Catholic Q & A

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

[quote]forbes wrote:
Lets make something clear. I am not a protestant. I am a Christian, a follower of Christ.

@BC

You said:

“What is your scriptural basis that it has to be stated in the Scriptures? What about those believers in the South that used the Bible to say slavery was okay? What about that minister in Florida who convinced two people to kill abortion doctors from the Bible? All of them believed, all weren’t in the truth.”

For one, there’s also something called misinterpretation. And though they claim they used the Bible, they did nothing more than twist scripture to fit their own desires.

Second, as for requiring that something be in Scripture for it to be true is:

1 Cor 4:6

Luke 1:1-4

Matt 4:1-11

2 Tim 3: 16-17

Luke 10:26

Acts 17: 11-20

About the Spirit only guiding the Church leaders:

Thing about that is, MANY “christian” sects claim revelation and guidance from the Spirit, even McG78 admitted that above. If many have been guided by the Spirit, how do you know who’s right? Scripture says that God does not confuse, nor would he about topics such as salvation.

It’s either the Spirit guides all into different doctrine, or he doesn’t guide anyone.

You seem to like to ask “by what authority” to me a lot. So I ask you, by what authority do you claim that oral tradition is just as sacred as Scriptures, and that the Spirit only guides the Catholic church. Please support this view.[/quote]

To clarify, I was pointing out the absurdity of believing that the Holy Spirit gives inspiration to all.

To answer a question of yours from above, the Catholic Church is called the Catholic Church because of the Protestants. Catholic means universal or generally accepted. Early Protestants wanted to distinguish themselves from the Church so they called the Church the Catholic Church. The name has stuck to some extent.

The Holy Spirit guides the Church based on Apostolic Tradition and Pentecost. The Holy Spirt came down upon the twelve disciples. Peter, the first Pope, preached on that day and thousands were converted. The Holy Spirit didn’t descend on the average joe. As an aside, when Catholics are confirmed, it is the Holy Spirit that gives them the impusle to confirm their faith.

282

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
The other thing I have against tradition (not found in scriptures) is that in essence you can defend anything because any religious act (like sprinkling of water vs total submersion for baptism) by just saying "well sacred tradition says this, this and this.[/quote]

Uh…Sacred Tradition was given to us by G-d, we didn’t come up with Sacred Tradition it is a revelation from G-d or proposed through the Holy Ghost. And sprinkling of water vs. total submersion is not Sacred Tradition it is discipline. Baptism is Sacred Tradition. The Trinity is Sacred Tradition, Jesus being fully man and fully G-d is Sacred Tradition.[/quote]

Baptism is sacred tradition found in SCRIPTURE.

The Trinity and deity of the God-man Jesus Christ is NOT a tradition, it is the nature of God revealed in…once again…scripture.

If Baptism was done by submersion, why is it ever done then by sprinkling?

And whats up with infant baptism?[/quote]

This is almost coming down to a chicken and an egg thing. The only difference is that we know which came first, the Catholic Church. Part of choosing which books to canonize was comparing what was written to the traditions of the Church (as well as looking into the general culture and community in which the book was written).

The Catholic Church had been practicing the teachings of the Bible long before it was fully compiled. Until the Gutenberg press, many churches didn’t even have a Bible.

283

[quote]forbes wrote:
Lets make something clear. I am not a protestant. I am a Christian, a follower of Christ.
[/quote]

Then join the Catholic Church, repent and do penance.

[quote]

@BC

You said:

“What is your scriptural basis that it has to be stated in the Scriptures? What about those believers in the South that used the Bible to say slavery was okay? What about that minister in Florida who convinced two people to kill abortion doctors from the Bible? All of them believed, all weren’t in the truth.”

For one, there’s also something called misinterpretation. And though they claim they used the Bible, they did nothing more than twist scripture to fit their own desires.[/quote]

Then how can we tell, how can we tell when someone twists the scripture to fit their own desires if there is not a pillar and bulwark of truth and we are all left to our own devices?

