Against Romanish Anglicanism

[Book of Jeremiah]

Where are the Charles Spurgeon's among us today to rebuke those who would dare to robe themselves in Roman Catholic style clothing? Where are the Charles Spurgeon's among us to expose the error and diabolical schemes which have now infitratred the Protestant churches undetected? May God Almighty raise up holy men who will pick up and carry this torch of truth to the next generation and to the next ......even until Jesus Christ appears!


This tract against Romish Anglicanism appeared in the August 1865 issue of The Sword and the Trowel. The Tractarian Movement, begun in the 1820s and led by John Henry Newman, had started a drift toward Catholicism within the Church of England. Newman himself converted to Catholicism in 1845, and in the intervening 20 years, more than 250 Anglican clergy followed him. This tract was part of Spurgeon's response to that trend.

​

HO is this gentleman? You guess him to be a Romish priest; and so indeed he is, but he is not honest enough to avow it. This, with the exception of the face, is a correct representation of a clerical gentleman, well known in the South of England, as a notorious clergyman of that religious association, which is commonly, but erroneously, called "The Church of England." We can assure the reader that our artist has faithfully given the robes and other paraphernalia with which this person makes a guy of himself. We beg to ask, what difference there is between this style and the genuine Popish cut? We might surely quite as well have a bona fide priest at once, with all the certificates of the Vatican! There seems to be an unlimited license for papistical persons to do as they please in the Anglican Establishment. How long are these abominations to be borne with, and how far are they yet to be carried?

Protestant Dissenters, how can you so often truckle to a Church which is assuming the rags of the old harlot more and more openly every day?

Alliance with true believers is one thing, but union with a Popish sect is quite another. Be not ye partakers with them. Protestantism owed much to you in past ages, will you not now raise your voice and show the ignorant and the priest-ridden the tendencies of all these mummeries, and the detestable errors of the Romish Church and of its Anglican sister.

Evangelical Churchmen, lovers of the Lord Jesus, how long will you remain in alliance with the defilements of High Churchism? You are mainly responsible for all the Popery of your Church, for you are its salt and its stay. Your brethren in Christ cannot but wonder how it is that you can remain where you are. You know better. You are children of light, and yet you aid and abet a system by which darkness is scattered all over the land. Beware, lest you be found in union with Antichrist, when the Lord cometh in his glory. What a future would be yours if you would shake yourselves from your alliance with Papists and semi-Papists. Come out for Christ's sake. Be ye separate, touch not the unclean thing!

Against Romish Anglicanism

 

[irosie91]

sheeeeesh-------

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Charles Spurgeon was not the only Minister of the LORD who warned that the seat of the papacy was anti-Christ. Look at who exposed the evil of Popery:

Issue Date: August/September 1984

The following quotes show just how far the churches of today have strayed from the wisdom of their founding fathers.

Martin Luther
(1483-1546) (Lutheran)
"We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist...personally I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to Antichrist." (Aug. 18, 1520) Taken from "The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers," Vol. 2, pg. 121 by Froom.

John Calvin
(1509-1564) (Presbyterian
"Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt...I shall briefly show that (Paul's words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy." Taken from "Institutes" by John Calvin.


Cotton Mather
(1663-1728) (Congregational Theologian)
"The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church; and in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvelous blindness upon them." Taken from "The Fall of Babylon" by Cotton Mather in Froom's book "The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers," Vol. 3, pg. 113.


John Knox
(1505-1572) (Scotch Presbyterian)
Knox wrote to abolish "that tyranny which the pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church" and that the pope should be recognized as "the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks." Taken from "The Zurich Letters" pg. 199 by John Knox.


Thomas Cranmer
(1489-1556) (Anglican)
"Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons." (Referring to prophecies in Revelation and Daniel.) Taken from"Works" by Cranmer, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7.


John Wesley
(1703-1791) (Methodist)
Speaking of the Papacy he said, "He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers...He it is...that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped...claiming the highest power, and highest honor...claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone." Taken from "Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms" by John Wesley, pg. 110.


Roger William
(1603-1683) (First Baptist Pastor in America)
He spoke of the Pope as "the pretended Vicar of Christ on earth, who sits as God over the Temple of God, exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vessals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself...speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to changed times and laws: but he is the son of perdition (II Thess. 2)." Taken from "The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers" by Froom, Vol. 3, pg. 52.



Founders of "mainline" churches knew who anti-christ was

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" Gal. 4:16

Unholy Mother of Intolerance: The Inquisition
Issue Date: January/February 1984

by Avro Manhattan

If Hitler should return and proclaim deep love for the Jews; or Stalin appear and declare himself a Capitalist, would we not take them with a largish pinch of salt? Well, then! Why should we react differently to a similar "phoney" conversion of an institution which has surpassed the evil of both these dictators?

Today the Catholic church claims heartfelt love for all those outside her. This is as incongruous as the claims of a repentant Hitler or Stalin. Indeed it would be laughably ridiculous if we were not dealing with tragic matters.

Her sudden desire to "embrace the separated brethren" is nothing but her latest device to make people forget the basic spirit of intolerance and fanaticism. That spirit is as alive as ever, ready to strike should the opportunity present itself.

All her actions in past centuries speak of nothing else. Her main excuse for intolerance makes strange logic: She is specifically charged by God to save the souls of all Christians. Since the killing of souls was worse than the killing of bodies, she reasoned, and since heretics used their bodies to kill souls, their bodies should pay for the sins of the wicked souls they housed.

Thanks to this Catholic logic, soon the ecclesiastical and temporal machineries of the Western world were enriched with the noble practice of judicial torture, expressly employed by Holy Mother Church for the suppression of heresy, later known as Protestantism.

In 1252 Pope Innocent IV issued Bull AS EXTIRPANDA. It became the classic in inquisitorial procedure. It provides:

1. that anyone may seize a heretic and despoil him of his property;
2. that every magistrate shall appoint an inquisitorial commission, whose salaries are to be paid by the State;
3. that no law may be passed interfering with these Inquisitors;
4. that heretics who will not confess their heresy shall be tortured;
5. that the confiscated property of heretics shall be thus divided: one-third to the Inquisitors and the bishops, one-third to the city, and one-third to those who aided in the arrest and conviction.

Pope Innocent gave precise instructions to all Inquisitors to enforce the regulations throughout Europe. Eventually it was made Statute Law. The regular clergy proved reluctant, so the popes turned to the most fanatical, intolerant and narrow-minded section of the Church structure, the sundry monastic orders.

The two which excelled in their infamous task were the Dominicans and the Franciscans. Armed with practically unlimited power from the popes, these Inquisitors swarmed all over Europe like theological hornets, setting up tribunals wherever they appeared.

Soon individuals, communities, nations, and indeed, the very hierarchy trembled at the mere mention of their names. Wherever they came, denunciations, accusation, treachery, perjury, torture, woe, and death resulted.

The hooded Inquisitors did not content themselves with establishing their court in the sundry lands of Europe. Pope Gregory IX appointed a Dominican Grand Inquisitor for the whole of Armenia and Russia. Pope Urban VI ordered the General of the Dominicans to appoint Inquisitors for Armenia, Greece and Tartary (China).

Pope Nicholas IV asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to create Inquisitors from the mendicant friars in his land. Pope Gregory XI granted authority to the Franciscan Provincial in the Holy Land to act as Chief Inquisitor in Syria, Palestine and even Egypt.

When an Inquisitor arrived everybody was commanded, in obedience to the pope and to Mother Church, to disclose the name of anyone suspected of the slightest deviation from the Faith. The Inquisitors issued a compelling threat and a promise. A denouncer would get an indulgence of three years. Those avoiding their duty would be excommunicated.

Some denunciations were factual but many were concocted by vengeance, spite of jealousy. Those denounced, even on the flimsiest accusation or mere suspicion, would be arrested and flung directly into prison.

This usually was a common dungeon. Cold and damp, it lacked light or sanitation, and contained cut-throats, thieves, and the like. Among these the friars would plant spies to induce the accused, by pretended friendship, threats, or other methods, to admit his guilt.

If this first step proved insufficient, the suspected heretic would be chained with heavy irons and left to starve in a dark, foul hole called the durus carcer--"cruel prison." The accused was then brought before the inquisitorial tribunal composed of friars. If he asked the names of his accusers, he was told that only his judges had the right to know their names. He had no such right.

He was asked to confess to his guilt. If he pleaded innocence, he would be sent back to prison. On a second or third appearance before the Court, if he persisted he was put to torture. The whole purpose of his trial, of course, was to force a confession of heresy.

Torture was inflicted without solid proof of guilt. Two complainers or even one single accuser was sufficient for subjection to the agonies of torture, even if the accused man had, until then, been of unblemished character, pristine honesty and genuine piety.

The methods, kinds and degrees of torture were endless. The three basic ones employed were hoisting the man to the ceiling by his hands tied behind his back, breaking him on the rack, or greasing his feet and thrusting them into the fire.

If, following all the exquisite devices of torture, the heretic refused to recant or to admit his guilt, then the Inquisitors would pass capital sentence of heresy. Having done that, they would hand him over to the "secular arm," the civil authorities.

To complete the macabre farce, the Holy Inquisitors would ask these same temporal powers, in the name of the Church, not to kill the poor accused. This formality was a mere legalistic device to make the Church appear innocent of the blood which was about to be spilled--or rather, burned.

The civil authorities could not heed this hypocritical plea, however, lest the Holy Inquisition fall upon them. Refusal to burn the heretic would have placed the temporal authorities themselves on trial for their lives. For heresy, of course!

Soon no one was safe from potential arrest. The spying, denunciation, and hunting down of heretics reached cleric or lay, men or women, noble or common. No one was immune from the terrorizing omnipresence of the Holy Inquisition.

This reign of Catholic terror lasted for centuries. Hundreds of thousands of men, women, and yes, even children were murdered...burned alive at the stake. Simply because they dared to disagree with the Holy Catholic Church or with her popes.

This Catholic terror officially ended less than two hundred years ago. As recently as 1762 a Protestant pastor was condemned to death in France. Why? Simply because he was a Protestant! By whom? By the Catholic Church! Yes, by that same church which now pretends to love her "dear separated brethren."

Indeed, in Europe torture was still enforced by all the Tribunals of the Holy Inquisition until the last century, the pope being forced to abolish it only in 1816.

It was Napoleon, who entered Madrid in 1808, who was to abolish the Inquisition. When the Spanish Parliament in 1813 declared it incompatible with the Constitution, the Vatican protested. Super-Catholic Ferdinand VII restored it in 1814, with the full approval of the Church. The Holy Inquisition was finally suppressed by the Liberals in July, 1834.

Yes, SUPPRESSED. Was not this same spirit still alive in Croatia in 1942 when the Catholic Ustachi mutilated hundreds of thousands of Serbian "heretics?" Or in South Vietnam in 1960 when Catholic President Diem set out to rid that country of Buddhist "heretics?" Or in 1983 when Christmas shoppers in Protestant ("heretic") London were blasted into eternity by a Catholic IRA terrorist bomb in a crowded department store?

So the Office of the Holy Inquisition was abolished only as recently as last century. Let us never forget that the Catholic Church was forced to abolish it by a lay government. Yet it is still alive, a roaring lion gnashing at his cage bars still seeking whom he may devour.
'The Inquisition' by Avro Manhattan

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

What Did Vatican II Really Change...? Protestants!

Issue Date: March/April 1984

Many Protestants believe that the Roman Catholic "Church" has undergone immense changes since the great Vatican II Council. It is widely believed that sweeping changes took place in both doctrine and practice among Catholics. But the Second Vatican Council was really just a facelift whose real success lies in the changes it brought about in Protestants!

An important aspect of the Second Vatican Council is often overlooked. It is best expressed by this excerpt from Roman Catholicism by Loraine Boettner:

An official document, "The Constitution on the Church," prepared by the Council and promulgated by the pope, reaffirms basic Roman Catholic doctrine precisely as it stood before the Council met... The doctrine of papal infallibility is restated. We are told that when ‘by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith and morals... his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable (Article 25).

The pope has lost none of his power. He remains the absolute ruler in the Roman church. But if papal decrees, past and present, are "irreformable," what hope is there for reform in the Roman church?

The change made by the Second Vatican Council, ending in 1965, were in liturgy, administrative practices and, most important, in ecumenism. While admitting that other churches contain "elements" of truth, it repeated that the Roman Catholic "Church" is the only true church.

Great care was taken to emphasize that no changes would be made in the doctrinal structure of the "church." However, Pope Paul did add one new doctrine, that Mary is the Mother of the church.

The Council updated liturgy and church administration to make it more acceptable to the twentieth century world. With the introduction of the "New Mass" in 1965, for example, Latin is no longer required except in certain instances.

But to Protestants is matters not whether the mass is said in Latin, English, or Swahili. The problem is not with the language but with the idolatrous teachings of the Mass and the required worship of the wafer-god, the cookie turned into Jesus.

