The 1958 Takeover of the Catholic Church

[GilbertK]

 The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition Part 1 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMkjvCKTK3Q

This Black Legend is known to have been fabricated principally by one Montanus (Renaldo Gonzales Montano), who in 1567 published his
Sanctae Inquisitionis Hispanicae Artes Aliqout Detectae ac Palam Traductae (A Discovery and Playne Declaration of Sundry and Subtill Practices
of the Holy Inquisition of Spayne), which was soon translated from Latin into all the major languages of Western Europe (English, French, German, and Dutch) and widely circulated.  In this work, which one would call "racist" today, Spaniards were described by the Protestant Northern European sources as dark, cruel, greedy, treacherous, ignorant, and narrow.  The Papal Inquisition was fiercely attacked with gross exaggeration.

A study of 61 volumes of the procesos (official trial records) of the Mexican branch (1593-1817) of the Papal Inquisition was
conducted by two University of California scholars.  Profs. Thomas Brady and Arthur Quinn (California Monthly, April 1997, pp. 18-19) confirmed
that, in contrast to the secular criminal procedures of the time, the Papal Inquisition allowed counsel to the defendant, required a formal
charge, and gave judges wide discretion in mitigating sentences (most of which were religious in nature, like the recitation of the Seven
Penitential Psalms or wearing a cross).

"http://bibles4free.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/kjb_chart.gif"

This chart is your proof?

"The Bible was in wide circulation by 100 Ad. Antioch was in full swing copying and sending out copies."

Aha, so these must be the Bibles they used to make the KJV. I don't suppose any of these copies still exist?
Glad you explained that, for a minute there I thought you were going to suggest that the Vatican lent some of its ancient manuscripts to King James so he could make an English version.

[Dok]

The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition Part 1 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMkjvCKTK3Q

This Black Legend is known to have been fabricated principally by one Montanus (Renaldo Gonzales Montano), who in 1567 published his
Sanctae Inquisitionis Hispanicae Artes Aliqout Detectae ac Palam Traductae (A Discovery and Playne Declaration of Sundry and Subtill Practices
of the Holy Inquisition of Spayne), which was soon translated from Latin into all the major languages of Western Europe (English, French, German, and Dutch) and widely circulated.  In this work, which one would call "racist" today, Spaniards were described by the Protestant Northern European sources as dark, cruel, greedy, treacherous, ignorant, and narrow.  The Papal Inquisition was fiercely attacked with gross exaggeration.

A study of 61 volumes of the procesos (official trial records) of the Mexican branch (1593-1817) of the Papal Inquisition was
conducted by two University of California scholars.  Profs. Thomas Brady and Arthur Quinn (California Monthly, April 1997, pp. 18-19) confirmed
that, in contrast to the secular criminal procedures of the time, the Papal Inquisition allowed counsel to the defendant, required a formal
charge, and gave judges wide discretion in mitigating sentences (most of which were religious in nature, like the recitation of the Seven
Penitential Psalms or wearing a cross).

"http://bibles4free.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/kjb_chart.gif"

This chart is your proof?

"The Bible was in wide circulation by 100 Ad. Antioch was in full swing copying and sending out copies."

Aha, so these must be the Bibles they used to make the KJV. I don't suppose any of these copies still exist?
Glad you explained that, for a minute there I thought you were going to suggest that the Vatican lent some of its ancient manuscripts to King James so he could make an English version.

The truth of The Inquisition not covered up by babylonian Jesuits.
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=91700.msg536640#msg536640

This chart is your proof?

Can you disprove the chart? Let me know how that works out for you. 

Aha, so these must be the Bibles they used to make the KJV.

That is correct, all the way from Antioch, God would never use anything from Egypt, let alone Alexandria. 

Egypt and Alexandria
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=32204.msg408282#msg408282

I don't suppose any of these copies still exist?

Uhm ya, they actually do.

Glad you explained that, for a minute there I thought you were going to suggest that the Vatican lent some of its ancient manuscripts to King James so he could make an English version.

All catholics need a lot of explaining, as they arent allowed to read their Bibles, and well you should really be used to it by now sinse its some priest that expalins it all to you any way. 

Dont worry, all Rome sent to England for the KJB was a Spanish Armada, guess we all know how that turned out.  Praise Jesus.

[Krateros]

GilbertK,

Something which to my mind is inadequately addressed in the film series is this:  if Cardinal Siri was, in fact, made pope, but Roncalli was presented as (impostor) Pope John XXIII to the waiting public, why did Cardinal Siri thereafter remain complicit in the deception?  If, as was suggested, he feared for the wellbeing of his family, why was he cardinal in the first place?  When he hesitated and told the journalist that he was “bound by the secret,” I wonder if he was referring simply to the secrecy of the voting process of the conclave or to something more sinister.

