“And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them. And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man. And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost” (Acts 12:21-23).
Roman pontiffs have never been known to be meek and mild let alone humble. This rather crude and almost Hollywood looking picture of Pius XII (aka Hitler’s pope), and still very much a favourite of the pre-Vatican II Catholic church, certainly reflects the same dangerous folly to that of King Herod, who also thought nothing of being paraded around like a little presumptuous god to be worshipped and adored by his ignorant and deceived subjects. Oh, how foolish and arrogant unregenerate man is!
Before I get into gear and take a methodical look at this nonsensical and heretical doctrine of a sinner (a mere man) having the audacity to be crowned ‘infallible’ by his own ilk (and under the pains of death to those that refused), one who is well versed in Holy Scripture will no doubt see the glaring similarities between the treacherous and rebellious Jews back in the Old Testament who stubbornly refused to have God rule over them and for them, but opted instead for despicable and depraved kings to be their physical figureheads to that of Catholics today, who also reject God as their ultimate King and opt instead for the self-appointed and contemptible office of the papacy (see 1 Sam. 8:4-7).
Roman Catholics certainly fit into the same category as the apostate Jews (found also in the New Testament, see John 19:15), for they appear totally lost and unable to approach God without a literal physical head over their ostentatious church system to look up to and ‘intercede’ for them. And because of this inbred insecurity, a sense of endemic tribalism (especially prevalent in organised religion) has successfully been able to tap into this feeling of needing to be a part of something, and in the process, to replace God with a man. This not only steals the glory from God but actually enslaves lost sinners even more to mortal man, making him twofold more a child of Hell than before (see Matt. 23:15). Contrast this to the true Bible believer who is more than happy to have God and only God rule over him, lead him, and if necessary, fight for him. Amen!
Jesus and His word really should be more than enough for the sincere seeker of salvation and solace. But sadly, if there is one thing from history that man learns from history, it is that man never learns from history.
When Pius XII unanimously decreed that the bogus ‘bodily assumption of Mary’ be officially made Catholic doctrine, he made the following dictatorial statement: “It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God” (1 November 1950).
However, what wasn’t known or made public around this time in Pius’ personal life was that he was receiving controversial sheep/foetal cell treatment pioneered by a Dr Paul Niehans to ‘rejuvenate’ the aged human cells of his rich patients’ when they arrived at his suave clinic.
Niehans’ celebrity client list of the super-wealthy included other names such as Churchill, Adenauer, the cross-dresser Marlene Dietrich, and the sodomite Somerset Maugham. (Maugham once claimed to have seen an image of Jesus turn and look at him from an oil painting he had viewed in Venice. This seems to have unsettled him so much that he left the building in haste. Yet he would later write rather facetiously: “I believe neither in the existence of God nor in the immortality of the soul.” The old degenerate would end his own days screaming in fear and terror of what he was seeing in his dreams and elsewhere. What a way to go for the unsaved. Truly a picture of Hell for the lost).
(Pius would also die painfully during his last days blighted with reoccurring hiccups. In fact, every pope over the past century or so have suffered awful deaths).
Niehans’ treatment was an exclusive and expensive trial only for the super-rich and of course, the pope could not or would not publicly travel to Switzerland to receive the so-called ‘youth jabs,’ so Niehans personally flew to Rome with two heavily pregnant ewes secured in the hold of his flight before later slaughtering the poor wretched animal in the Vatican. The live foetus was extracted to obtain their living cells to be later processed and injected into the pope’s exposed backside, perhaps by the good doctor himself. How disgusting this all seems for a so-called ‘holy’ and ‘humble’ ‘successor’ of Blessed Simon Peter! (And of course, only those with the most money could and would indulge themselves in such a way).
Today, when I think back at the faces of some of Niehans’ recipients after their own expensive treatment, I can see no difference at all. In fact, did not Churchill suffer another stroke around the same time as he returned to Downing Street (which shamefully saw him go on to abolish the Witchcraft Act!) As they say, a fool and his money are easily parted.
