Archive for the ‘Society’ Category

Today’s Ecumenicalism

November 17, 2017

The days in which we live seem to be witnessing the attempted conglomeration of old-standing institutions. The liberals want to reinvent our government into a modern democracy/socialist country, and in the religious world there is a push to combine the major “Christian” institutions into one “mother” organization. This is largely led by the Roman Catholic Church and the U.N.’s World Council of Churches. Italics and underlines added for emphasis.

“The animosity and resentments left by the Reformation only began to heal after the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, with the start of an ecumenical dialogue aimed at promoting Christian unity.

There are still some doctrinal disputes. But Pope Francis says that while theologians iron out their differences, the two churches can work together on social issues like caring for the poor, migrants and refugees, and combating persecution of Christians.

Jens-Martin Kruse, pastor of the Lutheran Church in Rome, says Francis’ approach has been dubbed “walking ecumenism.”

“We are moving together, this is a new experience that we are together on this walk,” Kruse adds. “Walking together, we find that we have lots of things more in [common than] we thought before.”

That raises the question of whether the Reformation might have been a complete misunderstanding.

“Maybe not a misunderstanding,” says Kruse, “but today, we are at the point where a lot of these topics from Luther are common for Catholics and Lutherans.” (“The Pope Commemorates the Reformation that Split Western Christianity”,

In an interview in Crux, Auxiliary Bishop William Kenney of Birmingham, England — co-chair of the international dialogue between the Lutheran World Federation and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity stated thus:

The consensus of the 1999 document on justification stated, if I’ve understood it correctly, that the reasons for the Catholics condemning the Protestant positions and vice-versa no longer hold, and if ever each Church did hold the position that the other said they did, what is now true is that neither Church no longer holds that position. In other words, the Reformation was all a big misunderstanding! (

A misunderstanding? Hundreds of thousands suffered and died throughout the hundreds of years of the dark and middle ages, and it was a misunderstanding? The Catholic Church has clearly stated throughout its history that it (and most especially the Pope) is infallible, and cannot change.

No, the Church cannot change its doctrines no matter how badly some theologians may want it to or how loudly they claim it can. The doctrines of the Catholic Church are the deposit of faith revealed by Jesus Christ, taught by the apostles, and handed down in their entirety by the apostles to their successors. Since revealed truth cannot change, and since the deposit of faith is comprised of revealed truth, expressed in Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the deposit of faith cannot change. (

This is also from the Catholic Answers website:

The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other “Bible Christians” often confuse the charism of papal “infallibility” with “impeccability.” They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true.

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church.

An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.

The Protestant Reformation called Catholic doctrines into question, that was the whole point of numerous church councils during those days. Would a church council be considered an infallible institution? Would it not be considered as delivering “infallible” doctrine? I believe so. So, if this is all a misunderstanding, then why did the councils, most especially including Trent, condemn every essential belief of Protestantism, and if this was just a misunderstanding on the part of all those cardinals, bishops and popes, how could they have been so ignorant? Here is just a taste of the kind of anathema’s that were hurled against Protestant doctrines from popes and councils:

Council of Trent’s condemnations:

CANON XIX.-If anyone saith, that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or, that the ten commandments nowise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIV.-If anyone saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

CANON X.-If anyone saith, that all Christians have power to administer the word, and all the sacraments; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If anyone saith, that in the Roman church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If anyone saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

CANON I.-If anyone denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

CANON I.–If anyone saith, that in the Catholic Church Penance is not truly and properly a sacrament, instituted by Christ our Lord for reconciling the faithful unto God, as often as they fall into sin after baptism; let him be anathema.

CANON I.–If anyone saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.

CANON V.–If anyone saith, that it is an imposture to celebrate masses in honour of the saints, and for obtaining their intercession with God, as the Church intends; let him be anathema.

CANON VII.–If anyone saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.–If anyone saith, that, in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy by divine ordination instituted, consisting of bishops, priests, and ministers; let him be anathema.

Exsurge Domine, Condemning the Errors of Martin Luther, Pope Leo X – June 15, 1520 — “These errors have, at the suggestion of the human race, been revived and recently propagated among the more frivolous and the illustrious German nation. We grieve the more that this happened there because we and our predecessors have always held this nation in the bosom of our affection. For after the empire had been transferred by the Roman Church from the Greeks to these same Germans, our predecessors and we always took the Church’s advocates and defenders from among them. Indeed it is certain that these Germans, truly germane to the Catholic faith, have always been the bitterest opponents of heresies, as witnessed by those commendable constitutions of the German emperors in behalf of the Church’s independence, freedom, and the expulsion and extermination of all heretics from Germany. Those constitutions formerly issued, and then confirmed by our predecessors, were issued under the greatest penalties even of loss of lands and dominions against anyone sheltering or not expelling them. If they were observed today both we and they would obviously be free of this disturbance. Witness to this is the condemnation and punishment in the Council of Constance of the infidelity of the Hussites and Wyclifites as well as Jerome of Prague. Witness to this is the blood of Germans shed so often in wars against the Bohemians. A final witness is the refutation, rejection, and condemnation no less learned than true and holy of the above errors, or many of them, by the universities of Cologne and Louvain, most devoted and religious cultivators of the Lord’s field. We could allege many other facts too, which we have decided to omit, lest we appear to be composing a history.

No one of sound mind is ignorant how destructive, pernicious, scandalous, and seductive to pious and simple minds these various errors are…

Therefore we, in this above enumeration, important as it is, wish to proceed with great care as is proper, and to cut off the advance of this plague and cancerous disease so it will not spread any further in the Lord’s field as harmful thorn-bushes. We have therefore held a careful inquiry, scrutiny, discussion, strict examination, and mature deliberation with each of the brothers, the eminent cardinals of the holy Roman Church, as well as the priors and ministers general of the religious orders, besides many other professors and masters skilled in sacred theology and in civil and canon law. We have found that these errors or theses are not Catholic, as mentioned above, and are not to be taught, as such; but rather are against the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church, and against the true interpretation of the sacred Scriptures received from the Church.”

Due to disagreement with the Roman establishment by various groups throughout history, the Roman Catholic Church has been a persecuting church throughout her history.

The “Edict of the Emperors Gratian, Valentinian II, and Theodosius I” of Feb. 27, AD 380, established Roman Catholicism as the state religion and said, in part…

“We order those who follow this doctrine to receive the title of Catholic Christians, but others we judge to be mad and raving and worthy of incurring the disgrace of heretical teaching, nor are their assemblies to receive the name of churches.  They are to be punished not only by Divine retribution but also by our own measures, which we have decided in accordance with Divine inspiration.” (Sidney Z. Ehler, John B. Morrall, trans. And eds., Church and State Through the Centuries (London, 1954), p. 7)

The history of the inquisition and the protestant reformation have largely been forgotten in our times. Here is a brief reminder of the persecution Christians had to endure from the monomaniacal, arrogant Catholic bureaucracy.

Nearly 400 years before the Inquisition would be established by Gregory IX, Pope Nicholas I (858-67) encouraged the King of Bulgaria, a new convert to what he thought was “Christianity”, to force Rome’s religion upon his subjects:

“I glorify you for having maintained your authority by putting to death those wandering sheep who refuse to enter the fold; and… congratulate you upon having opened the kingdom of heaven to the people submitted to your rule. A king need not fear to command massacres, when these will retain his subjects in obedience, or cause them to submit to the faith of Christ; and God will reward him in this world, and in eternal life, for these murders.”

(Cormenin, History of the Popes, p. 243 as cited in R.W. Thompson, The Papacy and the Civil Power, New York, 1876, p. 244)

Not satisfied with damning the Protestants theologically (the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent contain more than 100 anathemas against Protestant beliefs), Pope Paul III wanted to destroy them physically.  He offered the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V of Spain, “1,100,000 ducats, 12,000 infantry, 500 horses, if he would turn his full force against the heretics.”  The Catholic emperor was only too happy to have a reason to bring the rival Protestant princes of Germany into subjection and “to crush Protestantism and give to his realm a unified Catholic Faith that would, he thought, strengthen and facilitate his government.”(Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Vol. VI, p. 453)

Pope Gregory IX (1227-41) declared it the duty of every Catholic “to persecute heretics.” A heretic was anyone who did not give complete allegiance to the Roman Catholic Church. Such persons were to be tortured, imprisoned, and slain.  Disloyalty to the pope was the same as treason, so closely were state and Church allied. “Of eighty popes in a line from the thirteenth century on,” writes de Rosa, “not one of them disapproved of the theology and apparatus of Inquisition.  On the contrary, one after another added his own cruel touches to the workings of this deadly machine.”(Peter de Rosa, Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy, Crown Publishers, 1988, pp. 175-76)

“Neither sex, nor age, nor rank, have we spared,” says the leader of the war against the Albigenses; “we have put all alike to the sword.”(Ranke’s History of the Popes, Vol. 1, p. 24)

“Whenever one of the Papal states fell to the armies of the new Italy and the prisons were opened, the prisoner’s conditions were said to be indescribable…for more than six centuries without a break, the papacy was the sworn enemy of elementary justice.”(Peter de Rosa, Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy, Crown Publishers, 1988, p. 175)

The following is a sample of facts carefully presented by Halley and still found in copies sold in bookstores today, but which were eliminated from the special Crusade editions:

“[The Albigenses] preached against the immoralities of the [Catholic] priesthood, pilgrimages, worship of saints and images… opposed the claims of the Church of Rome; made great use of the Scriptures… By 1167 they embraced possibly a majority of the population of South France… In 1208 a crusade was ordered by Pope Innocent III; a bloody war of extermination followed, scarcely paralleled in history; town after town was put to the sword and the inhabitants murdered without distinction of age or sex… within 100 years the Albigenses were utterly rooted out.

[Two centuries later] between 1540 and 1570 no fewer than 900,000 Protestants were put to death in the Pope’s war for the extermination of the Waldenses.  Think of monks and priests directing, with heartless cruelty and inhuman brutality, the work of torturing and burning alive innocent men and women, and doing it in the Name of Christ, by the direct order of the “Vicar of Christ”!

…on the night of August 24, 1572, 70,000 Huguenots, including most of their leaders, were massacred [St. Bartholomew’s massacre]. Some 200,000 [more] perished as martyrs…[and] 500,000 fled to Protestant countries.”(Henry H. Halley, Pocket Bible Handbook, Chicago, 1944, pp. 608-13)

Did you know that Rome opposed America’s founding?

Popes had openly declared Rome’s opposition to the United States and its freedom-granting constitution from the moment of the nation’s birth.  Pius IX did the same.  The Catholic World frankly expressed the Roman Catholic view of the U.S. form of government:

“…we do not accept it, or hold it to be any government at all… If the American Republic is to be sustained and preserved, it must be by the rejection of the principle of the Reformation, and the acceptance of the Catholic principle…” (Catholic World, August 1871, p. 755)

In 1864, in Quanta Cura, Pius IX denounced what he called—“that erroneous opinion most pernicious to the Catholic Church, and to the salvation of souls, which was called by our Predecessor, Gregory XIV, the insanity (deliramentum): namely, “that the liberty of conscience and of worship is the peculiar(or unalienable) right of every man, which should be proclaimed by law, and that citizens have the right to… openly and publicly express their ideas, by word of mouth, through the press, or by any other means.”” (R. W. Thompson, The Papacy and the Civil Power, New York, 1876, pp. 721-727 esp. 722)

These false and perverse opinions [of democracy and individual freedom] are so much the more detestable, by as much as they… hinder and banish that salutary influence which the Catholic Church, by the institution and command of her Divine Author, ought freely to exercise, even to the consummation of the world, not only over individual men, but nations, peoples, and sovereigns.” (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864) … YET…

“I come to proclaim… the message of human dignity, with its inalienable human rights… [as] a pilgrim in the cause of justice and peace… as a friend of the poor… who are seeking… the deep meaning of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” (Pope John Paul II at Miami, September 10, 1987, in the initial speech of his “Second Patoral Visit” to the U.S.)—(National Catholic News Service, ed., John Paul II, “Building Up the Body of Christ,” Pastoral Visit to the United States, Ignatius Press, 1987, p. 9)

Romanism is synonymous with Despotism.

