Pope, an Anti-Christ?

[crisipicada]

Last Sunday my sister said, she heard in the news and read in the internet that POPE accepted, confirmed, said, that he is an anti Christ. And also reveal the secrets/activities of priest in Vatican.

Has anyone read this or heard this? Can you give me a link of it? So that I can firsthand read that.

It is a sad thing that many has been deceived by POPE if that is the case.We must not be deceived, We must read the word of God so we wont be deceived.

[red]

I find this an interesting topic always. Back when i was a kid I went to Baptist church with my Mama and one time a Pastor talked about the lost page of Bible that is being hidden at vatican city. I think some of you here are aware of this.I can't remember everything i heard on that service. One thing for sure is it all rooted with St. Peter. Peter as in the disciple of Jesus Christ Correct me if I am wrong...i think it was someone who first founded the Catholic Church. Hmmm, anyone can share their knowledge about this, for sure a Pastor. And maybe Sir Ed can. (hey sir ed where are you? hehe)
I don't want to judge Popes, it is their way to worship God. Some said that there those who witnessed heaven and saw some famous people that are in hell and one of them is a Pope. Anyways.......there is only one way to figure this all out and that is on Judgment day.

[Edwin]

I am here Red! I have been slow to respond on this subject, and I will now tell all of you why, and I will tell you what I think.

My mother's brother and his family were Catholics, and they held with that church all of their lives. I beleive that they were true Christians. That family was very active in the Catholic church. My aunt taught in one of their schools, and their daughter my cousin was also a high school English literature and grammar teacher, but she didn't teach in that Catholic school, but she helped take care of those kids in their dorms part of the time as it was a Catholic boarding school. Years later I also taught for them as a substitute teacher, taking the teachers' places in the classroom when they needed to be absent for any reason.

Years ago when I was just a big kid, this uncle who was also a Catholic told us that those Catholic priests were a bunch of devils! I think what he was referring to was the sexual activities between the priests and those kids in the boarding school that he was aware of, and we didn't know anything about it, except that in the legal procedings about the sexual abuse some of those students as adults took the church to court and won judgements against them for sexually abusing them, and that was in our little community here! Those abuses and the legal court proceedings have been world wide, which the Catholic church has tried desperately to cover up, and they are ashamed of that part of their history, which they should be.

My own view of this is that the Catholic church with their doctrine has brought this upon themselves. It is unnatural not to marry and have children. The Apostle Paul even talked about having wives, and I think Peter had a wife. Anyway the Bible speaks against "forbidding to marry." Forbidding the allowance of anyone to marry another person is a sin! The Catholic church has been commiting that sin, and they have brought upon themselves the sex scandals that have resulted. You take a young man with raging hormones put him in with a bunch of nuns, or a bunch of other priests, and what is going to happen. They are going to start having sex with each other. It is just as simple as that, and I don't understand why the Catholic church can't understand that. When the Catholic church here locally moved from one building to the other years ago they found skelitons of babies in that building, in the basement. That was the result which was not only forbidden sex, but murder as well!

I agree with you completely Red, that there are going to be some Popes in hell. I believe that! The Bible also says to, "call no man your father," this is because God is your Father and not a man. The Popes are promoted almost to diety where they are viewed as God. It doesn't do any good to confess your sins to a sinful Catholic priest who needs forgiveness himself. God for Jesus sake is the only one who can forgive sins.

I think no doubt that the Catholic church has many antichrists in it. They claim to be too much, and they are just people like the rest of us only in places of leadership.

Mary the mother of Jesus is to be given some honor, but she is not the mother of God in the sense that they promote her. She has no power to help shield you from God's wrath as they suggest.

It does not good to pray to the Saints, because, they are just people like all the rest of us who have departed. The Catholic church goes a little overboard with the images. The images are almost like idols, and we are to serve God not idols.

The doctrine of pergatory is that there is an intermediate place where people go who are not ready for heaven, and so they are prayed out of pergatory. There is no such place as pergatory, and there is no reason to pray for the dead, because when a person dies they either go to heaven or hell depending on how they have lived, and if they have accepted Jesus as their sacrifice for sins.

We had a Catholic Bible in the house when I was growing up. It had some of the apocraphal sp? books in it. My Dad told me that they were not scripture, but just someone's fanciful writings. I haven't heard about that page that you are talking about, Red.

As far as the Pope being the Antichrist, I'm not sure about that one. In the scripture he is referred to as the man of sin. I know our church always taught that the Catholic church was in antichrist system, and there would be a Pope who would be the one and only antichrist. I always wondered it the antichrist would be politically connected somehow in the world with the system of evil, and the church as well, probably the Catholic church, or maybe religions in general. So I'm not sure about that part of it.

As far as the Lord's supper, I do not believe that the bread and the wine/grape juice becomes the body and blood of our Lord, as the Catholic church teaches. I believe they are symbols, and are to be taken in remembrance of the Lord's sacrifice.

The Catholic church has some good biblical doctrine, and I believe there are good Christians within the Catholic church. But as I have written I also believe that there is a lot of false beliefs that the Catholic church holds that do not agree with scripture. If within the Catholic church people believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior, I believe they can be saved, have the forgiveness of sin and eternal life. I also believe if a Catholic believes he or she will have another chance after they die to make the right decision for God they will be in trouble.