... God would never use anything from Egypt, let alone Alexandria.

Really?  On what basis have you rested your conclusion?

Source (Jewish Encyclopedia):

“The oldest and most important of all the [Bible] versions made by Jews is that called "The Septuagint " ...  It is a monument of the Greek spoken by the large and important Jewish community of Alexandria … It evidently satisfied a pressing need felt by the Jewish community, among whom a knowledge of Hebrew was rapidly waning before the demands of every-day life ... The large number of Greek-speaking Jewish communities in Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, and northern Africa must have facilitated its spread in all these regions. The quotations from the Old Testament found in the New [Testament] are in the main taken from the Septuagint; and even where the citation is indirect the influence of this version is clearly seen … Its influence upon the Greek-speaking Jews must have been great. In course of time it came to be the canonical Greek Bible, as Luther's translation became the German, and the Authorized Version the English. It is the version used by the Jewish Hellenistic writers … It became part of the Bible of the Christian Church.” [emphasis added]

[Dok]

Really?  On what basis have you rested your conclusion?

Source (Jewish Encyclopedia):

“The oldest and most important of all the [Bible] versions made by Jews is that called "The Septuagint " ...  It is a monument of the Greek spoken by the large and important Jewish community of Alexandria … It evidently satisfied a pressing need felt by the Jewish community, among whom a knowledge of Hebrew was rapidly waning before the demands of every-day life ... The large number of Greek-speaking Jewish communities in Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, and northern Africa must have facilitated its spread in all these regions. The quotations from the Old Testament found in the New [Testament] are in the main taken from the Septuagint; and even where the citation is indirect the influence of this version is clearly seen … Its influence upon the Greek-speaking Jews must have been great. In course of time it came to be the canonical Greek Bible, as Luther's translation became the German, and the Authorized Version the English. It is the version used by the Jewish Hellenistic writers … It became part of the Bible of the Christian Church.” [emphasis added]

What does that have to do with the KJB? They used the Massoretic text. more babylonian jesuit lies.

On what basis have you rested your conclusion?

I think we just proved that. 

[EvadingGrid]

ROFL

The Spanish Inquisition

* Pesky Cat  can not stop laughing

Ghastly things done by the Spanish Inquisition would include prosecuting the following :
witches, warlocks, blasphemers, bigamists, homosexuals, Muslims, Jews etc....

Not any significant numbers of protestants.

[Krateros]

... God would never use anything from Egypt, let alone Alexandria.

Source (Jewish Encyclopedia):
“The oldest and most important of all the [Bible] versions made by Jews is that called "The Septuagint " ...  It is a monument of the Greek spoken by the large and important Jewish community of Alexandria … It evidently satisfied a pressing need felt by the Jewish community, among whom a knowledge of Hebrew was rapidly waning before the demands of every-day life ... The large number of Greek-speaking Jewish communities in Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, and northern Africa must have facilitated its spread in all these regions. The quotations from the Old Testament found in the New [Testament] are in the main taken from the Septuagint; and even where the citation is indirect the influence of this version is clearly seen … Its influence upon the Greek-speaking Jews must have been great. In course of time it came to be the canonical Greek Bible, as Luther's translation became the German, and the Authorized Version the English. It is the version used by the Jewish Hellenistic writers … It became part of the Bible of the Christian Church.” [emphasis added]

What does that have to do with the KJB?

Not a thing.  That ("KJB Debate Thread") is another thread.  By using the quote feature of this board, I obviously responded to your statement that “God would never use anything from Egypt, let alone Alexandria.”  According to the author of this article (linked above), the Jews of Alexandria had translated the Bible into Greek (the Septuagint) and the Christians, when they emerged, including the New Testament writers themselves, often used the Septuagint when they quoted the Old Testament.  The Septuagint, which thus in that process “became part of the Bible of the Christian Church,” is a product of your much despised and disparaged Alexandria and Christians apparently saw fit to use it, even if, in your opinion, God wouldn't.
    

They used the Massoretic text. more babylonian jesuit lies.

Did the Babylonian Jesuits write the Jewish Encyclopedia article as well?

[Dok]

Not a thing.  That ("KJB Only") is another thread.  By using the quote feature of this board, I obviously responded to your statement that “God would never use anything from Egypt, let alone Alexandria.”  According to the author of this article (linked above), the Jews of Alexandria had translated the Bible into Greek (the Septuagint) and the Christians, when they emerged, including the New Testament authors themselves, often used the Septuagint when they quoted the Old Testament.  The Septuagint, which “became part of the Bible of the Christian Church,” is a product of your much despised and disparaged Alexandria and Christians apparently saw fit to use it, even if, in your opinion, God wouldn't.
    