“Our absolutist system, supported by the Inquisition, the strictest censorship, the suppression of all literature, the privileged exemption of the clergy, and the arbitrary power of bishops, cannot endure any other than absolutist governments…” (J. H. Ignaz von Dollinger, The Papacy and the Council, (London, 1869), p. 23)

The Concordat between Pius IX and Ecuador of September 16, 1862, established Roman Catholicism as the state religion and forbade other religions.  All education was to be “strictly controlled by the Church.” A later law declared that “only Catholics might be regarded as citizens of Ecuador.” (Sidney Z. Ehler, John B. Morrall, trans. and eds., Church and State Through the Centuries, London, 1954, p. 273)

“While the state has some rights, she has them only in virtue and by permission of the superior authority… [of] the Church…” (The Catholic World, July 1870, vol. Xi, p. 439)

“Our absolutist system, supported by the Inquisition, the strictest censorship, the suppression of all literature, the privileged exemption of the clergy, and the arbitrary power of bishops, cannot endure any other than absolutist governments…” (J. H. Ignaz von Dollinger, The Papacy and the Council, (London, 1869), p. 23)

“No civil government, be it a monarchy, an aristocracy, a democracy… can be a wise, just, efficient, or durable government, governing for the good of the community, without the Catholic Church; and without the papacy there is and can be no Catholic Church.” (Dr. Brownson, highly-regarded nineteenth-century Catholic journalist, Brownson’s Quarterly Review, Jan. 1873, Vol. I, p. 10.)

“There is only one remedy for this evil (over scrupulous conscience), and that remedy is absolute and blind obedience to a prudent director. Choose one, consult him as often as you desire, but do not leave him for another. Then submit punctiliously to his direction. His conscience must be yours for the time being. And if you should err in following him, God will hold him, and not you responsible.” (Explanation of Catholic Morals, 24).

With this in mind, what do Christians have to face should Rome rise in power again?

In 1864, Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors condemned “the whole existing view of the rights of conscience and religious faith and profession.”  The syllabus said it was, “a wicked error to admit Protestants to equal political rights with Catholics, or to allow Protestant immigrants the free use of their worship; on the contrary, to coerce and suppress them is a sacred duty, when it has become possible… the Church will, of course, act with the greatest prudence in the use of her temporal and physical power, according to altered circumstances…” (J. H. Ignaz von Dollinger, The Papacy and the Council, (London, 1869), pp. 14-15)

History shows that while the Catholic Church is not in power, it will act meekly and subversively. When the church has the primacy of the power, then the persecutions begin. Catholics are often quick to state their comforting idea that the Church never changes. This should be regarded as both a promise and a warning to us.

Catholic viewpoint–“The Inquisition is, in its very nature, good, mild, and preservative.  It is the universal, indelible character of every ecclesiastical institution; you see it in Rome, and you can see it wherever the true Church has power.” (Comte Le Maistre, 1815, Comte Le Maistre, Letters on the Spanish Inquisition (Boston, 1843), p. 22, as cited in R. W. Thompson, The Papacy and the Civil Power, New York, 1876, p. 82-83)

Even with these facts of history, many well-known Christian leaders still seek unity with the Catholic Church.

“I don’t know anyone more dedicated to the great fundamental doctrines of Christianity than the Catholics.” (W.A. Criswell, former president Southern Baptism Convention, David Beale, Southern Baptist Convention, House on the Sand, pp. 142-43; Dallas Morning News, August 19, 1978)

“I’ve found that my beliefs are essentially the same as those of orthodox Roman Catholics.” (Billy Graham, McCall’s, January 1978)

“The BGEA [Billy Graham Evangelistic Assoc.] acquired the printing rights [for a special edition] of…the classic Henry H. Halley Bible Commentary entitled, Pocket Bible Handbook… It described [Rome’s] martyrdom of millions… [in its 1962 Billy Graham Crusade Edition] the Graham Association… removed all these pages…” (Citing Halley’s Bible Handbook, Billy Graham Crusade ed., special ed. Printed by permission of Zondervan Publishing House for the Grason Company, cited in Wilson Ewin, Today’s Evangelicals Embracing the World’s Deadliest Cult, Quebec Baptist Missions, 1994, p. 57)

“It’s time for Protestants to go to the shepherd [the pope] and say, ‘What do we have to do to come home?’” (Robert Schuller, Los Angeles Herald Examiner, September 19, 1987, Religion page)

The Bible predicts a coming “harlot” church which will enslave the world and murder God’s people. Here are some of the identifying characteristics of this system:

Revelation 17:1  “And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: (2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. (3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. (4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: (5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. (6  And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.”

PIETY–…A “Church of God” and city on seven hills…

“…hence, one understands the central place of Rome in the life of the Church today and the significance of the title, Roman Catholic Church, the Church that is universal, yet focused upon the ministry of the Bishop of Rome.  Since the founding of the Church there by St. Peter, Rome has been the center of all Christendom.” (Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Encyclopedia, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 1991, p. 842)

“It is within the city of Rome, called the city of seven hills, that the entire area of Vatican State proper is now confined.” The Catholic Encyclopedia (Thomas Nelson, 1976), s.v. “Rome.”

ROYALTY–…Colors of Purple and Scarlet…

“Cappa Magna

A cloak with a long train and a hooded shoulder cape… it was purple wool for bishops; for cardinals, it was scarlet watered silk (for Advent, Lent, Good Friday, and the conclave, purple wool); and rose watered silk for Gaudete and Laetare Sundays; and for the pope, it was red velvet for Christmas Matins, red serge at other times.

Cassock (also Soutane)

The close-fitting, ankle-length robe worn by the Catholic clergy as their official garb… The color for bishops and other prelates is purple, for cardinals scarlet…” (Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Encyclopedia, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 1991, pp. 175, 178)

POWER … reigns over the kings of the earth …

Innocent III (1198-1216) reigned over Christendom with terror… for close on twenty years, he crowned and deposed sovereigns, put nations under interdict, virtually created the Papal States across central Italy from the Mediterranean to the Adriatic.  He had not lost a single battle.  In pursuit of his aims, he shed more blood than any other pontiff.” (Peter de Rosa, Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy, Crown Publishers, 1988, p. 73)

In his desire to put Otho of Saxony on the German throne, Innocent wrote:

“By the authority which God has given us in the person of St. Peter, we declare you king, and we order the people to render you, in this capacity, homage and obedience.  We, however, shall expect you to subscribe to all our desires as a return for the imperial crown.” (Cormenin, History of the Popes, p. 459)

“One eighteenth century historian counted 95 popes who claimed to have divine power to depose kings and emperors.  Historian Walter James wrote that Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) “held all Europe in his net.” (Walter James, The Christian in Politics, Oxford University Press, 1962, p. 47)

Gregory IX (1227-41) thundered that the pope was lord and master of everyone and everything.  Historian R.W. Southern declared: “During the whole medieval period there was in Rome a single spiritual and temporal authority [the papacy] exercising powers which in the end exceeded those that had ever lain within the grasp of a Roman emperor.” (R.W. Southern, Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages, Vol. 2, Pelican History of the Church series, Penguin Books, 1970, pp. 24-25)

RICHES … golden cup(chalice) in her hand…

“The fabulous treasure of Lourdes [France], whose existence was kept secret by the Catholic Church for 120 years, has been unveiled…Rumors have been circulating for decades about a priceless collection of gold chalices, diamond-studded crucifixes [a far cry from the bloodstained cross on which Christ died], silver and precious stones donated by grateful pilgrims.

After an indiscreet remark by their press spokesman this week, church authorities agreed to reveal part of the collection… some floor-to-ceiling cases were opened to reveal 59 solid gold chalices alongside rings, crucifixes, statues and heavy gold brooches, many encrusted with precious stones.

Almost hidden by the other treasures is the “Crown” of Notre Dame de Lourdes, made by a Paris goldsmith in 1876 and studded with diamonds.

Church authorities say they cannot put a value on the collection.  “I have no idea,” says Father Pierre-Marie Charriez, director of Patrimony and Sanctuaries.  “It is of inestimable value…”

Across the road is a building housing hundreds of [antique] ecclesiastical garments, robes, miters, and sashes—many in heavy gold thread…

“The Church itself is poor,” insists Father Charriez.  “The Vatican itself is poor.”” (The European, April 9-12, 1992, p. 1)

“The pectoral cross [suspended by a chain around the neck, and worn over the breast by abbots, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and the pope] should be made of gold and… decorated with gems…” (Robert Broderick, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Thomas Nelson, 1976, p. 466)

Petrarch, poet laureate of the empire, described the papal court in Avignon scornfully as “the shame of mankind, a sink of vice, a sewer where is gathered all the filth of the world.  There God is held in contempt, money alone is worshipped and the laws of God and men are trampled underfoot.  Everything there breathes a lie: the air, the earth, the houses and above all, the bedrooms.”  Referring to Avignon as “the Babylon of the West,” Petrarch declared:

“Here reign the successors of the poor fisherman of Galilee… loaded with gold and clad in purple, boasting of the spoils of princes and nations.  Instead of holy solitude we find a criminal host… instead of soberness, licentious banquets… instead of the bare feet of the apostles… horses decked in gold and fed on gold, soon to be shod with gold, if the Lord does not check this slavish luxury.” (Colman J. Barry, O.S.B., ed., Readings in Church History, vol. 1, From Pentecost to the Protestant Revolt (Newman Press, 1960), pp. 470-71)

At the time of Mexico’s Civil War, the Roman Catholic Church there owned “from one-third to one-half of all the land of the nation [and about one-half of all the property of Mexico City].  Its revenues from tithes, Masses, and the sale of devotional articles such as statues, medals, rosaries, and the like, amounted to between six and eight million dollars annually, while its total revenues reached the astronomical figure of twenty million dollars… This drain on the poor country of Mexico was equal to the operating expenses of the entire United States government during these same years.” (Emmet McLoughlin, An Inquiry into the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln (The Citadel Press, 1977), p. 70)

Nino Lo Bello, former Rome correspondent for Business Week, calls the Vatican “the tycoon on the Tiber” because of its incredible wealth and worldwide enterprises.  His research indicates that it owns fully one-third of Rome’s real estate and is probably the largest holder of stocks and bonds in the world, to say nothing of its ownership of industries from electronics and plastics to airlines and chemical and engineering firms. (Nino Lo Bello, The Vatican Empire (Trident Press, 1968), p. 186 and jacket)

DRUNKENNESS … drunk with the blood of martyrs …

In his History of the Inquisition, Canon Llorente, who was the Secretary to the Inquisition in Madrid from 1790-92 and had access to the archives of all the tribunals, estimated that in Spain alone the number of condemned exceeded 3 million, with about 300,000 burned at the stake. (R. W. Thompson, The Papacy and the Civil Power, New York, 1876, p. 82)

To these three million victims [documented by Llorente] should be added the thousands upon thousands of Jews and Moors deported from their homeland… In just one year, 1481, and just in Seville, the Holy Office [of the Inquisition] burned 2000 persons; the bones and effigies of another 2000… and another 16,000 were condemned to varying sentences. (Emilio Martinez, Recuerdos [Memoirs] de Antano, CLIE, 1909, pp. 105-06)

A leading nineteenth-century Catholic professor of Church history — “Through the influence of Gratian… and unwearied activity of the popes and their legates since 1183, the view of the Church had been…[that]every departure from the teaching of the Church, and every important opposition to any ecclesiastical ordinances, must be punished with death, and the most cruel of deaths, by fire…

Innocent III declared the mere refusal to swear, and the opinion that oaths were unlawful, a heresy worthy of death, and directed that whoever differed in any respect from the common way of life of the multitude should be treated as a heretic.

Both the initiation and carrying out of this new principle must be ascribed to the Popes alone…It was the Pope who compelled bishops and priests to condemn the heterodox to torture, confiscation of their goods, imprisonment, and death, and to enforce the execution of this sentence on the civil authorities, under pain of excommunication.