So, basically I agree with much of their teaching, but also I disagree with a lot of their teachings as well. Whether you are in the Catholic church or any other church it is best to believe in the Bible, practice what it teaches, and look to the Lord and not to a man or men!

[Edwin]

In my last post it seems like I was a little harsh on my evaluation of the Pope and the Catholic church. There are good Christians within the Catholic church, but the church has some false doctrines and some terrible leadership!

On the positive side, I attended a Bible College at Western Pentecostal Bible College in Vancouver, Canada, which is a College for the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, which is a sister organization of the Assemblies of God. All over the world the organization is the Assemblies of God, except in Canada, it is the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. One of my instructors at the Bible College told us that the Catholic church has better biblical doctrine than the United Methodist Church. The United Methodist Church denies the validity of so much of the Bible that it is a worthless church organization! Another positive thing in favor of the Catholic church is that those in our College there in Vancouver Canada who wanted higher education; guess where they went for that higher education? It was a Catholic University. So the Catholic church is not all bad, but it is not all good either. What people need to realize is that they should not allow the Catholic churches false leaders and false doctrine to take them to hell. They need to live the principals of the Bible and trust in Jesus for salvation, the forgiveness of sins, and eternal life. All churches have problems because they are run by sinful people who often are driven by their self interests.

If you are from the Catholic church you have to realize that the priest does not forgive sin, God does. You have to realize that mother Mary does not have any special power with God to protect or comfort you, because she was a godly person, a well spoken of person because of her willingness to yield herself to God to because Jesus' earthly mother. You have to realize that none of the departed saints have any ability to help you, because they were godly persons who trusted in God just like you do. You have to realize there is no such place as pergatory, and if you have not settled everything with your God, you will end up in hell and the lake of fire, with no chance of ever getting out of that horrible place of torment. You have to realize that you can't pay to have a better favor with God, because God does not take bribes!

Every man stands or falls before his own master, so we can't judge other people. God is going to judge every Catholic priest, and every member of the Catholic church, just as He is going to judge all the rest of us on how we lived here on earth, and what we did with Jesus.

So, the Catholic church has good doctrine, and they also have some false beliefs. The important thing is to accept Jesus as your personal Savior, ask for His forgiveness, and receive the gift of eternal life. What is going to happen to the Popes is between them and God. What is going to happen to the Catholic priests is between them and God. What is going to happen to the members of the Catholic church is between those members and God. God plays no favors. Because your parents were Christians that does not make you a Christian. It has to be a personal decision between you and the Lord. Because you belong to the Catholic church, that does not give you any favors with God. You have to come on your own, and receive Him in your life for yourself. God is not willing that any should perish! He has love for all. He wishes to extend mercy and grace to all. He has promised that anyone who comes to Him, He will not reject. All who come are accepted by the Lord.

[Edwin]

I should further say that I don't look down on anyone because of belonging to the Catholic church. I just think that anyone who does needs to read the Bible carefully, and live by the Bible, and then we will be okay. My aunt and uncle and their family were very devout Catholics, and they were good Christians. There was a very good Catholic Father who actually shared the funeral services with me for my uncle. I didn't understand everything that was happening, and I think I sprinkled more holy water on my uncle's casket than he intended for me to, but I believe with all my heart that he loved the Lord, and was a Bible believing and practicing Christian. He supplied the music and I lead the singing at my uncle's wake, and the songs were the same songs that we sang in our church services. So, I guess what I am saying is that it is an individual matter, and some are lovely good Christians, believing and practicing, and others are as my uncles described them, devils because of they way they live. We must look to God, and not look to man! So I wouldn't down anyone for being a Catholic, but I would tell them where I disagree with their doctrine and practices as I have here. I am very happy for anyone who has faith in God, trusts in Him, believes in Him, and lives for him, regardless of whether they are Catholics or Protestants.

I think the Catholic church forbidding people to marry has caused a lot of problems. I personally know one former priest in our area who left the Catholic church simply because he wanted to get married and have a family. When you throw a bunch of priests and nuns together, and tell them not to have sex with each other, it is like sitting the cookie jar open in front of a six year old kid, and telling that kid that he/she can't eat any of those cookies. He is going to eat some the minute your back is turned. So the result is priests and nuns having sex with each other. Priests becoming homosexuals, and priests sexually abusing young children both boys and girls. The great sin is telling these people that they can't marry, but instead they burn for each other until they yield. This activity has always gone on, but it has come out in the open in recent years, and has caused the Catholic churches everywhere lots of legal problems. People in recent times are coming out of the closet, and so at the same time people are not hesitant to say, Father, son and so, sexually abused me when I was a child, and this happened at that Catholic boarding school that we have just dowon over the hill from us, on this same Colville Indian Reservation. The Catholic church would like to have this silenced, but that is an impossibility now as people are ready to talk about what happened to them as children.

I do agree with the Catholic churches' stand on birth control, abortions, and marriage. So, there is a lot of good in the Catholic churches. It is just that we need to take a stand individually for holy and righteous living. We need to determine that will will live godly lives according to God's word.

[Edwin]

Much of the information in the above are my thoughts. I have found a little information on the internet about the subject as well. Here is some information on that:

THE ANTICHRIST
by Shaun Willcock
The Present Pope, Like Every Pope Before Him, Is...


