Never Be The Same
The Bad Popes Lyrics
Jump to: Overall Meaning ↴ Line by Line Meaning ↴
He was running from the law
And listening through the walls
And taking all the notes he could
And waiting through it all
And when the morning light came in
He got down on his knees
No, you'll never be the same
Never be the same, never be the same
If you're waiting for a door to close
Or someone to come in
Someone to take the blame for you
When the verdict, it comes in
If you want to do the best
Then hurt what you love most
Start praying to the father and the son and the holy ghost
No, you'll never be the same
Never be the same, never be the same
And the days tick off quietly
And the sun beats down so slow
If your cares ever drift away
And you wake up in the hole
No, you'll never be the same
Never be the same, never be the same
Take all that you can carry
And all you can't then leave
And build yourself a shelter
From the memories that you keep
No need to surround yourself
With the sins that you have made
Just keep the faith and keep it till the judgment day
No, you'll never be the same
Never be the same, never be the same
The lyrics of The Bad Popes' song "Never Be the Same" tell a story about a person who is on the run from the law and living in fear. The singer is constantly vigilant, listening through walls and gathering information to stay one step ahead. They reach a breaking point when they realize that their precarious lifestyle may lead to their downfall. This realization is expressed in the line, "He said I think this will be the end of me." The repetition of the phrase "never be the same" emphasizes the irreversible change that this person feels is coming.
The second paragraph explores themes of accountability and taking responsibility for one's actions. The person longs for someone to take the blame for them or for a convenient opportunity to escape punishment. However, they come to understand that true growth and progress can only be achieved by facing the consequences of their choices. The reference to praying to the father, son, and holy ghost suggests a plea for guidance and strength to endure the challenges they are facing.
The third paragraph reflects a sense of desolation and the passage of time. The days are marked quietly, and the sun's slow descent intensifies the feeling of a stagnant existence. There is a sense of being trapped or confined in a metaphorical hole, perhaps as a result of the choices made or the situations they find themselves in. The repetition of "never be the same" reinforces the idea that there is no going back to a previous state of innocence or normalcy.
The final paragraph advises the person to let go of their burdens and only carry what is necessary. The memories and sins weigh them down, and it is suggested that they create a shelter, both physically and emotionally, to protect themselves from the negative influences of their past. They are encouraged to keep their faith and hold on until the day of judgment, suggesting that redemption or a fresh start may be possible if they persevere and maintain their belief in something greater than themselves. The lyrics assert that, despite the challenges and hardships faced, the person will "never be the same," indicating that profound transformation is inevitable.
Line by Line Meaning
He was running from the law
He was evading the consequences of his illegal actions
And listening through the walls
He was eavesdropping on others' conversations
And taking all the notes he could
He was collecting as much information as possible
And waiting through it all
He was enduring the hardships and challenges
And when the morning light came in
And when a new day began
He got down on his knees
He humbled himself
He said I think this will be the end of me
He believed that his actions would lead to his downfall
No, you'll never be the same
No, your life will forever be changed
Never be the same, never be the same
Never return to your previous state or circumstances
If you're waiting for a door to close
If you're expecting a significant change or opportunity
Or someone to come in
Or for someone to provide a solution or help
Someone to take the blame for you
Someone to bear the consequences on your behalf
When the verdict, it comes in
When the final judgment or decision is made
If you want to do the best
If you want to achieve success
Then hurt what you love most
Then sacrifice what is dearest to you
Start praying to the father and the son and the holy ghost
Begin seeking spiritual guidance and support
And the days tick off quietly
And time passes quietly
And the sun beats down so slow
And the sun moves slowly across the sky
If your cares ever drift away
If your worries ever fade away
And you wake up in the hole
And you find yourself in a difficult situation
Take all that you can carry
Take everything you can hold onto
And all you can't then leave
And leave behind what you cannot take
And build yourself a shelter
And create a refuge for yourself
From the memories that you keep
To protect yourself from painful memories
No need to surround yourself
No need to be surrounded by
With the sins that you have made
With the mistakes and wrongdoings you have committed
Just keep the faith and keep it till the judgment day
Just maintain your belief and hold onto it until the final reckoning
Lyrics © O/B/O APRA AMCOS
Written by: Jef Chandler
Lyrics Licensed & Provided by LyricFind
@rolandovelasquez135
Please do not compare Peter to the Bad Popes! Please do not do that. When Peter denied Jesus, under, humanly speaking, desperate circumstances, as Jesus was being condemned, he repented immediately in tears and with a broken heart.
