A polemical poem against Papism

[totorodaisuki]

"Popery Considered"

We don't need
A priest for confession
To God we should petition

The pope
Is a sinful man
He can't execute God's plan

The magisterium
If not infallible, you see
Sola Scriptura will set you free

Sin is not mortal or venial
To God, all sin is the same
Salvation is in Christ's name

The eucharist
It is not Christ's flesh
That is a papist wish

The Apostle Peter
Was not the first pope
If you think so, you're a dope

The Early Church
It was not Catholic at all
Just more wickedness since the Fall

Catholicism dates to the 3rd century
The True Church is invisible
It isn't tangible

The first Christians believed
All 5 Solas
They expunge the darkness

Catholics believe
That good works justify us
They believe they're pious

We are saved by grace alone
Through faith alone, you see
Christ alone made the blind see

Mary is in no way
An intercessor
It's Christ to whom we must surrender

Veneration of the saints
It is a heresy of the worst kind
On this point, Catholics are blind

Catholics worship Mary and the saints
Worship is for the Godhead alone
It is Christ who did atone

Apostolic succession
Is false absolutely
Apostolic doctrine is what matters, you see

Mary was not sinless
Nor was she always a virgin at all
These qualities are held by Christ alone, eternal

by Zachary Uram
(C) 2025

 

[Reformed Catholic]

To God, all sin is the same

Incorrect. See Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 150

Catholicism dates to the 3rd century

Also incorrect. Roman Catholicism as a religion, according to Nick Needham, starts after they formally anathematized the gospel at the counsel of Trent. The Reformers and Puritans looked with respect towards the Church even up to the Middle Ages (while not affirming their errors)

Catholics worship Mary and the saints

Wildly incorrect and a frankly cartoonish strawman of their position. You will never win a single debate while strawmanning your opponent’s position so hard

 

[Charles Johnson]

Also incorrect. Roman Catholicism as a religion, according to Nick Needham, starts after they formally anathematized the gospel at the counsel of Trent.

Stop and think about that. If Roman Catholicism didn't exist until the Counsel [sic] of Trent (1545-1563 A.D.), that means that Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, etc were separating themselves from a true church, and protesting against something that wouldn't exist for another few decades.

The Reformers and Puritans looked with respect towards the Church even up to the Middle Ages (while not affirming their errors)

They were actually highly critical of the church of the middle ages. Look up what Luther had to say about Biele, Thomas, Scotus, etc.

Wildly incorrect and a frankly cartoonish strawman of their position. You will never win a single debate while strawmanning your opponent’s position so hard

"Roman Catholics worship Mary and the saints" isn't a representation of their position, it's an accurate description of what they in fact do.

 

[John Nyberg]

Wildly incorrect and a frankly cartoonish strawman of their position. You will never win a single debate while strawmanning your opponent’s position so hard

The Hail Mary - Prayers - Vatican News

Read the Hail Mary on Vatican News. Prayer is the breath of Faith, the soul's dialogue with God.

www.vaticannews.va

Here is the full text of the Hail Mary. Did not Pope Leo pray this prayer during his first homily the other day? I am just a simple, high school educated reformed baptist, but I am smart enough to know that prayer is worship and worship belongs to God alone. I read the Hail Mary to my 7 year old and even he could tell it was idolatry. Of course they will equivocate when accused of violating the first and second commandments. Of course they will say there is a difference between venerating Mary, saints and images and worship. But their equivocation shatters as they trip over the Cornerstone.

 

[Andrew35]

Needs to be a limerick:

There once was a man from Chicago
Appointed to lead a farrago.
He flew straight from Peru
With a bishop or two
And a craving for guinea-pig taco.

1) Yes, it's original
2) Please, hold your applause.

 

[michael_topple]

There once was a son of perdition,
Who worked in Rome on a mission;
To lead folk astray,
To false gods to pray,
And expecting their total submission.

(Also my own)

 

[Ploutos]

Incorrect. See Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 150

These are not fair criticisms, nor are they charitable. In the line immediately before that, he is criticizing the Romanist distinction between mortal and venial sins. While we recognize that there are different degrees of heinousness to sin, we also recognize that all sins are equally damning in God's sight. James says that he who has broken the law in one point has broken it in all points. We don't even have to allow a degree of poetic license to see that his statement about all sin being the same is perfectly acceptable.

Also incorrect. Roman Catholicism as a religion, according to Nick Needham, starts after they formally anathematized the gospel at the counsel of Trent. The Reformers and Puritans looked with respect towards the Church even up to the Middle Ages (while not affirming their errors)

One can quibble about exactly when the early church started to go off the rails, but some of the errors of the Roman Catholic Church did exist in a nascent form rather early on. Again, this is not a fair or charitable criticism.