Yes! That man, dressed in white, who looks so serene, who calls himself the "Holy Father", who addresses vast crowds from a balcony in the Vatican, whose followers number over a billion of the world's inhabitants — that man is the Antichrist! Of him the beloved apostle, John, wrote in the first century, saying, "ye have heard that antichrist shall come" (1 Jn.2:18). And come he did — precisely as prophesied in the Word of God.

The prophesied Antichrist was not Hitler. He was not Mussolini, or Lenin, or Stalin, those monsters of iniquity who appeared on the stage of history for a few brief years, and then went the way of all the earth. He is not some Communist dictator, or Muslim fanatic, alive right now. The Antichrist is the pope of Rome. He is every pope of Rome. The present pope is the Antichrist, the previous pope was the Antichrist, and the pope to come will be the Antichrist. Antichrist is alive today, and Antichrist was alive a hundred years ago, and a thousand years ago. Christians in the Dark Ages came up against Antichrist, and Christians today face him still. Hear the Word of God!

Jesus said, "For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many" (Matt.24:5). Not just one man at the end of time, but many men, a succession of men, all claiming to come in the name of Christ, and each one of them claiming to be Christ. A succession of men, down through the centuries, one after another, each one spewing forth the same blasphemy. The Antichrist is the pope who is alive at any given moment.

"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many Antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time" (1 Jn.2:18). The last times began in the first century, as both John in this verse, and others, make clear (Acts 2:16,17; Heb.1:2; 1 Pet.1:20; Jude 18). There were already, in that first century, many lesser Antichrists; but as John wrote, another was coming, the Antichrist, greater than them all. But when was he to come?


The Bible gives the answer. At the time when John wrote, "the spirit of the Antichrist" was already in the world, but not the Antichrist himself: "and this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world" (1 Jn.4:3). Paul wrote along similar lines: "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way" (2 Thess.2:7). At that early time, the groundwork was being laid for the great and evil religious system that would continue developing as the years went by, finally coming to fruition a few centuries later; the "mystery religions" of ancient Babylon were present, and they were active, and there was a spirit at work, the spirit of Antichrist, guiding these currents along a path that would culminate in the great satanic masterpiece, "Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth" (Rev.17:5). And what was that? Nothing less than the Papacy, the religion of the popes, the Roman Catholic system.

Centuries earlier, the prophet Daniel had declared when the Papacy would arise, and where: "I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn" (Dan.7:8). The interpretation of this vision was also given: "And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them" (Dan.7:24). The ten kings (or kingdoms) were the barbarian nations that overran the Roman Empire; and the little horn that came up among them, rising after them, was the Papacy, the kingdom of the popes. So it was prophesied, and so, precisely, was the prophecy fulfilled. And Paul prophesied of the very same thing, when he wrote: "And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [restrains; hinders; obstructs] will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed..." (2 Thess.2:6-8).


When he wrote these words, something, and someone, was restraining the full manifestation of that Wicked; that something was the Roman Empire, and that someone was the Roman emperor. But in the fifth century, this restraint was removed, and then that Wicked was revealed. And who was "that Wicked?" The very same as the Antichrist of John's prophecy! How do we know? By a comparison. John wrote of the Antichrist who was to come; Daniel wrote of the little horn arising after the fall of the Empire; and Paul wrote of the Man of Sin and Son of Perdition (2 Thess.2:3), who would be revealed once the Empire had been taken out of the way.


What, then, do the Scriptures reveal? They reveal that the spirit of Antichrist was at work in the first century already, preparing the way for the coming of the Antichrist. There were many lesser Antichrists, but one was coming who would be the Antichrist. And in fulfilment of the prophecies of Daniel, Paul, and John, he arose on the stage of history a few centuries later, in Europe, being revealed in all his wickedness once the Roman Empire had fallen. History, fulfilling divine prophecy, leaves us in absolutely no doubt as to Antichrist's identity. It was the Roman Papacy. Just as Christ is the Head of the true Church, so Antichrist is the head of the false "church". That false "church" is the Roman Catholic institution, perfectly described for us in Rev.17; and the only head of that false "church" is the pope of Rome.


Now, a common objection is usually raised at this point: "How," it is asked, "can the Papacy be the Antichrist, when the Scripture says that Antichrist denies the Father and the Son; denies that Jesus is the Christ; confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh? The popes do not do this! They acknowledge these things!" In actual fact, the very verses which are pointed to by such objectors provide yet further evidence that every pope of Rome is the Antichrist. Here are the verses: 1 Jn.2:22 says, "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is Antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." 1 Jn.4:3 says, "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of Antichrist". And 2 Jn.7 says, "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.


This is a deceiver and an Antichrist." Those who attempt to use these verses to deny that the pope of Rome is the Antichrist do not understand the meaning of the word. They assume that one who is anti-Christ is one who is openly against Christ; one who openly opposes Him. He must (they argue) be an atheist, a Communist, a Muslim, or a Jew; he cannot be one who professes to love Him, to follow Him, to serve Him, and who calls himself a Christian.