Another spurious aspect of Pius XII’s time as pope is of him one morning claiming to have seen in his shaving mirror the face of the Lord Jesus looking at him. This ‘account’ gave way to one unsaved comedian to remark blasphemously, ‘we wonder who was most surprised?’ (see Romans 2:24).
No doubt Pius’ long-term mental and emotional state partly explains his heretical worship and elevation of Mary, and along with an evil spirit or two visiting him and possessing him much like King Saul experienced in the Old Testament this certainly helps us understand his decision making. However, barring his drug intake and long term health issues, the so-called ‘bodily assumption of Mary’ is nothing more than a fifth-century forgery by Dionysius the Areopagite (see O. C. Lambert’s brilliant book, Catholicism Against Itself, p. 76).
The word of God knows absolutely nothing about this fanciful fable of Mary being bodily assumed to heaven open death. The only person who was bodily assumed into heaven upon death was, of course, the blessed Lord Jesus Christ. One must always remember that the church of Constantine is not a Bible-believing church but a church which perpetually follows mystics (past and present), and instead of checking their ‘visions’ and ‘experiences’ in light of the infallible word of God, they all too willingly incorporate such into their evolving system of theology and dogmas, without even giving the word of God a casual glimpse. And for this, their church will one day be consigned to hell forever (see Rev. 17:16-18).
Thomas Aquinas was swallowed up with his infatuation of the ‘infallible’ and anti-Biblical papacy for he had the gall and impudence to say: “There is no difference between the Pope and Jesus Christ” (Summa Theologica XXXIV (Paris, 1871-1880), edited by Frette and Mare, p. 549. See also papal bull of Pope Pius V in 1570).
With such a horrendous and blasphemous statement as this is it any wonder why certain people consider the papacy to be the Antichrist of Scripture!
Just when one thought such sacrilege from an unsaved and so-called ‘saint’ of the church of Rome couldn’t get any worse, pope Pius XI, said the following of himself: “I am God on this earth” (30 April 1922, The Anti-Christ, 1920, Baron Porcelli, p. 31).
Of course, we know that there are many people in mental institutions who also believe in such religious hallucinations, but thankfully they are sedated, and for the most part, are kept safely out of reach and interference with those in society. Sadly, the same cannot be said of the popes of Rome or other religious egomaniacs for that matter!
Pius IX (the first pope to ‘humbly’ crown himself ‘infallible’), would continue on with this diatribe: “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (Lord Acton, Quirinus, Letters on the Council, p. 285).
Also from this deranged pope (as if he hadn’t already condemned himself enough with his stupidity) he offered the final parting shot, sounding more devil-possessed as his papal days decreased: “I am Caesar.”
Such contagious hysteria and blasphemy would continue about the papacy, this time from a bishop Roger Albert: “The word of God made flesh.”
More religious hallucinations from devil-possessed bishops: “The Redeemer.” “He hung on the cross like Christ did.”
“God in the flesh.” “God on the earth.”
“King of kings.”
“Jesus has put the pope on the same level as God.”
To the unlearned, one would probably just brush this off and consider such statements to be comical from the dark ages. But to the Bible believer, what this pope is actually saying, in essence, is that he is the Antichrist, meaning he sits in the place of the true Christ, that being the Lord Jesus Christ. He now demands total ‘submission’ directly and indirectly from his subjects worldwide. Catholics especially are to worship and obey him!
(More on Pius IX later).
(President Trump and his wife in 2020 praying to a statue of ‘infallible’ Pope John Paul!)
In fact, for the popes of Rome to have felt confident enough to even make such insane statements in the first place declares plainly that Lucifer truly is at the top of the world’s largest false religion, and of course has always been there!