"The Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had told him, 'Before a rooster crows today, you will deny Me three times.'
And he went out and wept bitterly."
Luke 22:62
The Bad Popes on the other hand led, quite simply, sinful, fleshly lives and were spectacularly perverse men who certainly did not love Jesus and never repented. Peter most certainly did.
To compare Peter with these men is to deceive unlearned Roman Catholics, i.e., the great majority. It's not fair and it's not right.
'The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him."
Proverbs 18:17
@luismejia5224
David wrote by inspiration some words from Jesus and Peter quote them in Acts 2, So, who is in front of Jesus, who will not leave Jesus in the grave, Jesus is with great Joy in the presence of who?
Acts 2: 21 And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.”’ (...)
25 For David says about Jesus: ‘I keep Jehovah constantly IN FRONT OF ME, for HE IS AT MY RIGHT HAND that I may never be shaken. 26 On this account my heart became cheerful and my tongue rejoiced greatly. And I will reside in hope; 27 because YOU WILL NOT LEAVE ME in the Grave, nor will you allow YOUR LOYAL ONE to see corruption. 28 You have made life’s ways known to me; YOU WILL FILL ME with great joy IN YOUR PRESENCE.’
34 For David did not ascend to the heavens, but he himself says (in Psalm 110:1), ‘Jehovah said to my Lord [Jesus]: “Sit at my right hand 35 until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet
39 For the promise is to you and your children, and to all those who are far away, to all those whom Jehovah our God may CALL TO HIMSELF.
Joel 2:32
And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved; For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who escape, just as Jehovah has said, The survivors WHOM JEHOVAH CALLS.”
Mark 13:20 Jesus said:
In fact, unless Jehovah had cut short the days, no flesh would be saved. But on account of THE CHOSEN ONES WHOM HE HAS CHOSEN, HE HAS CUT short the days.
@c.Ichthys
@Luis Mejia
The Trinity is not "Roman". The Trinity is an immutable reality. One Body in three persons. Not separate; not 3 individual "gods".
God the Father
God the Son (The Word)
God the Holy Spirit
Just as Jesus declared, "He who sees me sees the Father "
Jesus is The Word. Read Gospel of John
1 "In the beginning was the Word ,
and the Word was with God ,
and the Word was God .
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came to be through him ,
and without him nothing came to be.
What came to be
4 through him was life,
and this life was the light of the human race;
5 the light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness has not overcome it.
........
14 And the Word became flesh
and made his dwelling among us,
and we saw his glory,
the glory as of the Father’s only Son,
full of grace and truth."
-----------
Jesus is The Word, made flesh in the incarnation. He is our Emmanuel (means "God with us).
Since Jesus is God, and God is Father, they who see Jesus, see also the Father. They are one.
God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit
One body in three persons
Not separate. Amen!
@c.Ichthys
infallibility is misunderstood. It doesn't mean anything a Pope does or says is infallible.
The Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that the pope cannot err when speaking ex cathedra in defining a doctrine of Christian faith or morals .
Definition of ex cathedra : with the full authority of office (especially that of the Pope, implying infallibility as defined in Roman Catholic doctrine).
The last time papal infallibility was used, was 1950.
In the 103 years since Vatican I, this authority has been used only once, in 1950, when Pope Pius XII solemnly defined The new dogma of the Virgin Mary's bodily assumption to Heaven.
If a Pope behaves badly or in undisciplined manner, we do not accept such contrary behavior.
Just as St. Paul rebuked St. Peter's (1st Pope) behavior, so too can any "bad" or misguided Pope be rebuked.