From 1200 to 1500 the long series of Papal ordinances on the Inquisition, every increasing in severity and cruelty, and their whole policy towards heresy, runs on without a break.  It is a rigidly consistent system of legislation; every Pope confirms and improves upon the devices of his predecessor.  All is directed to the one end, of completely uprooting every difference of belief…

It was only the absolute dictation of the Popes, and the notion of their infallibility in all questions of Evangelical morality, that made the Christian world…[accept] the Inquisition, which contradicted the simplest principles of Christian justice and love to our neighbor, and would have been rejected with universal horror in the ancient Church.” (J. H. Ignaz von Dollinger, The Papacy and the Council, (London, 1869), p. 190-93)

PAGANISM … full of names of blasphemy … abominations and filthiness …

W.H.C. Frend, Emeritus Professor of Ecclesiastical History, in his classic The Rise of Christianity, pointed out that by the middle of the fifth century the Church “had become the most powerful single factor in the lives of the peoples of the empire.  The Virgin and the saints had replaced the [pagan] gods as patrons of cities.” (W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity, Philadelphia, 1984, p. 773)

Pope Leo I (440-61) boasted that St. Peter and St. Paul had “replaced Romulus and Remus as the city’s [Rome’s] protecting patrons.” (H. Chadwick, The Early Church, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1976, p. 243)

During a 1984 visit to New Guinea, Pope John Paul II presided over an outdoor celebration of the “New Mass” for natives.  The Mass involved “dancers who pranced to the altar for the offertory procession, throwing up clouds of orange and yellow smoke, a pagan custom to ward off evil spirits… [while] an 18-year-old college student read a passage of Scripture at the papal altar wearing her traditional clothes [nude above the waist].” The New York Times said the Mass was indicative of—

‘The Roman Catholic Church’s efforts to make its services more universal by integrating into its ritual and liturgy elements of the cultures of the peoples to whom Western missionaries brought their religion.’ (The Roman Catholic, June-July 1984, p. 32)

Virginia Barta, president of the Franciscan Sisters in the USA, explains that: “We can be Catholic and at the same time open… to recognize the mystical truth in all religions.” (Chicago Sun Times, Dec. 24, 1989)

The National Catholic Reporter favorably reported on a somewhat recent convention in Brazil:

“One[leader] held a silver scepter of Candomble, the worship of African gods… Another, a Baptist minister, displayed a drawing of the world traversed by a crucifix… Beside him, a voodoo priest from Haiti raised a pot of incense, spreading good energy over the crowd.  And a pastor from the United Presbyterian Church read from Paul’s letter to the Galatians.

The celebrants surrounded a Brazilian Catholic brother who lifted up a priest’s stole. Each kissed the colorful band of cloth.” (National Catholic Reporter, October 9, 1992, p. 13)

At another convention, “Priests in Roman collars talked with saffron-robed Buddhist monks, and Rastafarians engaged in animated discussions with turbaned Sikhs… On one night, followers of the neo-pagan Wicca[witchcraft] religion performed a full-moon ritual…” (Los Angeles Times, September 5, 1993, p. A1)

“The Moslems together with us adore the one merciful God.” Lumen Gentium

“It is interesting to note how often our Church has availed herself of practices which were in common use among pagans…Thus it is true, in a certain sense, that some Catholic rites and ceremonies are a reproduction of those pagan creeds; but they are the taking of what was best from paganism, the keeping of symbolical practices which express the religious instinct that is common to all races and times” (Externals of the Catholic Church, 156).

To review the question of the Catholic Church’s historical position on Protestantism, keep in mind that it was established by numerous papal bulls and church councils that Protestants were “heretics” and were worthy of “extirpation”. The church cannot now claim that it was a misunderstanding, for this was the belief heralded by hundreds of bishops and cardinals, and numerous popes throughout the centuries. To say that it was a misunderstanding is to make these ‘illustrious’ churchmen into fools, and specifically contradicts the authoritative position of the infallible church through the centuries, even before Protestantism became a reality. This was the infallible doctrine of that church for most of its history.

 “…pronouncements by the Pope on faith or morals are infallible, irreformable, ‘in no way in need of the approval of others, and do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal.’” Also, the same is said of “…the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor [the pope], they exercise the supreme teachings office.” (Austin Flannery, general editor, Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, Costello Publishing, 1988, Vol. 1, p. 380)

“The burning of the Marian martyrs is an act that the Church of Rome has never repudiated… Never has she repented of her treatment of the Vaudois and the Albigenses… of the wholesale murders of the Spanish Inquisition… of the burning of the English Reformers. We should take note of that fact and let it sink down in our minds.  Rome never changes.” (Anglican Bishop J.C. Ryle, 1885)

Even if these were not weighty issues, the fact remains that God has told His people to stay out of the Roman harlot system:

Revelation 18:4 “And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. (5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.”

Aside from her violent and repressive practices, the one thing that should keep all of God’s people far away from her is her penchant for idolatry.

Exodus 20:4 “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: (5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;”

But Rome’s whole system is dependent upon a large variety of images and idols for their worship.

 “The first notice,” says Gibbon, “of the use of pictures is in the censure of the Council of Illiberis, three hundred years after the Christian era.” (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 9, pp. 117-118)

“The first introduction of a symbolic worship,” continues the historian, “was in the veneration of the cross and of relics… But a memorial more interesting than the skull or the sandals of a departed worthy, is a faithful copy of his person and features, delineated by the arts of painting or sculpture… By a slow though inevitable progression, the honors of the original were transferred to the copy; the devout Christian prayed before the image of a saint, and the pagan rites of genuflection, luminaries, and incense, again stole into the Catholic Church… The use, and even the worship, of images was firmly established before the end of the sixth century.” (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 9, p. 119)

Writing of the seventh century, we find Gibbon stating that, “the throne of the Almighty was darkened by a cloud of martyrs, and saints, and angels.” (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 9, p. 262)

The Council of Constantinople, A.D. 754, summoned by Constantine Copronymus, condemned the worship, and also the use, of images.  The Council of Nice, in Bithynia, A.D. 786, also known as the Second Nicene Council, convoked by the fair but flagitious Irene, the widow and murderess of Leo IV, reversed the sentence of the Council of Constantinople, and restored the worship of images. Leo V condemned these idols to a second exile, but they were recalled by the Empress Theodora, A.D. 842. (Du Pin, Eccles. Hist., Vol. II, Councils of the Church, p. 32; Second Council of Nice, Du Pin, Vol. II, p. 32, 43)

The churches of France, Germany, England and Spain, held a middle course.  They condemned the adoration of images, but they adopted the perilous course of tolerating them in their churches as “the memorials of faith and history.” (Mosheim, cent. VIII, part II, ch. III, sec. XIV; Gibbon, vol. IX, p. 171)

“When we give or receive Christmas gifts; or hang green wreaths in our homes and churches, how many of us know that we are probably observing pagan customs…the god, Woden, in Norse Mythology, descends upon the earth yearly between December 25th and January 6th to bless mankind…But pagan though they be, they are beautiful customs. They help inspire us with the spirit of ‘good will to men’, even as the sublime service of our Church reminds us of the ‘peace on earth’ which the babe of Bethlehem came to bestow” (Externals of the Catholic Church, 140).

In equal measure with Rome’s open promotion of idolatry is its disgust concerning the Scriptures.

Following is an excerpt from an address given by the Cardinals to Pope Pius III, and is preserved in the National Library in Paris, Folio No. 1068, Vol. 2, pp. 650-651:

“Of all the advice that we can offer your holiness we must open your eyes well and use all possible force in the matter, namely to permit the reading of the gospel as little as possible in all the countries under your jurisdiction. Let the very little part of the gospel suffice which is usually read in mass, and let no one be permitted to read more. So long as people will be content with the small amount, your interest will prosper; but as soon as the people want to read more, your interest will fail. The Bible is a book, which more than any other, has raised against us the tumults and tempests by which we have almost perished. In fact, if one compares the teaching of the Bible with what takes place in our churches, he will soon find discord, and will realize that our teachings are often different from the Bible, and oftener still, contrary to it.”

Pope Clement XI’s Constitution Unigenitus (1713) denounced the following Jansenist propositions presented by Pasquier Quesnel:

“Christians are to sanctify the Lord’s Day with reading Godly books, more particularly the Holy Scriptures.”  Clement’s judgment: “CONDEMNED!”

“To pull the New Testament out of the hands of Christians is to shut the mouth of Christ against them.”  “CONDEMNED!”

“To forbid Christians the reading of the Holy Scriptures and especially of the Gospel is to forbid the use of the light by the children of light and to punish them with a kind of excommunication.” “CONDEMNED!”

“It is for the bishops, with whom the apostolic doctrine resides, suitably to instruct the faithful entrusted to them in the correct use of… the New Testament… by giving them translations of the sacred texts which are equipped with necessary and really adequate explanations.” (Austin Flannery, general editor, Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, Costello Publishing, 1988, Vol. 1, pp. 764-65)

Vatican II acknowledges:

“Tradition that comes from the apostles makes progress… there is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on…

Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.  And Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit… Hence, both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence…

It is clear, therefore, that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others.  Working together, each in its own way under the action of the Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.” (Austin Flannery, general editor, Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, Costello Publishing, 1988, Vol. 1, pp. 754-756)

The Council of Tarragona of 1234 ruled that:

“No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned lest, be he a cleric or a layman, he be suspected until he is cleared of all suspicion.” -D. Lortsch, Historie de la Bible en France, 1910, p.14. See also: The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Scripture.

The Catholic Mass is regarded as a perpetual re-sacrifice of Christ on every Catholic altar, every day, and that the participants commit the abomination of cannibalism.

The First Apology of Justin

Chapter LXVI.-Of the Eucharist.

“And this food is called among us Eucharistia, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”

Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, can. 1): “If any one saith that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema” (Denzinger, “Enchir.”, 10th ed. 1908, n. 948)

1413: “By the consecration the TRANSUBSTANTIATION of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity [cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651.].” (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

But Scripture states that Christ was sacrificed once for all.

Hebrews 10:10 “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

Hebrews 6:4 “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, (5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, (6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”

To re-sacrifice Christ is to shame Him. Not to mention the fact that it is a very arrogant claim, to boast of bringing God down to earth in the form of a wafer of bread upon a priest’s summons.

Romans 10:6 “But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) (7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)”

Previously I provided quotes about Rome’s ties to paganism. It has many practices connected to magic and pagan superstition as well.

“Inquisitors who interrogated accused witches were advised by demonologists first to protect themselves by wearing a sacramental amulet that consisted of salt consecrated on Palm Sunday and blessed herbs, pressed into a disk of blessed wax.” (Guiley, Rosemary Ellen, “The Encyclopedia of Witches and Witchcraft.,” New York, Facts on File, Inc. (1989), p. 301)

“One of the Catholic Church’s most powerful weapons against the supernatural was holy water. Holy water is a mixture of salt and water that has been blessed by a priest. Witches, vampires, and other nasty evil creatures were considered violently allergic to holy water. During the Medieval and Renaissance periods, holy water was sprinkled on homes to drive away “pestilential vapours” and evil spirits, on farm animals to protect them from bewitchment, and on crops to promote fertility and protect them from witches. Like a sort of milkman, the holy-water carrier came by regularly, ensuring no one was caught short of divine protection. When storms hit, villagers would race to the local church for extra holy water to drive witches away and to protect against lightning.” (Guiley, Rosemary Ellen, “The Encyclopedia of Witches and Witchcraft.,” New York: Facts on File, Inc. (1989), pp. 357-8)

“I was reading in my Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary and came across the “consecration of a church”. It reads: “Each permanent church should be consecrated, an act which dedicates it to sacred use. The consecrator is a bishop, usually the bishop of the diocese where the church is located, The highlights of the consecration are the sprinkling of the exterior walls, the tracing of the alphabet on the floor , the anointing of the door posts with chrism, the consecration of at least the main altar, the anointing of the walls at twelve consecration crosses, the celebrating Mass”” [Maryknoll : Catholic Dictionary page 152 © 1965 The Maryknoll Fathers Nihil Obstat Rt. Rev. Msgr. James T. Clark Censor Librorum November 27, 1964 Imprimature +Jerome D. Hannan Bishop of Scranton November 28, 1964]

“The Church of God regulates divine worship for us with wisdom and experience of centuries. Her sacrifice is the first great act of worship. Then there are her ceremonies, rites, and observances; the use of Holy Water, blessed candles, ashes, incense, vestments, her chants, and fasts and feasts, the symbolism of her sacraments. This is the language in which, as a Church, and in union with her children, she speaks to God her adoration, praise and thanksgiving. This is her religion, and we practice it by availing ourselves of these things and by respecting them as pertaining to God” (Explanations of Catholic Morals, 111).

The sad fact of the matter is that from the very beginning, when the “church” was legalized and condoned by the Roman government, it became corrupted by the ancient pagan customs and practices under the auspices of them having been “Christianized” by the church’s authority.

