Pelagius and Insight Into Church Corruption

**Leo Volont** · 03-03-2006 04:18 PM

Pelagius and Insight Into Church Corruption

It has been my contention that Paul was the Antichrist and that all Evil in Christianity is traceable to his influences. Now it would almost define myself as remarkably silly if I were the only person to think so, or to have ever thought so. But as it turns out, the Church had once come to that cross-roads where it had occasion to evaluate its position on some of these worst and destructive Doctrines of Paul. Unfortunately the Church made the wrong decisions, and their choices are still playing out.

This doctrinal review I am talking about occurred as an Irish Monk, Pelagius, had visited Rome in the early 5th Century. He had been quite disgusted with Church Corruption, particularly the sordid and immoral behavior of the Clergy, and so he had written several tracts and spoke a great deal on the need to exert one’s will toward rejecting Evil and actively pursuing Righteousness. It was Pelagius’s position that it was not necessary to be a Sinner, and that one could be entirely Righteous simply by exerting one’s Will toward not committing any single sin. He saw no overriding difficulty in controlling one’s behavior, and he saw in Christ’s Teachings and Example the urgings to do just that, to exercise one’s Will toward achieving a Moral Perfection.

But the Church authorities, most famously that mean and arrogant and most morally indulgent of ‘Saints’, Augustine, supposed that this doctrine of Pelagius was not sufficiently Paulist, in that it rejected the all important functions of Grace, denied the reliability of Redemption and Salvation, and despised the established Church’s Doctrine of Original Sin with its corollary that every member of the Church acknowledge a natural and intrinsic status of being a ‘sinner’. Now, we should examine why any Practical Religion would so squarely stand against Righteousness. It seems anti-intuitive. Why would Pelagius have been declared Heretical for asking only for moral and decent behavior?

The answers here are very pragmatic, and they give some insight into the most recent Church Scandals. To understand, we must know in short how the Church works – Bishops hire Priests to do the job of administering the Sacraments in their Dioceses. Well, these Bishops, as the Church evolved, found it easier for themselves to hire cheap labor, men desperate for work, and friends and members of their immediate family, despite their dubious qualifications. Competence would have been expensive. And insisting upon Moral Standards would have forced the Bishops to both more closely monitor their parishes as well as attending to their own behaviors (with the real concern of deciding where ‘enough is enough’). Well, the Bishops bulked at all such demanding and tedious responsibilities. And then the Doctrines of Paul were there to exempt them from all such concerns anyway.

It was thought that Redemption and Salvation by the Blood of Christ would cleanse the Sinner of the guilt of his sins, while also being all that would be required to reform the Sinner in whatever extent God’s Will would find necessary. God’s Grace should count for more than each Man’s Will. For a man to will his own Righteousness was counted to be Pride against God and a rejection of the Sacrificial Gifts of Christ. And then, all of this high sounding Theological Doctrine would allow for the Bishops to continue to hire cheap labor in its Priests and could allow them to work without any bothersome supervision of themselves or their charges. The feeling, then as now, is that the Efficacy of the Sacraments is in the Sacraments themselves, and in no ways dependent upon the Righteousness of the Administering Priests.

So it is that today that when the Bishops were told that their Priests were running amuck raping children, that instead of resorting to Administrative Common Sense and firing such employees, all wisdom was rejected as some ancient traditional inertia lead them back to rationalizations and excuses going back more than 16 Centuries. The Bishops would insist upon their right, even their Obligation by Doctrine, to hire the worst moral delinquents to compose their Priesthood. And it is no wonder that it got the Modern Church into a great deal of trouble… as these Anti-Righteous Doctrines always have. Many of the rebellions the Church has experienced, both the earlier rebellions that had been suppressed, as well as the subsequent Rebellions that finally succeeded, were in great part motivated by the popular resentment toward a corrupt and incompetent Priesthood.

The Church could have been thoroughly corrected had it listened to Pelagius in the 5th Century, but, again, the basic fault is that while the writings of Paul are canonized, all of these Evils are rather unavoidable. While Paul’s writings are considered the Word of God, Evil can ever find a ready Advocate.