And in The Church's history there have been some immoral Popes, but the Holy Spirit prevented any of them from speaking/teaching ex cathedra!
@thepalegalilean
@@Raycurlee23
These being not in scripture and actually the contrary.
My friend, you just told me you don't understand Scripture.
Matthew 1:25 shows Mary and Joseph had a traditional marriage after the birth of Jesus.
I never said their marriage was anything outside of the Traditional. What Catholics have historically argued for is that Mary was a perpetual virgin and had no other children.
I can only think of two reasons as to why people are hung up over this issue
a) They have been indoctrinated into a certain belief perspective held on the realm of tribalism alone or
b) they are obsessed with sex and corrupting/slandering holy things.
For charity's sake, I will assume the former in your case.
I wouldn’t tell anyone they have a reason to believe because of certain pre existent beliefs
Incorrect. I regularly tell people what to believe because beliefs have consequences. When you grasp and enshrine a concept, you MUST accept what comes by that enshrinement.
For instance, I often call Protestantism Proto-Atheism, because it is. Protestantism enshrined an individuality that says the only thing that matters in the Christian faith is that the personal relationship that the Christian has with His God. This meant that the Christian has no need for Tradition, or the priest, or the Eucharist (literally God Himself), or any Ecclesial Authority. He merely needs himself.
In a tangible way, the protestant Christian is in a position where Jesus Christ can be remade in their image. That's why Protestants don't worship God; but merely believe in Him.
From these assumptions, atheism comes to be a natural and interchangeable consequence of this. In very meaningful ways, David Hume is as much a Protestant as Martin Luther himself.
@Victor-co2xj
@SpecialCrunch Great question. A pope can eventually teach errors of fact to the Church. But a pope can never teach harmful error to the Church. We just need to learn what is authoritatively taught by Vatican I, authorized theologians, and doctors of the Church such as St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Francis de Sales.
They explain that, in their day-to-day teaching, the popes don't enjoy infallibility, and might make mistakes concerning matters of fact. Yet it is inconceivable that popes will teach things that run against the faith. It is always safe to follow the pope. Just to stay on one example, we have the papal theologian Cardinal Franzelin:
"The Holy Apostolic See, to which the safeguarding of the deposit of faith and the attendant duty and office of feeding the universal Church for the salvation of souls have been divinely entrusted, can prescribe theological pronouncements — or even pronouncements to the extent they are connected with ones that are theological — as teachings to be followed, or it can censure them as teachings not to be followed, not solely with the intention of infallibly determining truth by a definitive pronouncement, but also necessarily and designedly apart from that aim, either without qualification or by way of limited supplements, to provide for the safety of Catholic doctrine (cf. Zaccaria, Antifebronius vindicatus, vol. II, diss. V, chap. 2, no. 1). Although infallible truth of doctrine may not be present in declarations of this kind (because, presumably, the intention of determining infallible truth is not present), nevertheless, infallible safety is present. I speak of both the objective safety of declared doctrine (either without qualification or by way of limited supplements, as mentioned) and the subjective safety of declared doctrine, insofar as it is safe for everyone to adopt it, and it is unsafe and impossible for anyone to refuse to adopt it without a violation of due submission towards the divinely established magisterium." (John Baptist Franzelin, Tractatus de Divina Traditione et Scriptura, 2nd ed. [Rome: Ex Typ. S.C. de Propaganda Fide, 1875], Thesis XII, Principle VII.)
But wasn't a pope anathematized for heresy? Yes, it was pope Honorius. That is explained in the very video above. Dr. Hahn shows that his condemnation was not for teaching heresy to the Church, but for not strongly fighting against some heretics on a certain occasion. So he was a "heretic" in a specific sense that is not commonly used today. But Honorius never taught harmful error to the Church. This has also been explained at length by authorized theologians. For example, check Louis-Nazaire Bégin, "La Primauté et l’Infaillibilité des Souverains Pontifes" (Québec: L. H. Huot, 1873), on chapter 6. See also Paul Bottalla, "Pope Honorius before the Tribunal of Reason and History" (London: Burns, Oates, 1868).
This was all confirmed by the first Vatican Council. The case of Honorius was specifically brought up, and the Fathers in union with Pius IX determined that no pope has ever taught heresy to the Church. Vatican I teaches that the popes will always remain "unblemished." They have the "gift of truth and never-failing faith, ... so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error." Other popes confirmed the same principle, explaining that the daily exercise of the pope's non-infallible authority is endowed with security so that we can feel safe following them. (See for example Leo XIII's Divinum Illud 5 and Pius XI's Mortalium Animus 9.)
@rebn8346
"Much to the surprise of many Protestants I have spoken to over the years, the Catholic Church actually acknowledges Christ to be our one and absolutely unique mediator who alone can reconcile us to the Father in a strict sense. In his classic, The Catholic Catechism, Fr. John Hardon explains:
… the Incarnation corresponds to mediation in the order of being, and the Redemption (remission of sin and conferral of grace) is mediation morally.
This kind of mediation is incommunicable. No one but the Savior unites in himself the divinity, which demands reconciliation, and the humanity, which needs to be reconciled.
Protestants generally agree with us on this point. However, Fr. Hardon goes on to say:

Nevertheless, lesser and subordinate mediators are not excluded. The question is what purpose they serve and in what sense do they mediate. They can help the cause of mediation in the only way that human beings (or creatures) can contribute to the work of salvation, namely, by their willing response to grace; either better disposing themselves or others for divine grace, or interceding with God to give his grace, or freely cooperating with grace when conferred.
The “lesser and subordinate mediators” is where the trouble starts. And yet, the context of I Timothy 2:5 demonstrates Fr. Hardon’s point. In the first two verses, St. Paul commands “supplications, prayers and intercessions to be made for all men…” Intercession is a synonym for mediation. Hebrews 7:24-25 refers to Jesus acting as our one mediator at the right hand of the Father and refers to him as intercessor:.."
Tim Staples
@larrybedouin2921
Hello!
It was Peters confession of faith that Jesus would build his church on.
Not on Peter himself.
He saith unto them, "But whom say ye that I am?"
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God.
And Jesus answered and said unto him, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."
{Matthew 16:15-17}
Peter wouldn't even step foot in room untill 42 A.D.
@c.Ichthys
@Conformity To Fact
And in Scripture Abraham is called "Father Abraham" ... St. Paul is called "Father". Many instances where a man is called "father".
That's the problem with protesters of God's word, who twist the scriptures.
When Jesus said, "call no man father", the message is that we are not to place anyone above God the Father. (Btw: it was Abba). Just like when Jesus said "you must hate your mother and father". So do you think Jesus would make us sin, by disobeying the Commandment "to honor our father and mother"? And when God said "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated".
In Semetic language there is no word for hate. The actual word means "love less", but translated as "hate" in English. So God loved Jacob but loved Esau less.
So, lesson: we are to honor and love our parents, and we can certainly call our earthly parent "father" and "mother".
We are to love God above all persons and all things.
@conformitytofact5224
@Claire I appreciate your feedback, and am always open to honest dialogue.
The verse that I quoted was in relation to a religious context, do not call religious leaders father (Rabi), you have one religious father (leader of the faith, that is God), and you will clearly see that in Matthew chapter 23, Jesus is pronouncing woe judgments against the religious leaders, this is the context, please read all of Matthew 23 in full.
As a Christian I do not "twist the scriptures", corrupt the scriptures, nor do I deny the Inspiration of the scriptures; please excuse me for saying, but you do not seem to familiar with catholic doctrine, and what the catholic church states about the scriptures, and why Christians protest against this.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia
(1) New Testament
Christ gave His disciples no command to write, but only to teach: "going therefore, teach ye all nations, . . . teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matt., xxviii, 19-20). "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you" (John, xx, 21).
Source; Plain Facts for Fair Minds
“If Christ had intended His religion to be propagated and preserved by means of a book, can any conceivable reason be urged why He should not have written one?”
