession, universality, andsanctity: used in this sense, with these qualifications, only by theChurch of Rome, as applicable only to itself and its adherents and totheir faith and organization; often qualified, especially by those notacknowledging these claims, by prefixing the word Roman.

            The above is the definition of Catholic that I grew up
            knowing. You may disagree, but it is the
            one and only “Church” founded directly by Jesus Christ. Now, the simple matter that Christ had to
            die, and return to His heavenly Father, precluded His going any further with
            establishing this new Church, He delegated that task to His Apostles and His disciples. He singled out Peter to be the first to take
            the place of Jesus. No, the word
            Catholic, nor the word Pope appear in the Bible. And, Christ did not suggest a name for His
            Church. He merely told them to go forth
            and teach my word to all nations. Well
            now, it makes sense to realize that at that time the world, though expanding,
            was not made aware to them for several hundred years later. Meanwhile,
            the 12 Apostles and 70 disciples had their work cut out for them. Many of these men had to be fairly young
            while following Christ because Peter didn’t die until 64 a.d. And, it had to be discussed concerning a
            replacement for Peter.

            While preaching in Rome, Peter acquired the appellation “Papa.” I don’t quite remember why they called him
            that, but eventually, Peter’s successors were known as Papa, or Pope. Once those who actually walked with Jesus
            passed away, those who were converted filled in the empty spaces as would be
            expected. But not all these replacements
            were as devoted as were the Apostles and disciples, and yes, Politics entered,
            greed developed, corruption was rampant at various times through the centuries. Often, a man (through political means,)
            claimed the throne of Peter through fraudulent means. They were known as anti-Popes. Great care was taken by historians to list
            the rightful successors in order to fulfill Apostolic succession. This had to be a monumental task through the

            I’ve already summarized the progression of the Church in an
            earlier post.

            I’m afraid I have to stop at this point. I’ll try and finish in the morning. BTW, it would be nice if I knew your name.

          9. J_R_K says:

            “To a Catholic, the Pope is second only to Jesus Christ. We’ll never get any closer to our Lord. Granted, Jesus is God, and the Pope’s a mere man, but that mere man was directed by Christ to act in His stead.”

            While I understand that and while I respect it to a point (I respect your right to believe it if it’s what you want to believe), I do not agree with it, and I never will. No man occupies a position second only to Jesus Christ. I consider that to be a false claim resulting from the usurping influence of Rome imposing itself into Christianity for the express purpose of political control over the lives of men and women by men, not God.

            Sorry, I am not trying to be offensive. that’s just how I see it.

          10. Diane Brenner says:

            You are
            right in saying we’ve covered too many points to debate or discuss each of them
            in any detail. So, whereas, a sequential
            posting is impossible, I’ll just select parts of your posts to respond to.

            I take
            no offense in your opposition to my beliefs.
            If you agreed with everything I say, there’d be no point in a
            discussion. LOL. Your posts are more
            than respectful and that’s what counts.

            fact that Catholics are known as Roman Catholic has nothing to do with Rome
            itself. We are called Roman because at
            the time, Jerusalem was part of the Roman Empire. Byzantium was ruled by the Greeks, and thus
            became the Greek Orthodox Catholics.

            I truly
            do not believe that the politics of the day had any influence on the
            Church. The early followers and teachers
            of Christ’s words were in a constant battle against political control. A great many early Church members were
            persecuted and killed for their beliefs because they wouldn’t bow to the
            governing body.

            That is
            not to say that later Popes did not incorporate politics into their agenda due
            to the vast numbers of people relying on the Church for their survival against
            the tyranny of the government, (be it King or Emperor). If anything, the Politics of the Church were
            of a class of its own, running contrary to existing politics of the land.

            I guess
            what I’m trying to say is that I don’t judge my religion by the past actions of
            some corrupt individuals. I base my
            religion on the doctrines and credos that are espoused within it. If Pope Francis were to suddenly snap and
            murder someone, it would be the man I despised, not the religion.

