The Roman Catholic Controversy Part 10

Prayer and Opening Remarks

Prayer. I won't do it this morning because I'm going to be helping with this later. I'm going to be talking and singing along. I'm sorry for you. I don't know if we're going to have Jesus Christ sing later or not.

I think that you're a good God. I think that you have given us grace, mercy, peace, and God's will through Jesus Christ. So I look forward to thinking deeper into these precious truths. As we examine the agency and the meanings of this authority, we can follow it as a true authority that is vested within each saint, each member of the living and true Church of Jesus Christ.

This is Father, we pray God that your truth prevail, in these matters and all things, in Jesus' name. Amen. Amen. So we've been out of Lulu for a couple of weeks, and we're still working on the Catholic Conference.

We're going to take a detour as John is traveling. And then we'll pass it on to other issues. But just to be sure, we didn't go through Chapter 8 there, right? Okay, so that's where we left off. And I want to do an overview of where we've been so far in the Urban Catholic controversy, and then share with you a recent experience like that, and use that as a springboard to a conversation on apologetics.

As we're going to do this, we're going to overview it, and then start the chapter on the dating system. What it really comes down to is that there are some serious distinctions between Protestantism and Urban Catholicism.

If you ask the average person who is Urban Catholic, and this question is asked often, you ask Urban Catholic, or someone who I believe learned to be Urban Catholic, are you a Christian or are you a Catholic?

What is presupposed in that question? There's a difference. And you know what? Almost every Urban Catholic I've spoken to affirms that difference. Have you noticed that? They say, no, I'm not a Christian, I'm a Catholic.

Where according to Catholic dogma, they are the true Christian Church, they are the true United Christian, they are the true Catholic Church, and they are the true Catholic Church. And why is it important that we also affirm that distinction?

Should we correct the distinction or should we affirm the distinction? Why do you think that's the wise thing to do?

You don't believe that in the Gospel. It's different.

I've heard a gentleman who, it was a Saturday, and he is a Catholic. And I spoke to him yesterday actually, and I asked him that question. Do you consider yourself a Catholic or a Christian? He says I'm a Catholic.

And you know what his response was? He says, there's too much hypocrisy within Christianity. And also some other folks too, and they say, oh yeah, that's right. It's almost as if he was saying something in the Bible.

Oh, what a brilliant statement. Yes, you're right. And I said to him, I haven't met someone who isn't a hypocrite yet. Because every single person on the face of this earth is a hypocrite in one facet of life or the other.

And I said, you know, I would stop going to Walmart because there's hypocrites there. I imagine if you apply that reason, if you apply that logic to every other facet of life, where would you go? Where would you be?

You'd be left alone if you're on a five-mile island with no one who wants to speak to you because apparently you aren't on that standard of perfection. Everyone is a hypocrite in one way or another. And he has this really interesting conversation.

And he says, my problem with Christianity is that you can live your life how you want to, sinning, and then the last moment that you say, I'm going to ask you to use my heart, and then all that is wiped away with the end, and you can go to that.

I don't think that's fair. And of course, if you could come and say, fair? Okay. Can we talk about fair for a moment and justice? He says, we're just speaking in Spanish. So he was saying, that's not just.

He uses the word just in Spanish. It's not justo. It's not just. It's not fair. And I said, okay, let's talk about that for a moment. In my view, if God were to be just and God were to be fair, we would all go to hell.

And the gospel according to Roman Catholicism says, no, you can earn salvation, that there are good people, that there is a way for us to be justified by our works. And he says, it doesn't seem fair to me that a person can live their whole life doing good things, helping the poor, doing just causes, and then someone who's been living their lives completely contrary, and at the last moment they repent, and they get to what happened, while the other one doesn't.

He says, it doesn't seem fair, it doesn't seem just. And he asked me, what is just to you? And I said, justice is to me, that they would all go to hell. And I started to quote a scripture to him, from Romans 3, there's no good or bad in the world.