The following Scripture shows such a striking resemblance between the popes who desire to be worshipped, and Lucifer wanting to replace God, that it should scream to any open-minded and sincere Catholic to examine, take heed, and then run to the nearest exit: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit” (Is. 14:12-15).
And yet to the contrary, the much blighted and often slandered King James I of England at least had the good sense to say: “I am neither a god nor an angel but a man like any other.”
Here are some quick facts about Pius IX, the man who dared to be made ‘infallible’ and subsequently ‘worshipped’ by Catholics worldwide. However, those who would not bend the knee to him and his ilk risked ‘eternal damnation:’
- He was responsible for the imprisonment of around 10,000 prisoners in his papal dungeons. Some of these poor souls had been incarcerated for up to twenty years. Many had been shackled to the walls with two-foot chains for weeks at a time (Joseph McCabe, Rome’s Syllabus of Condemned Opinion. Girard, Kansas: Haldeman Julius, 1950, p. 17).
- After his public declaration on ‘becoming godlike’ just as Satan had promised Adam and Eve in the Garden, he feared to return to Rome, so Napoleon happily offered his French troops to murder any Italians who opposed him. When death finally took this imbecile of a pope, many of his ‘loving’ subjects openly cursed and stoned his remains. And all were naturally Catholic! (The mafia came into existence around this time swearing vengeance for their dead against the French).
- Catholic Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger was also bewitched by this blind obedience to mortal man: “In future every Catholic Christian when asked why he believes this or that can and may give but the one answer: I believe or reject it because the infallible Pope has bidden it to be believed or rejected” (Declarations and Letters, p. 101-101).
The Catholic Truth Society published a pamphlet, which read in part: “The Catholic Church is essentially, and by divine institution, papal in its nature…that to be a Catholic means precisely to be in communion with the Pope and nothing else” (Rev. P. H. Malden, Anglo-Catholics, Have They Grasped the Point? p. 12).
So to be ‘faithfully’ in communion with the pope, by his ‘divine appointment,’ Catholics are expected to believe in Mary’s ‘immaculate conception’ and ‘bodily assumption,’ ‘the infallibility of the pope,’ and the ‘perpetual sacrifice of the mass,’ all of which are totally blasphemous and foreign to Holy Scripture! And yet today, according to Catholicism’s 1994 catechism, ‘good’ Jews, pagans and Muslims will all go to heaven. So much then for needing to be devout catholic!
One Christian leader stated the obvious: “They deitized a devil” much like the self-appointed Dalai Lama was!
And if the above statements weren’t bad enough, the following quote is even more ridiculous and idolatrous: “All the devotion to Jesus as Priest, Shepherd and Father that enlightened faith can inspire is summed up practically and effectively in devotion to the Pope. If one would have a devotion to the sacred Scriptures, the Pope is the living and speaking Bible. If it is the duty to be devout to the Sacraments, is not the Pope the Sacrament of Jesus by the mere fact that he is His Vicar” (M.D. Petrie, quoting Monsignor Gay in Modernism, p. 189-190).
According to official Catholic doctrine, lay and clergy members are not allowed to have their own opinion as to what should be doctrinal. This may stun many people in the ‘modern world,’ but Rome has long retained this erroneous view, and even adds that for those free thinkers who desire to check such claims for themselves is ‘simply madness’ (Leo XIII Immortale Dei and Gregory XVII Mirari Vos).
The above rhetoric sounds more like something out of communist Cuba or China which has spent decades forcing their atheist gospel and Soviet mind-controlling tactics on their poor and pitiable beaten-down subjects, than from a so-called ‘church.’
A former Anglican bishop stated: “The Papacy as an authority is inconsistent with the very essence of Christianity… Again and again, in its history, the Papacy had adopted such methods and violated the rules which should guide Christian action. We may find in this imperialistic ambition the worst perversion that Christianity has ever undergone” (The Doctrine of the Church, p. 194).
One of Rome’s most well-known canon lawyers, Gratian, said the following about Peter’s fallibility: “He compelled the Gentiles to live as Jews and to depart from Gospel truth.”