          11. J_R_K says:

            I disagree that the Roman empire had no influence within the church. Any in depth historical research will prove that claim to be false. I disagree that the whole reason for calling the church Roman has to do with the location of Jerusalem. The Lords church was first established din Jerusalem, yet the title “Roman Catholic” gives credit to the authority to which it was subject when it was established, Rome, not Jerusalem. Why is Catholic headquarters, the Vatican, located in Rome, not in Jerusalem? Why isn’t the church called “The Holy Jerusalem Church”? One cannot present the name of the church as, as it is called “The Holy Roman Catholic Church” as if the word “Rome” in that title means nothing. It happens to mean a great deal. It means that the churches headquarters, the seat of it’s authority, are in Rome. Can you tell me what verses of the Bible indicate that this should be the case? As I understand it, the Lord sits on his eternal throne and it is not located in either Rome or Jerusalem, it is in heaven, a spiritual throne exercising spiritual authority over all things to the church.

            Can you explain to me how it was that during the first century, people, including Peter were executed for their Christian faith and a few hundred years later, that which claims to be the Lords church was executing people for NOT being in the faith, or,for being heretics? By what Biblical authority did the Catholic church burn people at the stake for the simple act of disagreeing with the “theologically correct” (political correctness of that day and age) dictates of the church? Where in all of scripture is proof that Jesus Christ would have moved of the church that He built from a position of persecuted to the position of persecutor? A 180 degree turn around took place. Why? Where is a single Biblical verse or even word that gave the Catholic church authority to execute people for failure to comply with “theological correctness”?

            If the individuals holding office of Pope are held to be infallible and supreme, how do you explain the atrocities committed by the Catholic church?

            My own explanation is simple: the Catholic church is not the church the Lord built. It never was. It is an organization that resulted of the falling away of the church and the assumption of power over the church by men.

            You may argue and contend as much as you like, but the fact remains that the whole of Catholic presumption of authority upon the earth stems from the idea that Peter was the stone upon which the Lord declared that he would build his church and that is, as I said earlier, a false claim designed to usurp the Lords own authority over those who would hear the Lord.

            Catholic history is filled with persecutions, executions and denials of and perversions of true authority. The “reformation movement” didn’t happen for nothing. It is no more holy than any other organization authored by and run by men specifically, the Emperors of Rome who first declared it legal to be a Christian and then declared it illegal NOT to be a Christian. Such murdering authority most certainly was NOT the Lords doing and doing such things in His name, claiming His authority is a vile sin because it makes the Lord into a murderer who would burn people at the stake for failing to comply with his authority… and it was he who proclaimed ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight” … the history of the Catholic church proves that men usurped the spirit of Christ and committed many, many atrocities, falsely in his name, and that church, while it does not burn people at the stake these days, is still the outgrowth of that which did.

            Again, I do not mean to be offensive, but that is my view which I acquired by personal study of history and of the Bible. I did not grow up in any church at all. In fact, I guess I must have been about 19 years old the first time I ever opened up a Bible. As I said earlier, my lady companion believes that any man or woman who thinks he or she can read the Bible and understand it without the guiding authority of Catholic seminary is a fool. I happen to think any man or woman who refuses to do his own homework in matters of faith and the precepts of God, who surrenders such things to organizations created and structured by men, as was the Catholic church and all protestant denominations, has in fact surrendered their own souls to men, not to God.

            That is my view and it’s not going to change. I can respect any individual, what ever church they may be part of. But I will not deny the truth that the church is the Lords, He is THE head (singular) over it, that all authority is His, that he has not turned that authority over to men be it the pope or any other. HE, the Lord and the word which he has given are the only judges that can judge a man or a woman. No other authority “Christian” exists. Any other religious authority, no matter what claims it may make, originates from men, not God and not Christ. Burying that fact under tons of traditions and doctrinal decrees does not change that fact.

          12. Diane Brenner says:


            You asked why the Catholic Church was not called the Church
            of Jerusalem. Yes, Jerusalem was the
            abode of Jesus for the most part, but His ministry covered much more than just
            Jerusalem. Jesus told His apostles and
            disciples to go forth to all nations.
            Jerusalem remained home base so to speak, and counsels were continued there for a time. However, the next seat of the Church (for
            lack of better terminology) was in Antioch.
            Here both Peter and Paul were in close communion with the Gentiles. It was also here that the followers of Christ
            were referred to as Christians. Not many
            Jews were willing to convert and didn’t believe Christ to be the messiah. Many places became a center during those
            first struggles to establish a following.
            There was friction with the Jews who did not accept God’s word being
            spread among the Gentiles. Thus, the
            Jews did their utmost to have this supposed Church torn asunder.