Wildly incorrect and a frankly cartoonish strawman of their position. You will never win a single debate while strawmanning your opponent’s position so hard

This is somewhat ironic, because this is exactly what you're doing in your reply. Not only are your criticisms less accurate than the original poem, but you are straw manning the OP bigtime. He never claimed to have an evangelistic purpose to this poem. For all we know, the PB is his primary intended audience!

 

[Reformed Catholic]

that means that Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, etc were separating themselves from a true church,

They would hate the title of separatist. Their whole point was that they wanted to reform the true church

Post automatically merged: May 12, 2025

They were actually highly critical of the church of the middle ages

Nonetheless, they did not have a “MacArthurite” view that the church died in the 3rd century for a thousand years and was revived in the Reformation. It was heavily corrupted without doubt, but the true church existed all along

Post automatically merged: May 12, 2025

it's an accurate description of what they in fact do.

Does worship not require intent? I fully admit that they heavily commit gross idolatry, but can you “accidentally” worship? Surely, some level of intent is required to worship, to be fair to the Papists

 

[Charles Johnson]

Does worship not require intent? I fully admit that they heavily commit gross idolatry, but can you “accidentally” worship? Surely, some level of intent is required to worship, to be fair to the Papists

The more pertinent question is "Does intent to worship require describing what you're doing as 'worship'?"

The answer to that question being the same as the answer to the question "If my son gets angry and hits another kid, but he calls it 'tickling,' was it hitting or tickling?"

 

[No Other Name]

They would hate the title of separatist. Their whole point was that they wanted to reform the true church

They may not have wanted to separate but they did in fact separate. And this happened long before Trent. Now if there is evidence Rome was still a true church albeit in error after the separations and before Trent, I would be most interested in learning how and why.

Does worship not require intent? I fully admit that they heavily commit gross idolatry, but can you “accidentally” worship? Surely, some level of intent is required to worship, to be fair to the Papists

Worship is the act of honoring and glorifying. It is possible to unknowingly honor and glorify someone or something else in a moment - to lose the significance of one's actions in the immediate context, but it is objectively not possible to do so long term without a purposeful intention to the act itself.

And as we all know from the First Commandment worship belongs to God and God alone.

And how "accidental" do you think it is?

I was told (as I am sure we all heard) that it is "not worship but veneration" and when pressed on the distinguishing difference it is "just like asking a friend to pray for you which you all do as well!" LOL yeah right

I have never in my life KNELT to a friend and PRAYED to a friend that they pray for me.

Take any Marian prayer and remove her name and insert your close brother at church and quickly you find it far less "accidental" than you seem to be presuming here.

 

[Ploutos]

The Basilica and National Shrine of Mary, Queen of the Universe



Sorry, what were we debating about Marianism again? Was it intent we were arguing about?

Then all the men who knew that their wives had made offerings to other gods, and all the women who stood by, a great assembly, all the people who lived in Pathros in the land of Egypt, answered Jeremiah: “As for the word that you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD, we will not listen to you. But we will do everything that we have vowed, make offerings to the queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her, as we did, both we and our fathers, our kings and our officials, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. For then we had plenty of food, and prospered, and saw no disaster. But since we left off making offerings to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have been consumed by the sword and by famine.” And the women said, “When we made offerings to the queen of heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, was it without our husbands' approval that we made cakes for her bearing her image and poured out drink offerings to her?”

 

[Wilhelmus à Broccoli]

If worship requires intent, every pastor who has warned against making your family/politics/sports/whatever an idol owes his congregation an apology.

They may not use the word worship, but the action is certainly worship.

 

[pianoviolin]

To God, all sin is the same

Wrong

The Early Church
It was not Catholic at all
Just more wickedness since the Fall

Catholicism dates to the 3rd century
The True Church is invisible
It isn't tangible

False. While there was always corruption and error in the church, the Church did not apostasize in totality in AD 250 (e.g. no one was saved apart from say, a few thousand people in each generation for 1500 years) to be resurrected in the mid-1500s - such thinking is anabaptist historical revisionism. Practices crept in gradually and became widespread over time - by the late 600s and 700s it got pretty bad. Yes, the medieval Church was very bad, but you don't even get transubstantiation dogmatized until 1215.