But this is where they are terribly deceived! The Bible shows us clearly that the Antichrist, far from being an atheist, is very religious; and not just religious, but he professes to be a Christian! And none of the verses quoted above contradict this. In fact, they confirm it!
Firstly, the word, "Antichrist", itself. What does it mean? The Greek, "anti", means "instead of". It is often used to designate a substitute. It is used in 1 Tim.2:6 of Christ, who became a ransom, a substitute.

In 2 Thess.2:4, the Antichrist is described a "antikeimenos"(translated as "opposeth"), which means one setting himself in opposition, and particularly as a rival foundation, in the place of, or against, another foundation. Now, 1 Cor.3:11 says that Jesus Christ alone is the foundation. Very significantly, the words are, "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ"; and the Greek word for "laid" is "keimenon". Thus, the Antichrist usurps the place of Christ, the only true foundation!



So, "Antichrist" means a substitute "Christ", an imitation of Christ — one who claims to take the place of Christ! And this is precisely what the pope of Rome does! He even terms himself "the Vicar of Christ"; and the word, "vicar", means one who takes the place of another; a substitute. Just as the vice-president is the one who takes the president's place in his absence, so the Roman pontiff claims to be the Vicar of Christ, the "vice-Christ", the one who takes the place of Christ on earth! Thus, the "Vicar of Christ" is the Anti-Christ; for the Greek "anti" has the same meaning as the Latin "vicar".



Secondly, the pope of Rome most certainly denies that Jesus is the Christ; denies the Father and the Son; confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh! How so?
The word, "deny", as used in these Scriptures, does not automatically imply atheism. Yes, a man may deny the Lord by denying His existence; but he may also deny Him, by apostacy — a departure from the truth! This is very plain from such Scriptures as Matt.10:33, Tit.1:16, and 2 Tim.3:5. Does the pope of Rome deny that Jesus is the Christ? Does he deny the Father and the Son?


Yes; in the following ways: He denies the Lord, firstly, in works. "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny Him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate" (Tit.1:16). With their lips the popes profess to know God; but by their evil works they deny Him. A man can profess to be a Christian all he likes, but if his conduct is not godly, the profession of his mouth is worthless (Matt.15:8). If any man is truly in Christ, he is a new creature, and his works will not be the works of darkness. The works of the Papacy are the works of darkness — the works of the spirit of Antichrist. They have a mere form of godliness, but deny the power of true godliness (2 Tim.3:5).

The pope of Rome denies the Lord, secondly, by his damnable heresies. "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them..." (2 Pet.2:1). None can deny that the pope of Rome is a false teacher, who disseminates damnable heresies; and he denies the Lord by these — such evil doctrines as that salvation is by works, and that Mary and so-called "saints" are necessary to salvation, and that Christ must be eaten physically in the blasphemous mass, and that regeneration is by baptism, to name just a very few. And does the pope of Rome confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh?


No, he does not. Oh, he may do it with his lips, saying, "I confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh"; but this is not the meaning of the words. And yes, he may confess such doctrines as the true divinity and humanity of Christ; but the words are not limited to these doctrines. To confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is to confess all the truth about Christ, as revealed in His Word: that He alone is the way to the Father; that there is salvation in no other; that He alone is the Head of the Church; that to eat His flesh and drink His blood, is to partake of Him spiritually, by faith, and not physically; that His sacrifice was perfect and complete and never to be repeated; etc., etc. All these great truths, the popes deny.


Men who in any way deny the truth regarding Christ are Antichrists; and the pope of Rome is the supreme Antichrist, for no one denies the divine truth regarding Christ as he does. The Antichrist, then, far from being an atheist, a Communist, a Jew or a Muslim, is one who claims to be the chief of all Christians, the Vicar of Christ, in fact he reaches the height of blasphemy and claims to be Christ Himself! Lest any think that it cannot be, consider the following: Pius IX was described as "the living Christ", and "the Lamb of the Vatican". And in a speech, he said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." Pius X said: "The Pope...is Jesus Christ Himself, hidden under the veil of flesh." Pius XI, on 30 April 1922, in the Vatican throne room, said: "You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on the earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on the earth."

The Canon Law in the Gloss on the Extravaganza of John XXII, AD 1316-1334, calls the Roman pontiff "Our Lord God the Pope." And this was continued in all editions of the Canon Law up to AD 1612. Martin V was addressed as: "The most holy and most blessed, who holds the celestial jurisdiction, who is Lord over all the earth...the anointed...the ruler of the universe, the father of kings, the Light of the World." During the Vatican Council, 9 January 1870, it was stated: "The Pope is Christ in office, Christ in jurisdiction and power...we bow down before thy voice, O Pius, as before the voice of Christ, the God of truth; in clinging to thee, we cling to Christ."

The Roman Catholic theologian, Thomas Aquinas, said: "There is no difference between the Pope and Jesus Christ." The cardinal, Manning, said: "He [the Roman pope] was elevated to be, in his Divine Master's Name, King of kings and Lord of lords." In July 1993, when John Paul II visited Brazil, the Roman Catholic crowds sang, "You are the Christ!" And consider this: this Man of Sin, this Antichrist, usurps Christ's prophetic office, by claiming to be God's spokesman on earth; he usurps Christ's priestly office, by claiming the power to forgive sins, and to offer propitiatory sacrifices in the mass; and he usurps Christ's kingly office, by claiming to be the head of the Church. What is all this, but claiming to be Christ himself?