            St Paul traveled to Rome and was received very well. Peter insisted on remaining at Antioch, but
            Paul persuaded him to come to Rome. Rome
            was not originally intended to be the permanent location for the newly
            established Church. It just turned out
            that way.

            However, you say that a normal man cannot establish a Church
            that is wholly of God, or of Christ, lowering it the level of an organization. I had to read that several times to be sure I
            was following it. If this is so, then
            why did Christ spend countless hours with the Apostles when He could have been
            giving sermons to the general population (and did)? At the last supper, He gave them the miracle
            of producing His body and blood in a piece of bread and a sip of wine, teaching
            them to “Do this in remembrance of me.” (transubstantiation). He was preparing them to go out and teach his
            word to all men. Why did He teach them
            that they could marry if they chose, but it was better to be celibate. (as
            Catholic priests are). Why did He call
            the Church His bride? Why did He allow
            the Apostles (just the original ones) to be able to perform miracles to help
            them get converts for Christ’s Church? Or
            don’t you believe He did or said any of these things?

            Why did He tell Peter “whatsoever you shall bind on earth
            shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth will be loosed in
            Heaven? He gave the Apostles these
            powers. Yes, Christ is the supreme head
            of the Church, but it was not His design to actually run a Church. He relegated this task to the Apostles and
            their successors. Man would be a
            constant in the lives of the converts which alone gives the converts a
            connection that they can relate with.
            They needed and still need that reassurance of knowing Christ speaks to
            them through the Pope. Other than
            Catholics, all other denominations are man made under man’s construct. Only the Catholic Church remains the one and
            only Church founded by Christ Himself.

          13. Diane Brenner says:

            If the individuals
            holding office of Pope are held to be infallible and supreme, how do you
            explain the atrocities committed by the Catholic church?

            I thought surely you understood the concept of
            infallibility. The Pope is ONLY
            infallible when speaking on Church doctrine and creed. Some Popes never claim infallibility during
            their tenures. This special ability was
            given by Christ when He told Peter, whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be
            bound in Heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven. He was giving the Pope the “right” to declare
            certain actions, or things to be held as sacred and to enter them into the
            doctrines of the Catholic Church. In
            doing so, Christ accepted those doctrines or actions as binding on the members
            of His Church.

            It has to be understood, however, that a Pope, or any high
            official in the Church hierarchy, is merely a man like any other man and is
            more than capable of committing sin. No
            one is perfect. No one! Outside of the doctrine of infallibility, the
            Pope is heavily blessed making him a Holy Man.
            But, the Holiest man can still sin.
            This is obvious as per the scandals that have taken place in the church
            over the centuries.

            In the eighth century, the Church began suffering renewed
            persecution and loss of land by the newly established Muslims. The Church withstood the Muslim attacks for a
            long time before the Pope agreed with the people that the Muslims have gone too
            far and they needed to be knocked down a peg or two. The first Crusade was fought for the purpose
            of reclaiming lost lands. In order to
            build a large enough army to ensure success (they hoped), the Pope appealed to
            the Kings of the surrounding nations, Germany, France and England. The Pope promised many things for their
            cooperation and for the soldiers. Many
            of these things were not the Pope’s to offer, but that didn’t stop him. I’m referring to Pope Innocent III who
            organized that first Crusade. His
            motives were laudable, but his means were most sinful. That first Crusade laid the groundwork for
            the several Crusades that followed. And,
            yes, many atrocities were committed by Pope Innocent as well as several
            succeeding Popes.

            But, no matter what atrocities were committed by the human
            leaders, the doctrine and creed of the Roman Catholic Church did not change.

    2. 1inamil says:

      I respectfully disagree with you. Whatever happened to separation of church and state that this country believes in??? The Pope should not be involved in the politics of the USA.

      1. Diane Brenner says:

        Please read my posts to JRK.

  • lea82835 says:

    Let’s face it, the Catholic Church has been taken over by Socialists. Here in Arkansas we are being told to “sell all we have and redistribute it to the poor” As Catholics, we have been lazy, and just followed whatever the Church told us. We MUST QUESTION, QUESTION, QUESTION.

    1. Diane Brenner says:

      I don’t believe a word of your post. Like JRK you are simply trying to start trouble.

