The Pope or Popery Man of Sin

Man of Sin Revealed.

The pope (from Latin: "papa" or "father" from Greek πάππας, pappas) is the Bishop of Rome and as such, is leader of the worldwide Catholic Church (that is, both the Latin Rite and the Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion with the Roman Pontiff). The current office-holder is Pope Benedict XVI, who was elected in papal conclave on 19 April 2005.

The office of the pope is called the Papacy,(Popery) and his ecclesiastical jurisdiction the "Holy See" (Sancta Sedes in Latin) or "Apostolic See" (the latter on the basis that both St. Peter and St. Paul were martyred at Rome). The pope is also head of state of Vatican City, a sovereign city-state entirely enclaved by Rome.

Early popes helped to spread Christianity and resolve doctrinal disputes. After the conversion of the rulers of the Roman Empire (the conversion of the populace was already advanced even before the Edict of Milan,

The Roman emperors became the popes' secular allies until, with the loss of the emperors' power in the west, Pope Stephen II was forced in the 8th century to appeal to the Franks (Who were a West Germanic tribal confederation first attested in the third century as living north and east of the Lower Rhine River) for help, beginning a period of close interaction with the rulers of the west.

For centuries, the forged Donation of Constantine also provided the basis for the papacy's claim of political supremacy over the entire former Western Roman Empire. In medieval times, popes played powerful roles in Western Europe, often struggling with monarchs for power over wide-ranging affairs of church and state,

Crowning emperors (Charlemagne was the first emperor crowned by a pope) and regulating disputes among secular rulers.

Gradually forced to give up secular power, popes now focus almost exclusively on spiritual matters. Over the centuries, popes' claims of spiritual authority have been ever more clearly expressed, culminating in the proclamation of the dogma of papal infallibility for rare occasions when the pope speaks ex cathedra (literally "from the chair of “Peter" to issue a solemn definition of faith or morals. The first (after the proclamation) and so far the last such occasion was in 1950, with the definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary.

Above are the images of the pope sitting on his white throne, (Counterfeit of God’s Great White throne.) draped in his white robes, (Another counterfeit copy of God on His throne) and his coat of arms which bear the usurped keys of David given to Peter by Jesus Christ.: Matthew 16:19. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Main article: History of the Papacy.

Catholics recognize the Pope as a successor to Saint Peter, whom, according to the Bible, Jesus named as the "shepherd" and "rock" of the Church.Peter never bore the title of "Pope", which came into use much later, but Catholics recognise him as the first Pope, while official declarations of the Church only speak of the Popes as holding within the college of the Bishops a position analogous (Similar or alike in such a way as to permit the drawing of an analogy) to that held by Peter within the college of the Apostles, of which the college of the Bishops, a distinct entity, is the successor. That is to say it was advantageous to let people believe what they drew form it, and if later, there would be a controversial argument as to the source of that belief, then it was easy to point the finger back at the people for drawing such conclusions.

Analogy is a cognitive ("to know" or "to recognize”) process of transferring information from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target), and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process

Matthew 16:13-19.

13. When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, He asked his disciples, saying, “Whom do men say that I the son of man am?”

14. And they said, “Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.”

15. He saith unto them, “But whom say ye that I am?”

16. And Simon Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God.”

17. And Jesus answered and said unto him, “Blessed art thou Simon- Bar-jona( = Simon son of Jonah): for flesh and blood (mortal human being) hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.

18. And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

“Thou Art Peter.” (Matt 16:18)

The two greek words petros and petra are quite distinct, the former being masculine gender, and the latter feminine. The latter denotes a rock or cliff, in situ, firm and immovable. The former denotes a fragment of it, which one traveller may move with his foot in one direction and another may throw in another. This former word petros is the greek translation of Kēphās, a stone, which was Peter’s name in Aramaic, as was his appellative (a name or title) Bar-Jona.

John 1:42. And he brought him to Jesus, and when Jesus beheld him, He said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona.”

It is remarkable that there is only one other instance;

Luke 22:4. And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray Him unto them.