And did the Babylonian Jesuits write the Jewish Encyclopedia article as well?

Sorry buddy, but your being fed one big lie. The Septuagent was never used in the KJB. Now the Catholcis use it, well of course they use it.  any thing Pagan or Alexandrian or Babylonian they use. But it is not inthe pedigree of the KJB at all. 

Here is an article to counter your article.
The Septuagint
http://www.scionofzion.com/septuagint.htm

And did the Babylonian Jesuits write the Jewish Encyclopedia article as well?

Quite possibly.

[Krateros]

Sorry buddy, but your being fed one big lie.

I am quite aware of that.  And you are the one who is trying to feed it to me:  
 

The Septuagent was never used in the KJB.

Did you make that decision ex cathedra and is it thus considered infallible?

Now the Catholcis use it, well of course they use it.   any thing Pagan or Alexandrian or Babylonian they use. But it is not inthe pedigree of the KJB at all.  

Christians, on the contrary, were so accomplished in both quoting and explaining the scriptures to the Greek-speaking world, by means of the Septuagint, and of finding Jesus identified therein, that it seems the Jewish Rabbinate, after a time, did an about-face and discouraged the Septuagint’s use in the Synagogues of Asia Minor.  That is my conspiracy theory to counter yours.  

Here is an article to counter your article.
The Septuagint
http://www.scionofzion.com/septuagint.htm

Thank you.  That was, in some respects, more amusing than a Monty Python skit!

[GilbertK]

GilbertK,

Something which to my mind is inadequately addressed in the film series is this:  if Cardinal Siri was, in fact, made pope, but Roncalli was presented as (impostor) Pope John XXIII to the waiting public, why did Cardinal Siri thereafter remain complicit in the deception?  If, as was suggested, he feared for the wellbeing of his family, why was he cardinal in the first place?  When he hesitated and told the journalist that he was “bound by the secret,” I wonder if he was referring simply to the secrecy of the voting process of the conclave or to something more sinister.

What exactly the threat was has not been made public. Some say his family was threatened, others say they threatened the assassination of Bishops behind the Iron Curtain, and others say that they threatened to nuke Rome.

From interviews before his death, Cardinal Siri gives some indication of what happened. He says "What does a young man know of the task that awaits him when he becomes Pope" (30 Days magazine, Benny Lai interview) In the context of the interview, its obvious that he is referring to himself, and that he was just overwhelmed by the situation. He goes on to say that he has suffered much but is at peace because believes in God's mercy.

After John XXIII was elected, he made the Cardinals remain in the conclave for another day which was completely unprecedented. The New York Times reports that 7 Cardinals (who were very old) were ailing, so why keep them locked up in the Sistine Chapel for an extra 24 hours.He even excommunicated two guards who entered the Conclave (which is customary) after his election. Cardinal Tisserant (Dean of the College of Cardinals) wrote that the secrecy was imposed more strictly that ever at the 1958 Conclave, this would not apply to Siri as he was the actual Pope, but did he realize it at the time?

Another ploy to bind him would be if Roncalli confessed to Cardinal Siri that he was an infiltrator and sought to destroy the Mass. This ploy had been used by other infiltrators, as a priest can never reveal what has been said in the confessional booth. He would never be able to expose the individual without breaking his solemn vow.

Yes, there are lots of unanswered questions, but taking everything into account we can arrive at a clear conclusion that Siri was elected and forced aside.

Hopefully as more people learn about this more facts will be revealed, and we can completely expose the fraud of the last 50 years.

[Dok]

Sorry buddy, but your being fed one big lie.

I am quite aware of that.  And you are the one who is trying to feed it to me: 

Im giving you the truth, its your Priest, Father Satan that is lying to you
 

The Septuagent was never used in the KJB.

Did you make that decision ex cathedra and is it thus considered infallible?

No its a fact.

Now the Catholcis use it, well of course they use it.  any thing Pagan or Alexandrian or Babylonian they use. But it is not inthe pedigree of the KJB at all. 

Christians, on the contrary, were so accomplished in both quoting and explaining the scriptures to the Greek-speaking world, by means of the Septuagint, and of finding Jesus identified therein, that it seems the Jewish Rabbinate, after a time, did an about-face and discouraged the Septuagint’s use in the Synagogues of Asia Minor.  That is my conspiracy theory to counter yours. 

really? See if you read your Bible at all you'd know that isnt true at all. Paul was arguing with the Greeks well before the Septuagent was even written. 