A brilliant military commander, Constantine took control of the empire in the West, while his ally Licinius conquered the East.  Together they signed the Edict of Milan in 313, restoring to Christians full rights as citizens.  Will Durant, a purely secular historian with no religious axe to grind, comments upon the resultant marriage of Christianity and paganism…

“Paganism survived… in the form of ancient rites and customs condoned, or accepted and transformed, by an often-indulgent Church.  An intimate and trustful worship of saints replaced the cult of pagan gods… Statues of Isis and Horus were renamed Mary and Jesus; the Roman Lupercalia and the feast of purification of Isis became the Feast of the Nativity; the Saturnalia were replaced by Christmas celebration… an ancient festival of the dead by All Souls Day, rededicated to Christian heroes; incense, lights, flowers, processions, vestments, hymns which had pleased the people in older cults were domesticated and cleansed in the ritual of the Church… soon people and priests would use the sign of the cross as a magic incantation to expel or drive away demons…[Paganism] passed like maternal blood into the new religion, and captive Rome captured her conqueror.  …the world converted to Christianity…” (Will Durant, The Story of Civilization (Simon and Schuster, 1950), Vol. IV, p. 75, vol. III, p. 657)

Referring to developments after Constantine, Peter Brown writes: “Far from being a source of improvement, this alliance [with the state] was a source of ‘greater danger and temptation’ [than persecution had been] … The spread of Christianity in Africa, by indiscriminately filling the churches, had simply washed away the clear moral landmarks that separated the ‘church’ from the ‘world.’” (Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo (University of California Press, 1967), p. 213)

“From the very earliest days of the Church there has been a tradition whereby images of our Lord, His holy Mother, and of saints are displayed in churches for the veneration of the faithful… The practice of placing sacred images in churches so that they be venerated by the faithful is to be maintained.” (Austin Flannery, gen. Ed., Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, rev. ed., Costello Publishing, 1988, vol. 1, pp. 35, 193)

“Their conversion to Christianity [i.e. the idolatrous nations’] was merely nominal.  Ignorant of its doctrines, destitute of its spirit, and captivated by its splendid ceremonial, they were scarcely conscious of any change, when they transferred to the saints of the Roman Church the worship they had been accustomed to pay to their Scandinavian deities.  The process by which these nations, from being pagan, became Christian, may be adequately likened to the contrivance by which the statue of Jupiter at Rome was converted from the representative of the prince of pagan deities to the representative of the prince of the Christian apostles, namely, by the substitution of the two keys for the thunderbolt.” (J. A. Wylie, History of the Papacy, Ch. III, Rise and Progress of the Temporal Sovereignty)

What would we reasonably expect will happen should the goal of the ecumenicists be accomplished? How could a holy Church remain holy under the authority of a church that compromised with the world from the very beginning?

Let’s quickly examine some observances handed down to us by the Roman Catholic Church. What of Christmas? Surely it is Christian and not pagan…

“CHRISTMAS (the ‘Mass of Christ’) … Clement of Alexandria (about 200 AD) mentions several speculations on the date of Christ’s birth, and condemns them as superstitious… The exact day and year of Christ’s birth have never been satisfactorily settled. When the Fathers of the Church in AD 340 decided upon a date to celebrate the event, they wisely (!) chose the day of the Winter Solstice, which was firmly fixed in the minds of the people, and which was their MOST IMPORTANT FESTIVAL.” The Encyclopedia Britannica (1949, article “Christmas”)

“The roots of Christmas observance go deeply into the folklore of the Druids, Scandinavians, Egyptians and Romans.” Alfred Hottes, Christmas Fact and Fancy

“There are not a few popular observances associated with the Christmas season which have NOTHING TO DO with the Christian religion and the birth of Jesus. Most of these observances are older than Christianity, and some of them–it must be confessed–are NOT OF VERY ELEVATED ORIGIN.” R.J. Campbell, The Story of Christmas

Did the early Christians celebrate Christ’s birth?

Tertullian wrote (says Encyclopedia Britannica) “in a period when a LAX SPIRIT OF CONFORMITY had seized the churches”: about 200 AD–says regarding decorating with evergreens and ceremonial candles–

“Let those who have no Light, light their lamps, let them affix to their posts laurels. YOU [Christians] are the Light of the World, a tree ever green. If you have renounced temples, make not your own gate a temple [by heathen wreaths].”

“Christmas was originally a festival of the Winter Solstice. It was customary to hold great feasts in honor of the HEATHEN GODS. The early teachers of Christianity PROHIBITED THESE FESTIVALS as unsuited to the character of Christ. Yet the symbols and customs of the old festivals are adapted to the new, and so we find Christmas patterned with many customs of pagan origin.

“To the mind of the Puritans, Christmas smelled to heaven of idolatry… The Puritans abolished Christmas as a hateful relic of Popery.” The Customs of Mankind.

ln Massachusetts in 1659, a law was passed that- “Whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas, either by forbearing of labor, feasting, or in any other way, shall be fined 5 shillings.”

“The Christmas tree, now so common among us, was equally common in pagan Rome and pagan Egypt…The festivals of the Roman Church are innumerable, but five of the most important may be singled out for elucidation, viz:

CHRISTMAS, Lady-day, Easter, the Nativity of St. John, and the Feast of the Assumption. Each and all of these can be proved to be Babylonian.

“It is admitted by the most learned and candid writers of all parties that, within the Christian Church, no such festival as Christmas was ever heard of till the third century, and that not till the fourth century was far advanced did it gain much observance…

“This tendency on the part of Christians to meet Paganism half way was very early developed. We find Tertullian, even in his day, about the year 230, bitterly lamenting the inconsistency of the disciples of Christ in this respect, and contrasting it with the strict fidelity of the pagans to their own superstitions. ‘By us’, he says, ‘the feasts of January, the Brumalia, and the Matronalia are now frequented, gifts are carried to and fro, and sports and banquets are celebrated with uproar. Oh, how much more faithful are the heathen to their religion, who take special care to adopt no solemnity from the Christians.’

“Upright men (continues Hislop) strove to stem the tide, but in spite of all their efforts the Apostasy went on till the Church, with the exception of a small remnant, was submerged under pagan superstition…THAT CHRISTMAS WAS ORIGINALLY A PAGAN FESTIVAL IS BEYOND ALL DOUBT.” Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons

The list of corruptions and reasons to reject Rome’s primacy could go on and on, but one final issue to consider is the fact that in order to have “communion” with Rome, one has to “kiss the pope’s ring”, either figuratively or literally. The Pope is considered by the Catholic Church to be the “pontifex maximus” (which was the title of the Roman high priest of paganism), and the “vicar of Christ”. Literally, anti-Christ. Rejection of the primacy of the Pope is rejection of the whole system of Romanism.

Pope Boniface VIII stated: “There is one fold and one shepherd.  The authority of that shepherd includes the two swords—the spiritual and the temporal. So much are we taught by the words of the evangelist, ‘Behold, here are two swords,’ namely, in the Church.  The Lord did not reply, it is too much, but, it is enough. Certainly He did not deny to Peter the temporal sword; He only commanded him to return it into its scabbard.  Both, therefore, belong to the jurisdiction of the Church—the spiritual sword and the secular. The one is to be wielded for the Church—the other by the Church; the one is the sword of the priest—the other is in the hand of the monarch, but at the command and sufferance of the priest.  IT behooves the one sword to be under the other—the temporal authority to be subject to the spiritual power.” (Corpus Juris Canonici (Coloniae, 1631), Extravag. Commun., lib. I, tit. VIII, cap. I)

“It is not enough for the people only to know that the Pope is head of the Church… they must also understand that their own faith and religious life flow from him; that in him is the bond which unites Catholics to one another, and the power which strengthens and the light which guides them; that he is the dispenser of spiritual graces, the giver of the benefits of religion, the upholder of justice, and the protector of the oppressed.” (La Civilta Cattolica, 1867, vol. Xii, p. 86)

“Fear, then, our wrath and the thunders of our vengeance; for Jesus Christ has appointed us [the popes] with His own mouth absolute judges of all men; and kings themselves are submitted to our authority.” (Pope Nicholas I (858-67), Cormenin, History of the Popes, p. 243 as cited in R.W. Thompson, The Papacy and the Civil Power (New York, 1876), p. 369)

In a passage which is included in the Roman Catholic Canon Law, Pope Innocent III declares that the Roman pontiff is “the vice-regent upon earth, not of a mere man, but of very God;” and in a gloss on the passage it is explained that this is because he is the vice-regent of Christ, Who is “very God and very man.” See Decretales Domini Gregorii Papae IX (Decretales of the Lord Pope Gregory IX), liberi, de translatione Episcoporum, (on the transference of Bishops), title 7, chapter 3; Corpus Juris Canonice (2nd Leipzig ed., 1881), col. 99; (Paris, 1612), tom.2, Decretales, col. 205.

Yet, Peter was not the first pope, neither was the original Bishops of Rome invested with the power and glory they hold for Catholics today. Even Catholic apologists have admitted as much…

“…Thus He built His Church upon a single man; and although after His resurrection He assigned equal authority to all the apostles, saying, “As the Father sent Me, so send I you…”, nevertheless in order to bring out the Church’s unity vividly, He so ordered the origin of that unity as to make it begin with a single man.  Assuredly, the other apostles were all exactly what Peter was, equipped with an equal share of honor and authority; but a beginning was made from unity, so that the oneness of Christ’s Church might be manifested.  If this is the true text, it supports the collegiate conception of the episcopate which Cyprian advocates elsewhere, only adding that St. Peter was the starting-point and symbol of unity.  There is no suggestion that he possessed any superiority to, much less jurisdiction over, the other apostles, any more than in the numerous other contexts in which the Church’s unity is traced to him.Early Church Doctrines by J.N.D. Kelly, ‘Development in the Doctrine of the Church,’ p. 205)

“The student tracing the history of the times, particularly of the Arian, Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, cannot fail to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See was continually advancing and consolidating its claims.  Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than fulfillment of the divine plan.” Early Church Doctrines by J.N.D. Kelly, ‘The West and the Roman Primacy,’ p. 417

The real framers and promoters of the theory of the Roman primacy were the popes themselves.  Men like Damasus (366-384), Siricius (384-99), Innocent (402-17), and their successors not only strove to advance it on the practical plane, but sketched out the theology on which it was based, viz. The doctrine that the unique position and authority assigned by Christ to St. Peter belonged equally to the popes who followed him as bishop of Rome. Leo the Great (440-61) was responsible for gathering together and giving final shape to the various elements composing this thesis… His (Leo’s) teaching as expounded in many contexts, involves the following ideas.  First, the famous Gospel texts referring to St. Peter should be taken to imply that supreme authority was conferred by our Lord upon the apostle.  Second, St. Peter was actually bishop of Rome, and his magisterium was perpetuated in his successors in that see.  Thirdly, St. Peter being in this way, as it were, mystically present in the Roman see, the authority of other bishops throughout Christendom does not derive immediately from Christ, but (as in the case of the apostles) is mediated to them through St. Peter, i.e. through the Roman pontiff who in this way represents him, or, to be more precise, is a kind of Petrus redivivus.  Fourthly, while their mandate is of course limited to their own dioceses, St. Peter’s magisterium and with it that of his successors, the popes of Rome, is a plenitudo potestatis extending over the entire Church, so that its government rests ultimately with them, and they are its divinely appointed mouthpiece.” Early Church Doctrines by J.N.D. Kelly, ‘The West and the Roman Primacy,’ pp. 418-419

Could the Church survive under the domination of men like these?

The time is not far off [after Constantine] when Peter’s [alleged] successors will be not the servants but the masters of the world.  They will dress in purple like Nero and call themselves Pontifex Maximus.  They will refer to the Fisherman as “the first pope” and appeal not to the authority of love but to the power invested in him to act as Nero acted.

In defiance of Jesus, Christians will do unto others what was done unto them, and worse will they do.  The religion that prided itself on triumphing over persecution by suffering will become the most persecuting faith the world has ever seen…

They will order in Christ’s name all those who disagree with them to be tortured, and sometimes crucified over fire.  They will make an alliance between throne and altar; they will insist that the throne is the guardian of the altar and the guarantor of faith.

Their idea will be for the throne (the state) to impose the Christian religion on all its subjects.  It will not trouble them that Peter fought against such an alliance and died because of it.” (Peter de Rosa, Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy, Crown Publishers, 1988, pp. 34-35)

“The whole life of such a man [the pope], from the moment when he is placed on the altar to receive the first homage by the kissing of his feet, will be an unbroken chain of adulations.

Everything is expressly calculated for strengthening him in the belief that between himself and other mortals there is an impassable gulf, and when involved in the cloud and fumes of a perpetual incense, the firmest character must yield at last to a temptation beyond human strength to resist.” (J. H. Ignaz von Dollinger, The Papacy and the Council, (London, 1869), pp. 337-38)

Nicholas I (858-67)—

“It is evident that the popes can neither be bound nor unbound by any earthly power, nor even by that of the apostle[Peter], if he should return upon the earth; since Constantine the Great has recognized that the pontiffs held the place of God upon earth, the divinity not being able to be judged by any living man.  We are, then, infallible, and whatever may be our acts, we are not accountable for them but to ourselves.” (Cormenin, History of the Popes, p. 243, as cited in R.W. Thompson, The Papacy and the Civil Power, New York, 1876, p. 248)

The World Loves Christmas

“[K]now ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” (Jas. 4:4). “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world” (1 John 2:15). Who leads whom? Is not the church of the Lord Jesus Christ supposed to be an example to the world? Is not Christ’s church to be salt and light to the nations? Is it proper for the church to follow the pagan world-system? Christmas did not originate in the Bible or the apostolic church; it is pagan to its very core. The day, the tree, the exchanging of gifts, the mistletoe, the holly berries all originated in the idolatrous pagan festivities surrounding the winter solstice.