Nor was she always a virgin at all

I don't hold to the perpetual virginity of Mary. However, I allow it as a pious tradition so long as it is not dogmatized and Mary is not venerated/worshipped/idolized. The Second Helvetic Confession (written by Heinrich Bullinger, one of the best confessions in my opinion) calls Mary "ever-virgin." Whether it's a holdover from Romanism or not, I don't tend to think this is as big of an issue as some might make it. I do hold to the fact that relations within a marriage are good and holy, and for the sake of Joseph I interpret that Mary was not a perpetual virgin.

The first Christians believed
All 5 Solas

No, many held to proto-Protestant ideas. Certainly, sola grata, sola fide, and sola christus are small-c catholic teachings. Even in the midst of confusing you can clearly see a seed food of sola fide in writers like Chrysostom. The fine details of Sola Scriptura developed over time, as in the early days oral tradition and direct apostolic authority had a greater weight. The church received (not created) the canon, and yet we must acknowledge the process of canonization, how 24 of the 27 NT books were acknowledged extremely quickly, how the deuterocanon/apochrypha was never used to establish doctrine, etc. The canon did not fall down from the sky, but neither did the Church "create" the Bible.

Apostolic succession
Is false absolutely
Apostolic doctrine is what matters, you see

Many of the early Reformers asserted the importance of apostolic doctrine, yet also held to a form of apostolic (presbyterial) succession as normative! See Ministerial / Apostolic Succession in the Presbyterian Tradition. We are not independents.

We need to maintain a rational view of Church history that doesn't oversimplify things. You can be against Romanism and acknowledge the catholicity and apostolicity of the Reformation. You can support the Church Fathers when they are right and oppose them when they err.

Ecclesiology and church history is one of the key areas where the magisterial Reformed (historic Reformed, Anglican, and Lutheran) differ from most modern Baptist-influenced Reformed and Baptists. Whatever that is good and worthy within the Roman Catholic Church pre-Trent is our rightful heritage. Let us not be ashamed of our heritage, as the Western Catholic Church pre-Reformation was our church, despite the flaws and evils within. The church has never died - there was always a remnant.

We (the magisterial Protestants) are the Western Catholic Church, purified by the Gospel.

 

[Ploutos]

Wrong

The criticism about all sins being the same was addressed above in post #7.

 

[Pomopu]

I think limerick's require the anapestic rhythm, or if not a series of dactyls/amphibrach's.

There once was a son of perdition,
Who worked in Rome on a mission;
To lead folk astray,
To false gods to pray,
And expecting their total submission.

(Also my own)

What you did well was hit the AABBA rhyming scheme. But the meter isn't quite there. May I suggest some adjustments?
"there once was a son of perdition" works, and it's all the ideal 9 syllables.
"Who worked in Rome on a mission," doesn't quite hit it, because "Rome" comes as the fourth syllable whereas an anapest is two short followed by a long, and it also is neither amphibrach or a dactyl. I think, "Who in Rome did some work on a mission" makes it work, 'who in ROME did some WORK on a MISSION," notice the short-short-long throughout, which creates that anapestic galloping rhythm.

"To lead folks astray" is poor from a structural standpoint because, again, is neither amphibrach, dactyl, or anapest, which creates the gallop. Maybe, "To lead nice folks astray," which also is the 6 syllable ideal appropriate for the 3rd and 4th lines of a limerick.
Same issue with, "To false gods to pray," so probably, "To false idols to pray," and idols keeps the pleasant consonance of "the D" sound.

Usually, limerick's don't end as you'd expect. So, instead of "And expecting their total submission," which is dry and frankly boring, we can correct the count of it with something like,

"Drenched in red with the devil's permission."

The modified form which fits the limerick structure would be as follows:

"There once was a son of perdition,
Who in Rome did some work on a mission--
To lead nice folks astray,
(To false idols to pray)
Drenched in red with the devil's permission!"

 

[John Nyberg]

There once was a son of perdition,
Who in Rome did some work on a mission--
To lead nice folks astray,
(To false idols to pray)
Drenched in red with the devil's permission!"

Nice work

 

[Pomopu]

Nice work

Haha thanks, limericks are hilarious though often salacious. But Michael deserves most of the credit, I just smoothed the meter out.

 

[Ploutos]

There once was a man named John Knox
Who said that the queen should kick rocks
So they gave him an ora
And made him labora
Which kept him from tending his flocks.

 

[michael_topple]

I think limerick's require the anapestic rhythm, or if not a series of dactyls/amphibrach's.