Roman Catholicism has not, and in fact cannot change her gross errors regarding salvation. And the Council did not remove the more than one hundred anathemas (curses) pronounced by the Council of Trent on the Protestant churches and beliefs.

The Second Vatican Council brought an important change in methods. It had been decided that Protestantism could be better eliminated by ecumenical unity than by the sword and the inquisitor's torch. No longer calling the Protestants "heretics," but renaming them "separated brethren," the stage was set to woo Protestants into ecumenical unity.

Where once all Catholics were called to oppose and exterminate all "heretics," the new method was to absorb them into the Roman Catholicism. Special offices and commissions were set up on a global basis to work to bring about this unity. Catholics were even taught the vocabulary of the evangelical Christian, although the words were given different meanings that would not conflict with their relic and Mary worship.

The effect has been dramatic. Weary of the struggle against Rome, Protestant leaders have abandoned the warnings of the Scriptures, and rushed pell-mell toward sharing a yoke with the idolaters of Rome. The Second Vatican Council continues to be a global success, a stroke of genius to disarm and deceive the true believers in Christ.

What did Vatican II really change? -- Protestants!
___________
Now then, since Vatican Council II didn't change nor delete a single word of their Doctrine to hunt down heretics (Protestants, Jews & all non-Catholics), torture and murder them for rejecting "the one true faith" (sarcasm implied) what makes anyone think that once their "amnesty plan of interfaithism" date expires they will not once again hunt those of us who refused to "join them"......? Do not be so foolish as to think that this interfaithism invitation is optional. As soon as the Vatican's amnesty plan date expires they will unleash their full wrath against all those who rejected their call to "unity." That day is coming. Count on it.

 

[Blackrook]

Jeremiah, Catholics are Protestants' brothers and sisters in Christ, and we need to work together in a world that hates us both.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

How can you be my brother while holding fast to the Roman Catholic Doctrines which accuse me of being a heretic worthy of death? What is their complaint against me and my brethren but that we hold fast to the Doctrine of Jesus Christ while we reject Rome and her Doctrines of devils? Why do your priests and Pope desire to eradicate believers in Christ and Jews from the earth? Why do they call us "pestilence" in their Doctrine - find yourself H.C. Lea's 4 volume set "A History of the Inquisition of Spain. It's all in there. In the meantime, there is this to do:

"Search the Scriptures."

1. No person in the Christian church, whether he be an apostle, an elder, or an evangelist, is ever spoken of in the New Testament as a priest; nor do we find the most distant allusion to the appointment of an order of priesthood.

2. For the work of the ministry, Christ "gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;" but never do we read of his giving priests.

3. The apostle wrote Timothy and Titus particular directions relative to the appointment of bishops, deacons, etc.; but no mention is made of priests.

4. And why this silence of Scripture? Simply because the office of priests was unknown in the primitive church; and, moreover, in no way needed, for the weakest and humblest believer may now enter with boldness, even into the holiest, by the blood of Jesus.

5. Having so great a High Priest as Jesus the Son of God, who is "touched with the feeling of our infirmities," and "ever liveth to make intercession for us," what need we of any earthly priest?

6. Priestly confession is not needed; for if we confess our sins to the Lord, "He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:9.

7. Priestly absolution is not needed; because the blood of Jesus Christ, and that alone, "cleanseth us from all sin."

8. Priestly intercession is not needed; for "if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous."

9. "No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron;" but this cannot be said of any humanly-appointed priest.

10. Every priest under the law was ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices for sin, and "without shedding of blood is no remission;" but no such sacrifices are now offered, nor are they needed, Christ "hath appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself," and "by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."

11. But the Scriptures distinctly teach, that all believers, by virtue of their union with the Lord Jesus Christ, are made kings and priests unto God, a holy and a royal priesthood, "to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." 1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6.

12. From all this it clearly follows, that a humanly-appointed order of priesthood is a deceptive invention of man, and directly opposed to the teaching of Holy Scripture.

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20.


main page.

_________
To be clear, no believer in Christ, seeks any man for the forgiveness of sins nor do we do 'penance' as there is no such doctrine to be found in the KJV Holy Bible. We are to "repent," not do "penance."

There can be no moderate response to the Roman Catholic Institution. It must be roundly condemned for what it is - the spirit of anti-Christ.