Source; Plain Facts for Fair Minds
“The fact is, that this blind faith in the Bible, as Protestants have in the book, got together for us English-speaking people under King James, but trusted in as if it had been brought to earth visibly and publicly by an angle from heaven, is an act far more unreasonable and groundless than any which they even charge us Catholics with making.”
The Catholic Church denies the inspiration of the New Testament.
@dawnfiegen3249
Woah. As a Protestant seeking to become a Catholic, this was powerful an deep!
@glennlanham6309
we are waiting for you....
@gloriacheon5952
No better person to answer all questions regarding our Catholic Faith than Dr. Scott Hahn!
Thank God for him 🙏💒
@jotunman627
The Pope never proposes that he does not sin, he goes to confession weekly...A total of 83 (out of 266) Popes have been recognized universally as canonized saints, including all of the first 35 Popes (31 of whom were martyrs) .....there is no human organization as holy as the Papacy....even then there where 8 bad popes, but these bad Popes never changed doctrines on faith and morals to suit themselves....
@raggedyman2257
... and the gates of Hell shall not withstand it (Matt 16:18).
@tonysaid6184
Yes, exactly. But there is a crucial distinction to be made between heresy and schism and all other serious sins. Pertinacious heresy (and also schism) always exiles the heretic from membership in the Church, cutting him/her off from the True Vine, the Mystical Body of Christ, while all other serious sins can be forgiven in the tribunal of penance. Heresy means that you are not a Catholic, and there is no forgiveness of sins, just as there is no salvation, outside the Catholic Church . A non Catholic obviously cannot hold an office in the Church of Christ. This is just simple logic and common sense...
There have been 40 + antipopes in the history of the Church, but only one that was deposed for heresy, and then, as I understand it, only for heretical leanings. But we now have a whole series of men sitting in the papal chair who are manifest, public and pertinacious (unrepentant) heretics, and who for 50+ years have permitted every sort of liturgical and moral scandal in flagrant violation of Canon Law and the Bull Quo Primum. Who can deny this who knows exactly the infallibly defined doctrines of the Church, especially her salvation doctrine, and who has read this Bull of St. PIus V. If we say that they are true popes, then we are saying that a true Vicar of Christ can hold and/or teach doctrinal error as a private person. But Church teaching will not allow this. For as a private person, he is subject first to the Divine Law (and secondarily to Canon Law) which automatically excommunicates pertinacious heretics, because heresy is a sin directly against the veracity of God.. The Papacy as an INSTITUTION is exempt from error, specially protected by Christ, so that error will not be taught or even implied by His Vicar in His Name. And therefore if a person who has been elected to the papacy begins to hold and publicly teach error - even as a private person - of which he does not repent, he cannot legitimately occupy the papacy. A pope must be an orthodox Catholic, "in season or out of season", or he is not a pope.
@jackholman5008
The papcy advocated slavery and indulgence in wealth it has been baught many times and if ot is infallabe how come it is so corrupt till this day
@Angelus01
Absolutely so well articulated!
@jacksonb.valentine8208
I’m a very recent catechumen so please excuse me if this is a heresy, but I view the Pope as I do the Bible. The Lord works through man to ensure his message is put forth, but the man is still present. The bad in any of the past popes is no more a surprise as rules on proper slave management was in the Bible. Humanity will always have sin.
@jaredr8284
As someone who is not Catholic, but is sincerely investigating the tradition, I’m not encouraged by videos or comments that trash the pope. Im not saying this is one of those videos. Speaking generally. I’m thankful for honest criticism of the Pope as it has helped develop my understanding that you can be Catholic and disagree with the Pope sometimes as well. But as an evangelical, I would encourage anyone who is Catholic to make all criticisms in love with charitable speech because I know all too well a world where people care nothing of holy and God given authority. The crumbling view of authority and the lifting up of individual thought as authority, in my opinion, has been detrimental to the evangelical community. The authority of the church is honestly one of the biggest draws for many. Be careful to not dismantle or shake its foundation too much or people might miss out on that beauty.