In which our Lord addressed him as “Peter”; but, in all other cases, by his forename “Simon”, reminding him of what he was before his call, and of the characteristics of his human nature. In that other instance it is used in connection with the coming exhibition of his weakness, in the predictiction of the denial of his Lord. There is thus a special significance in the use of the word “Peter” in;

Matt 16:18. And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

It was the name connected with his commission and apostleship; another commission being about to be committed to him.

It was not Peter, the man, who would be the foundation, for, as we have said, petra is feminine, and must refer to feminine noun expressed or implied. That noun could hardly be any other than homologia, which means a confession; and it was Peter’s confession that was the one subject of the Father’s revelation and the son’s confirmation. Moreover, in

1 Cor.3:11. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

It has once and for all been declared by the Holy Spirit that “OTHER FOUNDATION can no man lay than that is LAID, which is “JESUS CHRIST”

One thing , however, is certain, and that is our only point in this Appendix, is that the earliest reference made to this passage disclaim all idea of its having any reference to the apostle Peter, but only to Him Who was the subject of Peter’s confession.

The study of the New Testament offers no uncontested proof (uncontested = not disputed and not made the object of contention or competition; "uncontested authority) that Jesus established the papacy nor even that he established Peter as the first bishop of Rome.

Yet

The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus personally appointed Peter as leader of the Church and in its dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium makes a clear distinction between apostles(former) and bishops(latter) presenting the latter as the successors of the former, with the Pope as successor of Peter in that he is head of the bishops as Peter was head of the apostles.(Counterfeit action by Satan)

Below is an excerpt taken from the…

· Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Church.

· Solemnly Promulgated by His Holiness

· Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964

3. The College, which does not exist without the head, is said, "to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church." This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ's Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc. Cf. Modus 81. It is up to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, to whose care Christ's whole flock has been entrusted, to determine, according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised -- whether in a personal or a collegial way. The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church's welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity.

Some historians have argued that the notion that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and founded the Christian church there can be traced back no earlier than the third century. The writings of the Church Father Irenaeus who wrote around 180 AD indicate a belief that Peter "founded and organised" the Church at Rome However, Irenaeus was not the first to write of Peter's presence in the early Roman Church. Clement of Rome wrote in a letter to the Corinthians, about the awesome persecution of Christians in Rome as the “struggles in our time” and presented to the Corinthians its heroes, “first, the greatest and most just columns, the “good apostles” Peter and Paul. St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote shortly after Clement and in his letter from the city of Smyrna to the Romans he said he would not command them as Peter and Paul did.Given this and other evidence, many scholars conclude that Peter was indeed martyred in Rome under Nero.

Various Christian communities would have had a group of presbyter-bishops functioning as leaders of the local church. Eventually this evolved into a monarchical episcopacy in certain cities. Some historians would argue that it is possible that the monarchical episcopacy probably developed in other churches in the Christian world before it took shape in Rome. For example, it has been conjectured that Antioch may have been one of the first Christian communities to have adopted such a structure. Indeed, in Rome there were many who claimed to be the rightful bishop though again Irenaeus stressed the validity of one line of bishops from the time of St. Peter up to his contemporary Pope Victor I and listed them. Some writers claim that the emergence of a single bishop in Rome probably did not arise until the middle of the second century. In their view, Linus, Cletus and Clement were possibly prominent presbyter-bishops but not necessarily monarchical bishops.Though this would not necessarily affect their authority as Popes in terms of Catholic Theology.The see of Rome was early accorded prominence in issues related to matters of the universal church.

Early Christianity (c. 30 – 325)

Later in the second century AD, there were further manifestations of Roman authority over other churches. In 189 AD, assertion of the primacy of the Church of Rome may be indicated in Irenaeus of Lyons's Against Heresies "With [the Church of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree... and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition." And in 195 AD, Pope Victor I, in what is seen as an exercise of Roman authority over other churches, excommunicated the Quartodecimans for observing Easter on the 14th of Nisan, the date of the Jewish Passover, a tradition handed down by St. John the Evangelist.