**Leo Volont** · 03-03-2006 09:51 PM

I read several online essays regarding Pelagius. One, from the Catholic Encyclopedia was bold enough to insist that Pelagius approved a 'Faith Alone' Salvation akin to Luther's, to make Pelagius the first Protestant, of sorts... to perhaps reinforce Catholic hatred of that once great Monk -- Pelagius, who had not been an advocate for Salvation at all, but had insisted entirely upon Righteousness, Self Justification, and Worthiness to Judgement.

You see, Catholics, the ones who must maintain official Doctrine as a duty to their Bishops, are caught in a tough predicament, and must invent ways to demonize good men like Pelagius in order to defend the most evil of men such as Paul and Augustine. Do they lie consciously, or do they in good faith stir their minds until they can twist into blaming the good while defending the bad?

**Leo Volont** · 03-04-2006 07:58 AM

Many people don’t realize that there is a very significant institutional divide within the Catholic Church – between what is called the ‘Secular’ and the ‘Regular’ or ‘Religious’ Clergy. The Seculars are the Diocesan Bishops and Priests. The Regulars or Religious are those belonging to the Religious Orders, and we know them largely as the Monks and Nuns. Sometimes Monks will be ordained as Priests; Nuns don’t have the choice. One may wonder what the non-ordained Monks and the Nuns do, if they are not Priests. Well, they do Community Service, engage in active Charities, they do spiritual and ascetic exercises, penances … indeed, there are perhaps hundreds of Religious Orders and they each have their own special mission that is somehow designed to either serve humanity or please God, or some combination of both of these noble and worthy motives.

Now, what is my point? Well, it is extremely common for people to hate the Catholic Church and to virulently attack the Catholic Church at any opportunity that presents. Some of this is understandable, since many of those in the Catholic Church have gone too far in following the Antichristical Doctrines of Paul, which must place them deservingly in the way of some degree of blame. Again, the problem with Paul is that he created out of his own head and actively promoted a set of Doctrines that by the Death of Christ all sins would be forgiven, that all Good Works are become unnecessary, that the Law has become obsolete, that no one would ever again have to exercise their own will for Good, as they could passively sit by and depend entirely upon a fatalistic Grace. Well, it does not take much thought to discern the effects such Doctrines could take on Social Behavior, and it becomes easy to see in such Theology the Origins of the Fat and Indulgent Bishops, and the Criminal Priests – committing every offence against God and Humanity with utter certainty that they are Forgiven and Permitted by God and will nevertheless receive Welcome into Heaven.

But when one examines the Religious Orders, one finds that the purpose and direction that they take are quite opposed to the Paulist assumptions that the Secular Bishops and Priests enjoy. Indeed, the Good Works, the Penance, the Atonements and the constant Prayers of the Religious Orders are tacit proofs that the Religious Order actively have renounced the Paulist Doctrines of Salvation, automatic Forgiveness of Sin, and Redemption by Faith and by Grace. Their pursuit of Righteous Action and the exercise of Volition belies those Paulist Doctrines. But the Religious Orders are forbidden the privilege of speaking out. Indeed, once the Religious Orders did attempt to correct the Secular Clergy, when Pelagius came to Rome in the early 5th Century and wrote and taught against the Paulist Doctrines so favored by the Corrupt Clergy. The answer of the Bishops was to have Righteousness declared heretical. Indeed, often the Religious Orders are treated as the prisoners of the Secular Clergy. The isolation in which the Religious Orders are often kept, often walled into monasteries and convents designed to isolate them from the Catholic Laity… they even call the individual rooms ‘cells’ to remind us that their establishments are indeed virtual prisons… all of these confinements and restrictions are designed to bury and suppress the influence of the Religious Orders. The Bishops have their Councils and presume to vote upon Eternal Doctrines, while the Religious Orders are left without a Voice… being declared ‘heretical’ whenever they do speak up against the moral abuses of the Bishops.