What did Jesus say? "For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ" (Matt.24:5). How perfectly the prophecy has been fulfilled! So monstrous are his claims, so vile his works, that even Papist apologists have been forced to the inevitable conclusion that the pope, if he is not who he claims to be, must be the Antichrist! Priest Philip Fletcher, editor of the organ of the "Guild of Our Lady of Ransom", wrote in 1914: "The Vicar of Christ or Antichrist....If the Pope of Rome is not the Vicar of Christ, he must be Antichrist; there is no middle view." And Arnulphius, at the Council of Rheims, said of the pope: "Verily if he be void of charity...then he is Antichrist."


Throughout the ages Christians believed that the Papacy was the Antichrist. When the diabolical Jesuit Order came into existence, one of its members, Francisco Ribera, was commissioned to develop a theory of prophetic interpretation that would cause Protestants to turn their gaze from Rome and look elsewhere for the Antichrist. He developed, before the close of the sixteenth century, what came to be known as the "Futuristic" interpretation of prophecy, claiming that the Antichrist was not the pope of Rome, but that he would be someone who would arise in the future.


In time this Popish plot was eminently successful: today, the vast majority of Protestants do not believe the pope of Rome to be the Antichrist. Instead, they are expecting him to be some super-politician who has yet to appear. They have no idea that they are following a theory developed by a Jesuit with the intention of deliberately misleading them. And most, even if they knew the truth, would not care one whit anyway, so besotted have today's Protestants become with that mystical Babylon on the seven-hilled city, and with the man who heads it. Professing themselves to be Christians, most modern Protestants are as blinded as any Papist, and have eagerly embraced the Antichrist as a servant of Christ!

The Lord Jesus, just before He spoke of those coming in His name and claiming to be Christ, said, "Take heed that no man deceive you" (Matt.24:4). Christian reader, take heed that you are not deceived by the teachings of the Jesuit Ribera. Take heed that you are not deceived by those misguided Protestant teachers who have followed in his steps, proclaiming the same fanciful and speculative theories. And take heed that you are not deceived by that Man of Sin and Son of Perdition himself — by his friendly smile, or his crowd-pleasing manners, or his pious-sounding words! Be well-acquainted with the blasphemous doctrines, and blood-stained history, of the system of which he is the head; study these things in the light of the Word of God; and boldly proclaim the same truth which the saints of God through the ages have proclaimed:

THE PAPACY IS THE ANTICHRIST.

[Edwin]

Here is some more information I found on the subject:

Pope admits ‘Actually I am the Antichrist’
At a press conference in Rome this morning, Pope Benedict XVI has officially confessed that persistent rumours that he and most of his predecessors are Antichrist are in fact true. This shock revelation vindicates centuries of campaigning by evangelical groups in the US and Northern Ireland.
It has emerged that for at least five hundred years successive popes have all been working behind the veil of holiness to further the purposes of Satan on Earth. When this began is uncertain, though historians agree that it must have been before the time of Alexander II Borgia, whose pathological feasting, gambling and whoring are now seen as classic examples of displacement activity by a man who could not come to terms with his dual role.
Protestants from Cromwell to Ian Paisley have consistently asserted that the Bishop of Rome was the human personification of Satan, but now the present incumbent has finally put his hands up and declared ‘Yup, fair cop, you’ve got me banged to rights.’
Benedict apologised ‘whole-heartedly’ to Catholics across the world for having pretended to be the Vicar of Christ when in fact he consorted nightly with the hell-born spawn of Beelzebub. However, he insisted he had not known the truth until shortly after his election as Pope in April 2005. ‘I was stunned when the Keeper of the Keys told me this in a private briefing – it certainly isn’t what I came into the priesthood to do. I thought I was one of the good guys’ said the German-born pontiff and former Hitler Youth member. ‘But there’s no way to resign from the post and, well, I assumed if it was OK for the great John Paul II, it must be OK for a humble tiller in the fields of the Lord like me.’
In his early days, Benedict said, he was amused to see even non-Catholic MEPs rise up in anger when the Reverend Ian Paisley denounced him as Antichrist in Strasbourg. ‘I stood there thinking, if only you knew,’ he said. ‘But really I was a complete fraud and I’m glad that it’s all out in the open at last. Life-long celibacy is bad enough, but kissing the anuses of demons every night … eeeww…’

[Edwin]

Here is another article on this subject:

10 Secrets of the Vatican Exposed
Miss Cellania • Friday, January 27, 2012 at 5:30 AM • 0

Vatican City may have fewer than 1,000 citizens and span only 110 acres, but it also has a multimillion-dollar budget and an unbelievably complex history. Understanding how it all works requires parsing through centuries of religious texts. Is the Vatican confusing and mysterious? Is the Pope Catholic? Here’s a look behind the scenes.


1. Regular Exorcise!

Baudelaire once said that “the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn’t exist.” But in modern-day Vatican City, the devil is considered alive and well. The former Pope John Paul II personally performed three exorcisms during his reign, and the current Pope Benedict XVI is expanding the ranks of Catholic-sponsored exorcists throughout the world. In fact, Father Gabriele Amorth, the Church’s chief exorcist, claims to expel more than 300 demons a year from the confines of his Vatican office, and there are more than 350 exorcists operating on behalf of the Catholic Church in Italy alone. Amorth also teaches bishops how to tell the difference between satanic possession and psychiatric illness, noting that those who suffer from the former seem to be particularly repulsed by the sight of holy water and the cross.