The compromised, apostatizing Roman church took what was pagan and attempted to Christianize it. Covenant-breaking, Christ-hating, idol-worshipping, pagan unbelievers love Christmas. Why? Because Christmas is not biblical. Christmas is not of God. It is a lie, and Satan, their master, is the father of lies. Atheists, homosexuals, feminists, wicked politicians, murderers, child molesters, and idolaters all love Christmas. If Christmas were biblical, and if Christmas were commanded to be observed in the Bible, would the world love it so? Absolutely not! The world would hate Christmas. “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 2:14). Does the world love the Lord’s day? Of course not. The world hates it.

Does the world love and obey the resurrected King of kings and Lord of lords? No! The world hates Christ. The world does love a plastic or clay baby in a manger. A plastic baby is not very threatening. Christ is no longer a baby. He is the glorified king who sits at the right hand of the Father. “Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more” (2 Cor. 5:16). The Bible teaches that “the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God” (1 Cor. 3:19). “Thus saith the LORD: Learn not the way of the heathen. . . for the customs of the peoples are vain” (Jer. 10: 2-3). The apostle Paul has in mind a much broader application than just marriage when he says: “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?. . . Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you” (2 Cor. 6:14-17).

When the church has something relating to worship and religion in common with the unbelieving pagan world, the church, in that area, is bound together with unbelievers. The church has no business celebrating a pagan holiday with the pagan world. What hypocrisy! What wickedness! Evangelicalism in our day is in a state of serious decline. Church growth, ecumenical fellowship, pragmatism and keeping the peace have taken precedence over doctrinal integrity and pure worship. As a result, modern Evangelicalism is flabby, compromising, impotent and lukewarm. [Schwertley, Brian. The Regulative Principle of Worship and Christmas. Southfield Reformed Presbyterian Church. Southfield, MI.]



A Treatise on Anti-Semitism

January 8, 2017

What is Anti-Semitism and who are Semites?

First it is necessary to define exactly what “anti-Semitism” is. The definition from Wikipedia is thus:

“Antisemitism (also spelled anti-Semitism or anti-semitism) is hostility, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews. A person who holds such positions is called an anti-semite. Antisemitism is generally considered to be a form of racism.”

Please note that prejudice can go both ways. It is possible to show “benevolent prejudice” by expressing excessive approval, favor or esteem to a person or persons.

The next logical issue is to determine whom “Semites” are. According to the Mirriam-Webster’s Dictionary Online, they are…

A member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs.

According to Easton’s Bible Dictionary Online:

The words “Semites,” “Semitic,” do not occur in the Bible, but are derived from the name of Noah’s oldest son, Shem. Formerly the designation was limited to those who are mentioned in Genesis 10; 11 as Shem’s descendants, most of whom can be traced historically and geographically; but more recently the title has been expanded to apply to others who are not specified in the Bible as Semites, and indeed are plainly called Hamitic, e.g. the Babylonians (Genesis 10:10) and the Phoenicians and Canaanites (Genesis 10:15-19). The grounds for the inclusion of these Biblical Hamites among the Semites are chiefly linguistic, although political, commercial and religious affinities are also considered.

The sons of Shem are given as Elam, Assbur, Arpachshad, Lud and Aram (Genesis 10:22). All except the third have been readily identified, Elam as the historic nation in the highlands east of the Tigris, between Media and Persia; Asshur as the Assyrians; Lud as the Lydians of Asia Minor; and Aram as the Syrians both East and West of the Euphrates. The greatest uncertainty is in the identification of Arpachshad, the most prolific ancestor of the Semites, especially of those of Biblical and more recent importance. From him descended the Hebrews and the Arab tribes, probably also some East African colonies (Genesis 10:24-30; 11:12-26).

Anti-Semitism is technically a form of racism, yet its common usage today is very narrow indeed. It specifically references the descendants of Abraham, but only those starting with Jacob, who was given the name Israel (Genesis 32:28). It is applied today in defense of those referenced as “Jews”, which are the descendants of a yet smaller lineage descended from Abraham: Judah, the son of Jacob (Israel). Many of those opposed to “anti-Semitism” point to the following promise of God to Abraham in support of their defense of this doctrine.

Genesis 12:1  “Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee: (2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: (3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” KJV

In context this “curse” or “blessing” relates to all of Abraham’s children through Abraham himself, including the “multitude of nations” promised to descend from him. Note that the tribe of Judah didn’t even exist at the time this promise was given.

Genesis 17:2 “And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. (3 And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, (4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.” KJV

Again, since the promise was to Abraham one must suppose that the promise is to ALL Abraham’s descendants, including the “many nations” God promised. Making the promise to reflect only upon one nation, Israel, and more specifically upon only one tribe of that nation, namely Judah, is a clear misrepresentation of the intent of the text.

Who are the Children of Abraham to whom the blessing/curse apply?

Biblically, there are only 3 classes of people on earth.

1 Corinthians 10:32 “Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:” KJV

According to the Scriptures, there are two types of “children of Abraham”: the 12 tribes of Israel, and the “children of promise” which are identified as the Church.

Galatians 3:6 “Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. (7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. (8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. (9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.” KJV

Romans 9:6 “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: (7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. (8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” KJV

Galatians 4:28 “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.” KJV

Do the Scriptures clearly tell us which “children of Abraham” receive the promises given by God to him? Yes.

Galatians 3:16 “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. (17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. (18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise…

(26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus

(29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” KJV

Should the Jews be more highly regarded than anyone else?

Romans 3:9 “What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;” KJV

The Word puts both Jews and Gentiles in the same debased, sinful, God-rejecting status.

If the Jews are not the children of promise, what does the Bible say about them as concerns the Church?

The Bible states that the Kingdom of Heaven would be taken from Israel and given to the Church.

Luke 13:27  But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. (28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. (29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. (30 And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.” KJV

Mat 21:43 “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation (ETHNOS, foreign nation) bringing forth the fruits thereof.” KJV

Matthew 8:11 “And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. (12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” KJV

The kingdom was taken from Israel, and was given to the Church. Is this just an interpretation or does the Word unequivocally teach this? Paul clearly teaches this as fact:

Galatians 4:22 “For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. (23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. (24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. (25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. (26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. (27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. (28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. (29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. (30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. (31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.” KJV

What can this mean except that Israel as it is today are represented by the descendants of the bondwoman, and they will not inherit the kingdom with the children of the freewoman (typified by those in Christ).

The Bible states clearly that they were un-grafted from the Root (Christ).

Romans 11:11 “I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. (12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? (13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: (14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

(19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. (20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith…

(32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.” KJV

The Bible says that the Jews are blind.

2 Corinthians 3:13 “And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: (14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. (15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. (16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.” KJV

Romans 11:7 “What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded. (8) (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear😉 unto this day. (9) And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumbling block, and a recompence unto them: (10) Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back always.” KJV

The doctrines of their leaders was called “leaven” by Christ Himself.

Matthew 16:11 “How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? (12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.” KJV

Does this mean that it’s “over” for the Jews? No.

Romans 11:1 “I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. (2 God hath not cast away [all – my addition] his people which he foreknew…

(5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

(25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. (26  And so all Israel shall be saved:” KJV

What is the “all Israel” that will be saved? Well, the passage is clear that it will include both saved Gentiles and saved Jews. THAT is the “all Israel” that the world is waiting for. This will only happen when Christ returns and His people who rejected Him see Him once again. It is the job of the believing Gentiles to show mercy to them that they may also receive mercy. The patient is not greater than the doctor, just as the servant is not greater than his master. Once the Jews receive a saving belief in their Christ, then they will become brethren in the Lord. Until then, they are unrepentant sinners like everyone else.

What does the Word admonish Christians concerning the Jews?

Titus 1:14 “Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. (15) Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. (16) They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.” KJV

Galatians 1:6 “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: (7) Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. (8) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” KJV

Galatians 5:11 “And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. (12) I would they were even cut off which trouble you.” [Clearly referring to Judaizers, as mentioning ‘Circumcision’.] KJV

Titus 1:10 “For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: (11) Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.” KJV

Galatians 6:12 “As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. (13) For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh…” KJV

Romans 11:28 “As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.” KJV

Philippians 3:2 “Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.” KJV

1 Thessalonians 2:14 “…for ye have also suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: (15) Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men.” KJV

The Jew’s religion is not God’s religion.

Galatians 1:13 “For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: (14 And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.” KJV

Matthew 15:3 “But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? (4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. (5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; (6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. (7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, (8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. (9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” KJV

1 Peter 1:18 “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;”

The religion of the Jews is called “Rabbinicalism” or “Talmudism”, which basically means that they worship or honor the words of past and present Rabbi’s and traditions as much as or more than Scripture itself. Christ had nothing good to say about Jewish traditions. Quite the contrary. These “traditions” are codified in volumes known as the Talmud. The complete Talmud contains 63 books in 524 chapters. Some of these traditions are simply infantile ramblings and “nit-picking” by various Rabbi’s, others are downright wicked. Perhaps some excerpts will be enlightening. The below are taken from the book “The Talmud Unmasked” by I.B. Pranaitis.

The Talmud repeatedly speaks ill of the Savior of the World:

Many passages in the Talmudic books treat of the birth, life, death and teachings of Jesus Christ. He is not always referred to by the same name, however, but is diversely called “That Man,” “A Certain One,” “The Carpenter’s Son,” “The One Who Was Hanged,” etc.

The Talmud is held to be above Scripture itself:

In the book Mizbeach,[1] cap. V, we find the following opinion:

“There is nothing superior to the Holy Talmud.”

[1] cf. Joan. Buxtorf, Recensio operis Talmud, p. 225.

The Talmud is anti-Christ.

Since the word Jeschua means “Savior,” the name Jesus rarely occurs in Jewish books.[1] It is almost always abbreviated to Jeschu, which is maliciously taken as if it were composed of the initial letters of the three words Immach SCHemo Vezikro“May his name and memory be blotted out.”[2]

[1] ex. gr. in Maiene ieschua, fol. 66b

[2] cf. I. Buxtorf in Abbrev. Jeschu: “The Jews among themselves do not say Jeschu, but Isschu, so nearly corresponding to the words of this curse. When talking to a certain Jew about this some years ago he told me that it not only meant this, but also Jeschu Scheker (liar) Utoebah (and abomination). Who would not be deeply horrified at this? This Jew lived at Frankfort and at Hanover and had travelled all over the world. When he saw how this horrified me, his faith in Judaism began to weaken, for he was not adverse to the Christian faith and had often discussed it with me and Dr. Amando Polano. I also discovered here and there two other secret words from the Jewish Cabala which have to do with this name. It is well known that the Israelites are often warned in their sacred writings to shun the worship of Elohe Nekharstrange gods or god. What does Elohe Nekhar really mean? By the numbering method of the Gammatria these letters equal 316, which taken together make the word Jeschu. This is found at the end of the book Abhkath Rokhel. They therefore teach that to dishonor God by the worship of Elohe Nekhar is the same as to dishonor him by the worship of Jeschu. Behold the malice of the serpent! Antonius also found a marginal note in a book about the Jewish faith and religion. In a Jewish prayer book there is a certain prayer beginning with Alenu… Formerly the wording contained certain things which were afterwards deleted for fear of the Christians, but the space remains vacant to warn children and adults that something is omitted there. The deleted words were hammischtachavim lehebhel varik umitpallelim lelo ioschia “Those who bow down exhibit vanity and foolishness and adore him who cannot save.” This is generally said about idols, but is secretly meant for Jesus whose name is here signified by the letters…”


In the Tract Sanhedrin (103a) the words of Psalm XCI, 10: ‘No plague shall come near thy dwelling,’ are explained as follows:

“That thou mayest never have a son or a disciple who will salt his food so much that he destroys his taste in public, like Jesus the Nazarene.”

To salt one’s food too much or to destroy one’s taste, is proverbially said of one who corrupts his morals or dishonors himself, or who falls into heresy and idolatry and openly preaches it to others.

In the same book Sanhedrin (107b) we read:

“Mar said: Jesus seduced, corrupted and destroyed Israel.”