And he says, no, no, no, no, you're getting ahead of the book. I'm asking you, what would be just for you? And I said, but sir, by what standard are we talking about here? By what standard? And this is the famous line of apologetics that you hear from Jeff Herman and others as well, but it's so true.

By what standard are we talking about? He says, you, what's your standard? I said, no, no. Well, my standard is the Bible's standard. That's my standard. No, no, no, no, you're getting ahead of the book.

What's your standard? I said, I can't settle into it. I believe in this book. And this is what the book tells me what the standard is. I can tell you what the standard is. And quickly all of the folks around started getting really frustrated with me.

They started getting really upset. They said, well, you know, you just have to accept that not everyone believes in Jesus. Not everyone has the same, it's not like, yeah, I said that. That's fine. But you just said something that is kind of out of hand, which is that all Christians, the reason why he's not a Christian is because all Christians are hypocrites.

It's kind of an outlandish statement. You all guys kind of affirmed it. And that's kind of an ignorant thing to say. And I don't understand why you're celebrating ignorance. And when my perspective is shared, you feel attacked.

Interesting how that works, doesn't it? And I'm telling you, and you know what, in that person's suggestion, that the world sees ignorance as virtue. It looks at ignorance as virtue. If you say something's totally ignorant, but it sounds nice, you are celebrating it.

You are elevating it. It's like, ah, you know, it's almost as if you said something that's so profound. All Christians are hypocrites. Everyone believes in Christians. Ah, really insane. But there's really no substance to that.

And things like that are elevated and celebrated as if it's a virtue. And I'm sorry, I don't think it's virtuous to be ignorant. I don't think it's virtuous to affirm things that aren't true. And that was one of the parts of my critique that argument became, what else is out of the truth?

I said, to me, I respect judgment for judgment. And I affirm your freedom to live by what you believe. But at the same time, I don't think the truth outweighs all those things. So is there an objective standard?

Is there an objective truth by which we can delineate between something that is true and something that is false? And I don't think the objective standard.

And that objective standard is something about the word. That's the standard. And so I think when you're speaking to a Catholic,.

You have to bring back to that, by what standard are we affirming things as true or false? And so I brought my conversations back to the verses of Jesus. I said, Jesus is the standard of truth. He said himself, I am the way, the truth, and life, and no one is his father but by me.

He said of the word of God, in John 17, 17, Father, your word is truth. And so I said to this gentleman, my early Catholic friend, I said, what are we going to learn here? Your subjective feeling and your subjective knowledge or the sure foundation of Christ who is God in heart according to both the Protestant and the early Catholic doctrine.

What are we going to hold as true? And I base my life on Christ's teachings. What do you base yours? What's your standard? And what's interesting is that most people who are nominally or culturally Roman Catholic, they don't live by the standard of the word of God.

They live loosely on traditions and their subject emotions. But they're not basing their lives on the authority of the word of God. Which is why I think it's important that we actually do affirm the distinction between Roman Catholics and Christians.

And the question is raised, are you a Christian or are you Catholic? I think that's a good question. Because it also exposes us to the reality of their of their whole thought process. They themselves are understanding that there is a Christian distinction.

And I think we need to to affirm that as well.

Justification, Grace, and the Thief on the Cross

And so the first thing I mentioned yesterday was pretty much on justification. How is a man a God? How is a man justified by the word of God? And he says, it's not fair that someone would at the last moment repent and then all the things.

That they did in their life are absolved. And I said, what about the human process?

And of course, they don't have an answer to those things. And especially the average Catholic doesn't know a lot about the human process. I think it's plain insanity. It was a man in the process that changed Jesus.

And he came up with that idea. And what's interesting about the man in the process that the thinking of the process and what he believed, but what's not, is that in Luke's account of the Gospels, this is where he says, you know, it says there's a remember me when you're injured in the name of Jesus, especially that he would do it in paradise.