Anyway, when next one attacks the Catholic Church, remember that there are two Catholic Church’s – the Paulist Bishops with their lackey Priests are the one side, but there are the Religious Orders on the other. One should not mix up the two factions. Indeed, after the greatest of all general attacks on the Catholic Church – the Protestant Rebellion, it was the Religious Orders, particularly the Franciscans, the Dominicans, the Carmelites and the Jesuits who were able to sweep into the field and secure what was left of the Catholic Jurisdictions and stabilize a willing public acceptance and regard for the Catholic Church. Where the Bishops and the Priests through their Paulist corruptions and abuses had stirred up the Revolt, it was the Religious Orders that most operated to contain the subsequent damage.

People often think that I am a Bad Catholic, and they think I should be ashamed of maintaining what are officially proscribed as ‘heretical’ positions. But such a view resolves to the perspective of assuming that the Bishops are the only voice and expression of the Catholic Church. If the Religious Orders could so easily suppress the Bishops, as the Bishops have at times moved to suppress certain Religious Orders, and if the Religious Orders could convene their own Council on Doctrine, as binding as the Bishops have pretended their Councils to be, then I am certain we would see the Letters of Paul renounced, and see the Church go back to the Teachings of Christ, which the Religious Orders had never stopped holding in priority regard.

Oh, and let me remind everybody, that as bad as the Bishops and Priests may be, still, the Protestants are worse… far worse… where Catholic Doctrines admit the influence of Paul, the Doctrines of the Protestants are entirely sourced out of Paul. So it is that the Protestants insist that EVERY word of the Bible is the ‘Word of God’ – in order to deify Paul – to make Paul the equal of Christ so that Christ could be moved aside and then out of the doctrinal picture entirely. Yes, it is odd that the Protestant Rebellion was touched off by the Corruptions inspired by Paul, only to fall more under the sway of Paul than ever before. Such is the Workings of Satan. When Order is destroyed and Chaos evoked, the final resolutions may have little relation to first causes. But we can see at least these important Traits in common – where the Catholic Power Elite found it convenient to be followers of Paul, so it was that the Protestant Elite ALSO found it convenient to be followers of Paul. Where Protestantism became quickly worse is that Protestantism has not the favorable influence of any Religious Orders.

**Neruo** · 03-04-2006 10:32 PM

Leo, the wall next to me just wanted to reply to your post. He insisted on typing himself... However it is a wall, so it can not.

<3

**Leo Volont** · 03-04-2006 10:38 PM

Originally posted by Neruo
Leo, the wall next to me just wanted to reply to your post. He insisted on typing himself... However it is a wall, so it can not.

<3

That's okay. Most of the walls that answer into threads on this site are thin in education and slight in insight and really don't have much to say anyway.

The other day, Pelagius popped into my mind. I had written essays regarding Pelagius before, but these essays summoned up a few new angles.

You see, I write as something of an intellectual exercise. Yes, I would enjoy an intelligent response... but answering stupid questions and responding to ignorant comments it not something that I need any practice at.

**Boris** · 03-05-2006 12:29 AM

Neruo that was not needed and it was certainly lame.

If I get a chance to read this I will reply and respond. Yes there is a difference Neruo. A response is something worth reading. A reply is just, you posted something.