      1. lea82835 says:

        No, just face the facts. Socialism and Catholicism are very close and we must guard that we don’t just “slip” into Socialism. I lived in South America, where the Pope comes from. The People DEPEND ON THE CHURCH to take care of them, here we SUPPORT THE CHURCH AND OUR SCHOOLS. It’s just a different game. Sometimes I wonder, if Jesus Christ were here today, would we recognize him. Wouldn’t he just be taking care of our “Spiritual” needs and leave our physical needs up to us. Would he be comfortable in the Vatican, with all the gold, the treasures and the Money. In some way it has been good, because they have preserved some of the most valuable books every written, most in manuscript and illuminated.. But so much of the gold was confiscated in wars through the centuries. I am Catholic also, and love my Church, with all it’s failings and flaws.

        1. Diane Brenner says:

          A little bit of history:
          In the very early days of the Catholic Church, Kings ruled with an iron fist and had no regard for the peasants or the poor, or the homeless. Because of the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Church felt obligated to step in and help these people. Before long, people were turning to the Church for assistance in every facet of they lives from food, to acquiring legal help. Over time, the Church became more important to the people than the King. Eventually, the Church became more powerful and wealthier than the King. That led to persecutions and wars against the Church, and as the Church continued to acquire lands and wealth, it was inevitable that corruption would rear its ugly head. It did, and lasted a few centuries until much of the corruption was cleared away, but the Church never lost its power, even though the persecution of Christians continued to escalate.
          It is not surprising that other Catholic countries still look to the Church in their times of need. Thanks to the brilliance of our founding fathers, we have not had to suffer the persecutions other countries have lived with, and the Church still carries on its work of helping the down trodden, but not to the extent it once did.

          1. J_R_K says:

            Amen. (are you surprised?) Though you did not mention many negative details of church history (not a problem .. it would take volumes to tell both the negative and positives in detail) , the things that you did say are uncontestably right

        2. J_R_K says:

          “Sometimes I wonder, if Jesus Christ were here today, would we recognize him.”

          A bit off subject here… but I find it interesting that you would say that. I have been saying for decades now that if Jesus Christ came to America and went door to door with a Bible in his hand, no matter what he looked like, how he dressed, most Americans would either tell him “I don’t go to church” or “I have my own church, I’m not interested in yours”.

          Denomination = a denominate part of something that used to be whole or original. And yes, in spite of their claim to the contrary, Catholicism is a denomination and all those protestant folks who would say that the Catholic church is a spiritual harlot, by their own claim, by logic and default, having come out of the Catholic church, are the illegitimate off spring of that which they say themselves is a spiritual harlot. They are either right or they are wrong. One cannot come out of a harlot and not be the off spring of a harlot.

          Matthew 4:10 (KJV) Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

          What does that say about the hundreds, maybe thousands of churches that have grown out of the teachings of men, which exercise religious authority over men not by the teachings of the Bible, but by the teachings of what men, and in some cases, women say the Bible teaches?

          “Sometimes I wonder, if Jesus Christ were here today, would we recognize him.”

          The thing that most people who call themselves Christian are interested in recognizing is the authority and teachings of their own denomination. Small wonder that so many are confused and disrespectful concerning Christianity.

          1 Corinthians 14:33 (KJV) For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

          NOTE: the word “churches” used in that verse is NOT referring to denominations. It is referring to individual congregations of the Lords church, as it was in the first century, predating all denomination, including Catholicism by hundreds of years.

          1. lea82835 says:

            Your really sent me looking to inquire of the word “denomination” as you referred to the Catholic Church as a denomination…Denomination comes from the Latin. “From the name of, and implies it came from another organization.” so since the Catholic Church was first given to Peter, “Upon this rock I will build my Church” , it did not come from another organization.
            Churches that broke away from the Catholic Church would be denomination, such as Martin Luther in 1517 AD

          2. J_R_K says:

            I guess we’re not going to agree on whether or not the church (or authority over it) was given to Peter. That argument is ages old and while an individual here or there might be persuaded one way or the other, the issue remains.

            But, when you quote Christ as saying “I will build my church” .. Whose church did he say he would build?

            I am familiar with the Catholic teaching that when he said “upon this rock” he was referring to Peter. However, I do not believe he was and I see that contention as a theological argument designed to subjugate people to the will of men, at the expense of the Lords authority. I believe he was referring to that same rock of salvation that David recognized, which was the Lord, not Peter. I believe that when he said “Upon this rock” he meant that in the same way he meant “destroy this temple”… a reference, in both cases, to Himself. Perhaps with a good concordance, you can look up the word “Rock” and see how many times it is used in the Bible, old testament, and new and draw a conclusion of your own.