Please permit me to quote the Scripture in question: “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” (Gal. 2:11-14).
There is no doubt that what Gratian said is very serious and quite right.
The writer Leon Morris offers his own stinging condemnation on Peter by quoting two sources which both line up to justifiably critique the apostle and his actions: “The same Peter who had denied his Lord for fear of a maidservant now denied Him again for fear of the circumcision.”
Morris then quotes Luther: “If Peter dissembleth, sinneth not of ignorance, but deceiveth by a colour which he knoweth himself to be false” (Galatians: Paul’s Charter of Christian Freedom, 1996, p. 79).
Peter was indeed preaching (if only for a short while) a different gospel to that of Paul. One can understand, therefore, the righteous fury Paul would have felt when he publicly confronted Peter and demanded his repentance. In fact, the beginning of Galatians could so easily have been aimed at Peter, albeit in a rather limited sense for we read: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:6-9).
It should also be pointed out that Peter humbly accepted the rebuke (unlike any pope) and was straightened out thanks to Paul’s personal discipleship and would go on to uphold all that Paul taught in his epistles, for he would later say: “And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction” (2 Pet. 3:15-16).
So clearly there was never any ‘infallibility’ on Peter’s part, just gross errors and human weakness, something all Christians are guilty of (Mark 14:38).
I would further add that Rome’s official definition of ‘papal infallibility’ is only relevant when the pope speaks on matters of faith and morals. Based on Gal. 2, Peter would have been automatically disqualified, therefore! And on top of Peter being ruled out as being ‘infallible’, so too would James, the Lord’s half brother. For he too temporarily preached another gospel (see Acts 21:18-25)!
On the two occasions when a pope has dared speak ex-cathedra (meaning he is totally ‘infallible,’ something only the writers of the Bible were when they wrote the Bible), their main interest was to shamefully elevate a dead woman – Mary – to the level of God Almighty!
When the First Vatican Council met in the nineteenth century to crown Pius IX ‘infallible,’ only 451 bishops out of 1,084 voted yes to allow this to happen. Had he won the first time around he would have unanimously decreed that Mary ‘was not conceived in original sin.’ His subsequent strong-arm tactics and blackmail successfully enabled him after losing the first vote in the first round to barely winning the second vote in the second round. But this victory for the pope only occurred after a split vote which finally allowed Pius IX to ‘infallibly’ decree that Rome’s ‘first lady’ was now on par with Jesus!
(Pius IX suffered seizures, unconsciousness, and the right side of his body was deformed)
A further breakdown of this egomaniac’s desire to be worshipped gives us the following facts: 1 in 5 cardinals voted in favour of infallibility. 2 out of 5 bishops voted in favour too. Those that refused were shouted down as being ‘heretics.’ ‘Luther.’ ‘Lucifer.’ More manipulation was used to force those into line. Some even spitted and spat on wavering voters! Such ‘holy’ men!
In total, some 88 bishops bravely withstood this psychopathic and psychotic pope.
Former Jesuit priest George Tyrell had the following to say about this type of theatre: “Why should men of today be forced to believe under pain of eternal damnation what St. Thomas [Aquinas] and St. Bernard (and St. Bonaventura, not to mention the Franciscan and Dominican orders) denied with impunity” (Medievalism, p. 49).
Pope John XXII in the fourteenth century would also display his concern of papal infallibly by saying: “[It] is of the devil.”
It should be stated that Pius IX’s mental state was also precarious during this time of his life much like Pius XII’s. Pius was a vain and paranoid epileptic who threatened priests not only with ex-communication but execution should they go against him! The Jesuits and the print press (media) worked very closely together to force his wary prelates to grant him powers never before seen even in his church! They did this for political and physiological reasons much like how Muhammed and his men did when conquering much of Arabia.
(Today, the media continues to prop up the papacy and pull down protestantism, whenever necessary).