I hate going line by line, but I figured I would have some fun. This line does not tell us that something has to be in Scripture or tradition is bad. St. Paul is saying do not be proud in your teacher, and teachers do not be proud in yourself above one another teacher, as it is contrary to Holy Scrit or what Paul just wrote to them. More Pragmatic, it says nothing about Scripture alone, it just says what is written in Scripture.

This again says nothing about it having to be written, it does say that the eyewitnesses “deliver to us” the account of Jesus by eyewitnesses. Luke says that they followed what was told to them closely, and he is writing an orderly account. But nothing about things having to be in the Bible.

This verse shows us that it is possible to twist Scrit and that Satan can quote from Scrit and miscontrues its meaning as he miscontrued Ps 91:11-12, while Jesus uses the totality of Scrit and the proper interpretation of Deut 6:16 to prove the Devil wrong. However, this does not say that Holy Scrit is the only thing to be used.

Paul tells us that Scripture (which here he is likely talking about OT) is a guide for a moral life. He does not claim, however, that Scripture gives us a comprehensive and complete instructions in all matters of Christian doctrine, worship, and ecclesial government. Nothing about Scripture alone.

Jesus asking what is written in the law does not mean that Scripture alone is to be used.

Wow, really this one is what you used to show that Scripture alone? Let me pull some quotes:
“Proclaimed by Paul” - how do you proclaim, through your actions usually by speaking.
“Receiving a command” - commands are usually vocal.
“He argued in the synagogues with the Jews” - He argued in the synagogue, I don’t think they were wasting paper writing down their arguments and passing them back and forth, Paul was preaching and teaching them.
“Babbler” - They called Paul a babbler? That must have meant he was talking, or do we call people babblers for writing a lot?
“preacher of foreign divinities” - So…Paul was preaching…by writing…no he was preaching orally.
“strange things to our ears” - unless St. Paul was a bully and slamming books into the sides of people’s heads, I think it was pretty clear Paul was teaching orally.

Yes, but only one Church was built by Jesus. “…my Church” is singular.

[quote]
It’s either the Spirit guides all into different doctrine, or he doesn’t guide anyone.[/quote]

False Dichotomy. There is one Teacher, Jesus Christ, who taught one faith that He left with His one Bride, His one Church, His one Body, that is guided by the Holy Ghost.

[quote]
You seem to like to ask “by what authority” to me a lot. So I ask you, by what authority do you claim that oral tradition is just as sacred as Scriptures, and that the Spirit only guides the Catholic church. Please support this view.[/quote]

Matthew 16:18. St. Peter receiving the keys, the Church built on him. No one has claim on Peter besides the Catholic Church, all other churches are in heresy and schism, either formally or materially, from the one true Church of Jesus Christ, His Bride and Body who will reign until her Bridegroom’s second coming.

284

[quote]forbes wrote:
Baptism is sacred tradition found in SCRIPTURE.[/quote]

Um…I’m pretty sure Jesus commanded that orally, before the New Testament since at the earliest the first piece was written a decade after Jesus died and rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven.

[quote]
The Trinity and deity of the God-man Jesus Christ is NOT a tradition, it is the nature of God revealed in…once again…scripture.[/quote]

A decade at minimum after Jesus was in Heaven did the first piece of Scripture get written. It was orally taught.

Actually it is, I am not quite sure you know what tradition is because you have mistaken it once for discipline and now seem to have lost the understanding of tradition completely. Actually, it is revealed in the Word of G-d, which the Word of G-d is not Scripture, but Jesus.

So you don’t drown babies.

And, because when all you have is a shallow river, how exactly are you supposed to submerge someone in 4 inches of water? It is not like they lived next to the Mississippi or the Arkansas river were they could go down and pull someone under of Sunday.

[quote]
And whats up with infant baptism?[/quote]

Is not baptism a circumcision done without hands? Is it not commanded that on the 8th day the child shall be circumcised? <—that is from Holy Scrit.

285

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
I thought that the term “christian” began as a derogatory term used by the Romans for the followers of Jesus and that it was then adopted as a sort of badge of honor after that. [/quote]

Could very well be. Funny how theologically accurate their derogatory term came to be.

