Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

the pope


the lumberjack

Recommended Posts

Wow, I'm suprised that no one has brought up the pope's usage of [url="http://www.shasta.com/sphaws/invertedcross.html"]St. Peter's cross[/url] on one of his chairs. Its quite silly when people accuse the pope of being satanic with false logic.

1.) Some satanists use an inverted cross
2.) The pope has an inverted cross on his chair

Therefore,
3.) The pope must be satanic!

Ah, silly people who don't know the history of St. Peter's cross. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 2 2004, 11:35 AM']
That is a wildly irresponsable statement, it frankly shocks me that you would say such a thing, how do you know there weren't any satanist in the sixth century, I would wager there where ALWAYS Satanist since the time that God was recognized and there for some People willing chose to work for the enemy. I just can't believe you would say that.

That doesn't mean I support the bent cross stuff but I still can't believe you would say that. [/quote]
Let me refrase it...

There is no proof that there were satanists.


Sometimes you have to read between the lines Don.


God Bless,
ironmonk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don John of Austria

Ironmonk-- sometimes rash statements make you look foolish and therefore cast doubt on what might otherwise have been an excellent point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me add something else to consider as a possibility....

Satan was chained for a thousand years... the Church grew rapidly the first 1000 years of Christianity.

There were heresies during the first thousand years, but none of them lasted. Shortly after 1000 years... 1054 AD, the Great Schism, denying authority of the Pope... then 1517 AD the great plague of denying the Church altogether.

....


It wasn't a rash statement. Some here that don't think may think some of my statements are foolish, if they put a little thought into them, instead of assuming answers, they wouldn't look like the fool. You of all people should know that some generalities need to be said because if we went into every little detail we would have to write books on these subjects. Saying that there was no satanism in the 6th century is the same as saying there is no proof of it... Anything that we talk about in history is because of given proof. Speculating that there was because there is today is foolish. There was no satanism before Christ either. There were numerous pagan religions, but not Satanism. Satanism as we know it is from the last hundred years.

People might not have been educated back then, but they weren't that stupid to go against God and willfully worship a fallen angel. During the 6th century, Catholicism was very strong. There would be no openly satanic people because they would have been killed or imprisoned. If there was satanism, there will be nothing to prove it... saying it didn't exist is the same as nothing to prove it existed.

Edited by ironmonk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lumberjack.

The Pope is secretly a Satanist; we Catholics are told this in a secret language when we are confirmed. I will probably be tortured to death by the Cardinals for telling you this, but if it shuts you up, it will be well worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, you're already doomed if you've looked at that broken cross... it steals people's souls.

Why do you think the pope travels all over the world with it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote] Lumberjack.

The Pope is secretly a Satanist; we Catholics are told this in a secret language when we are confirmed. I will probably be tortured to death by the Cardinals for telling you this, but if it shuts you up, it will be well worth it.[/quote]

What? I thought I was the only one who knew! :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Satan was chained for a thousand years... the Church grew rapidly the first 1000 years of Christianity.

There were heresies during the first thousand years, but none of them lasted.[/quote]

Unfortunately, that is not entirely accurate. Arianism and gnosticism come to mind. And they have made a come back in the anti-intellectual quarters of Protestantism.

Edited by Benedict
Link to comment
Share on other sites

cmotherofpirl

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Dec 2 2004, 04:55 PM'] Let me add something else to consider as a possibility....

Satan was chained for a thousand years... the Church grew rapidly the first 1000 years of Christianity.

There were heresies during the first thousand years, but none of them lasted. Shortly after 1000 years... 1054 AD, the Great Schism, denying authority of the Pope... then 1517 AD the great plague of denying the Church altogether.

....


It wasn't a rash statement. Some here that don't think may think some of my statements are foolish, if they put a little thought into them, instead of assuming answers, they wouldn't look like the fool. You of all people should know that some generalities need to be said because if we went into every little detail we would have to write books on these subjects. Saying that there was no satanism in the 6th century is the same as saying there is no proof of it... Anything that we talk about in history is because of given proof. Speculating that there was because there is today is foolish. There was no satanism before Christ either. There were numerous pagan religions, but not Satanism. Satanism as we know it is from the last hundred years.

People might not have been educated back then, but they weren't that stupid to go against God and willfully worship a fallen angel. During the 6th century, Catholicism was very strong. There would be no openly satanic people because they would have been killed or imprisoned. If there was satanism, there will be nothing to prove it... saying it didn't exist is the same as nothing to prove it existed. [/quote]
You are wrong about the heresies they have never gone away, they simply get new and shinier packaging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ACtually the broken cross has some roots in the SLovak countries and in their early Christian art ( I even believe pre 600). Hence it is even more appropriate for JPII to use it as it is his own background.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...