But did you know that Matthew's account of the process, the Mark's account of the process, says that they were both mocking Jesus? Think about that for a moment. Both men, in Matthew's Christ account, were mocking Jesus, including the defeat that they had in the acts of her forgiveness.

So for the standard of about six dollars, Jesus is going to have the cross. Then the man goes from a persecuted and what was his parallel, insults to Christ, to then begging for mercy. Just at the standard of six dollars.

And what does Jesus do? He says, you'll be with me in paradise. So what happened in those six dollars? Can a person truly repent and give their life over to Jesus on their deathbed? The answer is yes.

And I know that it frustrates people and their sense of justice, but it is because they have not come to the true justice of God and grace. So I said to him, he says, it's not justice, no, it's grace.

It's grace. And that's a concept that is surely lacking in early Catholic circles. They do not have a good concept of grace. Has anyone ever had an experience similar to this or anything to kind of answer that in regards to the conversation so far?

Yes. Very similar conversation. Same. It all goes back to authority, right? On what standard do you judge? Okay, so based off your knowledge, your experience and reasoning, you confirm this to be true.

They'd say yes, okay. Well, let me ask you this. Would you agree that there are people out there with invalid thoughts and reasoning, like the thought process of a pedophile or a rapist or a murderer?

Well, me, they're like, well, yeah, I would agree that they're not reasonable. Well, how do you know you're not one of those people that has an invalid reasoning? Well, by my own reasoning, I know myself to be valid.

And that's when I point them to the following ways. So by your own reasoning, you know your reasoning to be correct.

Right? That's right. You know, I learned from my conversation yesterday that even I, I've been doing this for a long time. I've done moderated debates. I've spoken to many people in various capacities.

And so I know I'm doing it, definitely. But I must say, even with my years of experience in apologetics and ministering to people, I don't think anyone here would accuse me, generally, of being harsh.

But anytime you're in a worldly context and you're standing up for truth, you may come across as harsh and uncaring. Even if you really try to seize the new words of the soul, truth, to a world that despises truth, is like a sharp knife that cuts.

And so I encourage you to really try and do just as gracefully as possible. But at the same time, I'm kind of a person that I can be maybe too blunt, too straightforward. And it really offends people.

And so I find that sometimes people are more offended with the literary than the truth itself. And I find that to be ridiculous. I'm a truth teller, and so I write out here truth. And it can be blunt or it can be soft.

I already get that truth. I want the substance of what's being said over the delivery. And people who have overemphasized the delivery rather than the substance of our argument, right? And so people often feel, well, maybe the person who was nicer, kinder, or who seemed to be more open, that's the person who generally is right where we're putting the debate over the person who's more passionate and delivers a substantive issue, but maybe not as gracefully as the other person.

And so substance matters. And I think substance matters over delivery. But delivery is still very important in the way that we bring things across to other leaders. Any other thoughts or questions or experiences?

Well, I guess. On the other side, could we also say that we're also Catholic with a little C? Because we believe in the Apostles' Creed and we've been affected, we've been influenced by Augustine.

And other people. Yeah, I mean, a good thing to say to a Catholic sometimes is to say, hey, you know, I'm a Catholic. Do you want to see them like really, like confusing? I'm a Christian, I'm a Protestant, I'm a Catholic.

And they're like, I don't think those go together. And you can then explain what the word Catholic means and then it's fine. That might even actually open up more of an opportunity for there to be some grace and camaraderie in that conversation when you're coming at them from a place of seemingly openness and deepening ground.

I've been speaking with Christians when this has started. I always get in the room with Jews and I tell them, hey, I'm a JW too. I'm just a Christian. How did you know that? I'm a Jesus witness.

And so, in that epitaph, there's always usually a rebuttal conversation between Jehovah's Witnesses as well. If you've got some questions, we'll move on. Yes? You know, the person you're talking to, they're saying, like, by what standard, but they're saying, like, what's just to you?