286

It’s curious how most “Catholic” people don’t even know what the eastern orthodox church is, given that the original christians were easterners and are now called orthodox, or oriental, never having changed their doctrine or practice from the earliest times. You can see this archaeologically, historically, and spiritually.

The protestant/catholic thing has been a sibling rivalry for years, with obvious vestigial bastardizations … sadly.

287

[quote]LeanMoreThanMean wrote:
It’s curious how most “Catholic” people don’t even know what the eastern orthodox church is, given that the original christians were easterners and are now called orthodox, or oriental, never having changed their doctrine or practice from the earliest times. You can see this archaeologically, historically, and spiritually.

The protestant/catholic thing has been a sibling rivalry for years, with obvious vestigial bastardizations … sadly.[/quote]

Ignorance. I guess G-d will have to give me the grace to break down the walls all by myself.

What you are insinuating is almost repulsively incorrect. Catholics don’t know Eastern Orthodox? Do you pretend that I am not Catholic, because I am in the Eastern Rite?

Because my spirituality is not the same as those in the Latin Rite, therefore I am not Catholic? Because I am part of the Byzantine Rite and my Rite’s theology is worded differently, and my Spiritual Father comes from Spain, I or him are not Catholic?

Yes, most “Catholic” people do know who the Eastern Orthodox are and what they do. You do realise that the Catholic Church (that goes all the way to old Oriental Catholic areas and covered the entire Roman/Byzantine Empire, too), that hold the “spirituality” of the Eastern Fathers?

Take me for example, I go to a Byzantine Rite parish. You know the Catholics with the long beards and the icons everywhere (I attached a picture so you can get an idea). And, No we do not use pews and we take the Eucharist in a spoon. And, yes even four-month-olds partake in the sacrament of the Eucharist.

Almost every man in the parish wears a beard (including me), wears dark clothes (including me), and carries around, usually, a prayer book and prayer rope (including me, I also carry my Rosary). Some of us look like Muslims, the others look like Orthodox Jews without the sideburns. No one expects us to be Catholic and no one expects us to be Latin Rite, some guess more closely and call us Orthodox, but we have to correct them and inform them that our Divine Liturgy is of the Byzantine Rite (which is in the Catholic Church).

My Spiritual Father is a man from the actual area of the Byzantine Empire (Spain) and was an Orthodox priest, but came into the Catholic Church. Maybe you should visit your local Byzantine Catholic parish and then visit your local Greek Orthodox and see how similar their Divine Liturgy is, and see how similar they are to Latin Rite Masses…and see how close they are to the ceremonies in the Jewish Synagogues where they do the sacrifices.[quote]given that the original christians were easterners and are now called orthodox, or oriental[/quote]

Actually the original Christians were called Hellenistic Jews. They wanted to spread Judaism to the ends of the world, now we call it Catholicism.

Neither has the Catholic Church, we hold almost the same doctrines, except they deny the primacy of St. Peter, even though St. Peter’s primacy is very clear as we can see that Peter’s name is in the Bible around 190 times compared to 130 times of all the other 11 Apostles put together. As well, St. Peter is always the first to show up on the scene with Jesus, St. Peter was Jesus’ best friend. Jesus also gave St. Peter the keys to Heaven, and built his Church on Peter (Peter feed my flock).

The Eastern Orthodox have been in schism since 1054, I believe, and the Oriental Orthodox have been in schism since before that (I forget the exact date).

And, how do you suppose this is, since there have been Catholic Churches as far East as Russia (until the Revolution) and as far west as BC, Canada? Historically speaking the Catholic Church was talked about by St. Ignatius of Antioch in 110 A.D. Orthodox was much later. St. Peter died and was buried in his tomb, which is under St. Peter’s Basilica. St. Paul died outside the, now, walls of Vatican City.

[quote]
The protestant/catholic thing has been a sibling rivalry for years, with obvious vestigial bastardisations … sadly.[/quote]

Reducing schism and heresy to sibling rivalry is ludicrous, even though I do see Protestants as brothers…to play down heresy as sibling rivalry is unjust to the Lord. I do not play down my brothers and sisters’ schism, about five of my brothers are Coptic Orthodox. I love them dearly and would lay down my life for them, but not for a second would I deny that schism is not to be accepted.