When the argument was going against Pius he would say of himself, “I am tradition.”
Today’s Catholic can pretty much believe what they want until, that is, they correct or question the papacy in public then they are either censored or excommunicated. But a cold-blooded murderer like Al Capone, or a notorious womaniser like JFK, or a serial backstreet abortionist like Dolly Sinatra are all ‘good to go.’ In fact, the infamous three above were all ‘faithful children’ of the church of Rome and yet were never excommunicated but received public and lavish requiem masses when they died. How obscene!
Pius XII ‘infallibly’ decreed Mary’s so-called ‘bodily assumption to heaven’ even though there is absolutely nothing in Scripture that even hints at such a fairy-tale, and Pope Gelasius had taught that anybody who believed in such a thing would be anathema.
(Presidents also bewitched by Rome’s ‘first lady’)
So, one must ask: is Pope John Paul II cursed? And what about other popes that have gone on to worship this infamous ‘queen of heaven’ which is condemned by God in Jeremiah 44?
In fact, is it even possible for a pope to curse another pope, like John Paul II, who was made a ‘living saint’ in 2014 by Rome’s first Jesuit pope in their long and bloody history!
Peter Ruckman offers the following on this type of folly: “For example, the Roman Catholic Bishop Strossmayer pointed out to Pius IX and his half-insane hierarchy that pope Victor (192) approved of Montanism and then condemned it. Pope Marcellinus (296-303) was an idolater. Gregory I (785-790) called anyone “ANTICHRIST” who took the name that Pope John Paul II took (and John XXIII took and Paul VI took!) Pope Paschall II and Pope Eugenius III authorised dueling. Julius II and Pius IV forbade it. Pope Eugenius IV approved of the Council of Basel. Pius II revoked it. Hadrian II (867-872) declared civil marriages to be valid. Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) said they weren’t, etc, etc” (History of the New Testament Church, Vol. II, p. 439).
One former Anglican bishop said the following: “In the thirteenth century, the Franciscan order was convulsed by a controversy about holding to the principles of their founder. George IX in 1231 issued a bull that it was not lawful for them to have property. In 1279 the bull of Nicholas III, Exiit, endorsed this and stated that Christ taught by word and example. Pope John XXII, however, in his bull Cum inter nonnullos, 1332, denounced the tenet of the absolute poverty of Christ as contrary to Scripture and heretical. Where is certitude to be found.”
Other popes have wanted to speak ex-cathedra, such as in 1968 when pope Paul VI tried to enforce a ban on contraception, but a backlash from clergy and laity made the papal decree not worth the paper it was written on (this was the first open rebellion his church had ever witnessed).
(Ignorant popes believed wearing this silly object released souls from the fictitious purgatory)
Paul VI never recovered emotionally from this ‘assault’ on his ‘papal authority,’ and indeed he would never again issue another papal encyclical until his ‘official’ death in 1978, the year of three popes). Pontiffs are understandably reluctant to see another form of open and embarrassing rebellion within catholicism.
(During Paul VI’s papal trip to Manila in 1970, a failed assassination attempt using a dagger almost succeeded in killing him. Many Vatican watchers believed that the knife wound did indeed lead to his concealed early death and the replacement actor, the imposter pope and new ‘Paul VI,’ then entered the world stage).
One further thought on the preposterous notion of a mortal man being ‘infallible’ would be how the Scripture makes it abundantly clear how Peter, their so-called ‘first pope’ was called Satan by Jesus when he tried to correct and rebuke Jesus for His soon death on the cross. In fact, before I share the Scripture in question, it must further be stated for the record that Matthew and Mark both have this account in their gospels, whereas only Matthew has the Lord’s commendation and commissioning of the keys to Peter, in his gospel.
Clearly, the Holy Ghost considered the following chastisement of Jesus to Peter to not only be of greater importance but also a warning and possible prophecy against the dreadful elevation of man to ‘deity,’ once the Catholic church officially commenced under Constantine: “But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men” (Mark 8:33).