**Boris** · 03-05-2006 12:38 AM

gb eiajtr

ejirg jhu

jhfnbf ujd hbjn der kdjigf dsirg dkfgn

dkmfg

fhkodnk

gn son;dfjnbkdfngkjdf <---------this is a reply

**Boris** · 03-05-2006 12:38 AM

I might give you an example of a response a bit later because its more complex

**Leo Volont** · 03-05-2006 04:06 AM

The Bishops had come down hard in Pelagius for dispensing with Grace and the Influence of Holy Spirit. Pelagius insisted on the exertion of the Personal Will in maintaining a Righteous and Sinless Lifestyle. The Bishops, on the otherhand, supposed they could passively rely on Grace and the Holy Spirit to moralize the Soul with no personal effort being required at all – that one would become Righteous by some kind of Miracle. It never seemed to bother the Bishops that these Miracles never transpired, and they were all satisfied to wait patiently for the First Time. But then, as it would happen, some famous Monk would rise up famously for being Righteous, and though it was by a great deal of personal will, the Bishops would pretend to themselves and proclaim to the public that such a rise of Righteousness was indeed the Work of Grace and the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Medieval emphasis on Humility and the stress placed upon being spiritually humble, it all goes to reinforce the doctrine of All Agency by Grace and the Holy Spirit, and nothing to Individual Will and Effort.

This was their Doctrine. But they could hardly be consistent. After the Catholic Civilization was defeated on the field of battle, there was the Council of Trent, held to work out the details involved in consolidating their Defeat. One of the new policies the Bishops promulgated was a requirement that Priests would necessarily have to attain to a certain level of Higher Education.

Now, isn’t that odd. The Bishops suppose that Grace and the Holy Spirit can bestow all the Righteousness that a Priest would ever need, and what the Holy Spirit does not deliver is not required by God. But, suddenly after the Council of Trent, the same does not apply to ordinary knowledge. I suppose the Bishops no longer believed in the Gift of Tongues, or suddenly decided to limit the Capacities of Grace to bestow Knowledge and Wisdom. No, I don’t mind that the Bishops are here acting sensible for a change, but it only bothers me that they are not being consistent, or applying their new capacity for Common Sense everywhere that it is called for. If they can finally admit that Priests need to exert their Will to acquire a Personal Education, then the same should apply to requiring Priests to exert this same will to acquiring and maintaining a Personal Righteousness.

In short, if you can require of a priest that he successfully pass through 7 years of Pre and Post Graduate Theological Studies, or refuse his credentials, then it stands to the same channel of Reason that one can expect a Priest not to engage in public acts of moral turpitude. If the Bishops no longer suppose that their Priests will be Miraculously Educated by Grace, but instead must grind their noses in books like everybody else; then equally the Bishops should not believe that their Priests will be Miraculously Moralized, despite the most reprehensible of behaviors.

One only needs to reflect that the Courts would never have been able to hold the Church responsible for the derelict behavior of the individual Priests, had they only been immediately fired and distanced away from the Church. It should have been a lesson that the Church learned Centuries ago, but this is again why I claim Paul to be the Antichrist, because by his Doctrines we have the Church openly and actively and repeatedly defending Evil.

**Alric** · 03-05-2006 05:43 AM

I don't know anyone who defends them for for the bad stuff they did. Even people who fully believe in the church is going to wonder why they didn't just fire them.

We are all human and everyone makes mistake, but its silly to say you shouldn't even try to better yourself because of that. Its also silly to think that God will forgive you for anything you do even if you don't try to do the right thing. How can you think God is all seeing and then think you can fool him?

When people normally say the antichrist they normally think someone who is going to come and try to kill everyone. But if you think about it, what does that really do? You kill a nice person and they go to heaven. What's a lot worse is getting a nice person to forsake god and sin.

A lot of people also seem to think it will be easy to know who it is. The antichrist isn't going to be the obvious evil person. Its going to be the person everyone believes to be good. That is the person who will do the most damage. In that way Paul would be far more likely to be the antichrist than a lot of the other people I have heard named as an antichrist.

It is also said there would be more than one antichrist as well. What you believe would make sense with that, as many people have came afterward and kept teaching the same thing he did.

Maybe it doesn't matter who the antichrist is though. As long as you know what is right and good and you follow your heart, you won't be fooled.

**Leo Volont** · 03-05-2006 06:55 AM

Originally posted by Alric
I don't know anyone who defends them for for the bad stuff they did. Even people who fully believe in the church is going to wonder why they didn't just fire them.

We are all human and everyone makes mistake, but its silly to say you shouldn't even try to better yourself because of that. Its also silly to think that God will forgive you for anything you do even if you don't try to do the right thing. How can you think God is all seeing and then think you can fool him?