Here is an article to counter your article.
The Septuagint
http://www.scionofzion.com/septuagint.htm

Thank you.  That was, in some respects, more amusing than a Monty Python skit!

Man you have to love the babylonian humor when faced with the truth.

[GilbertK]

Can you disprove the chart? Let me know how that works out for you. 

As I said before, The translators of the KJV make specific reference to the Douay version in their translators’ preface. It is commonly acknowledged that, in preparing the KJV, the translators made use of the Rheims New Testament and adopted many of its readings. The Douay-Rheims new testament was published 30 years before the KJV.

[DAVIDE MTL]

All catholics need a lot of explaining, as they arent allowed to read their Bibles, and well you should really be used to it by now sinse its some priest that expalins it all to you any way. 

not sure if you are joking or not but where did you get the idea that Catholics aren't allowed to read their bibles?

Also I was reading up on your past thread concerning Catholic tradition where you wrote

CATHOLIC TRADITION - Confessing sins to a priest. Petitioning saints and Mary.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - We are to confess our sins and needs to God alone.

let me know your comments on the below bible quotes:

. Jesus Christ Granted the Apostles His Authority to Forgive Sins
John 20:21 - before He grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, "as the Father sent me, so I send you." As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors forgive sins.
John 20:22 - the Lord "breathes" on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when the Lord "breathes" divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place.
John 20:23 - Jesus says, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained." In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear.
Matt. 9:8 - this verse shows that God has given the authority to forgive sins to "men." Hence, those Protestants who acknowledge that the apostles had the authority to forgive sins (which this verse demonstrates) must prove that this gift ended with the apostles. Otherwise, the apostles' successors still possess this gift. Where in Scripture is the gift of authority to forgive sins taken away from the apostles or their successors?
Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10 - Christ forgave sins as a man (not God) to convince us that the "Son of man" has authority to forgive sins on earth.
Luke 5:24 - Luke also points out that Jesus' authority to forgive sins is as a man, not God. The Gospel writers record this to convince us that God has given this authority to men. This authority has been transferred from Christ to the apostles and their successors.

[Dok]

As I said before, The translators of the KJV make specific reference to the Douay version in their translators’ preface. It is commonly acknowledged that, in preparing the KJV, the translators made use of the Rheims New Testament and adopted many of its readings. The Douay-Rheims new testament was published 30 years before the KJV.

can you post where please. seriously because i own a copy of the 1611 and i have a digital copy of it. so please post where it says this.

[Dok]

not sure if you are joking or not but where did you get the idea that Catholics aren't allowed to read their bibles?

from Catholics.

[Dok]

As I said before, The translators of the KJV make specific reference to the Douay version in their translators’ preface. It is commonly acknowledged that, in preparing the KJV, the translators made use of the Rheims New Testament and adopted many of its readings. The Douay-Rheims new testament was published 30 years before the KJV.

In case you need help.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm

[America2]

So noone here's able to refute wickedness and lies Wescott and Hort rammed down using the Vaticanus texts way before 1958?

[GilbertK]

can you post where please. seriously because i own a copy of the 1611 and i have a digital copy of it. so please post where it says this.

It's not disputed.

[Dok]

It's not disputed.

than could you post it please. http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm

You can keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true. Kind of like when you think Mary was a perpetual virgin, it just isnt true no matter how many times you say it.

[tritonman]

Did he find out where dok?  I was wondering if perhaps he sent you a private message with the info?

[Dok]

Did he find out where dok?  I was wondering if perhaps he sent you a private message with the info?

nope still waiting. I gave him a link to the preface, all he needs to do is copy and paste.

[GilbertK]

In case you need help.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm

Here they refer directly to the Douay version.

"We have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their {use of words like} AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like {words}, whereof their late Translation is full ..."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2713088/posts

[Dok]

We have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their {use of words like} AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like {words}, whereof their late Translation is full ...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2713088/posts

uhm you said, The translators of the KJV make specific reference to the Douay version in their translators’ preface.

you didnt post that. so does that make you a liar? or did you just post the wrong part? Because you have stated this position more than once, and well what you posted doesnt have anything what so ever to do with what you said.

the KJV make specific reference to

im expecting something very specific.  

also with the word shunned, its a rebuke not an endorsement. 

[GilbertK]

Refers directly to the Douay Bible does it not?

Regardless this thread is about the suppressed election of Cardinal Siri, so if you're done hijacking it (Mr. Moderator) maybe we get get back to the subject of the original post.

[Dok]

Refers directly to the Douay Bible does it not?