Celebration of Easter on a Sunday, as insisted on by the Pope, is the system that has prevailed Early popes helped spread Christianity and resolve doctrinal disputes.

Nicea to East-West Schism (325–1054)

During these seven centuries, the church unified by Emperor Constantine within his empire effectively split first, after the 451 Council of Chalcedon, into Chalcedonian Christianity and Oriental Orthodoxy, and then, after the 1054 East-West Schism, into a Greek East and Latin West. In the West, the pope became independent of the Emperor in the East, and became a major force in politics there.

Imperial capitals: Rome and Constantinople

With the conversion of Roman Emperor Constantine to Christianity and the Council of Nicea, the Christian religion received imperial backing.

At the time of the Council, Rome was still seen as the capital of the empire, although the emperor rarely lived there. With the establishment of a new fixed capital in Constantinople, there arose a new centre, which soon grew in prominence, rivalling those in Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, which previously had been the most important centres of Christianity.

Of these, Rome claimed the chief place, as illustrated by Pope Leo the Great's statement, in about 446, that "the care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter's one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head",clearly articulating the extension of papal authority as doctrine, and promulgating his right to exercise "the full range of apostolic powers that Jesus had first bestowed on the apostle Peter".

The early ecumenical councils, particularly the First Council of Constantinople affirmed the importance of the Bishop of Rome's position, though all the councils in the Church's early history took place in cities in the East, and the Pope did not personally attend the council in. It was at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in that Leo I (through his emissaries) stated that he was "speaking with the voice of Peter". At this same council, the Bishop of Constantinople was given "equal privileges" to those of the Bishop of Rome, because "Constantinople is the New Rome". Pope Leo rejected this decree on the ground that it contravened the sixth canon of Nicaea and infringed the rights of Alexandria and Antioch.

You know that when the Lord our Saviour, Jesus Christ, established His Church, the members were simple, earnest people; they loved one another and obeyed the Lord's commandments. This went on for two or three hundred years. But gradually, the ministers changed. Instead of loving the Lord above all things, they began to love to rule over people, and to control them so that they should do what they wanted them to do. They continued to preach with great zeal and to profess belief in Jesus Christ, but only because by such preaching they could obtain influence over the people.

They taught people that the Lord Jesus Christ had given His great power on earth and in heaven to the leading bishop of the church, whom they called the pope, and that the pope could let anyone into heaven or into hell as he chose. They taught the people that when the Lord said to Peter, Matt 16:19

Matthew 16:13-19.

13. When Jesus came into the caosts of Caesarea Philippi, He asked his disciples, saying, “Whom do men say that I the son of man am?”

14. And they said, “Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.”

15. He saith unto them, “But whom say ye that I am?”

16. And Simon Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God.”

18. And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

It meant that the Lord gave power to Peter to admit anyone to heaven or to hell; and that Peter was thus the first pope, and that he transferred this power to the next pope, and this one to the next, and so on, down the centuries. And the people believed that this must be so because the words seemed to read that way, and they did not understand them aright. But the Lord has now taught us in the Writings that "the Rock" on which He said that He would build His Church was not Peter, but the truth that Peter confessed in verse 19, in the words, "Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

By their subtle misinterpretation of the Lord's words, (who else was subtle?) the popes, and the priests (Kenites) who were under them, obtained power and wealth. They would take money from the people, promising them forgiveness of sins if they paid for it. They introduced a kind of religious service called a "mass for the dead," which was said to free the dead from the torments of a place called "purgatory," if the priests were paid to perform the mass. They obtained such power over people that they even made kings afraid of them.

Now, was not this claim that they could let people into heaven or cast them into hell as they chose, making themselves like God? For only the Lord alone can save people. The Roman Catholic priests did just as the leaders and the king of Babylon did, and therefore this love of ruling over the souls of people is meant in the internal sense by Babylon.

Of course, this love of ruling over others, controlling them, and being able to make them do just what one wants, is very bad. It makes a devil of a person, just as the love of serving others makes an angel of him or her.