In Kerithuth (6b p. 78) it says:

“The teaching of the Rabbis is: He who pours oil over a Goi, and over dead bodies is freed from punishment. This is true for an animal because it is not a man.[1] But how can it be said that by pouring oil over a Goi one is freed from punishment, since a Goi is also a man? But this is not true, for it is written: Ye are my flock, the flock of my pasture are men (Ezechiel, XXXIV, 31). You are thus called men, but the Goim are not called men.”


In Zohar (I, 28b) we read:

“Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field, etc. (Genes. III, 1.) ‘More subtle’ that is towards evil; ‘than all beasts’ that is, the idolatrous people of the earth. For they are the children of the ancient serpent which seduced Eve.”


In Sanhedrin (59a) it says:

“Rabbi Jochanan says: A Goi who pries into the Law is guilty to death.”

[1] The same holds for the dead body of any man.


Rabbi Maimonides, in Hilkhoth Teschubhah (III,8) gives the list of those who are considered as denying the Law:

“There are three classes of people who deny the Law of the Torah: (1) Those who say that the Torah was not given by God, at least one verse or one word of it, and who say that it was all the work of Moses; (2) Those who reject the explanation of the Torah, namely, the Oral Law of the Mischnah, and do not recognize the authority of the Doctors of the Law, like the followers of Tsadok (Sadducees) and Baithos; (3) Those who say that God changed the Law for another New Law, and that the Torah no longer has any value, although they do not deny that it was given by God, as the Christians and the Turks believe. All of these deny the Law of the Torah.”


In Abhodah Zarah (26b, Tosephoth) it says:

“Even the best of the Goim should be killed”


In Hilkhoth Akum (X, 1) it says:

“Do not eat with idolaters, nor permit them to worship their idols; for it is written: Make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them (Deuter. ch. 7, 2). Either turn away from their idols or kill them.”

Ibidem (X,7):

“In places where Jews are strong, no idolater must be allowed to remain…”

But some will say, “Surely that is not what the peace-loving Talmud teaches…”

Towards the end of the 16th century and at the beginning of the 17th, when many famous men undertook diligently to study the Talmud, the Jews, fearing for themselves, began to expunge parts of the Talmud which were openly inimical to Christians. Thus the Talmud which was published at Basle in 1578 has been mutilated in many places.

The modern nation of Israel – Is it of God?

The Jews, indeed the world, will tell you that the nation in the Middle East is the fulfillment of prophesy. But is it? Let’s see what God prophesied about the return of Israel and see if it matches.

Jeremiah 32:37—“Behold, I will gather them out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely: {32:38} And they shall be my people, and I will be their God: {32:39} And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me forever, for the good of them, and of their children after them:” KJV

Do they dwell safely? No. Do they have one heart for God? No, they are predominantly a socialist nation.

Ezekiel 36:22—“Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not [this] for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy names sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went. {36:23} And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I [am] the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes. {36:24} For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. {36:25} Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. {36:26} A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. {36:27} And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do [them.]” KJV

Has the nation of Israel been cleansed? Has God been sanctified in the eyes of the nations? No. Are any of the spiritual promises in this passage apparent in today’s Israel? No.

Isaiah 51:11—“Therefore the redeemed of the LORD shall return, and come with singing unto Zion; and everlasting joy [shall be] upon their head: they shall obtain gladness and joy; [and] sorrow and mourning shall flee away.” KJV

Has this happened? No. Ok then, to what do we have to thank for the founding of the modern nation of Israel? Was it a move by God, or a rebellion by man? The following quotes are taken from “The Role of Zionism in the Holocaust” by Rabbi Gedalya Liebermann. The source can be found here:

From its’ inception, many rabbis warned of the potential dangers of Zionism and openly declared that all Jews loyal to G-d should stay away from it like one would from fire. They made their opinions clear to their congregants and to the general public. Their message was that Zionism is a chauvinistic racist phenomenon which has absolutely naught to do with Judaism. They publicly expressed that Zionism would definitely be detrimental to the well-being of Jews and Gentiles and that its effects on the Jewish religion would be nothing other than destructive. Further, it would taint the reputation of Jewry as a whole and would cause utter confusion in the Jewish and non-Jewish communities. Judaism is a religion. Judaism is not a race or a nationality. That was and still remains the consensus amongst the rabbis.

We have been forsworn by G-d “not to enter the Holy Land as a body before the predestined time”, “not to rebel against the nations”, to be loyal citizens, not to do anything against the will of any nation or its honour, not to seek vengeance, discord, restitution or compensation; “not to leave exile ahead of time.” On the contrary; we have to be humble and accept the yoke of exile. (Talmud Tractate Ksubos p. 111a).

To violate the oaths is not only a sin, it is a heresy because it is against the fundamentals of our Belief. Only through complete repentance will the Almighty alone, without any human effort or intervention, redeem us from exile. This will be after G-d will send the prophet Elijah and Moshiach who will induce all Jews to complete repentance. At that time there will be universal peace.

This charismatic individual, the Rebbe of Satmar, Grand Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, did not mince any words. Straight to the point he called Zionism “the work of Satan”, “a sacrilege” and “a blasphemy”. He forbade any participation with anything even remotely associated with Zionism and said that Zionism was bound to call the wrath of G-d upon His people.

How far this unbelievable Zionist conspiracy has captured the Jewish masses, and how impossible it is for any different thought to penetrate their minds, even to the point of mere evaluation, can be seen in the vehemence of the reaction to any reproach. With blinded eyes and closed ears, any voice raised in protest and accusation is immediately suppressed and deafened by the thousand-fold cry: “Traitor,” “Enemy of the Jewish People.”


Conservatism; and What is Liberalism, Really?

November 26, 2016


I have been hard on the liberals for their viewpoint, behavior and especially their outlook on ‘conservatives’. The question that posed itself to me is: do ‘liberals’ even know what ‘conservatives’ really believe, or the consequences of what they believe, or do they only know what their teachers, school administration and government curriculum have painted for them?

I have come to believe that liberals honestly do not even know what conservatism is, and are largely, like the animals that psychologists have worked with, programmed to respond to certain key words spoken by school teachers and media personalities. Like teaching a dog to avoid or engage certain behaviors by speaking a word like “no”, liberals are taught in the government schools to react certain ways to certain terms. Terms like “conservative”, “bigot”, “compound” and “cult” are common words with meanings which have largely been redefined by media and school officials to mean something else.

When Christians go to church or have a gathering, at a retreat or campground, it is often reported as a “compound.” What is a compound really? The internet dictionary states it is something that is “composed of two or more parts, elements, or ingredients”. It just means a place that is composed of more than one building. Oh, this sounds dangerously threatening, doesn’t it? It gets even worse if the participants are labelled as “cult members”. Such “code words” are programmed into students in today’s government schools, and the media takes “liberal” advantage (pun intended) of these terms to denigrate those the government disagrees with (i.e. conservatives).

While we’re on the subject of the schools, do you realize that Adolf Hitler was a national socialist (the liberal of his day) and one of his first acts was to revamp the educational system to produce socialists? Called “Hitler’s Youth”, they were taught to rat out their parents if they heard any non-party talk or anti-Hitler comments. The socialist fruit hasn’t fallen too far from the socialist tree. When a distraction or opposition was needed, the youth were called out to “protest”; hurt people and break things. Sound familiar? So, we could say with some truth that liberals are not so much “progressive” as “regressive”; going back to policies and practices that history shows are failures.

“Socialism” is nothing more than a regression to a tribal social structure, where the strong take the lion’s share of the resources, and the rest “share” the remainder. It is the elite’s vs the peasants, a form of feudalism. This is not some incredible, fantastic new utopian idea, it’s the same tired old doctrine of the tyrant.

Before we get too far, also realize that many call themselves “conservatives” but do not really hold to conservative values. These are often called “Neo-cons” or RHINO’s (Republicans In Name Only). Just because someone is labelled as conservative (or labels themselves such) doesn’t necessarily mean that they are. I dare say that most republican politicians are actually not very conservative.

So, what is Conservatism?

Conservatism is just as much a way of life and belief system as it is a political outlook. The definition of “conservative” might be a good starting point.

The 1828 Webster’s Dictionary states:

CONSERVATIVE, adjective Preservative; having power to preserve in a safe or entire state, or from loss, waste or injury.

The modern Webster’s Dictionary states:

a :  disposition in politics to preserve what is established b :  a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically :  such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs

In essence, a conservative believes that traditional values, those encapsulated by this nation’s founding fathers and our founding documents, form a near-perfect concept which would secure the freedom and prosperity for everyone… if they were followed. This is in opposition to those, called “progressives” or “liberals” who believe they alone know what is best for our society, and attempt to push their ‘novel’ concepts on society and force changes that may or may not be all that truly ‘progressive’, but which may rather be viewed as retrogressive.

Below I will enunciate some of the ‘Conservative values’ and the liberal alternative opinion.

* Personal Responsibility – A true conservative believes in taking responsibility for themselves and those in their household who fall under their responsibility. This includes maintaining their property and meeting their financial responsibilities and obligations. The taking care of their own household and making all decisions for it. You would know a true conservative as a person who provides for their own, respects their property and that of others, holds rights to be sacred, and basically ‘picks up after themselves’ as a normal or innate aspect of their character, not something they do just for show. This would of necessity require a small government with very limited powers and limited regulation. Some would call this simply being mature or responsible, but nevertheless it is an aspect of the conservative lifestyle and mindset.

The liberal mindset is that government is more intelligent,  compassionate, more able to handle each person’s affairs, even better than they can themselves, thus more regulation is seen as better. I think in terms of welfare and the abuse that system is infamous for. It used to be (and maybe still is) that in certain state and national parks, the park rangers set up signs “don’t feed the bears”, the stated reason is that once animals learn to get their food from humans, they tend to lose the instinct to get food naturally. The same goes for people who live off the government tit. They lose the ability (work history, work ethic) and desire to fend for themselves and instead become, essentially, slaves to the system. For an outlook like liberalism that views slavery as a social evil, it is odd the hypocrisy they follow when it comes to entitlements like welfare, illegal immigration, and the like. When people are provided for, they no longer have to provide for themselves, and they become servants to those that provide for them, at the ballot box and elsewhere.

* Biblical/Lawful Foundation – A true conservative views the Christian religion, founded upon a conservative, historical and faithful interpretation of the Bible as the Word of God, as the key to personal and civic peace and prosperity, and a system of laws founded upon those Biblical principles. As the United States Supreme Court itself has said:

“Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the redeemer of mankind… It is impossible that it should be otherwise and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.” –Supreme Court, 1892 Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States

The Scriptural examples by which our laws were originally fashioned were fair and equal. A murderer, for example, was to be executed. No exceptions by rank or status or ethnicity were allowed. One who stole was to replace what he/she stole and then pay a penalty on top of it as a punishment. Families were protected by stringent laws against adultery, and the fact that the government was largely kept out of the home. Crime was punished commensurate with the severity of the crime, and punishment was enacted swiftly.

Ecclesiastes 8:11 – “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.”

Murder used to be a capital offense, because it was one of the most morally repugnant of crimes. This also happened to protect society from the ravages of men who, as rabid animals, were dangerous to the safety of others.

Genesis 9:5 – “And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. 6)  Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

As a system of law is of necessity based upon the dominant religion of a nation, so too this nation was founded upon Biblical precepts and it could not have survived the trials it has endured, and remained free as long as it has, without that foundation. I mean, think about it: what is wrong with the moral commands in the Scriptures? Are they really so repressive, or are they actually the glue that holds a society together? Is abstaining from lusting after your neighbor’s wife strengthening to society, or weakening to it? What is there in Scriptural morals that is so repugnant to society that we must make a new, more “enlightened” legal system?

I believe that the liberal’s repugnance to law based on the morals from the Scriptures relates more to their spirit of rebellion to God and any lawful authority. As soon as God is mentioned, liberals begin to almost foam at the mouth and inevitably spout “separation of Church and State”, as if that really has any meaning. It was a poorly extrapolated statement that doesn’t mean what it says. The government was meant to maintain a Christian standard, and only a Christian-based system can survive. Humanist-based systems inevitably explode and are the spectacle of violence and inequality around the world.

“We find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence.” –U.S. Supreme Court–Zorach vs. Clauson, 1952.

What it boils down to is a liberal tolerance for crime to the point that criminals are a protected segment of society and have more rights than the people they victimize. A murderer, rather than suffer public contempt and execution are coddled in prison for life (sometimes), their expenses imposed on the backs of those who are already struggling to support themselves without having to pay for the housing, healthcare and dental care of a bunch of scum and gang members who are a blight on our society. Is this the “compassion” the liberals tote? Compassion for whom? Certainly not for the victims of crime, nor for the public at large. The simple fact is that some people should not be tolerated, some behaviors should not be accepted, and self-esteem be damned, some people legitimately should not be allowed to continue an existence on God’s earth.