Regardless this thread is about the suppressed election of Cardinal Siri, so if you're done hijacking it (Mr. Moderator) maybe we get get back to the subject of the original post.

Refers directly to the Douay Bible does it not?

No,   not at all. Not even close.


The thread is about The 1958 Takeover of the Catholic Church. to which i disagree with, it was never taken over. same as it has always been.

[GilbertK]

Well let's have a look at this quote also taken from the preface.

"This moved S. Jerome a most learned father, and the best linguist without controversy, of his age, or of any that went before him, to undertake the translating of the Old Testament, out of the very fountain with that evidence of great learning, judgment, industry, and faithfulness, that he had forever bound the Church unto him, in a debt of special remembrance and thankfulness."

Remember that the Douay Bible is a word for word translation of St. Jerome's Bible. Here they arepraising St. Jerome's even referring to him as the "without controversy, best linguist of his age"  and that he had" forever bound the Church unto him, in a debt of special remembrance and thankfulness."

That sounds like an endorsement to me.

[Dok]

Well let's have a look at this quote also taken from the preface.

"This moved S. Jerome a most learned father, and the best linguist without controversy, of his age, or of any that went before him, to undertake the translating of the Old Testament, out of the very fountain with that evidence of great learning, judgment, industry, and faithfulness, that he had forever bound the Church unto him, in a debt of special remembrance and thankfulness."

Remember that the Douay Bible is a word for word translation of St. Jerome's Bible. Here they arepraising St. Jerome's even referring to him as the "without controversy, best linguist of his age"  and that he had" forever bound the Church unto him, in a debt of special remembrance and thankfulness."

That sounds like an endorsement to me.

As I said before, The translators of the KJV make specific reference to the Douay version in their translators’ preface. It is commonly acknowledged that, in preparing the KJV, the translators made use of the Rheims New Testament and adopted many of its readings. The Douay-Rheims new testament was published 30 years before the KJV.

Let me know, wait as there are others now awaiting, Let US know when you find it.

[GilbertK]

That must be you and Eric Phelps.

What I quoted refers to to the Douay Bible. The issue has been settled for some time as anyone who looks into it will learn.

The second quote I posted shows the high regard the translators had for St. Jerome and his work which is the substance of the Douay Bible, when they make the reference to the Douay they are basically complaining about the word choices. I suppose we could do a comparison of the texts to prove my point, however I'm sure it's been done already, and I doubt I could convince you of anything regardless.

[Dok]

That must be you and Eric Phelps.

What I quoted refers to to the Douay Bible. The issue has been settled for some time as anyone who looks into it will learn.

The second quote I posted shows the high regard the translators had for St. Jerome and his work which is the substance of the Douay Bible, when they make the reference to the Douay they are basically complaining about the word choices. I suppose we could do a comparison of the texts to prove my point, however I'm sure it's been done already, and I doubt I could convince you of anything regardless.

what you quoted has nothing to do with the Douay Bible. sorry. You said The translators of the KJV make specific reference to the Douay version in their translators’ preface. you haven't proved that and you cant as it doesn't exist. I know it is a hard thing to accept, but you have been lied to. This is why this site exist's to expose the lies and reveal the truth. I will be more than happy to help you find the truth, but you have to accept it.

[Dok]

not sure if you are joking or not but where did you get the idea that Catholics aren't allowed to read their bibles?

Cannon 14 from the Council of Toulouse says that the Roman Catholic Church:

"Forbids the laity to have in their possession any copy of the books of the Old and New Testament.... and most strictly forbids these works in the vulgar tongue."

This teaching was confirmed at the Council of Trent (Session IV, April 8, 1546 Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures). The Council of Trent went further, stating that anyone who dared study Scriptures on their own must "be punished with the penalties by law established." With incredible audacity, the Council of Trent went so far as to forbid even the printing of and sale of the Bible! Anyone daring to violate this decree was anathematized, or cursed and damned to Hell for it. (Dogmatic Cannons and Decrees of the Council of Trent..., pages 11-13; Copyright 1977, 1912, with Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat. Tan Books and Publishers, P.O. Box 424, Rockford, IL 61105)

Also I was reading up on your past thread concerning Catholic tradition where you wrote

CATHOLIC TRADITION - Confessing sins to a priest. Petitioning saints and Mary.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - We are to confess our sins and needs to God alone.

let me know your comments on the below bible quotes:

. Jesus Christ Granted the Apostles His Authority to Forgive Sins
John 20:21 - before He grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, "as the Father sent me, so I send you." As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors forgive sins.
John 20:22 - the Lord "breathes" on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when the Lord "breathes" divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place.
John 20:23 - Jesus says, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained." In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear.
Matt. 9:8 - this verse shows that God has given the authority to forgive sins to "men." Hence, those Protestants who acknowledge that the apostles had the authority to forgive sins (which this verse demonstrates) must prove that this gift ended with the apostles. Otherwise, the apostles' successors still possess this gift. Where in Scripture is the gift of authority to forgive sins taken away from the apostles or their successors?
Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10 - Christ forgave sins as a man (not God) to convince us that the "Son of man" has authority to forgive sins on earth.
Luke 5:24 - Luke also points out that Jesus' authority to forgive sins is as a man, not God. The Gospel writers record this to convince us that God has given this authority to men. This authority has been transferred from Christ to the apostles and their successors.