288

Alright lets talk about something else. I change the subject because I have been reading a lot about this:

The end times.

What is the Catholic view on the end times? What did Jesus mean by “this generation will not pass away?”

Will Christ set up an earthly kingdom for 1000 years, or has he already set it up in heaven?

Will there be an “antichrist” or are there many today, as the antichrist is simply anyone who denies Christ?

What is the mark of the beast?

Rapture/no rapture?

289

[quote]forbes wrote:
Alright lets talk about something else. I change the subject because I have been reading a lot about this:

The end times.

What is the Catholic view on the end times? What did Jesus mean by “this generation will not pass away?”

Will Christ set up an earthly kingdom for 1000 years, or has he already set it up in heaven?

Will there be an “antichrist” or are there many today, as the antichrist is simply anyone who denies Christ?

What is the mark of the beast?

Rapture/no rapture?

[/quote]

I have studied the end times a little, but have not made it a focus at any time and haven’t studied the details. However, I can tell you this, from a Catholic point of view…you want to be left behind. As well, I will try to find my seminar notes on the end times and I’ll post them for you, soon.

290

[quote]LeanMoreThanMean wrote:
never having changed their doctrine or practice from the earliest times.
[/quote]

Oh, by the way this is false. Since the time they had a Patriarch in Constantinople, every generation, up to about 600 A.D., had their own individual heresy. And for the first 600 years or so, about 9.5 heresies out of 10 came from the East. They also had trouble with schisms, but they always came back, until the mutual excommunication in 1054, which I will put on my name will be resolved within the next 200-300 years and the East and West will be reunited under the Bishop of Rome once more.

Oh, and by the way the Council of Nicene, 3rd Canon says, "the honor of primacy is with the Bishop of Rome. In 96 A.D. Corinth, instead of going to John the Apostle (the last of the Apostles taught directly by Jesus) in the next village over set out on a ship half way across the Mediterranean to solve a Doctrinal disagreement.

291

Brother Chris,

I don’t think you are Catholic, being eastern rite. That was a political subterfuge and shell game of status that the uniate churches took on for political reasons, quite obvious when studying history. Where do the eastern rite churches get their tradition, practice and worship? Certainly not from the West. Now, I know the history very well and I suspect you do, which confuses me as to why you object so. The realities are quite obvious.

I noticed you said “almost” when you responded about the “same doctrines”. The changes over the years, including the blasphemous titles of “Vicar of Christ” and the political nature of the Catholic Church with its “infallible” leader (very telling 19th century innovation) after having gone through a tradition of warring Popes (Urban) going on Crusades and installing Latin Patriarchates in eastern lands (Orthodox never did this).

The reality is, if you are honest about it, your beliefs are the Eastern Orthodox beliefs. You(r forefathers) just decided to take on the political aspect of it for prestige, which is the point development of the Uniate churches. The “Eastern Rite” never existed as a natural progression (and how could it?); when thought about it doesn’t make sense and it certainly didn’t happen until well after the sacking of Constantinople in 1204.

The power hungry universalist in Rome allows you to do what you do precisely because it enhances his prestige, too. It’s time to be honest. There are MANY heretical teachings of the west and out of Rome. To list them all right now would be superfluous to the main point presented in this case. To say that you agree with the big guy in Rome is obvious self betrayal.

292

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]LeanMoreThanMean wrote:
never having changed their doctrine or practice from the earliest times.
[/quote]

Oh, by the way this is false. Since the time they had a Patriarch in Constantinople, every generation, up to about 600 A.D., had their own individual heresy. And for the first 600 years or so, about 9.5 heresies out of 10 came from the East. They also had trouble with schisms, but they always came back, until the mutual excommunication in 1054, which I will put on my name will be resolved within the next 200-300 years and the East and West will be reunited under the Bishop of Rome once more.

Oh, and by the way the Council of Nicene, 3rd Canon says, "the honor of primacy is with the Bishop of Rome. In 96 A.D. Corinth, instead of going to John the Apostle (the last of the Apostles taught directly by Jesus) in the next village over set out on a ship half way across the Mediterranean to solve a Doctrinal disagreement.[/quote]

The point is, the heresy is either accepted or rejected. That’s the point of councils. And the councils to this point have shown the differences in accepted belief. Either the “Orthodox” are right or the “Catholic” are right, at this point. That means one is truly in schism.

With what happened in Rome from the second millenium on, I don’t think there is a doubt as to the realities of things. It’s just a different away of life and the dogmatic difference is substantial. The fact that you defend it (esp. when you as an eastern can’t possibly believe the line coming out of Rome for 1000 years) is much more curious to me. It’s just obviously wrong. Even from a human point of view (which granted doesn’t prove anything), the eastern (orthodox) positions resonate because they are flexible, as opposed to fundamental and guilt ridden, but still firm.

293

The “rapture” as propogated by evangelical “Christians” is garbage theology that was invented in the 19th century.

294

[quote]LeanMoreThanMean wrote:
Brother Chris,

I don’t think you are Catholic, being eastern rite. [/quote]

What the fuck, how do you assume to tell me what the hell I am. You know nothing of the Eastern Rite if you think we’re not Catholic. Our love for the Pope, OUR POPE is indescribable. If you doubt our love for our Pope then the scrapes on my knuckles over the Pope is proof enough.

[quote]
That was a political subterfuge and shell game of status that the uniate churches took on for political reasons, quite obvious when studying history. Where do the eastern rite churches get their tradition, practice and worship? Certainly not from the West. Now, I know the history very well and I suspect you do, which confuses me as to why you object so. The realities are quite obvious.

I noticed you said “almost” when you responded about the “same doctrines”. The changes over the years, including the blasphemous titles of “Vicar of Christ” and the political nature of the Catholic Church with its “infallible” leader (very telling 19th century innovation) after having gone through a tradition of warring Popes (Urban) going on Crusades and installing Latin Patriarchates in eastern lands (Orthodox never did this).[/quote]

You are obvious ignorance goes beyond that of Tirib. The Infallibility of the Pope has been held since Jesus made it so. Just because we did not explain it in doctrine does not make it true. Yes, and what about Constantinople’s warring Patriarchs? What about the Patriarchs of all five seats who held wars and battles, who shed blood with not only the enemy, but also that of other Christians. How about the Truce of G-d, which came from the Papacy?

The CRUSADES? are you kidding me, you mean where the Muslims were destroying Holy Lands, killing Christians, invading both sides of the Byzantine Empire?

Yes, the Eastern Orthodox church does have almost the same doctrines as the Catholic Church. However, the Byzantine Catholics hold the same as the Catholic Church.

[quote]
The reality is, if you are honest about it, your beliefs are the Eastern Orthodox beliefs.[/quote]

Yes, they are and so are they from the Catholic Church. And, please, please don’t presume what the fuck I believe. I’m not a child, I have studied my believes more than most people put together. Knock of this shit about this what you actually believe, I know what I believe and it is the faith of the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox believes the same. They get there differently, and except for such things as the Eucharist in unleavened bread and the degree in which the Bishop of Rome has primacy (they still believe the Bishop of Rome has primacy, they just do not believe that he holds as much primacy as some believe.

Wow, I’m done talking to you. You’re nothing but a ignorant blasphemous heretical pig, who goes back to his own shit to wallow in.

295

[quote]LeanMoreThanMean wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]LeanMoreThanMean wrote:
never having changed their doctrine or practice from the earliest times.
[/quote]

Oh, by the way this is false. Since the time they had a Patriarch in Constantinople, every generation, up to about 600 A.D., had their own individual heresy. And for the first 600 years or so, about 9.5 heresies out of 10 came from the East. They also had trouble with schisms, but they always came back, until the mutual excommunication in 1054, which I will put on my name will be resolved within the next 200-300 years and the East and West will be reunited under the Bishop of Rome once more.