In time, the Roman Catholic Church became so wicked that they would imprison and torture people who did not believe as they did. It would be too horrible to relate the various kinds of instruments of torture they planned and made in order to compel people to believe as they did. This is known as the "Inquisition," from the word to "inquire," for they set spies to work to inquire, or search out, what people said and did that was contrary to the decrees of the Church, and they then punished them so that many died.

This Inquisition, of which you may read in history, is what is represented by the lions' den into which Daniel was thrown. Daniel himself represents the good people who read the Word and worshipped the Lord Jesus Christ instead of the pope, and who were tortured.

This is meant by the Lord keeping the lions from hurting Daniel; conversely, those who invented that horrible crime were cast into hell, which is meant by the leaders of Babylon being themselves cast into the den of lions.

Even today 2010 Pope Benedict XVI

I'll tell you what I think it is. Benedict is determined to rebuild his one, true and, importantly, universal Church. Under a banner of doctrinal purity, he is annexing orthodoxy. That's why, in 2006, he dropped the title Patriarch of the West from the list of titles conferred on the Pope. Too parochial, too implicitly restrictive. Supreme Pontiff ( Pontifex Maximus, as acquired from Rome) of the Universal (Worldwide) Church is altogether more agreeable to him. Organic growth is not an option for him, so he must grow the Church by acquisition. The Apostolic Constitution is part of that acquisitive strategy, aimed less at dismembering the Church of England; (because the churches of England is managing that itsef). than at bringing home Catholics in America and Australia; but even more significantly being tested as a tool ahead of bringing others,

(An apostolic constitution (Latin constitutio apostolica) is the highest level of decree issued by the Pope. The use of the term constitution comes from Latin constitutio, which referred to any important law issued by the Roman emperor, and is retained in church documents because of the inheritance that the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church received from Roman law. such as the ultra-traditionalist and schismatic Lefebvrists, back into the fold.. (In 1970, Lefebvre founded the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), which is still the world's largest Traditionalist Catholic priestly society. In 1988, against the orders of Pope John Paul II, he consecrated four bishops to continue his work with the SSPX. The Holy See immediately declared that he and the other bishops who had participated in the ceremony had incurred automatic excommunication under Catholic canon law.Lefebvre's supporters.

Man of sin. (6)

History furnishes illustrations of the meaning of this chapter. The Church of Rome is generally recognized as a type of Babylon. Many times in the past, this Church has sought to dominate over people and dictate to them what they shall believe. And if people would not bow down to the papal authority (Man of Sin), they had to suffer excommunication, which consigned them to hell. Many adherents of that Church have felt the dread of opposing this authority and its terrible consequences, of which they had been brought up to stand in awe. Take as an example the case of Waldo and his followers in A.D. 1177. Following their history and the story of their persecution affords a slight idea of the trial through which they must have passed, in refusing to bow down to the image and daring the flames of the fiery furnace.

Through experience with the Waldensians and many other seceders, (Seceders is a name used for those who followed the 18th century Secession movement from the Church of Scotland) the Church of Rome has, however, learned to become more political

in her dealings and seldom anathematizes (to put under the ban, curse, detest, to bind by a curse, make accursed), her members.

Nevertheless, the anathema, in a deeper sense, is used everywhere, and by all people when possessed by the love of ruling from the love of self. This love of having one's own way demands that all shall bow down before this lifeless image—lifeless because there is naught of God in it, naught but self. "Whosoever will not agree with me, act as I determine is best for them, or favour me, is condemned. I shall have nothing more to do with them (except in so far as it is impossible to avoid dealing with them)."

All the governors and rulers are summoned to the dedication of the image. Every argument is marshalled together to support self. And when the music plays, every knee must bow. When the delights of self-love are active, then everyone must assent. "Musical instruments correspond to the delights and pleasantness of spiritual and celestial affections" and also their opposite affections. Self will not be gainsaid or balked in any way. The slightest opposition arouses resentment.

If you think the Popery has gone away, or diminished in any way, you have a shock coming. Even today the Roman Catholic Church is looking to supreme power, and sleepy Christendom are allowing it to happen unapposed.