Right. You know, I think a lot of times in these conversations, because the Romans won, right, the law of God is written on everyone's hearts. If you could probe at any level, you'd find that we don't even live up to our own standards.

That's right. Everyone's driving faster than you as a maniac, and everyone's driving slower than you because they don't know how to drive. Right? And that's why I said, everyone's imperfect. Everyone's imperfect.

Because I said, if you're not going to church, you're not going to be a Christian. I said, I haven't met a Christian who isn't.

Because we don't know. We haven't measured our own standard. We're all God's standard. We always give ourselves a pass. Right. It's like, yo, if I need to break the sea, I have to raise it. If he does it, he does not.

That's right. That's a great point. We don't even live up to our own standards, all of us. And that's why I say, we are all imperfect. It's just so weird. Jesus is the same imperfect. Jesus is the same.

It's just interesting. And just like Jesus is not a little bit of a worm because there's just imperfects there, neither is Jesus not a great church because there's imperfects there. This is the perfect situation for all of us.

For the Jewish people, because we're refining racism, we're refining truth, we're refining reconciliation, and the peace of God. And so that's a really, really important thing to call that, to find out that the whole is a notion.

And of course, the Jesuit councils who bring this up ignore, sometimes, the very hypocrites that are in their own church. And they give you some awful info. The papacy itself has an office. There is no greater hypocrite than the papacy.

The papacy is the greatest hypocrite on the face of the earth, because it claims authority and representation, but it doesn't belong to it. It claims to be something that is true or not. That's the greatest form of hypocrisy, is pretending to be something that you're not.

And there's no greater office of hypocrisy than that of the Lord God, the Pope, which, in my understanding of scripture and theology, fits the perfect description of the Antichrist and of all of us. And so we're going to examine some of the things that's wrong with Catholicism in terms of A, because you kind of have to work this out for A.

We're going to pick up where we left off a few weeks ago. And again, I brought up that conversation, I'm not sure if it came out, because this is the first time we're going to talk about authority and standards.

So what's the standard? What's the authority? The process is very clear that the authority, that the power that we all trust in scripture, that's the standard that we live by. Roman Catholics will affirm that on the surface, but if you dig deep, it doesn't contain other faults.

And again, one of the controversial things, it's probably the most controversial thing I've said in regards to Catholicism is that I believe this is a fault. It's just a very big fault, but it's a fault nonetheless.

And what separates established Orthodox religion versus a cult is where the authority is vested. And so the authority within the high majority of these cults are usually vested in one person or one group.

That fits perfectly with Roman Catholicism. It is a cult that has invested ultimate authority within the offices of the Catholic system. Versus a Catholicism, for instance, where there's authority vested in three places.

Apparently, on all three branches of government, we have three main branches for the believer in terms of authority. You know what those are? What's that? Well, it's Trinity for sure, certainly. But let's start to write this Trinity as one of those, as God.

Then he goes to authority, obviously. What follows from that is Scripture, and then the Church. So you have these three areas of authority, God, Scripture, and then you have the Church, meaning all individual believers have authority that is vested in us by the Lord, through Scripture, for the preservation of truth, in the name of the Kingdom of God.

And so, again, there's three layers to it. Versus the Roman Catholic way, which they would say is Scripture is apparent, tradition, and the offices of the Church. And so I wouldn't say the offices of the Church are the processes.

I'd say the Church, meaning all of us, members of the body of Christ. Where the Roman Catholic would say the authority is vested in the offices of the Church, not in the Church itself, but in the offices of the Church, namely, Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests.

And that's a very distinction. And so what does it mean that Pope, or the Roman Catholics make up the Pope group?

That it's a direct descendant of Peter, and that Christ said that Peter was the last one that would be in charge. That's right.

And they call this apostolic presidency. I want to read to you what it says, in the Riverside Council's document, Constitution of the Master of Citadels. This is a quote from the book in chapter eight.

We therefore, for the preservation, safekeeping, and increase of the Catholic law, with the approval of the sacred council, do judge it necessary to propose a belief and acceptance of all the fables. So here's a very powerful declaration.

You have to hold this to be part of the universal church in the Roman Catholicism. In accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the universal church, the doctrine of the institution, the virtuity, and nature of the sacred apostolic presidency.

And so in order for you to be within the orthodox Roman Catholicism, you must accept as well the sacred apostolic presidency, which is the Pope. Specifically, the Apostolic Presidency. So it's not just a Pope, but the all-possessive Pope.

And it teaches on a number of goals, as well. I'll read this in sections here, and then in the next page we'll move forward. Regarding kind of the scouting of it, it says, we therefore teach in the area that where was the testament, the gospel, and the primacy and jurisdiction over the universal church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to the blessed Peter, and also by Christ the Lord.

So here's the thing. Christ had given primacy, jurisdiction, and authority over the universal church to St. Peter. So Matthew 16. Who do you say that I am? You remember Christ. So we got it as an apostolic signifying St. Peter.

And then he says, and you are Peter. You don't know what Peter means. It means little rock. And he says, you are Peter, little rock. And on this rock, so there's Petro, Petrus, two words for rock. One means little, one means big.

And that's rock mass versus what we mean as small rock. He says, you are Peter, small rock. And on this rock, big rock, I will build my church. And so it is the Roman Catholic who would say, well, Peter, Peter is called a rock.

That's not true. According to the Greek, Petrus was Petrus. Peter is a small rock. Which is part of the elegance of a heap. So here it was on the right in 1 Peter 2, that we are all living souls, little rocks, that are making up what?

This spiritual house for Christ, built on the foundation of Peter, but of Christ Jesus, who is self-supporting. And so we are this living temple. Each of us are little Petrus, little rocks, that make up this Petro, this rock mass, this house that is the church.

And so St. Peter is not, in scripture, spoken of as being the rock by which the church is built. Peter himself affirms in 2 Peter 2, that Christ is the rock. Christ is the foundation of the church, not himself.

What a perfect opportunity Peter had. He wrote two letters to declare his supremacy over the people of God. He didn't. He doesn't. Nowhere in scripture is Peter the supreme apostle, or the supreme pope.

You won't see it, you won't find it, because it's not a scriptural concept. But here according to what we have for God, St. Peter is the one who is giving his supremacy over, in the premises of jurisdiction, which is to say, that he has authority over the church on earth.

It goes on a little further than that. It says, quoting from the scripture, I will build my church, and as he has built it, thou art Peter, the small rock, and he became the small rock. You are Peter, and upon this rock, I will build my church.

I will give you to be the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and wherever thou shalt lie on earth, it shall be found also heaven. And wherever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loose also heaven. It says in scripture to justify the authority, the primacy of St. Peter.

But when we understand correctly, this is not talking about St. Peter as an individual, rather this is talking about the church having the keys to the kingdom. Not one individual, but rather the whole church, the whole of the believers, priestly, kingly, authority in the kingdom of God.

So it's not that the Pope has a supremacy, and it's not even the believers who have a supremacy, it's God who has a supremacy, and he's a good boss. He's a good king. The mind who has this agreement on earth, that everybody would agree on,.

God on earth, what would be the agreement with his own person? Who would he agree with?

Right? If the Pope is someone who has this authority alone, where is the agreement? The agreement, priestly solstice, is harmony. Priestly solstice is harmony alone. And so clearly this, the Leviticus, is going to have a vivid understanding of this.

It says, I'll leave it on a haphazard basis, but with the superiority of knowledge and literature,.

As it has been indefinitely registered by the Catholic Church, are there the reverses meaning for those who, while they disafford the form of government as established by Christ as Lord and His Church, deny that Peter, in his single person, this is important, for preferably to all the other apostles, whether they be separately or together, those endowed by Christ to be true and in proper privacy of jurisdiction, or on those who assert that the same privacy does not absolve any and is directly upon, unless Peter himself, upon the Church, and through the Church upon Peter as minister.

So they're apologetic and saying, well, there's some people who say that this was given to Peter, but that it was given to the Church. And then they try to say, no, that Peter sits above the rest, sits above all the other apostles.

But again, where do you find that? You don't see it in the Scripture. You don't see it in the Scripture. Remember, that all challenges Peter and reproduces in Acts chapter 10, where Peter's not dining with, this is one of the Gentiles.

And later on in Galatians, he kind of sends another jab at Peter, which is respectable, but he sends another jab at Peter and those who have that same mentality of seeing those who are part of the Jewish brethren as superior to those who are Gentile brethren.

And looking at circumcision as an issue, because that was one of the early debates between the Christian Church, between the Jewish Christians and those who were Gentile believers, was the issue of circumcision.

In Paul's experimentation, one of the main arguments in Galatians is about the issue of circumcision, really looking past circumcision and really talking about justification, are we justified by the Lord's Law or are we justified through Jesus Christ?

And so Peter almost affirms justification by faith, affirms justification through Christ, and not by the Lord's Law, not by, you know, circumcision. And we know this because in Acts 15, Peter and James and others affirm justification by faith.

That's what the Paul-Jerusalem Council, the councils all coming together on all things of this matter, and they affirm, in fact, that they are justified by faith. But the Roman Catholics, again, say that the discrimination was given not to the apostles as a whole, not to the church as a whole, but rather to the person of St. Peter.

It says, If anyone therefore shall say that the security of the apostles was not with the priests at all, in the apostles, and in the visible head of the whole church of the militant, or that the same rarity be these who promote Jesus Christ in primacy of arm only, and not of shrewd and pompous justification, let him be anathema.

Do you know the word anathema means? Cursed, separate, cast it off. That's what they mean by that. So if you affirm the supremacy of St. Peter, you are an anathema. An anathema is not just like a slap of the wrist.

It is a high form of judgment that the Roman Catholic Church can pronounce. It means that you are outside of the church. You are a heretic. You are a boss. There's no salvation. So to be anathematized is a pretty big deal in Roman Catholic service.

And if you don't affirm the supremacy of the ecstasy, you are an anathema. What they don't know, unfortunately, is that Paul did not analyze them in relationship. Why? Let's go there for a moment. He's sharing his dismay with the church in that they are so quickly following the way and the truth of the priesthood.

He says in verse 6, I am astonished that you are so quickly deserving of them who called you in the grace of Christ and are referring to a different gospel. Not that there is another one, but that there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

It's really important what Paul says here. He says, you know, some of you may fall to and maybe run away from the gospel to a different gospel. Not that there is a different gospel. That is to say, that surely the gospel needs to be discernible.

It's the only one we can use. And there are those who are trying to distort the gospel that we can't use at all. He goes on to say, in verse 8, that even if we or angels of heaven should preach to you of a gospel called according to the one we preach to you, let that be the first.

But if we probably refer to Daniel and the Apostles or to his companions, or angels of heaven because these are two authorities, right? You have the Apostles authority, and then you have the family authority and the angels.

So even if the Apostles start preaching something different, or if an angel came from heaven, don't believe it. Because that which was preached to you first is what was true. And that is the supreme rule of faith.

It is what was originally preached to you and it's the gospel. And it says, let him be a first. That is anathema. Let him be anathema. So if anyone comes to you preaching another gospel, a gospel that is outside of the gospel of grace, outside of justification by grace through grace, outside of death or resurrection of Christ, let that verse be anathema.

So does the Philippine Catholic Church teach justification, salvation, outside of grace? Yes. Yes. Do they affirm, or do they assort the gospel of Christ or of the church today? Yes. So the true ones who are anathemized according to Paul are those who preach the contrary gospel.