            The Catholic claim that all authority of the church was vested in Peter and that he is in any way “the head” of the church (as well as the successive line of popes, many of whom did much evil in the name of Christ, even to the murdering of men who would translate the Bible into German and English) is a doctrine that declares that 1) The church is subject to the will and therefore the traditions and doctrines of men (much of that through out Catholic history) 2) That the church is “of this world” when Christ clearly stated that it was not, 3) has it’s members referring to priest as “father” when Jesus (Matt: 23:9 clearly stated “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven” and therefore that tradition clearly flies in the face of the Word of God 4) argues with the teachings of Paul who himself was thankful he had baptized few lest it be said he had done so in his own name (by his own authority, not Christ’s) concerning religious division: (1 Cor. 1:10-14) 10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

            For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

            Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of

            Christ. (NOTE: Cephas being Peter, it would appear that there are those still claiming to be of Cephas, not of Christ, thereby dividing Christ)

            Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

            I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

            Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

            The “Holy Roman Catholic Church” is called “Roman” Catholic because it began, over a process of hundreds of years, as a hi-bred mixture of the Roman government and a fallen away Christianity. If it were pure (not a denomination) it would call it’self “Christian”, not “Catholic” (I know what the word Catholic means. I also know that when Christ said he would build HIS church, he expected it to be recognized as such.

            Who died on the cross for the church?

            Whose blood was shed for the church?

            The church is a purchased possession of whom?

            Who is the sole mediator between God and men? (see 1 Tim: 2:5

            Who is the bride groom of the church?

            The church is whose bride?

            Who is the rock (or stone) that was set aside by the builders that became the head of the corner?

            Who is the cornerstone (ROCK) upon which the church is built?

            Who said “All power in heaven and earth is given unto me”? the only exception being him that put all things under him? (What does the word “ALL” mean?)

            Who said the kingdom of heaven is not made with hands?

            To whom does this refer?: (Eph. 1:21) “far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. (Again, what does the word “All” mean?

            (Eph/ 1:22) And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. (Again, what does the word “All” mean? Also, what does the word “The” mean when it says that he (Christ, not Peter) is THE HEAD over ALL things? (NOTE: in the natural world, anything with two heads is immediately recognized as a freak)

            I could go on a lot longer, but this is already getting way to long. Let me finish by saying that when the Catholic church appoints a pope as the “temporal” head of the church, the church of which Christ said is “with in you”, not the Vatican, not Rome, not any where in any physical form on this earth, what does that do to the authority of Christ himself which is “THE” head over ALL things to THE church (again, Eph. 1:22) , which is HIS body, not a hierarchical government of men as was the Roman empire.

            To whom does ALL glory and honor belong?

            The Catholic church is a part of that ” falling away” mentioned in 2 Thess. 2 (Note, I do not hold that “the pope” or any specific “pop” is the one referred to in verse 4. But I would hold that the “office” of the pope certainly is, and that the Catholic church is divided from Christ by the assertion that the pope has all authority and is infallible in matters of doctrine and faith. I would also say that all those denominations that came from the Catholic denomination and failed to return in all ways to Christ are what I said they were earlier, just as wrong as the Catholics are, and for the same reason… the teachings and traditions of men (and in some cases women)

            I am sorry to be so long, but having said all that I already have said, I need to make certain something else I believe is understood:

            Jesus told a parable of a man who sowed good seed, but tares came up with the wheat. When his servants asked should they root up the tares, he said no, lest you also root up the wheat. I believe the seed that was sown was the Word of God, just as in the parable of wheat sown in differing soils. I believe there is a unity between the two parables that must be observed, that being the word of God and what happens after it is sown. In the parable of the tares, to me, the tares (weeds) are the false churches that have grown up because the enemy (satan) through men (and women) has sown false hood in the Lords field (the humanity upon the earth).