2. Where Thieves Go to Prey


With 1.5 crimes per citizen, Vatican City has the highest crime rate in the world. It’s not that the cardinals are donning masks and repeatedly robbing the bank, it’s just that the massive crowds of tourists make Vatican City a pickpocket’s paradise. The situation is complicated by the fact that the Vatican has no working prison and only one judge. So most criminals are simply marched across the border into Italy, as part of a pact between the two countries. (The Vatican’s legal code is based on Italy’s, with some modifications regarding abortion and divorce.) Crimes that the Vatican sees fit to try itself—mainly shoplifting in its duty-free stores—are usually punished by temporarily revoking the troublemaker’s access to those areas. But not every crime involves theft. In 2007, the Vatican issued its first drug conviction after an employee was found with a few ounces of cocaine in his desk.


3. The Worst Confessions

Some sins are simply too much for a local bishop to forgive. While priests can absolve a sin as serious as murder (according to the Church), there are five specific sins that require absolution from the Apostolic Penitentiary. This secretive tribunal has met off and on for the past 830 years, but in January of 2009, for the first time ever, its members held a press conference to discuss their work.

Three of the five sins they contemplate can only be committed by the clergy. If you’re a priest who breaks the seal of confession, a priest who offers confession to his own sexual partners, or a man who has directly participated in an abortion and wants to become a priest, then your case must go before the tribunal to receive absolution. The other two sins can be committed by anyone. The first, desecrating the Eucharist, is particularly bad because Catholics believe that the bread and wine transubstantiate into the body and blood of Christ. Messing with them is like messing with Jesus. And then, there’s the sin of attempting to assassinate the Pope. That one’s pretty self-explanatory.

The meetings of the Apostolic Penitentiary are kept confidential because they’re a different form of confession. The sinner is referred to by a pseudonym, and only the Major Penitentiary, Cardinal James Francis Stafford, decides how the sin shall be dealt with. Presumably, a bunch of Hail Marys doesn’t cut it.


4. Read the Pope’s Mail

The Vatican’s secret archives haven’t been truly secret since Pope Leo XIII first allowed scholars to visit in 1881. Today, it’s even more accessible. Outsiders are free to examine the correspondences of every pope for the past 1,000 years, although there is one catch: Guests have to know exactly what they’re looking for. With 52 miles of shelves in the archives, the librarians prohibit browsing.

The most famous letter there is probably Henry VIII’s request that his marriage to Catherine of Aragon be annulled, which Pope Clement VII denied. Henry divorced Catherine anyway and married Anne Boleyn (and four other women), leading to Rome’s break with the Church of England. The archives also contain an abundance of red ribbons, which were used to bind 85 petitions from English clergyman and aristocrats.


5. The Pope Likes to Text Message

Pope Benedict XVI routinely sends text messages of his homilies to mobile subscribers around the world, and in 2009, the Vatican opened up an official YouTube channel to show various Papal addresses and ceremonies. The Vatican even released an iPhone application that contains multilingual versions of the Breviary prayer book and the prayers of daily mass. But the Pope’s enthusiasm for technology isn’t limited to cell phones and the Internet. The Vatican has also added solar panels to the roof of the Pope Paul VI auditorium as part of its commitment to fight climate change.


6. They Have the Finest Swiss Bodyguards

Nowadays, the Swiss have a reputation for pacifism, but back in the 1500s, they were considered an unstoppable military force. Swiss armies were renowned for the their mastery of a weapon called the halberd, a deadly combination of a spear and an axe, and their ground troops were famous for routinely demolishing legions of enemies on horseback. After Pope Julius II witnessed their ferocity in battle 500 years ago, he recruited a few soldiers to become his personal bodyguards. Ever since, Swiss Guards have pledged fidelity to the Pope, sometimes dying for the cause. During the sacking of Rome in 1527, for instance, three quarters of them were killed while providing cover for Pope Clement VII to escape.

Today, the hundred or so members of the Swiss Guard spend most of their time bedecked in Renaissance garb, twirling their halberds in ceremonies or manning checkpoints around the Vatican. When the Guards are actually protecting the Pope, they wear plain clothes and carry distinctly modern weapons.


7. The Mafia Dipped into the Collection Plate


In The Godfather: Part III, a shady deal between the mafia and the Vatican leads to the murder of the Pope. Was this based on a true story? Possibly. On the morning of September 29, 1978, Pope John Paul I was found dead, sitting up in his bed, after only 33 days in office. Although Vatican officials claimed the 65-year-old pope died of a heart attack, there was never an autopsy, and at the time, the Vatican definitely had ties to organized crime. Sure enough, in 1982, Vatican Bank president Father Paul Marcinkus resigned from his post after a series of scandals exposed the bank’s ties to the mafia. Eventually, the bank had to repay more than $200 million to its creditors. But Marcinkus was never indicted of a crime. And though he was suspected of being involved in several mysterious deaths, including Pope John Paul I’s, Marcinkus successfully claimed diplomatic immunity in the United States and retired to Arizona in 1990.


8. There’s No Vice-Pope

Once a cardinal becomes the Pope, he’s the designated leader of the Catholic Church and God’s representative on Earth for the rest of his life. As with Supreme Court justices, he can resign before his death, but that’s unlikely. (It’s been more than 500 years since the last papal resignation.) Further, as modern medicine improves, even seriously ill people tend to stick around longer, meaning that a Pope could be alive but unable to perform his duties for years, as was the case with John Paul II. What happens then? Well, no one is really sure. A cardinal can take over the Pope’s responsibilities as the Vatican’s head of state, but no one else is allowed to carry out his ceremonial duties. In the end, many masses and benedictions simply go unperformed until the Pope either passes away or recovers.


9. Faith-Based Economics


The Vatican needs several hundred million dollars per year to operate. Its many financial responsibilities include running international embassies, paying for the Pope’s travels around the world, maintaining ancient cathedrals, and donating considerable resources to schools, churches, and health care centers. So where does that money come from? Catholics pay tithes to their local parishes and donate about $100 million every year to the Vatican itself. But collection plates aren’t the Vatican’s only source of money. The city-state also gets cash from books, museums, stamps, and souvenir shops. (Get your limited-edition Vatican euros here!)


But that’s not always enough. By the end of 2007, the city-state was $13.5 million in the hole. Part of the problem was the weakened American dollar, which translated into less purchasing power. Another contributing factor was the lackluster performance of the Vatican’s newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano. To boost subscriptions, the Pope has asked the editor to spice up the layout with more photos and allowed him to cover world news stories in addition to the traditional religious fare.


10. Even the ATMs Are in Latin

The Vatican Bank is the only bank in the world that allows ATM users to select Latin to perform transactions. That’s just one symbol of the Holy See’s continued devotion to the language. Pope Benedict XVI has been particularly passionate about reviving the language and purportedly holds many informal conversations in Latin. (Pope John Paul II generally spoke Polish.)

The Vatican’s Latin Foundation tries to keep the language relevant by translating modern phrases into the ancient tongue. In 2003, they released an updated dictionary that included the terms “rush hour” (tempus maximae frequentiae) and “dishwasher” (escariorum lavatory). Interestingly, the translations can have serious consequences. A recent U.S. lawsuit was brought against the Vatican for conspiring to protect a child-molesting priest, and it was held up for months as the Church’s experts rejected the prosecuting team’s Latin translations of terms such as “conspiracy to commit fraud.”

[Edwin]

Here is another article on this subject:

Vatileaks Scandal Exposes Secrets Of Pope’s Empire
Jul 9, 2012 1:00 AM EDT
A series of leaks have exposed chaos at the heart of the Pope’s empire.
Pope Benedict XVI wakes every morning between 6:30 and 6:45 a.m. in the papal apartment on the third floor of the Vatican’s Apostolic Palace, which overlooks St. Peter’s Square. After bathing and shaving, he makes his way to his private chapel, where at 7:30 he celebrates the first mass of the day. After a time of private prayer in the chapel, at around 8:30 he joins Msgr. Georg Gänswein, his personal secretary, and a small circle of his closest collaborators for breakfast. The pope’s preference is decaffeinated coffee, bread with butter and jam, and, once in a while, a slice of tart.
We know all of these details because the Vatican has sprung a leak. For centuries one of the tightest organizations in the world, with a code of honor to rival that of the Sicilian Mafia, it has been turned inside out in the past six months. A gusher of highly confidential letters to the pope and his closest associates, many of them originally in code, has poured into the Italian media and into a book, Sua Santità by Gianluigi Nuzzi, which became an instant bestseller. The leaks are just one in a string of scandals to rock the Vatican this year—the latest, in early June, involved the ouster of the head of the Vatican bank, who possessed documents that apparently showed the Church circumventing European money-laundering regulations. To combat the spate of bad publicity, the Vatican has gone as far as hiring a former Fox News reporter, who happens to be an Opus Dei numerary, to be one of its official PR flacks. But whether the pope and the Vatican establishment can recover their credibility is now a matter of serious doubt.
The target of the most damaging leaks is the most important and powerful figure in the Vatican besides the pope: the 77-year-old secretary of state Tarcisio Bertone. The leaks have been loudly condemned by the Vatican, and the man blamed for them—the pope’s butler—may end up going to jail for years. But if the ambition that motivated the leaks was the sacking of Cardinal Bertone, they may yet succeed. Bertone’s name recurs in letter after secret letter, as he plots to oust rivals as varied as the editor of the bishops’ daily newspaper and the man sent in to clean up the Vatican’s finances. Though Benedict is said to have turned down the cardinal’s offer of resignation in late June, the informed consensus now is that Bertone’s days are numbered. Though he may limp on into 2013, the leaks have done their corrosive work.

When he was elected pope in 2005, Benedict could hardly have imagined such a brutal turn of events. For nearly 30 years, a tiny, painfully shy German cardinal named Joseph Ratzinger lived a few steps from St. Peter’s, in an apartment whose bookish austerity was mitigated by two cats and a grand piano at which he would relax by playing Mozart sonatas. He was Pope John Paul II’s trusted hard-line enforcer of theological issues. When the Polish pope finally died, Ratzinger could have looked forward to a well-deserved retirement. Instead, in April 2005, he was elected pope and propelled to instant, worldwide fame. From then on, every step he took and every public word he spoke would be news. In compensation, within the Apostolic Palace that became his new home, he could expect perfect discretion, total secrecy. But someone in his household had other ideas.
“After the death of Karol Wojtyla”—John Paul II’s baptismal name—“I started to put aside copies of certain documents of which I came into possession through my professional activities,” wrote the anonymous author of the leaks. The speaker refused to reveal his name, adopting the code name “Maria” instead. He or she—along with others—had rebelled against a code of silence stretching back centuries.