Oh, and by the way the Council of Nicene, 3rd Canon says, "the honor of primacy is with the Bishop of Rome. In 96 A.D. Corinth, instead of going to John the Apostle (the last of the Apostles taught directly by Jesus) in the next village over set out on a ship half way across the Mediterranean to solve a Doctrinal disagreement.[/quote]

The point is, the heresy is either accepted or rejected. That’s the point of councils. And the councils to this point have shown the differences in accepted belief. Either the “Orthodox” are right or the “Catholic” are right, at this point. That means one is truly in schism.

With what happened in Rome from the second millenium on, I don’t think there is a doubt as to the realities of things. It’s just a different away of life and the dogmatic difference is substantial. The fact that you defend it (esp. when you as an eastern can’t possibly believe the line coming out of Rome for 1000 years) is much more curious to me. It’s just obviously wrong. Even from a human point of view (which granted doesn’t prove anything), the eastern (orthodox) positions resonate because they are flexible, as opposed to fundamental and guilt ridden, but still firm.
[/quote]

Blaspheme! Don’t reply to me again.

I do not tolerate those that attack the Pope.

296

"Blaspheme! Don’t reply to me again.

I do not tolerate those that attack the Pope."

Reproof rather than hostility would be more than acceptable. I understand that this is 2D and the ability to see viciousness or lackthereof in another person is limited, but calm down. You act like I have some sort of hatred here. I’m just telling it how it is.

“The Infallibility of the Pope has been held since Jesus made it so. Just because we did not explain it in doctrine does not make it true.”

You didn’t “explain” it until the 19th century! Seems like a pretty important thing to explain, especially since there was a schism, um, roughly 1000 years earlier. But do you seriously believe that the medieval popes were infallible? How can any man be infallible? It’s just an odd concept that certainly wasn’t held until, as I say, the 19th century. Very conveniently, might I add, if we want to be honest. I think Vatican II admitted as much and is sort of embarrassed in that they try to act like it really isn’t what Piux IX said it was.

But getting back to more important things, the question you have to answer, really is this:

Is one apostle’s teachings different than another’s? That is, are the other apostles lacking in their teachings?

Beyond that, why don’t the people of Antioch think, or ever have the idea, that their “descendent” bishops were infallible or prestigious?

Those are questions we have to be VERY honest about, Brother Chris. Very honest.

Let’s start thinking about these questions rather than get mad because they point out things we don’t want to recognize.

297

[quote]LeanMoreThanMean wrote:
It’s curious how most “Catholic” people don’t even know what the eastern orthodox church is, given that the original christians were easterners and are now called orthodox, or oriental, never having changed their doctrine or practice from the earliest times. You can see this archaeologically, historically, and spiritually.

The protestant/catholic thing has been a sibling rivalry for years, with obvious vestigial bastardizations … sadly.[/quote]

Orthodox Christians are not protestants. They managed to maintain apostolic traditions. Though they broke with the papacy, we have maintained a good relationship. And today, we are good friends.
I have always heard them called Orthodox Catholics.

298

[quote]LeanMoreThanMean wrote:
"Blaspheme! Don’t reply to me again.

I do not tolerate those that attack the Pope."

Reproof rather than hostility would be more than acceptable. I understand that this is 2D and the ability to see viciousness or lackthereof in another person is limited, but calm down. You act like I have some sort of hatred here. I’m just telling it how it is.

“The Infallibility of the Pope has been held since Jesus made it so. Just because we did not explain it in doctrine does not make it true.”

You didn’t “explain” it until the 19th century! Seems like a pretty important thing to explain, especially since there was a schism, um, roughly 1000 years earlier. But do you seriously believe that the medieval popes were infallible? How can any man be infallible? It’s just an odd concept that certainly wasn’t held until, as I say, the 19th century. Very conveniently, might I add, if we want to be honest. I think Vatican II admitted as much and is sort of embarrassed in that they try to act like it really isn’t what Piux IX said it was.

But getting back to more important things, the question you have to answer, really is this:

Is one apostle’s teachings different than another’s? That is, are the other apostles lacking in their teachings?

Beyond that, why don’t the people of Antioch think, or ever have the idea, that their “descendent” bishops were infallible or prestigious?

Those are questions we have to be VERY honest about, Brother Chris. Very honest.