When people normally say the antichrist they normally think someone who is going to come and try to kill everyone. But if you think about it, what does that really do? You kill a nice person and they go to heaven. What's a lot worse is getting a nice person to forsake god and sin.

A lot of people also seem to think it will be easy to know who it is. The antichrist isn't going to be the obvious evil person. Its going to be the person everyone believes to be good. That is the person who will do the most damage. In that way Paul would be far more likely to be the antichrist than a lot of the other people I have heard named as an antichrist.

It is also said there would be more than one antichrist as well. What you believe would make sense with that, as many people have came afterward and kept teaching the same thing he did.

Maybe it doesn't matter who the antichrist is though. As long as you know what is right and good and you follow your heart, you won't be fooled.

Well... there it is... the first time for everything here. I've been writing that Paul was the Antichrist now for I guess about the last 3 years... somewhat constantly. and this is the first time that somebody has presented an argument considering how I might be correct.

Actually good arguments. I've been with it for so long, that I suppose my own arguments have grown obscure and sophisticated.

I can't remember the last time I might have argued that the Antichrist will intend to 'fool' people, where the general public supposes that the Antichrist will be straightforwardly Evil, and thus be most easily 'fooled'.

I had always stuck close to the 3 Anti-Christical Prophecies of Christ: 1) The Antichrist would come as a Wolf in Sheeps Clothing and would be known by the Evil Fruits or Results of his Actions and Doctrines. 2) There would be a Wide Way that would lead to Destruction. and 3) The Good Wheat of the Church would be mixed with the Tarish Weeds of the Antichrist. Additionally, there was the Prophecy of Simeon, given at the Infant Presentation of Baby Jesus (Luke Chapter 2) in which Simeon, the last Prophet of the Hebrew Dispensation, as the Jews would never again enjoy Prophecy, ... in which Simeon declared that this Christ would be Contradicted and we would know the Enemies of Christ as they would insult Mary the Mother.

**InTheMoment** · 03-05-2006 05:59 PM

Originally posted by Boris
I might give you an example of a response a bit later because its more complex

Don't anyone hold their breath.

**Neruo** · 03-05-2006 07:50 PM

Ok maybe it was a bit lame.

But really, I don't know or I Want to understand all the stuff leo is talking about. If it was about how they put the filling into pie, I would have read it. Knowing those things to not ad a considerable amount of value to my life.

**Leo Volont** · 03-05-2006 08:15 PM

Originally posted by Neruo
Ok maybe it was a bit lame.

But really, I don't know or I Want to understand all the stuff leo is talking about. If it was about how they put the filling into pie, I would have read it. Knowing those things to not ad a considerable amount of value to my life.

Yes, you only aspire to be a worker bee. Only intellectuals and thinkers require anything approaching a Liberal Arts Education.

Oh, then what are you doing here, and why comment on wishing to remain stupid and ignorant.

its not much of a comment to make, to say it hurts one's brain to have to think.

Anyway, for the rest of your life you are forbidden to comment in any way on the Corruption within the Catholic Church, since you have refused to provide youself with the least bit of insight upon the subject. But I hardly suppose you will abide by such a restriction. You would rather probably find that you can jump to your easy conclusions better if you have no historic detail or accumulation of facts to get in your way.

In the future, don't clutter other people's threads with such 'it makes my brain hurt kind of responses' I'm sure those who care already know how stupid you are, but most everyone else doesn't even care about that. How vain must you be to think that anybody cares to know what you don't care about?

**Alric** · 03-06-2006 06:06 AM

Really? In 3 years no one thought it was even possible that you where right? I guess you shouldn't feel bad though, because a lot of people never will notice who he is. To be honest I don't know enough about this subject to say that I believe he is the antichrist, but that is by far the best arguement I have ever seen.