What you did well was hit the AABBA rhyming scheme. But the meter isn't quite there. May I suggest some adjustments?
"there once was a son of perdition" works, and it's all the ideal 9 syllables.
"Who worked in Rome on a mission," doesn't quite hit it, because "Rome" comes as the fourth syllable whereas an anapest is two short followed by a long, and it also is neither amphibrach or a dactyl. I think, "Who in Rome did some work on a mission" makes it work, 'who in ROME did some WORK on a MISSION," notice the short-short-long throughout, which creates that anapestic galloping rhythm.

"To lead folks astray" is poor from a structural standpoint because, again, is neither amphibrach, dactyl, or anapest, which creates the gallop. Maybe, "To lead nice folks astray," which also is the 6 syllable ideal appropriate for the 3rd and 4th lines of a limerick.
Same issue with, "To false gods to pray," so probably, "To false idols to pray," and idols keeps the pleasant consonance of "the D" sound.

Usually, limerick's don't end as you'd expect. So, instead of "And expecting their total submission," which is dry and frankly boring, we can correct the count of it with something like,

"Drenched in red with the devil's permission."

The modified form which fits the limerick structure would be as follows:

"There once was a son of perdition,
Who in Rome did some work on a mission--
To lead nice folks astray,
(To false idols to pray)
Drenched in red with the devil's permission!"

Crikey, I'd never realised how scientific limericks are - but I can totally see how your version flows better. Thanks so much

 

[Reformed Catholic]

False. While there was always corruption and error in the church, the Church did not apostasize in totality in AD 250 (e.g. no one was saved apart from say, a few thousand people in each generation for 1500 years) to be resurrected in the mid-1500s - such thinking is anabaptist historical revisionism. Practices crept in gradually and became widespread over time - by the late 600s and 700s it got pretty bad. Yes, the medieval Church was very bad, but you don't even get transubstantiation dogmatized until 1215.


I don't hold to the perpetual virginity of Mary. However, I allow it as a pious tradition so long as it is not dogmatized and Mary is not venerated/worshipped/idolized. The Second Helvetic Confession (written by Heinrich Bullinger, one of the best confessions in my opinion) calls Mary "ever-virgin." Whether it's a holdover from Romanism or not, I don't tend to think this is as big of an issue as some might make it. I do hold to the fact that relations within a marriage are good and holy, and for the sake of Joseph I interpret that Mary was not a perpetual virgin.


No, many held to proto-Protestant ideas. Certainly, sola grata, sola fide, and sola christus are small-c catholic teachings. Even in the midst of confusing you can clearly see a seed food of sola fide in writers like Chrysostom. The fine details of Sola Scriptura developed over time, as in the early days oral tradition and direct apostolic authority had a greater weight. The church received (not created) the canon, and yet we must acknowledge the process of canonization, how 24 of the 27 NT books were acknowledged extremely quickly, how the deuterocanon/apochrypha was never used to establish doctrine, etc. The canon did not fall down from the sky, but neither did the Church "create" the Bible.


Many of the early Reformers asserted the importance of apostolic doctrine, yet also held to a form of apostolic (presbyterial) succession as normative! See Ministerial / Apostolic Succession in the Presbyterian Tradition. We are not independents.

We need to maintain a rational view of Church history that doesn't oversimplify things. You can be against Romanism and acknowledge the catholicity and apostolicity of the Reformation. You can support the Church Fathers when they are right and oppose them when they err.

Ecclesiology and church history is one of the key areas where the magisterial Reformed (historic Reformed, Anglican, and Lutheran) differ from most modern Baptist-influenced Reformed and Baptists. Whatever that is good and worthy within the Roman Catholic Church pre-Trent is our rightful heritage. Let us not be ashamed of our heritage, as the Western Catholic Church pre-Reformation was our church, despite the flaws and evils within. The church has never died - there was always a remnant.

We (the magisterial Protestants) are the Western Catholic Church, purified by the Gospel.

Every single word here is gold. And sadly neglected or minimized by many on this board. I genuinely think this is one of the results of baptistic influences in modern Presbyterianism, as many theologians have pointed out.

If Reformed Presbyterian theology was in the middle between Anglican high church errors errors on one end, and baptistic errors on the other end, most of the people on this board pick up pitchforks when someone wishes Merry Christmas, but then explain away or minimize much more heinous baptistic errors, such as the ones you’ve rightfully pointed out.

Baptists are fine people, but baptistic corruptions into Reformed theology should not be ignored. We need to Make historic Presbyterianism Great Again.

 

[No Other Name]

 

[Ploutos]

Every single word here is gold. And sadly neglected or minimized by many on this board. I genuinely think this is one of the results of baptistic influences in modern Presbyterianism, as many theologians have pointed out.