Uhm thats not any MAN forgiving sins. Only God can forgive a sin. Jesus is talking about us forgiving each other. if  sin against you, and apologize and ask forgiveness you are to forgive me. But that in no way renounces my sin against God on the issue. if we could forgive sin ourselves we wouldn't be in any mess what so ever. Where ever you got that teaching from it is wrong. Im quite sure its from a catholic though.

Mar 2:5  When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
Mar 2:6  But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
Mar 2:7  Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
Mar 2:10  But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)

[DAVIDE MTL]

The 1958 Takeover of the Catholic Church

There was coup d'etat in the Catholic Church on October 26th, 1958 and the Church has been governed by imposters since that time.

 Is this really that important? In my opinion it is. The Catholic Church is the largest and oldest institution on earth with roughly a billion nominal members, roughly 3 times the population of the United States.

 Since 1958 however, despite the numbers, the institution has been largely ineffective in combating the social ills they had so effectively handled for centuries. Abortion, pornography, divorce, obscenity all became prominent after the papal chair was usurped in 1958.

 To demonstrate the power of the Church before this, look at the time when Pius XII excommunicated President Peron of Argentina in 1955 when he tried to contradict the constitution and allow divorce.

As a result of the excommunication, the populace of Argentina rose up and Peron was removed from office and Catholic teaching was upheld.  Who would have thought that 50 years later Argentina would be legalizing “gay marriage.”
 
Also, for those familiar with Catholicism you may know that the original Mass, which can be traced back to the 4th century (but could very well be apostolic in origin), was abandoned in 1969 to make way for a "new mass," A ceremony that bears little resemblance to the traditional Mass. Again, who would want to destroy the sacred rite but an enemy agent masquerading as Pope.

Part 8 The Destruction of the Mass  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdIDIOwjGN4

To find out why the “Catholic” Church of today has become a sick caricature of the Catholic Church of two millennia we have to look back to the papal conclave of 1958. I believe the documentary posted below will provide the key to understanding what has happened.
 
At the center of the film is the election of the conservative prelate, Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, in 1958. What you will see in this section is a very clear emission of white smoke from the Sistine Chapel 2 days before the election of John XXIII. On this night 200,000 people turned to the balcony to see the new pope emerge on the balcony while news reports went out around the world that a new pope had been elected.

Vatican radio later announced that the white smoke was a mistake and that no Pope had been elected. In this section you will also hear the testimony of an FBI Consultant that claims there are FBI and State Department files which state that on this night Cardinal Siri was elected Pope and took the name Gregory XVII. In addition, former papal advisor Father Malachi Martin gives his testimony that Cardinal Siri was elected and was put under duress in at least 2 if not 3 conclaves. This is the centerpiece of the film (part 4) which is about 10 minutes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMtMbe6odh4

Looking at one incident, however, does not give one the perspective they need to see that the church has been hijacked. The very clear signal that a pope had been elected 2 days before John XXIII emerged on the balcony is very suspicious, but in itself does not provide enough reason to believe that the Chair of Peter was stolen. To arrive at a clear conclusion on this, one must take several things into account.

Historical Precedents

The papacy does get usurped. In the history of the Catholic Church the papacy has been usurped more than 40 times, which is easily verifiable by getting a list of anti-popes. In the movie we highlight the case of Innocent II who was elected pope and then forced to flee by an imposter pope, Anacletus II. Anacletus II ruled for 8 years until his death, upon which, Innocent ascended to the papal throne many years late. Anacletus and all the clergy ordained by him were then condemned at the second Lateran Council.

The Men Who Took Over

The men who took office instead of Cardinal Siri, namely John XXIII ( Angelo Roncalli) and Paul VI (Giovanni Montini) we’re more just bad apples.

JOHN XXIII

John XXIII’s Masonic initiation is described in detail in Pier Carpi’s book the “The Prophecies of John XXIII” and there is a vast amount of evidence and testimony that he was indeed a Mason. For this alone he would be ipso facto excommunicated and obviously ineligible for the Papacy. Upon his election, he immediately made Montini (future Paul VI) a Cardinal and called the Second Vatican Council, two of the most disastrous decisions in the history of the Catholic Church.

 He also received Nikita Khrushchev’s son-in-law and daughter at the Vatican in a private meeting, this is after communist regimes around the world murdered and imprisoned millions of Catholics. The well publicized meeting earned an extra million votes for the communist party in Italy in the national elections. John XXIII also began introducing changes to the Mass, changes that would culminate in the complete destruction of the Tridentine Latin Mass under Paul VI.

Part 5 Who was John XXIII?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOgD0Yyoqts

Paul VI

Paul VI, who never spent so much as a day a parish priest before becoming Pope, enjoyed reading books by Oscar Wilde during his seminary days. This wouldn’t seem so bad if it weren’t for the multiple public accusations of sodomy against him that emerged during and after his pontificate. If this wasn’t bad enough, ex-member of the Vatican noble guard, Franco Bellegrandi recounts in his book Nikita Roncalli that Pius XII conducted a secret investigation and found out that Montini, then secretary of state, was providing names of priests operating behind the iron curtain to the Soviet secret police. The priests were then shot or sent to the gulag.
 
Part 7 Who was Paul VI?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeEkSJukLaw

Indeed these two men were not simply “bad popes,” nor did they become pope and then lose their faith. They were enemy agents who set the Church on a carefully designed plan to destruction.
Once the treachery of these two men has been established, the 3 week period between the death of Pius XII (a true pope) and the so-called election of John XXIII (an imposter) become crucial. Did anything significant happen between these two dates? Yes, there was a five minute signal indicating a pope had been elected billowing out of the Sistine Chapel two days before John XXIII emerged on the balcony in St. Peter’s Square.  Was the true pope elected on this night, and was he Cardinal Siri? I’ll point to three sources that say this is exactly what happened.

Paul L. Williams

FBI informant Paul Williams in his book The Vatican Exposed quotes State department files that state Cardinal Giuseppe Siri was elected and took the name Gregory XVII on Sunday October 26th but the French Cardinal annulled the results .

Fr. Malachi Martin

Fr. Malachi Martin in an interview in the late nineties says that Siri got enough votes to become Pope but refused the office because he thought they would not let him live.

Fr. Charles-Roux

Father Charles-Roux claims that Joseph Cardinal Siri of Genoa had been elected and also accepted the Papal office, but a very serious threat was delivered by the dean of the College of Cardinals (Cardinal Tisserant) and that Siri was immediately shoved aside, without actually abdicating.

Here we have three individuals claiming that Cardinal Siri was elected and was subject to some kind of threat. This along with Cardinal Siri’s indirect admissions (twice) that he was elected pope make a very good case that the person who was elected when the white smoke emerged on October 26th, 1958, was Cardinal Giuseppe Siri of Genoa.

Furthermore there is a great deal of evidence that Cardinal Roncalli and the whole 1958 affair was planned by unholy forces, which is described in Part 3 of the film.

Part III The Chosen Candidate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giVuud52ijY

Those who have trouble believing that Cardinal Siri was elected seem to want an admission from the forces of darkness who captured the papacy and a detailed explanation of how they did it. Others expect that Siri would come out and claim that he was pope, when obviously nobody would believe it, even if he did manage to get the word out before being eliminated.

Lastly, the film will give some basic instructions on how to find traditional churches, priests, catechisms, etc and give a word or two on activism.

Part XII The Underground Church http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTPZZLvFANo

The film is otherwise broken down into 12 parts, the subject matter of each part described in the title.

Part 1 Historical Precedents  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQBP9HmZDGk
Part 2 October 1958  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qikkoocqgUE
Part 3 The Chosen Candidate  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giVuud52ijY
Part 4 The 1958 Conclave  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQp00j4H3Kg
Part 5 Who was John XXIII?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOgD0Yyoqts
Part 6 The 1963 Conclave  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCBNwhnHius
Part 7 Who was Paul VI?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeEkSJukLaw
Part 8 The Destruiction of the Mass  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdIDIOwjGN4
Part 9 Year of Two Conclaves  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvUWfaXG9lk
Part 10 Cardinal Siri Confronted  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGk14Fau41U
Part 11 Conclusion  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8wdrmFxSBQ
Part 12 The UndergroundChurch  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTPZZLvFANo

just finished watching the film, I'm convinced that in 58 Siri was really elected and they probably threatened him, and then in 78 the dark powers that be killed off the pope, there's no hope in hell a good pope can emerge from the vatican just as there's no hope a descent human being can ever become president

[EvadingGrid]

Is it just me or has this gone slightly off topic and deserving its own thread ?
 