When I think of the antichrist the picture that comes to my mind is that of jesus. If jesus came back would you know him? If your honest with yourself, you would have to say no. How could you? If someone came back and claimed to be jesus and he had all the powers of him and he help everyone and lead us to peace, he would have a following. People are more than willing to blindly follow him. They shouldn't be though, thats the entire point of the warnings. I don't think of them as prophecy, but warnings.

The same could be said about the church itself. You can't blindly follow everything they say. As you pointed out, there are flaws, and there are people who may try to deceive you. The prophecy makes that clear when it says "a Wolf in Sheeps Clothing ". There are many evil people in the world, but you don't have to worry about them. They will not trick you. Its the person you believe to be a friend who will talk you into doing something wrong.

At the very least you have the right line of thinking. It may not matter if he is the antichrist or not, either way the corruption is real and the consequences are the same.

**Neruo** · 03-06-2006 04:43 PM

Originally posted by Leo Volont

Yes, you only aspire to be a worker bee. *Only intellectuals and thinkers require anything approaching a Liberal Arts Education.

Yeah I kind of got to there still I stoped reading.

My reply to that great, short, nice, cool, sentence is: I do not wish to be a working bee, I wish to live of money the government gives me for being unemployed, after I spend some time fooling around pretending to study.

Anyhow. I do think you are a great adition to this forum. I am sure you have alot of intresting stuff to say. To the people that care at least. I really stopped caring about what people say about religion. (Unless it's in short sentences with Facts in them, but that is a rare thing in debates about religion.) So please, don't stop posting huge post, I know some people read them, I just really don't care.

But keep it up.

And my 'pointless clutter' or something... my post were... right...? Welcome to the internet Leo.

**Boris** · 03-07-2006 06:48 AM

You do realize every post you make has a signature with ridiculous flashing on it.

**Sortilegio** · 03-07-2006 07:03 AM

Originally posted by Neruo

Yeah I kind of got to there still I stoped reading.

My reply to that great, short, nice, cool, sentence is: I do not wish to be a working bee, I wish to live of money the government gives me for being unemployed, after I spend some time fooling around pretending to study.

Anyhow. I do think you are a great adition to this forum. I am sure you have alot of intresting stuff to say. To the people that care at least. I really stopped caring about what people say about religion. (Unless it's in short sentences with Facts in them, but that is a rare thing in debates about religion.) So please, don't stop posting huge post, I know some people read them, I just really don't care.

But keep it up.

And my 'pointless clutter' or something... my post were... right...? Welcome to the internet Leo.

Neruo, the fact that you are an functional-Iliterat makes your posts even more stupid, but to be dumb enough not to be serious in undesrtandment, analazing, comprehention, makes you a childish fool, I hope that one day it strikes you the meaning of learning and being serious before some drunk breaks your teeth over a dumb discussion.

**Neruo** · 03-07-2006 05:16 PM

Originally posted by Sortilegio

Neruo, the fact that you are an functional-Iliterat makes your posts even more stupid, but to be dumb enough not to be serious in undesrtandment, analazing, comprehention, makes you a childish fool, I hope that one day it strikes you the meaning of learning and being serious before some drunk breaks your teeth over a dumb discussion.

Hey. You have aids.

**TAISIA** · 03-07-2006 06:35 PM

You know Leo, I was raised in the Seventh Day Adventist Church, and they pretty much believe and teach it is the Pope who is going to turn out to be the anti christ. He will fool so many.
Now I am an adult,, am no longer in the SDA church. I think it is a form of a cult.
But I have always had problems with the stories about Paul.
You bring up really interesting thoughts...

**TAISIA** · 03-08-2006 02:01 AM

Yep, call me the thread killer...

**Neruo** · 03-08-2006 06:42 PM

Originally posted by TAISIA
Yep, call me the thread killer...

Nah. Leo just has got a crucifix lost in his rectum, so he had to go to the hospital, and sortelgio whatever is crying, becouse I gave him, and his dog, aids

lol j/k.

DV is just a fucking slow forum comparing to some others. Yet, it's remarkable how much people still are here regarding the fact that hardly anyone even knows about Lucid Dreaming.