If Reformed Presbyterian theology was in the middle between Anglican high church errors errors on one end, and baptistic errors on the other end, most of the people on this board pick up pitchforks when someone wishes Merry Christmas, but then explain away or minimize much more heinous baptistic errors, such as the ones you’ve rightfully pointed out.

Baptists are fine people, but baptistic corruptions into Reformed theology should not be ignored. We need to Make historic Presbyterianism Great Again.

I don't think this is a fair representation of the board either collectively or at the level of most of the individuals on here. It would be a valid criticism if true, but to me this looks like a blatant straw man.

 

[No Other Name]

I don't think this is a fair representation of the board either collectively or at the level of most of the individuals on here. It would be a valid criticism if true, but to me this looks like a blatant straw man.

I am shocked to learn from those posts that Baptists had any influences at all in Presbyterianism.

I thought you all tolerated our mistakes sins while you hid your secret handshake going to conferences to identify which attendees had the true Superior Theology TM

 

[John Nyberg]

 

[TheBoringBaptist]

You'll see the new pope looking at you like this when he gets whiff of this masterpiece:

Post automatically merged: May 14, 2025

Yep

 

[pianoviolin]

We need to Make historic Presbyterianism Great Again.

Amen.

This not meant to be any shade towards Baptists. My mom went to a Baptist church and greatly benefitted from it. Often, the kindest and warmest Christians are Baptists, whereas Presbyterians can be cold and overly intellectual. (Baptists have the best potlucks as well).

I just want us Presbyterians and Reformed to cherish our distinctives more: infant baptism, covenant theology, Real Presence in the Eucharist (via a spiritual eating on the true body and blood of Christ as expressed in Scots Confession and the Belgic Confession), baptismal efficacy (not regeneration, but neither a bare symbol or mere profession of faith), low church liturgy (like the Lord's Prayer, confession & assurance of pardon) and the careful predestinarian position taken at the Synod of Dort (which are much more nuanced that pop-Calvinism or the anachronistic "TULIP" abbreviation that leads to all sorts of misconceptions, such as those who attack all non-strict particularists as "four-pointers").

Over the past 150 years, we have lost a lot of our sacramentology and tradition, and many of our churches have been heavily influenced by baptistic influences as well as the Enlightment and rationalism. (The great Charles Hodge, for example, rejected Calvin's view of the Supper b/c it just didn't make sense to him. It grieves me that he would do such a thing, reducing Reformed theology to a set of rational propositions!)

To be fair to members of PB, it's not as bad on here as on other platforms. But I mourn that I was never taught about Real Presence in the Eucharist and how taking it (in faith) strengthens our union with Christ, nor of baptismal efficacy or what infant baptism actually means. I understand why Lutherans don't like us Reformed. Every time the Lutherans and Reformed united (i.e. in Prussia), the Lutherans lost their distinctives. And every time the Reformed and (particular) Baptists unite, we also lose many of our distinctives. I respect Baptists and want them to uphold their distinctives. But we Presbyterians and Reformed must recover our distinctives, looking to our history, tradition, and men of old, like Calvin, Vermigli, Ursinus, Bullinger, Davenant, etc.

 

[TheBoringBaptist]

I didnt know little irrelevant Baptist like me had so much power over Presbyterians like this. I guess I might as well turn Presbyterians into their final form:

BORING Presbyterians

 

[Ploutos]

I didnt know little irrelevant Baptist like me had so much power over Presbyterians like this. I guess I might as well turn Presbyterians into their final form:

BORING Presbyterians

Final form? We started out that way!

It's a feature, not a bug.

 

[John Nyberg]

And every time the Reformed and (particular) Baptists unite, we also lose many of our distinctive

I think this is a pretty sad statement. We should seek greater unity in evangelicalism, not less. I see the unity between Baptists and Presbyterians on this board as a Testament to the Spirits work in uniting the body. No one here is advocating for an evangelical mega denomination. That's simply never going to happen. However, as much as it depends on us we need to seek to show unity. If the Reformed/Presbyterian churches cannot hold on to their distinctives it is their own fault, not the fault of their baptist brothers. One day, the Lord will descend and our "distinctives" will melt away with the elements.

 

[No Other Name]

One day, the Lord will descend and our "distinctives" will melt away with the elements.

Careful, brother. Our distinctives (no quotes around it for a reason) are based on his eternal Word.

The grass withers, the flower fades,
but the word of our God will stand forever. - Is. 40:8

I think our different views will melt away with the physical elements of the old corruptible universe, but not the basis of the distinctives that we shaped our different views.