When Paul says this "man" will be "revealed," he means that he will be available for recognition BY THOSE WHO UNDERSTAND. Such was the case in church history. Once the apostasy (the Roman Church) grew, the Roman emperor, Justinian, gave the Bishop of Rome a title that only emperors had held—"PONTIFEX MAXIMUS"—chief Religious Ruler. This happened in the 530s A.D., and there was "revealed" that "man of sin." He still is called "The Pontiff." It is important to note that NO INDIVIDUAL POPE is the man of sin. It is the OFFICE of the Papacy, which is this symbolic "man." It is such because it falsifies its authority. It claims things for itself, which only belong to the true Christ. It is sinful not because of evils it might commit (although there are good records of these), but it is sinful or anti-Christ because it is a COUNTERFEIT. Note also that it is a "man." Symbolically the Bible uses female terms for the church: harlot, virgin, etc. (depending on whether the church is true or apostate). But for the head of the Church (Christ or the Pope) it uses masculine terms: he, man, Michael, etc.

2 Thess 2:3.

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perition.

It's time for Dr Rowan Williams , Archbishop of Coventry to square up to a rampant Rome ...

But if Dr Williams has been determined not to make a drama out of this crisis, the Pope has been playing to the gallery. And it's his strategy we should be focused on. Unlike the Bishop of Southwark, I don't want Dr Williams to express his "disappointment", I want him to ask, perhaps a little more politely than in my movie storyboard, what the Pope's game is.

(Worldwide) Church is altogether more agreeable to him. Organic growth is not an option for him, so he must grow the Church by acquisition. The Apostolic Constitution is part of that acquisitive strategy, aimed less at dismembering the Church of England than at bringing home Catholics in America and Australia; but even more significantly being tested as a tool ahead of bringing others,

(An apostolic constitution (Latin constitutio apostolica) is the highest level of decree issued by the Pope. The use of the term constitution comes from Latin constitutio, which referred to any important law issued by the Roman emperor, and is retained in church documents because of the inheritance that the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church received from Roman law. such as the ultra-traditionalist and schismatic Lefebvrists, back into the fold.. (In 1970, Lefebvre founded the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), which is still the world's largest Traditionalist Catholic priestly society. In 1988, against the orders of Pope John Paul II, he consecrated four bishops to continue his work with the SSPX. The Holy See immediately declared that he and the other bishops who had participated in the ceremony had incurred automatic excommunication under Catholic canon law.Lefebvre's supporters disputed the excommunication. In 2009, the Holy See lifted it for the four surviving bishops.)

Benedict wants to consolidate orthodoxy wherever he finds it and, eastern Orthodox patriarchs should note, there can be only one voice of authority and it speaks from Rome. ( Not God!)This Pope Dr Williams might like to reflect on that, if he has a moment to stare into a Bellini in Rome. His own Anglican Communion
is doing the opposite of consolidating its orthodoxy. For most of us, that's fine: I have "Anglican" written though me like a stick of rock, though some might call it a bag of fudge. By contrast, Dr Williams has "Anglicanism" written on his heart and will go to his grave, I imagine, struggling to hold the worldwide communion together.

The Vatican opens its arms to Anglicans – and tightens its grip ...

October 22 2009 | By Damian Thompson | News

The Pope's dramatic invitation to disaffected Anglicans will have a huge impact, says Damian Thompson. On Tuesday morning, Pope Benedict XVI sprang a big surprise on both the Roman Catholic Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion. He announced the setting up of what amounts to a church within a church for Anglicans who reject the ordination of women priests and bishops and liberal teachings on homosexuality.

If they choose, these disaffected churchgoers will soon be able to worship together in full communion with Rome but with their own Anglican- flavoured liturgy, their own married priests and their own bishop or senior priest (an "Ordinary", to use the Vatican's arcane terminology).

But the game must now be for the Church of England to square up to a newly rampant Rome. As it happens, I don't think many Anglo-Catholics will go across, but that's not the point. What we're facing is a vigorous challenge to our established Church's doctrinal authority in our own country. I'll say this to the former Patriarch of the West, even if Dr Williams won't: Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough. We have, after all, been here before. man of sin