About the pope n shit. I love the pope, the pope looks like satan with those eyes.

**Leo Volont** · 03-10-2006 07:12 AM

Originally posted by Alric

....When I think of the antichrist the picture that comes to my mind is that of jesus. If jesus came back would you know him? If your honest with yourself, you would have to say no. How could you? If someone came back and claimed to be jesus and he had all the powers of him and he help everyone and lead us to peace, he would have a following. People are more than willing to blindly follow him. They shouldn't be though, thats the entire point of the warnings. I don't think of them as prophecy, but warnings...

.

Why, of course! If Jesus, or any Saint were to arrive on the scene, working good miracles, teaching good teachings -- in short, being a good Messianic Figure, then WHY NOT follow Him? No, Jesus did not warn us against Jesus... against the Fruit of the Vine of Christ -- Every Saint is in part Christ, or the Cosmic Christ.

It seems you have been influenced by Paul. Paul as the Antichrist wrote a good deal of 'scripture' warning that Miracles could not be trusted, and that even Righteous Apostles could not be trusted. Now, why do you think he would wish to sow seeds of desention and distrust for Angels and Saints? BECAUSE HE IS THE ANTICHRIST. But, historically, Paul was being renounced by the True Apostles -- read the letters of John, James and Jude -- you will find that they were all denouncing the Teachings of Paul. Paul's defense was to go on the offensive -- asserting that the Apostles of Christ somehow missed the Message and had become demonic and satanic and that only he, Paul, possessed the Truth. Paul defended his Falsehood by thoroughly repudiating the Truth.

Also, why did Paul pretend to follow Christ in the first place. Why did Paul not attempt to aggregate wealth and fame in his own name? It is because Jesus WAS Famous... Christ, with His Miracles and Good Works and Good Teachings DID gather a devoted and popular following. Yes, and if somebody were to appear today, they would also attract a wide following. Although people can be fooled when there is no light, when an actual Light does appear, people will know it and know it certainly.

The Church, and the Higher Religions have had more than a few Christ-like Saints. Indeed, Vincent Ferrer was greater than the Historic Jesus. And he had been the Superstar or 14th Century Europe. Francis of Paola was a phenomena of Southern Italy and Sicily. The famous Francis and Dominic were popular enough that their ascetic and impoverished Brotherhoods skyrocketted in membership -- people were begging at the doors to be just as poor and continuously miserable just so they could be just like these Spiritual Heros. And in India, too, the refuge for several of the World's Higher Religions -- Hinduism and what survives of Zoroastrianism in the Parsees and Sufi Orders -- we have Super Star Saints and Holy Men famous for every kind of Miracle and for Teachings that are perhaps a full step clearer than anything the Catholic Saints have been permitted to express (you see, the Catholic Saints must remain silent where they would contradict Paul, and so their scope of discussion is significantly curtailed).

**Leo Volont** · 03-10-2006 07:19 AM

Originally posted by TAISIA
You know Leo, I was raised in the Seventh Day Adventist Church, and they pretty much believe and teach it is the Pope who is going to turn out to be the anti christ. He will fool so many.
Now I am an adult,, am no longer in the SDA church. I think it is a form of a cult.
But I have always had problems with the stories about Paul.
You bring up really interesting thoughts...

It is ridiculous to suppose that the Pope is the Antichrist, or the tradition of Popes were the Antichrist. Simply think about it... was there NOT supposed to be a 1000 Year Reign of Christ on Earth? Well, THERE WAS! From the reign of Pope Gregory the Great, the first REAL Pope, to the defeat of Catholicism in the Treaty of Westphilia, it was almost exactly ONE THOUSAND YEARS. Catholic Ciivlization WAS the REIGN OF CHRIST ON EARTH.

Now, Protestantism and all of the Protestant Vulture Sects need to justify themselves, and so they are in denial about having been the Enemies of Christ, but so they were and so they are.

Thread: Pelagius and Insight Into Church Corruption

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Pelagius and Insight Into Church Corruption

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions