Roman Catholics (questions asked by them)

 

 

8. John Paul II has asked your pardon for the persecutions of the Catholics against your predecessors; what do you think of what he has done?

 

 

 

We simply say that what he has done is absurd. Why? Because you can’t ask someone’s pardon for sins that you have not committed against that person whose pardon you ask. In other words, you can’t ask someone’s pardon for sins committed not by you against him but by some other people against other people (from whom you are excluded).

I will give you an illustration to explain to you the absurdity of what John Paul II has done. Let us suppose that one of my neighbours has a grandfather who is already dead, and that my grand-grandfather while was still alive had punched him, and one day I go to my neighbour to ask his pardon for the punch my grand-grandfather had given to his grandfather; don’t you think that my behaviour would be absurd? Don’t you think that it was my grand-grandfather who should have asked the grandfather of my neighbour to forgive him? But let us invert the positions in the above mentioned illustration: if a man comes to me and says to me that he asks my pardon for a punch that his grand-grandfather gave to my grandfather, how should I behave toward him? Should I forgive him? But how could I accept ‘the excuses’ for a sin which was not committed against me from a person who has not committed it? Don’t’ you think that if I forgave that man I would do something that is absurd?

Therefore, how can John Paul II ask the Protestants’ (who are living today) pardon on behalf of those who persecuted, tortured and put to death the Protestants who lived in the sixteenth century or in another century of the past? We could accept his act if he had asked the Protestants’ pardon, who are still alive, for a sin he had committed personally against them, but we can’t accept what he did asking our pardon for the sins of his predecessors.

Of course, by saying that John Paul II has acted absurdly, we want to affirm implicitly that what he has done is not confirmed at all by the Bible. There are no passages in the Bible which confirm such a behaviour. Even the Papal Curia recognizes that the Bible does not confirm such a behaviour, for in the document titled Memory and Reconciliation, after some examples of confessions of sins made to God under the Old Testament, it is written: ‘The question arises as to why the biblical writers did not feel the need to address requests for forgiveness to present interlocutors for the sins committed by their fathers, given their strong sense of solidarity in good and evil among the generations …(Memory and Reconciliation, 2:1). Obviously, various hypotheses are proposed in response to this question, however the fact is that in the Old Testament there are no examples that confirm such a behaviour. And the same thing must be said with regard to the New Testament, for there is not a single example, I say it again, not a single example, of a Christian who asked his neighbour’s pardon for a sin committed by one of his forefathers against one of the forefathers of his neighbour. And also in this case, the Papal Curia is compelled to recognize this, for they affirm: ‘There is, however, no explicit call addressed to the first Christians to confess the faults of the past … ‘ (Ibid., 2:2). Therefore, since such a behaviour, which consists in asking pardon for sins committed by our forefathers in the past, has no biblical basis, how can we accept the act of John Paul II? The answer is only one: we can’t accept it.

Nevertheless, we can see once more, but without being surprised to see such a thing, that the Roman Curia, although there are no biblical basis it manages to pass off such an absurd and wrong behaviour of John Paul II as right and biblical. We are not surprised to see this for there are many other absurd and wrong things which the Roman Curia manages to pass off as right and biblical, such as the prayers for the dead, the prayers of the dead for the living, purgatory (one of the biggest religious fraud committed against mankind), the primacy of the pope, the repetition of the sacrifice of Christ in the mass, just to mention some of the falsehood passed off as true things. Therefore, things being as they are, we conclude once again that the pope and the roman curia don’t respect the Word of God.

What does the Word of God say about this topic? The answer to this question is found in these words of Jesus: “Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him” (Luke 17:3-4). Therefore who is wronged must first of all rebuke the one who wronged him, and then if the one who is guilty acknowledges his sin and repents of it, and asks pardon for his sin, then the person who was wronged must forgive the one who wronged him. Even if our brother sins against us seven times in a day, and he repents, we must forgive him. Things are very clear, it is the person who has sinned that must repent of his sins (and not another person on his behalf after he dies) and must ask pardon for his sins, but he must make this request to the one he wronged and not to one of his relatives.

We must say another thing with regard to this ‘mea culpa’ formulated by John Paul II. In the end the Roman Catholic Church comes out always immaculate, holy and blameless, for according to this ‘mea culpa’ the persecution against the Protestants (and also the persecution against the Jews) is not at all imputed to the Roman Catholic Church, in that the blame falls on ‘some disobedient children’ of the Roman Catholic Church and not on the Church. In other words, the mother has never made mistakes, while some of her children have indeed made mistakes. Here are some meaningful passages taken from Memory and Reconciliation: ‘The Church is holy because, sanctified by Christ who has acquired her by giving himself up to death for her, she is maintained in holiness by the Holy Spirit who pervades her unceasingly (….) The Church therefore, “although she is holy because of her incorporation into Christ, … does not tire of doing penance: Before God and man, she always acknowledges as her own her sinful sons and daughters” of both yesterday and today. (…) For this reason, the holy Church recognizes the duty “to express profound regret for the weaknesses of so many of her sons and daughters who sullied her face, preventing her from fully mirroring the image of her crucified Lord, the supreme witness of patient love and humble meekness.” (Ibid., 3:2,3,4). Therefore the act of John Paul II is not only absurd but it is also covered with falsehood, doubleness and hypocrisy, because history, which is not an opinion, shows very clearly that it was the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church, that is, the popes, the cardinals and the bishops, who persecuted intensely the Protestants, and all the sheep followed them blindly. In other words, it was the mother and her children who persecuted the Protestants. It was that prostitute together with her children, fruit of her endless prostitutions, which assailed with fury those who decided to part from her for the truth’s sake. Obviously, the reason why John Paul II cannot and does not want to acknowledge that it was the whole Roman Catholic Church which committed those sins is that in this way he would discredit all the Roman Catholic Church in the eyes of all the world. The Church would be no longer Holy, for she also committed some sins!! Therefore the Roman Catholic Church comes out quite well from this ‘mea culpa’. I would say that unfortunately she comes out with a better image in the eyes of many people who know neither the Word of God nor history, for by this act of ‘humility’ she has gained more credibility!!! We can deduce this from these words written in Memory and Reconciliation: ‘The steps taken by John Paul II to ask pardon for faults of the past have been understood in many circles as signs of the Church’s vitality and authenticity, such that they strengthen her credibility’ (Ibid. 1:4).

Therefore, the attitude of John Paul II, studied and prepared in every detail into the secret rooms of the Vatican City, must not be accepted for the above mentioned reasons.

And I say also that even if one day a pope will acknowledge that it was the mother who sinned and persecuted the Protestants and not just some of her children, I say it again, even if that day came, and in the name of the Roman Catholic Church he will ask pardon for those sins, his act would remain absurd and unbiblical. And the Protestants should not accept the request for pardon and thus they should not grant any pardon, because biblically they cannot grant forgiveness on behalf of someone who died centuries ago. If the Protestants did such a thing, they also would do an absurd act because they would forgive a sin that those who ask their pardon have never committed against them.

In conclusion I want to say this: we distrust the Roman Catholic Church even when she opens her mouth and smiles; actually she does not open her mouth to smile but to swallow us as a crocodile is ready to swallow its victim after it has opened its big mouth. The Wisdom says: “Burning lips and a wicked heart are like a potsherd covered with silver dross. He that hateth dissembleth with his lips, and layeth up deceit within him; When he speaketh fair, believe him not: for there are seven abominations in his heart. Whose hatred is covered by deceit, his wickedness shall be shewed before the whole congregation” (Proverbs 26:23-26). He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

 

 

 

 

Back