This gospel was also written by Peter’s personal disciple, Mark, who got it, as they say, straight from the horse’s mouth. Obviously, Peter didn’t consider himself to be ‘infallible’ either.
As a Bible-believing Christian and former Catholic, I believe the only time mortal man was ever infallible was when the prophets and apostles penned the Holy Bible. And even then, their writings were inspired and infallible, not the writers per se. Once they wrote the Bible over a period of around 1,600 years, such infallibility never occurred again!
(Three American presidents shamefully kneel at the corpse of ‘infallible’ John Paul II)
And just in case anybody thought all this foolish talk of a sinner dressing up in costume and being ‘infallible’ was something out of the dark ages, the above picture from 2005, not 1905 or 1805, really does paint a thousand words and needs little commentary from me. Clearly, the power and evil influence of the papacy is still very much alive and prevalent for all who have eyes to see and ears to hear!
Isaac Barrow couldn’t have put the wickedness of the papacy any better: “If this point be of so great consequence as they make it; if, as they would persuade us, the subsistence, order, unity, and peace of the Church, together with the salvation of Christians, do depend on it; if, as they suppose, many great points of truth do hang on this pin; if it be, as they declare, a main article of faith, and not only a simple error but a pernicious heresy, to deny this primacy; then it is requisite, that a clear revelation from God should be producible in favour of it, (for upon that ground only such points can firmly stand)” (A Treatise of the Pope’s Supremacy, p. 85).
Pope Pius IX successfully coerced his church into allowing him to be infallible because his church had no interest in God or the Bible. Christ is the head of the true Church and to this day real Christians continue to stand up for Christ and what He achieved at Calvary. Every pope is antichrist and all are in hell now. Protestant converts to Catholicism and practising Catholics have little if any idea what type of church they have entered, and none would dare question or confront some of the grotesque and blasphemous quotes which came out of the mouths or these evil and wicked men!
Pius IX was known to have a filthy mouth, a poor memory, and along with being a psychotic bully, once claimed to have seen an apparition of Mary which ‘troubled him.’ He either lied or saw a female demon much like Pius XII would many years later.
The truth of the matter is Pius as an ecclesiastical dictator along with all his ilk remain far more dangerous than Hitler or Stalin, for both of those men died and their legacies, for the most part, perished with them, but the office of the papacy has sadly survived and along with their damnable and deluded doctrines continue to damn billions of souls to a shameful and everlasting Hell.
For the non-Catholic reading this and wondering how in the world did the church of Rome manage to pull this off, it is really quite simple: They neither believe nor understand the Bible. They will never publicly admit this but privately it is an awkward stumbling block for them so they conveniently cherry-pick their favourite verses and fight till the death in defending such. And if that wasn’t bad enough, they spiritualise most of the Bible and when the Bible and their tradition clashes, well that too is rather simple to resolve: the pope is the final adjudicator. He makes the final judgment and every ‘good’ catholic whether or not they like it must obey and submit to him. Satan would be very proud of his popes!
One day the ‘infallible’ pope noticed a cripple fall over. He decided to get off his throne and try and assist him. As he attempted to do this, he thought he would try and heal this poor man too. He was after all a ‘successor’ of blessed Simon Peter. But rather embarrassingly for him and with all his adoring aides watching their ‘sovereign’ close up, he was unable to heal him. He never tried again. Like Muhammed, he was unable to do a single miracle a day in his life. So much for the ‘infallible’ pope!
One of the main sources for this article came from a book written by the late Swiss Catholic priest and catholic theologian August Hasler. Also, one of Roman Catholicism’s most ‘prestigious’ writers, Hans Kung, was also involved with this 1981 publication. Hasler’s book “How the Pope was made Infallible” is an honest and eye-opening account for every Catholic and serious student of Christendom to get and read.