Okay? And how bold of them to assert that the anathemizing power is vested in Peter and his successors, the Pope, and that if you are to disagree with his authority, then you are anathemized. The authority here is different.

Paul is saying, if you assert the gospel of Christ, you're anathemized. Anything to do with the gospel is free. But what we have to say, if you even dare talk about dear leader, it's almost like non-freedom.

If you see Dr. Mitchell over for example, you have to have a picture of the dear leader everywhere, you know, in each room. And you can't even have a second guess. You always have to buy into what dear leader says.

And if you don't listen to dear leader, you're going to be cut off. You're going to be anathemized. You're going to be sent to their version of the gulag. And Roman Catholics have a spiritual version of this, where if you don't agree with your dear leader, you don't agree with our stance of authority.

You're anathemized. You're outside of the camp. So quickly, we can see what Roman Catholics believe in regards to the authority of the general figure to the Roman Catholic priory department of the Hymns of Supremacy.

This is important. The Catholic Church teaches that our Lord conferred upon St. Edith the first place of honor in jurisdiction and government of the whole church that the seeming spiritual authority has always resided in the posts of bishops of Rome.

So the focus was basically the bishop of Rome, the archbishop of Rome, the priory bishop of that place. And the success of St. Edith Catholic to be true followers of Christ, all Christians, both among clergy and laity, must be in the seat of Rome where Peter rules and in the person of his successor.

So what they've done is they've made a cult surrounding the successor of Peter, Peter's successor. Let me ask the same question that James White raises here. What do these statements mean? And what is Rome claiming concerning the gates for the claims that have been made here concerning the gates?

Does that sound like a cult? I reflect on this in all circles recalling Roman Catholicism as a cult, because it's a major religion, because there's 1 .2 million.

Adherents to Roman Catholicism who are under cult, under cult. The angel of Moses is Sir Augustus of Argonaut has 8 million followers. Does that make them not a cult? Do you see in regards to the claims being made in terms of you're not of Rome, you're not a true follower of Christ?

Is that a kind of terrible new state of salvation? Yeah. It says these true followers of Christ, all Christians, will open the clergy at late. Do you know what clergy means? The church office and the people.

Yeah, so clergy usually refers to church-oriented priests. Even people.

Who have been Protestantism, right? So even people who have been foreign to church, whether it be a pastor, maybe a minister, especially when you look at the clergy, as a minister, I am a clergy, and I have clergy privileges, and I have empowerment.

And the laity is usually a reference to the congregation. There's a distinction between the laity and the clergy. There's two classes of Christians, essentially. We're rather Protestant, so we see a distinction, a very small distinction, in that we're just simple servants of Christ.

We are under service of Christ. We are under service of people, and that pastors, clergy, we are simply under service of so we are under service of and we are under service of and we are simply service of people in church.

That is the only facet within the Seat of Rome. Anyone know what that phrase means, the Seat of Rome? S-E-E-I-S-E-A, the Seat of Rome. This is a historical phrase that I think has been used for hundreds of years in reference to this extreme indignity of a Roman proficient of Rome.

Now, when it comes to the Seat of Rome, it's referred to as, he's the final pastor. So the focus of his life is as an extreme pastor. He's the one who sees what's happening here. So I'm thinking of someone who's as high as a point.

This is what the word arc means. I assume you've heard the term archbishop. Arc is supposed to be a Greek word, arcane, meaning sheath, stone, and there's a, what are these, archvases on the roof, archvases.

And there's a stone there that kind of connects the two, and that's where we get the word arcane. It means this is created in that whole, all things together. And Christ is actually referred to in 1 John 1 as the arcane of creation.

He's the arcane of creation. Also, in Revelation chapter 14, Christ is referred to as the arcane of all creation, meaning that he is the center of all. He's this thing that's holding all things together in creation.