            Because I believe that, it follows that it is not up to me to root up the weeds. I am not qualified any more than the servants in the parable to root up the tares with no harm coming to the wheat, the product of the good seed. My point is this: The Lords kingdom (his Church, same thing Eph 1:22-23) is not physical, is not of this earth, exists in the hearts of men and women and should I have power to utterly remove the Catholic church and all protestant denominations, I would not, could not do so with out causing harm to those in whom the good seed is planted in their hearts. In other words, while I consider organized churches, ALL of them to be contrary to the word of God, I am no judge of what is in the hearts and minds of other men and women towards God. “The kingdom of heaven standeth sure having this seal: THE LORD knows them that are his. When one attacks a church, such as the Catholic church, one cannot do so failing to recognize that there are good decent, honest, God fearing men and women in that church whose whole lives and ancestry are tied up in that church. I believe in teaching truth as much as I am able, but I stop short of that kind interference between another human being and the Lord. It’s not my place to condemn people because of the church they are part of, but it is my place to speak in behalf of the only true church, the Lords church. From there, people will make of it what they will… that is between them and the Lord, the Rock we all either stand upon or get crushed by.

            I must apologize for going on so long. I hope I have not offended you personally. That is not my intention. Also, there are probably tons of typos in all that, I hope you can navigate through them :o)

          3. lea82835 says:

            Arguing over religion is like trying to determine which came first, the chicken or the egg. However, I recommend a good site to you, Restore-DC-Catholicism I do have disagreement with my Church (Catholic) and Judge Napolitano just about states my position. Thanks for the debate.

          4. J_R_K says:

            To the Bible student that does his or her own homework, as far as mankind is concerned, the answer to the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg is simple: The rooster.

            Genesis 1: 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

            (Try to see this in the spirit of humor it is intended, it is not a serious comment … but I think it’s probably as good an answer as any :o)

            I have no idea what Judge Napolitano states concerning the church. I don’t watch television.

            But I do know, in case it’s relevant, that the individual who would follow Christ must make certain that it is in fact Christ that he or she is following. I do not believe Catholicism does follow Christ, in spite of all their claims. For what it’s worth, as there is no other name given under heaven whereby we must be saved, I don’t believe protestant churches who call themselves anything but Christs are following Christ, either.

            Yes, I do believe every “Christian” church has many find, sincere, decent and dedicated folks in them and I believe it is the Lord who discerns the thoughts and intents of the hearts of us all. But I believe the Bible was given to us in order that we might seek and find the precepts and principles upon which the Lord makes those determinations. I believe it is the responsibility of every one who claims to follow Christ in sincerity to do their own homework.

            In heaven, there will be no Catholics, no Baptists, no Unitarians, no Mormons, no Presbyterians, no “protestants” of any kind … there will be only Christians. I believe that makes it incumbent upon every man and every woman to be sure of whom and what they have believed and whom or what they follow.

            It’s a straight and narrow path. The broad path leads to destruction.

          5. lea82835 says:

            You say you don’t watch television at all. Where do you get all kinds of news. I do read books, informative magazines. I don’t give a damn what the movie stars are doing. I keep up with politics and am a libertarian. I do watch some TV. I keep it on because I have tinnitus, and it helps drown out the noise ringing in my ears. I watch very few programs, most is just junk, and most are too violent. How much time do you spend on the internet? I notice you and Diane just don’t “let go”. Get out and feel the sunshine on your face, take your dog for a walk, admire the fall flowers and the leaves turning colors. Take a deep breath and relax and think about the good things you have had in your life. I survived Leukemia and I am thankful for the wonderful Doctor I had at UAMS. My husband died from Malignant Mesotheleoma, but I’m thankful for Fr. Bill in helping him to die at home and gave him peace and understanding. Fr. Bill ironically, died two years later from Leukemia. He was a Saintly man and I thank him for coming into my life.

          6. Diane Brenner says:

            Let me correct something for you. Christ set up His Church, instructing the apostles to go forth and teach His word as He has spoken it. At that time, it wasn’t even referred to as a Church. But, through the efforts of the Apostles and Disciples, the gathering of people grew and grew. No official name or anything. They were simply known as the followers of Christ. About 150 a.d. it was decided to name this group of followers, and the name Catholic came into use.Same people, same beliefs, no change since Christ handed the keys over to Peter. So, no, Catholicism is not a denomination. It is the original religion as founded by Christ.

          7. J_R_K says:

            Romans 16:16: Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.

            It would appear that the recognition of the Lords church was present when the book of Romans was written, somewhere in the neighborhood of at least 100 years before you say it was referred to as a church. There are many, many mentions of the word “church” in the new testament.

            “the gathering of people grew and grew. No official name or anything.”