Let’s start thinking about these questions rather than get mad because they point out things we don’t want to recognize.
[/quote]

Infallibility is a declaration not a ‘perk’ of the job. In simple terms he has the right to declare dogma, that’s it. It doesn’t mean that when he wears the hat, he can do no wrong.
The last time a pope was infallible was 1870.
Dogma declarations are very rare. I’d say it’s the most misunderstood thing about the church.
i just just think it’s a bad name.

Popes are no more perfect than you or me. They are held to the same standard, they gotta act right, not just talk right.

299

Stated,

“…from a Catholic point of view…you want to be left behind…”

What !?

II Thessalonians 2:1-12 (NAB)

1 “We ask you, brothers, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling with him,
2 not to be shaken out of your minds suddenly, or to be alarmed either by a “spirit,” or by an oral statement, or by a letter allegedly from us to the effect that the day of the Lord is at hand.
3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For unless the apostasy comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one doomed to perdition,
4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god and object of worship, so as to seat himself in the temple of God, claiming that he is a god–
5 do you not recall that while I was still with you I told you these things?
6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. But the one who restrains is to do so only for the present, until he is removed from the scene.
8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord (Jesus) will kill with the breath of his mouth and render powerless by the manifestation of his coming,
9 the one whose coming springs from the power of Satan in every mighty deed and in signs and wonders that lie,
10 and in every wicked deceit for those who are perishing because they have not accepted the love of truth so that they may be saved.
11 Therefore, God is sending them a deceiving power so that they may believe the lie,
12 that all who have not believed the truth but have approved wrongdoing may be condemned.”

Those left behind are the ones that “have not accepted the love of truth so that they may be saved.” This is the same “saved” as in I Timothy 2:3-4 “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.”

From the very beginning of creation the central issue in man’s relationship with God has been either his disregard of the Word and truth of God or his love for them. This response to God’s word is also a pivotal issue in the last days of this age. Salvation will be realized only by those who by faith in Christ maintain a fervent and sincere “love of the truth,” who believe with unwavering conviction what God has said, and who reject all new “revelation” or teaching that conflicts with that truth (Mat. 24:5,11).

After the removal of the restrainer and the revealing of the man of sin, there will be no more opportunity for salvation for one particular group of people.

This group consists of all those inside or outside the church who, after adequately hearing the truth of God’s Word, have willingly and intentionally refused to love that truth and chosen instead to take pleasure in the wickedness of the world.

God will send those individuals a strong delusion so that they may never again have an opportunity to believe the truth they refuse to love (v. 12). They are forever doomed to believe “a lie” (i.e., the claims of the man of sin).

God’s purpose in sending the “strong delusion” is that they “might be damned” (v. 12). Therefore, for those who have heard and understood God’s Word, yet did not love and receive its truth but chose instead the pleasure of sin, “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment” (Heb. 10:26-27).

Salvation during the days of the tribulation will be offered only to those who never had an adequate opportunity to receive the knowledge of the truth or to hear and understand the gospel (cf. Rev. 7:13-14). Those who proclaim the gospel during those days will include angels (Rev. 14:6), the two witnesses (Rev. 11:3), and the 144,000 sons of Israel (Rev. 7:4). Those saved during this time will be sought out, discovered, and martyred (Rev. 13:15).

Taking “pleasure in unrighteousness,” while loving not the truth (v. 10), will be the deciding factor in God’s judgment in the last days.

Those who are to experience the wrath and tribulation of God will be those who did not love the truth and therefore participated in, and entertained themselves with, evil and immorality (II Tim. 3:1-7). They will be abandoned to demonic deception, “believe the lie” (v. 11).

Those experiencing condemnation during the “day of the Lord” (v. 2) will include not only unbelievers, but also those guilty of apostasy from the true faith. They chose to enjoy sin instead of enjoying God and refuse to take a stand against the immorality of the last days, “Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them” (Rom. 1:32).

300

This is a fascinating documentary on the daily business of the papacy, holy see and vatican in general with some history. More complimentary than critical so no bashing just reporting for the most part. Very intersting.
http://gregnmary.gotdns.com:8080/index.php/topic,234.new.html#new