* Liberty not ‘Freedom,’ AKA Moral Foundation – A true conservative recognizes that a people cannot coexist in any peaceable and lasting way unless they have the liberty to do so, not the “freedom.” Freedom implies no moral restraint, whereas liberty has the connotation of freedom within ethical constraints. We have the liberty to live as we will, provided we live in a moral and peaceable fashion. We do not have the ‘freedom’ to do whatever we want, for our very laws are founded upon the moral strictures of the Bible.

Once we begin to change the laws, to make perverse behaviors acceptable, the very foundations of our government and legal systems become corrupt. If a politician’s wife cannot trust him to be faithful to his marriage vows, why should his constituents trust him to honor his oath of office? Words and behaviors have repercussions, and conservatives desire only the highest of both as a bulwark to safeguard our government and personal lives.

Liberals, on the other hand, seem to want to legalize if not grant special privileges to every aberrant behavior they can conceive. Gay marriage, openly gay behavior, the lust-inspiring and wicked “performances” of many singers and actors/actresses and content on public television erodes our society, it doesn’t “progress” or advance it. A liberal will rake a conservative over the coals, figuratively, for being a womanizer, all the while condoning a liberal singer who flagrantly flaunts and touches her body inappropriately in plain view of a public audience. It’s the singer who is inspiring lust in everyone around her, tempting them to do what they know is perverse, but it is the conservative, who is accused of some behavior or other, that is the evil one. Hypocrisy of the highest order.

Our government was not designed to allow or function with uncontrolled wickedness. The wicked man cannot be self-controlled or self-governed, but must be governed with an iron fist.

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams (The Works of John Adams, ed. C. F. Adams, Boston: Little, Brown Co., 1851, 4:31)

“Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.” — Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence

Maybe this is why liberals keep calling this a “democracy,” perhaps they instinctively realize that their behavior is incompatible with a republic… or maybe I give them too much credit…

* General Political Considerations – The modern Webster’s dictionary pretty much has it right as far as what a true conservative emphasizes in the realm of politics. In a system where everyone lives by “conservative” standards, working to support themselves, following a law-abiding lifestyle, and living in a Constitutionally operative government, taxes would not need to be high, and welfare would be largely non-existent. We wouldn’t need many jails (there are always a few who just can’t follow rules), and if everyone exercised a little common sense, we wouldn’t need a lot of government regulation. These things are possible on a large-scale, but it requires the majority of the people to follow suit.

On the subject of “bigotry” and racism, one must realize that there are bigots and racists in every ethnicity and nationality. Some are borne of personal experience, some from a national or cultural source. American conservatives, in general, believe in taking their opinions of individuals based on that person’s behavior and attitudes. Obviously, there are exceptions, but conservatives in general hold no person to be less than any other just based on their genetics. So, this constant media and educational bias of calling anyone with a conservative bent “racist” is fear-mongering and slander at best, but sometimes a conservative’s record is of such quality that there is nothing else a liberal can do to sully that person’s reputation than to resort to innuendo and slander.

The Liberal Alternative

Do these points sound “archaic”? Intolerant? Does every behavior and idea necessarily have a right to be ‘tolerated’? Aren’t there ideas that are poisonous to a society? Those who enforce their concept of morality on the public, would they accept a modern Aztec practice of ritual heart removal? Why not? Is homosexuality any less moral than ritual murder, especially if the victim is willing to go under the knife? Or assisted suicide? Or the euthanasia of the elderly? Or bestiality, or incest? Or are all of these really sins and crimes? A true conservative would believe so.

Opposed to conservatism, what are the ‘liberal values’? Freedom from religion, freedom from morality, take from the rich and give to the poor (rather than build the poor up and make them self-sufficient), radical environmentalism, which devolves into a pseudo-religion for some of the more fanatical liberals. Liberalism is basically the ideology which opposes traditional values and standards, seeking to go from a place of peace and equality to a man-made, historically disproven kind of equality and fairness: the theoretical humanist utopia. Government over all, without any constraints from any God. Tribalism. Strong vs the weak. The doctrine of the wolf vs the lamb. A degeneration of society rather than its advancement.

What about the environment? What is the conservative position on that? Well, the modern ‘climate change’ ideology came largely from Karl Marx and company.

“The dialectical nature of climate change is a striking confirmation of the philosophy of dialectical materialism developed by the founders of scientific socialism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.”

The dialectical process is, in a nutshell, to create a problem for the express purpose of offering a solution to that problem, of course one that benefits Marxism, which are the ones who use this process. Incidentally, liberals and the government use it all the time…

So, create a problem (climate change) and then give the world a cause for this problem (human beings), then propose a (Marxist) solution to solve the problem – population control and taxing the right of everyone to live (the very air everyone needs to breathe). Environmentalism is not a conservative issue, since it’s largely a made-upon dialectical issue, not a real-life issue. If everyone lived a conservative lifestyle, lived responsibly, individuals and businesses, then “climate change”, if it were real, would be recognized as a product of a natural cycle (which it is), not a man-made problem.

Unfortunately, the end result of liberalism (which is Marxist socialism) is a Communist Dictatorship, which eliminates, as much as possible, any personal freedom (hence, everyone has equal freedom – none), financial incentive (fiscal freedom – total equality), and right to life. Liberals: under a system you would consider “fair” and “equal”, you would find all deformed/retarded children/adults would be euthanized. All babies considered by the state to be unnecessary would be aborted. The elderly and disabled, who under such a system would not be able to produce anything, would be euthanized. The government would tell you how to live and whether you would get the opportunity to live. This is the end result of extreme Marxism, and it is what liberalism is trying to create within our nation. It happened in Hitler Germany under a Socialist regime, and it can and will happen here if these Socialists (“Liberals”) are not stopped.

According to, the number of deaths from Marxism to date are as follows:

People’s Republic of China Body Count: 73,237,000

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Body Count: 58,627,000

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Body Count: 3,163,000

Cambodia Body Count: 2,627,000

Democratic Republic of Afghanistan Body Count: 1,750,000

Vietnam Body Count: 1,670,000

People’s Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Body Count: 1,343,610

Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Body Count: 1,072,000

To my knowledge, this does not include the number of infanticides and abortions by these nations.

Is this really preferable to a “conservative” system of fair laws and personal morals and responsibility? I think not.


ADDENDUM 11/28/16

Remember the hoopla about “Rush is Right”? Well, I was right, about the truth behind liberalism and its Marxist roots. Upon the death of the infamous Fidel Castro’s death, what was the reaction in the liberal world?


See, one of the most wicked men of our generation, responsible for his tight-fisted control of his country and abuse of his “peasants” is lauded by liberals as a great man. Are they really that stupid? No, but they share his Marxist opinions and that makes them bad for America. Anyone who would look up to a Castro, or a Hitler for that matter, who was also a Socialist, needs to be “re-educated”. In my opinion, they are too foolish to know what is good for themselves or this country. Yes, they need to be governed, for they do not have what it takes to be self-governed. That is the fault of the socialist government schools, also called “public schools”. Unless this is fixed, its very possible that a new civil war could be the result. Marxism and the Christian Republic our founders left us are not compatible. One must succeed and one must fail.


Welfare, Entitlements and the End of a Nation

July 30, 2016

Warning: this post is in the form of a rant. It’s pointed and not P.C. I’m tired of the entitlement baloney and it’s time for a change.

Welfare has been defined in recent sociological circles as:

Social welfare or public charity: organized provision of educational, cultural, medical, and financial assistance to the needy. Modern social welfare measures may include any of the following: the care of destitute adults; the treatment of the mentally ill; the rehabilitation of criminals; the care of destitute, neglected, and delinquent children; the care and relief of the sick or handicapped; the care and relief of needy families; and supervisory, educational, and constructive activity, especially for the young.

The question is: what are the objective criteria that defines someone who is “needy”? Apparently it includes anyone right off the bus from another country, to judge by the number of Mexican welfare recipients who cannot even speak English. If you were to go to the Costco where I live, you couldn’t help but notice. Apparently they also have enough to pay for the annual membership. Doesn’t sound like they’re hurting too much. What kills me is when they pull out a big wad of cash to pay for their groceries. Wish I had that kind of money. The load in their shopping carts always dwarfs mine. I thought you had to be a citizen to receive a citizen’s benefits? Guess not. Is the government deliberately trying to start a war of the “have’s vs the have nots”? Isn’t the “class war” the media talks about all caused by government entitlements? Maybe we should move to Mexico and sign up for their welfare programs.

I recall a letter to the editor of our local newspaper a few years ago. A lady described someone in line in front of her in a grocery store, buying high-priced items she could not afford, and using food stamps to help purchase it. Then, after leaving the store the poor welfare recipients drove off in a late model Lincoln Navigator-style SUV. How can someone “needy” afford something that those with reasonably good paying jobs cannot necessarily afford? Doesn’t that sound like welfare fraud? I hope it is, and it isn’t just a case of the state knowingly giving someone welfare that really doesn’t need it.

The recent promotion In Washington State to make the state minimum wage a “living wage” has largely passed. Some places in the state, especially the greater Seattle area, can see minimum wages approaching $15/hour. Is there any further need for “welfare”? Is this not a sufficient wage to get people off their backsides and going to work? Remember, a minimum wage is historically a starting wage, usually for a teenager in their first few jobs. I worked them, until I gained enough experience and education to get something better. Apparently the leeches in our society expect to be handed something they didn’t earn. What a surprise.

When the thirteen colonies were still a part of England, Professor Alexander Tyler wrote about the fall of the Athenian Republic over a thousand years ago.  He said:

                “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.  It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure.  From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasure, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.  The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been two hundred years.”

It’s my understanding that the percentage of the people of the United States who are receiving some kind of government assistance is currently around 49%. What will happen when 51% are sucking off the nipples of the other 49%? That’s in essence what welfare is, government sanctioned and controlled promotion of laziness at the expense of the productive. It’s why communism has never worked.

While I recognize that this country didn’t start out as a Democracy, it has certainly moved in that direction. It’s hard to recognize very many attributes of a Republic in our nation today. This “prophesy” neatly describes what is happening to us right now. Whenever a democracy has failed, it has always been very violent and bloody. The lazy don’t give up the good life without throwing a tantrum. And often, “racism” or the perception of it, is part and parcel of the entitlement and “victim” mentality. The black population (for example)blames the “white man keeping them down” yet they don’t work to promote themselves. They sit back, watch cable tv, chat on their government-provided cell phones while eating government-provided food and beer (and maybe a little marijuana from that side job nobody knows about). Meanwhile those evil white men like myself are forcing themselves to get up early in the morning, work all day, and come home tired and disconnected because they’ve been away all day. I’m certainly not saying it’s just a black problem, parasites exist in every color and ethnicity, though it’s certainly much more prominent in some than in others.

Don’t forget those “minority only” scholarships that white people cannot and never will be able to apply for, yet to try to start a white-only scholarship would be shot down in court as “racist.” Racism goes both ways, and racism isn’t the only ‘race’ that can be racist.

It’s fair to say that the vast majority of the parasites draining the public coffers are liberal, meaning they respect “nature” and believe that everything in “nature” is right and the way everything should be. Show me an animal that doesn’t work to feed itself, either hunt or make traps to capture food? There is not one natural creature that can survive without working to provide for itself. These people are against nature. The Bible itself says, “…this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.” 2 Thess. 3:10 I think that’s a good standard. If you want a hand-out, wash these dishes, or mop this floor or… do something to earn it.

What about these kids we now see, getting “free lunches” through one school program or another. Here’s a clue, people: nobody in the United States is going hungry unless they choose to. This is way too kind of a nation for that to be allowed. They may not have what they want, or as much, but nobody is starving. It’s another liberal “the sky is falling” entreaty to get attention and sympathy for another public coffer-sucking minority group of some sort. There is a place for the down-and-out in every city in this country. Problem is, the vagrants don’t want to live there because then they would be required to clean up their lives (drugs, criminal behavior, etc.) and actually do some kind of work, be productive. When I see pictures of these kids getting their meals that are well-dressed and not obviously too thin. It’s an example of “parent parasites” sucking off the government to feed their kids, knowing it’s their responsibility to provide for their own families but not caring.