[Dok]

Is it just me or has this gone slightly off topic and deserving its own thread ?
 

DONE...  back on Topic...

[Kilika]

So then, who really cares about an alleged takeover of the Catholic church in 1958? I don't see where it's even relevant. Just Catholic in-house bickering. 

[America2]

So then, who really cares about an alleged takeover of the Catholic church in 1958? I don't see where it's even relevant. Just Catholic in-house bickering. 

However, from what we see...it's as if in the very last days prior to the final tribulation act, all of these dark power GROUPS are UNITING under one tent...all to bring in the OWG dictator.

[Krateros]

really? See if you [Krateros] read your Bible at all you'd know that ... Paul was arguing with the Greeks well before the Septuagent was even written. 

And, if this is true, then history is running backwards and Cardinal Roncalli was elected pope before Paul was arguing with the Greeks.

 

[Krateros]

What exactly the threat was has not been made public. Some say his family was threatened, others say they threatened the assassination of Bishops behind the Iron Curtain, and others say that they threatened to nuke Rome.

From interviews before his death, Cardinal Siri gives some indication of what happened. He says "What does a young man know of the task that awaits him when he becomes Pope" (30 Days magazine, Benny Lai interview) In the context of the interview, its obvious that he is referring to himself, and that he was just overwhelmed by the situation. He goes on to say that he has suffered much but is at peace because believes in God's mercy.

After John XXIII was elected, he made the Cardinals remain in the conclave for another day which was completely unprecedented. The New York Times reports that 7 Cardinals (who were very old) were ailing, so why keep them locked up in the Sistine Chapel for an extra 24 hours.He even excommunicated two guards who entered the Conclave (which is customary) after his election. Cardinal Tisserant (Dean of the College of Cardinals) wrote that the secrecy was imposed more strictly that ever at the 1958 Conclave, this would not apply to Siri as he was the actual Pope, but did he realize it at the time?

Another ploy to bind him would be if Roncalli confessed to Cardinal Siri that he was an infiltrator and sought to destroy the Mass. This ploy had been used by other infiltrators, as a priest can never reveal what has been said in the confessional booth. He would never be able to expose the individual without breaking his solemn vow.

Yes, there are lots of unanswered questions, but taking everything into account we can arrive at a clear conclusion that Siri was elected and forced aside.

Hopefully as more people learn about this more facts will be revealed, and we can completely expose the fraud of the last 50 years.

Sorry.  I don’t find that very convincing.  If I were to accept the idea of “Petrine primacy” and all that it implies in especially Catholic circles, which I do not, by the way, I would think that a “good” pope, especially if he were a disciple of Christ, would rather face martyrdom than be a party to or perpetuate deception.  But still, I enjoyed your presentation and do thank you for it.

[spammos]

The 1958 Takeover of the Catholic Church

You have most of it wrong. If you want to know the truth about the Catholic Church and the changes, SEE MY BLOG:
http://catholicguidance.blogspot.ca/

[spammos]

McCarthy,
What my article and the corresponding videos try explain is that the people running the Vatican now are impostors, they are dressed up in costumes masquerading as leaders of the Church.

THIS IS NOT TRUE! There are Freemasons within the Church however most of the changes in the Church Liturgy, Teachings and behavior is done through human error and cowardice. What I mean by error and cowardice is that the majority of Catholics live in the state of mortal sin. They lost the 7 Gift of the Holy Spirit, they lost the infused virtues and as a consequence they accepted the immorality and false teachings of the world and temptations and doctrines of demons.

[spammos]

How can you justify calling a man "Holy Father". I find that to be absurdly blasphemous along with the worship of saints and idols. How can you justify this as a professed Christian?

Anyone in the State of Grace is Holy. We don't worship saints we honor them. They are friends of God worthy of honor, respect, or dignity and as friends of God they can intercede on our behalf!

[spammos]

1958? are you serious? Heck i would go all the way back to when Constantine created the catholic church. 1958  guess you support the Dominican wars and murders, oh and lets not forget the Holy Office, better known as the Inquisition. 1958,  the Catholic church has always been an inherently evil institution. Pius the 12th as a good guy? ROFL!!

Understanding Roman Catholicism
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/160/160cont.asp

The Two Babylons
http://www.biblebelievers.com/babylon/

Queen of All
http://www.eternal-productions.org/PDFS/Queen.pdf

Blasphemy! Monsanto kills more farmers in India in one year alone then did the 3 "evil" Inquisitions together and I am not taking into consideration the slow kill of people who are consuming and using they products!