“In the first years I did it sporadically,” Maria went on. “When I saw that the truth which was published in the newspapers and in official discourse did not correspond to the truth in these papers, I put them all to one side to try to go deeper and to understand.

“In recent years the situation has worsened, hypocrisy reigns unchallenged. The scandals multiply ... In some moments in one’s life, either you are a man or you aren’t. The difference? Just the courage to say or do what you consider just. My courage was to make known the most agonizing events within the Church. To make public certain secrets, stories small and large which never get beyond those bronze gates.”

[Edwin]

Here is another article. You can find any of these by doing a google search on the subject, and I am sure there is a lot more information, but this is what I found:

Vatican told bishops to cover up sex abuse
Expulsion threat in secret documents

The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.
The Observer has obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for deception and concealment'. One British lawyer acting for Church child abuse victims has described it as 'explosive'.
The 69-page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.
They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials. It states that the instructions are to 'be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia [Vatican] as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries.'
The document, which has been confirmed as genuine by the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, is called 'Crimine solicitationies', which translates as 'instruction on proceeding in cases of solicitation'.
It focuses on sexual abuse initiated as part of the confessional relationship between a priest and a member of his congregation. But the instructions also cover what it calls the 'worst crime', described as an obscene act perpetrated by a cleric with 'youths of either sex or with brute animals (bestiality)'.
Bishops are instructed to pursue these cases 'in the most secretive way... restrained by a perpetual silence... and everyone... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office... under the penalty of excommunication'.
Texan lawyer Daniel Shea uncovered the document as part of his work for victims of abuse from Catholic priests in the US. He has handed it over to US authorities, urging them to launch a federal investigation into the clergy's alleged cover-up of sexual abuse.
He said: 'These instructions went out to every bishop around the globe and would certainly have applied in Britain. It proves there was an international conspiracy by the Church to hush up sexual abuse issues. It is a devious attempt to conceal criminal conduct and is a blueprint for deception and concealment.'
British lawyer Richard Scorer, who acts for children abused by Catholic priests in the UK, echoes this view and has described the document as 'explosive'.
He said: 'We always suspected that the Catholic Church systematically covered up abuse and tried to silence victims. This document appears to prove it. Threatening excommunication to anybody who speaks out shows the lengths the most senior figures in the Vatican were prepared to go to prevent the information getting out to the public domain.'
Scorer pointed out that as the documents dates back to 1962 it rides roughshod over the Catholic Church's claim that the issue of sexual abuse was a modern phenomenon.
He claims the discovery of the document will raise fresh questions about the actions of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales.
Murphy-O'Connor has been accused of covering up allegations of child abuse when he was Bishop of Arundel and Brighton. Instead of reporting to the police allegations of abuse against Michael Hill, a priest in his charge, he moved him to another position where he was later convicted for abusing nine children.
Although Murphy-O'Connor has apologised publicly for his mistake, Scorer claims the secret Vatican document raises the question about whether his failure to report Hill was due to him following this instruction from Rome.
Scorer, who acts for some of Hill's victims, said: 'I want to know whether Murphy-O'Connor knew of these Vatican instructions and, if so, did he apply it. If not, can he tell us why not?'
A spokesman for the Catholic Church denied that the secret Vatican orders were part of any organised cover-up and claims lawyers are taking the document 'out of context' and 'distorting it'.
He said: 'This document is about the Church's internal disciplinary procedures should a priest be accused of using confession to solicit sex. It does not forbid victims to report civil crimes. The confidentiality talked about is aimed to protect the accused as applies in court procedures today. It also takes into consideration the special nature of the secrecy involved in the act of confession.' He also said that in 1983 the Catholic Church in England and Wales introduced its own code dealing with sexual abuse, which would have superseded the 1962 instructions. Asked whether Murphy-O'Connor was aware of the Vatican edict, he replied: 'He's never mentioned it to me.'
Lawyers point to a letter the Vatican sent to bishops in May 2001 clearly stating the 1962 instruction was in force until then. The letter is signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the most powerful man in Rome beside the Pope and who heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the office which ran the Inquisition in the Middle Ages.
Rev Thomas Doyle, a US Air Force chaplain in Germany and a specialist in Church law, has studied the document. He told The Observer: 'It is certainly an indication of the pathological obsession with secrecy in the Catholic Church, but in itself it is not a smoking gun.
'If, however, this document actually has been the foundation of a continuous policy to cover clergy crimes at all costs, then we have quite another issue. There are too many authenticated reports of victims having been seriously intimidated into silence by Church authorities to assert that such intimidation is the exception and not the norm.
'If this document has been used as a justification for this intimidation then we possibly have what some commentators have alleged, namely, a blueprint for a cover-up. This is obviously a big "if" which requires concrete proof.'
Additional research by Jason Rodrigues