SPEAKING of criminal behavior, do you realize how many people in the jails are welfare recipients? I’m amazed every day when I view the pictures of the inmates who have come in. Many young men and women, 18-30, have a welfare debit card in their property. They are able-bodied (obviously, they are healthy enough to commit crimes) and also obviously have the time to hold down a job. Why are they still receiving benefits if they are in and out of jail? I think welfare should be strictly time-limited and dependent upon good behavior, and once someone is convicted of a crime, they lose any right to any public assistance for a significant period of time. I think that’s fair, though, if you’ve read from the beginning about the increasing minimum wage, I think that other than the few truly disabled among us, welfare has seen its day and it’s time to remove the burden on the producing part of the population and make the lazy earn their own way.

This situation is not sustainable. Either the welfare crowd will get too large and too greedy and will demand too much, of course producing a backlash by the working population, or the public coffers will simply implode and national bankruptcy and fiscal instability will occur and the violence from those who expect what the government will no longer be able to provide will explode. Welfare is un-American and needs to end before it ends us.

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” – Thomas Jefferson

Duck Dynasty and Societal Truth

December 24, 2013


From left, Phil Robertson, Jase Robertson, Si Robertson and Willie Robertson from “Duck Dynasty.”(Photo: Zach Dilgard, A&E, via AP)

During a recent GQ interview, Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty fame made some “controversial” statements. This is my analysis and personal opinion statement to the world at large.

 “When asked about his definition of sin, the reality star said, “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there — bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.””

Biblically speaking, this is a correct statement. Since when can someone be lynched for speaking facts? It may not be facts everyone agrees with, but does represent an opinion based upon substantive fact.

Let’s define terms. Liberals are very quick to throw out the negatively-connoted terms “prejudice” and “bigot”. Just what do these really mean, and are they applicable in a strictly accurate sense in this case?

Prejudice – The word prejudice refers to prejudgment, or forming an opinion before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case. The word is often used to refer to preconceived, usually unfavorable, judgments toward people or a person because of gender, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race/ethnicity, language, nationality or other personal characteristics. In this case, it refers to a positive or negative evaluation of another person based on their perceived group membership. Prejudice can also refer to unfounded beliefs and may include “any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence.”, “Prejudice”

Ok, someone who is prejudiced has prejudged someone with their own preconceived ideas, without facts, and holds to these ideas with unusual tenacity. I believe that’s about the gist of it. Ok, in this case we have someone with opinions founded upon the Bible, which is a well-recognized, authoritative historical document (at the very least). This document also had a great deal to do with the establishment of English and American law. Someone founding their opinion on homosexuality based on clear Biblical statements does not fit the definition of being prejudicial.

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person’s opinion, ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics., “Bigotry”

This strikes me as a definition that has been contaminated by modern conceptions.

BIG’OT, noun

1. A person who is obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion, practice or ritual. The word is sometimes used in an enlarged sense, for a person who is illiberally attached to any opinion, or system of belief; as a bigot to the Mohammedan religion; a bigot to a form of government. Webster’s Dictionary, 1828 Edition, “Bigot”

In this case, it strikes me that the term “bigot” was not necessarily originally intended to be a denigrating term, as liberals themselves are bigoted in favor of their own pseudo-religious opinions. If being a bigot means being religious, then so be it. But, those who attack others because of their honest religious convictions are also bigots by that very definition!

Considering we are supposed to have a 1st amendment protection to our words and opinions, I’d say Mr. Robertson’s is an open and shut case. Unfortunately, that is in a ‘free country’, a country where the rule of law is respected. The first and foremost law of our land is encapsulated in the Constitution, which is denigrated, dismissed, belittled by the very people we are discussing here. They are called Liberals or Left-Wingers. I call them Communists and Fascists, because in the end, that is what they represent.

Who are these “liberals”? We all know many of them. The various “minority” groups including but not limited to the Black Caucus, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, the ACLU… What is their ‘agenda’? Freedom… from any limitations, and freedom from any criticism, no matter how justified. But I personally believe, at least as far as the gay rights movement goes, there is a deeper, more sordid agenda. Follow me here… So, if homosexuality is ok, then gay marriage shouldn’t be an issue, right (this step is today’s big controversy)? Oh, wait, then we have all these “sister wives” in polygamous marriages out there that are suffering persecution, and that just isn’t right either, after all, their relationship(s) is/are their own choice, right? What, your neighbor wants to marry and have relations with his favorite hunting hound, well, ok, why not? In the end, what it really comes down to is eliminating all boundaries of decency and allowing anyone to do anything (except stand for moral absolutes). One extreme faction of our society is trying to force itself on the rest of society, with the might of the willing accomplices in the liberal media behind them.

The end result is what we are already seeing. Girls in high schools being bussed to clinics to have abortions without parental notice. Contraceptives being given to underage (under legal age) children. But to really liberate these kids what they need to do, and the main thrust of all these preparations, is to give all children an education (and experience) in the different sexual “options” so that they can determine what is ‘best’ for themselves (parents, well, sorry, but your child’s sexuality is none of your business). What are the inmates at the public fool – uh, school systems taught? What is taught in sex education? It’s very hush, hush. Stories occasionally get leaked of kindergarteners being taught that having “two daddies” or “two mommies” is normal, and sowing their immature minds with seeds which may in the future help convince children with mental or social issues that they really are gay. This, I believe, is the real goal behind the gay movement. They want access to the children. It started with gay boy-scout leaders, and that was foiled. Now they are marrying. Soon, they will want to ‘liberate’ the children from their ‘archaic, repressive’ traditional foundations. Sin, like power, ever has a desire to increase.

Also note that Mr. Robertson didn’t say those words, previously quoted above, on his show, no, but on his own time at the behest of GQ magazine. Was it a setup? Certainly anyone with an IQ of 10 could figure out Mr. Robertson’s opinions are, in this day and age, “controversial”, and GQ isn’t exactly a puritan organization. What are the chances that he would say someone to get the liberal media all hot and bothered? Obviously the chances were 100% as evidenced by the firestorm we see on the internet news today.

My problem is that Duck Dynasty is one of the very few programs on any channel that is truly family-friendly, shows healthy traditional family relationships and is down-right harmlessly entertaining. Maybe this is why their ratings are truly astonishing… at least to liberal media outlets. (–how-did-duck-dynasty-become-such-a-hit-this-year-210120788.html)

In my personal opinion, what one does behind closed doors isn’t an issue. But when persons go public and demand, not ask, not request – no; demand not just ‘tolerance’ but ACCEPTANCE of their immoral actions, I think that any sincerely felt vitriol against those persons is justified. Destruction of the society is an issue. Gays have essentially asked Christians for the one thing they absolutely cannot have, and they know it. So instead of an in-your-face frontal assault, networks like A&E perform societal modification by airing multiple programs portraying gays as sophisticated, reasonable, “the kid next door” type of people. Sorry, many homosexuals do not act or look like that, are not the suave professionals that our society is being re-engineered to stereotype them as being. Anyone see that Barnes & Noble Christmas commercial with the blonde gay guy? Notice that all he is shopping for are his male relatives (and friend). He acts like an overly-emotional, immature child. He even runs off the screen with a textbook gay limp-wristed running style. This is not masculine, this is not “normal”. “Normal” is acting your gender and your age. There’s something not right about “gay-normal” behavior.

One of government’s primary duties is to guard the “public morals.” This excerpt is taken from

The primary duty of a municipal corporation is the protection of health, safety, and morals of its population.  In order to exercise the entrusted duty, municipal corporations use police power.

A municipality passes ordinances to implement its duties.  General welfare of the public must be the ultimate aim of a municipal ordinance.  An ordinance passed by a municipal corporation should not conflict with a state law.  Generally, a municipality passes two types of ordinances: ordinance under the power of local self-government and ordinance under police power.  An ordinance created under the power of local self-government relates solely to the government and administration of the internal affairs of the municipality.  A police-power ordinances aims:

  • public health;
  • safety; or
  • morals[i].

[i] Mendenhall v. City of Akron, 117 Ohio St. 3d 33, 37 (Ohio 2008).

Protection of Public Health, Safety, and Morals

In allowing municipal ordinances to reflect changes of morality that do not stand traditional/historical muster, our government officials on all levels have failed to meet their required duties. To allow an activity which historically has always been considered shameful and wicked, in fact to promote such an activity, could be considered treason against the morals of the public at large. Our laws were founded upon the English Common Law, as our people were under the English crown before the Revolution. I find the classic “Commentaries on the Laws of England” by William Blackstone very enlightening:

IV. What has been here observed, especially with regard to the manner of proof, which ought to be more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence, of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature, committed either with man or beast. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved, and then as strictly and impartially punished. But it is an offence of so dark a nature, so easily charged, and the negative so difficult to be proved, that the accusation should be clearly made out: for, if false, it deserves a punishment inferior only to that of the crime itself.

I will not act so disagreeable a part, to my readers as well as myself, as to dwell any longer upon a subject, the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law, which treats it, in its very indictments, as a crime not fit to be named…” Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 2nd Edition, 1888, p. 954

It was such a repugnant subject at the time that it was called the “unnamed sin”. So, in 100 years we go from the “unnamed sin” to something that is pervasive throughout society, and something Christians are expected (by a small minority and the political machinery they’ve co-opted) to not just “tolerate” but “accept.” Sorry, acceptance is asking too much, from both sides. Liberal gays will no more “accept” Christianity than Christians can “accept” gay behavior.

Then, down the media pike comes the firebomb that Mr. Robertson also made “racist” statements. He simply stated that he, in his own personal experience, saw no acts of “bigotry” against blacks when he was younger. Ooooo, that’s damning, isn’t it? We have a minority who have made a career out of playing the victim, and they are so touchy about it that any harmless, innocuous word that could possibly be construed in a negative way toward their pre-conceived notions of history causes a violent reaction. Get a clue. Black men in Africa sold black men into slavery to white men. Slavery has been illegal in this country for 150 years. No-one alive today even has grandparents that were alive in those days. It is over, pull up your bootstraps, get a job and get a life. If someone dresses like a hooligan, talks like an ignorant, then yes, they might have trouble getting a job. Plenty of white people also have troubles getting jobs because they too haven’t understood the concept of being “professional.” It isn’t “whitey’s” fault if someone can’t get a job. Time to grow up America. If you ‘African-Americans’ love Africa so much, by all means go back. Then “Whitey” won’t be able to bother you.

Certain minorities and minority leaders need a healthy dose of maturity. But I can at least understand the leadership of these groups holding onto their “prejudices” (yes, minorities can be prejudiced and ‘bigoted’ just like any other human being). The leadership have nice cushy jobs and big bankrolls for just sitting around, watching the news stories and jumping on anyone expressing the least bit of sacrilege toward their firmly held (irrationally held) beliefs. And as long as there are enough prejudiced people willing to pay these “leaders” to do this, they will continue to do so.

I find it interesting that there is a black Miss America pageant, a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (in our area), legislative voting districts in Washington have recently been reconfigured “to give Hispanic voters a fair shake,” in reality, to intentionally design it so that their candidates cannot lose seeing as how they now make up the majority of the voting population in those districts. So much for fairness in politics… And, it is another prime example of the fact that the only class in this nation which it is ok to slander, defame and despise is the white Christian male, the very creature that built this fine entity called the United States of America. If there were a call for a White Miss America, the country would go into a fit of apoplexy, but every other ethnic group may have their own without a problem. That’s called ‘racism’ people.

I guess reverse discrimination is acceptable to these people’s thinking. It’s blatant hypocrisy in my mind. Frankly, it shows me how pathetic these people are, who claim to have been repressed, abused, denied “rights” they believe they should have had… and when we (as a nation) bend over backwards to give them all they think they want (deservedly or not), are they thankful? No, they get louder and go on wanting more and persecuting the very people who are giving them what they want. Where will it end?

Mr. Robertson, if you ever read this, stick to your guns (as the saying goes). Liberals love to throw the term “compromise” around. As a last thought, and since that is the tack the Robertson family seems to be taking with A&E, let’s look at that word:

COMPROMISE, noun [Latin – To give bond to stand to an award, to promise. See Promise.]

1. A mutual promise or contract of two parties in controversy, to refer their differences to the decision of arbitrators.

2. An amicable agreement between parties in controversy, to settle their differences by mutual concessions.

3. Mutual agreement; adjustment.

Webster’s Dictionary, 1828 Edition, “Compromise”

It means to give and take to come to an agreement. However it also means to give up your standing as in “to compromise your beliefs”. Unfortunately, when “compromise” is brought up by liberals it leads to the conservative giving up or “compromising” the high ground to settle for an agreement which only benefits the liberal in the long run.  Beware of compromise, it’s a two-edged sword!

2 Corinthians 6:14 “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15) And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16) And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?”