            Acts 4:10-12 (KJV) Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

            There was a name. Note, it was not Peter and it was not Catholic. There is ONE name and only one name whereby men MUST be saved, and it is Jesus Christ. Note also the reference to the stone that has become the head of the corner (the cornerstone of the foundation of the church),, that it is Christ, not Peter.

            Acts 11:12 “…So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.”

            The church existed at the time the book of acts was written and the folks who were in it had a name. That name is “Christian” because the Lord who is the chief cornerstone of the foundation, who built it, who bought it with his own blood, who alone holds the power of salvation was the Christ… whose name was done away with when the name “catholic” was adopted by what claimed, falsely under the authority of Rome, to be the one true, universal church.

            The evolving of what you call the church was in fact a falling away from the first century church, a usurpation of authority within the church by men who have put another name and another authority in the place of Christ whose church it is and will always be.

            I know this is getting on dangerous ground. I have, for the last 13 years enjoyed the companionship of a Catholic lady (we are just that, companions) who thinks any man who thinks he can read the Bible and learn on his own without attending Catholic seminary is a fool. (this is why we are only “companions” and that is all we ever will be) She thinks I am “protestant” and she says “protestant” as if it were a dirty word. Any time she and I get into a discussion, when she takes out her check book and starts to check the balance, I know it’s time for me to shut up. LOL

            Please know that I mean no personal attack on you or on the Catholic church, though I am sure it must come across that way. Unfortunately, no one can defend what they believe to be truth without speaking in opposition of that which they believe to be false. So … it follows that you have the same right to speak against my religious belief as I have, out of necessity, it would seem, to speak against yours. I will not be offended. You do seem like a level headed, straight talking person and I appreciate that.

      2. J_R_K says:

        I am not trying to start trouble. I engaged you in honest conversation. If I were trying to start trouble, I probably would have just called you a liberal and been done with it (actually, I don’t really believe you are, but it would have been a great way to ‘start trouble’, would it not?) . I didn’t do that because I respect your point of view. I assume you are Catholic and commented out of the desire to defend the pope, which I do respect. I just don’t agree, politically with your stand point. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it or that I am a trouble maker because I didn’t. If you think it does, then maybe I overestimated you.

        1. Diane Brenner says:

          Your first post regarding the Pope didn’t set well with me. However, subsequent posts have explained your position better. I also respect your later posts and would like to continue our conversation.

          1. J_R_K says:

            That would be acceptable with me. but, I gotta warn you, I can be very “long winded” at times, and when I get that way, I may have a tendency to ramble, which I will try to avoid as much as possible… just know that sometimes I do that, so if you spot it, please try to just work your way around it :o)

            Also, I am subject at times to have to leave the computer for anywhere to a brief to a long period of time. but, when that happens, I’ll try to get back to you when I can.

            By the way, I had a sister by the name of Diane who passed away a couple of years ago, and a current daughter in law by that name, also.

  • reggie says:

    Mr Pope, go home. Stay out of non-church business. Mr president – shame on you for cramming your gays and others down Mr. Pope’s throat. On the other hand, maybe you both deserve each other.

    1. ed says:

      JESUS was criticized for eating with the openly bad people of HIS day, and HE replied that The healthy don’t need a doctor, only the sick. HE came, not to judge, but to save sinners. As Christians we need to spread the Gospel of JESUS, in word and action, that others may be saved.
      The self-righteousness of man is as filthy rags to the RIGHTEOUS GOD.
      “Seek first The Kingdom Of GOD and HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS, and all the rest shall be given to you besides.”

      1. Elizabeth says:

        Reggie, what do you think Jesus wants us to do about the Islam refugees, considering Jihad and the intent to rid the world of infidels? Jesus said to not even let heretics step into nor cast a shadow on our homes!

        1. ed says:

          JESUS also said, love your enemies, bless those who curse you,and in doing so,we heap coals of fire upon the heads of those who don’t repent.JESUS IS LORD!

          1. 1inamil says:

            You can love someone and not let kill you at the same time! When Jesus said to love your enemies he didn’t mean for you to let them walk all over you.

          2. ed says:

            I agree,” speak softly, and carry a big stick.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Keep the Fake News Media in check.

Don’t let the MSM censor your news as America becomes Great Again. Over 500,000 Americans receive our daily dose of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness along with Breaking News direct to their inbox—and you can too. Sign up to receive news and views from The 1776Coalition!

We know how important your privacy is and your information is SAFE with us. We’ll never sell
your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time directly from your inbox.
View our full privacy policy.