Natural Law and the State of Things

When we look at the world today, whether you are conservative or liberal, Christian or pagan, you see turmoil, unrest, violence, threats of violence  and signs of societal decline on every side. The question everyone asks, if only to themselves, is “What caused this and what is the solution?”

The answer: everything we see in the world today is an act of natural law.

First, what is natural law?

“The unwritten body of universal moral principles that underlie the ethical and legal norms by which human conduct is sometimes evaluated and governed. Natural law is often contrasted with positive law, which consists of the written rules and regulations enacted by government. The term natural law is derived from the Roman term jus naturale. Adherents to natural law philosophy are known as naturalists.

Naturalists believe that natural law principles are an inherent part of nature and exist regardless of whether government recognizes or enforces them. Naturalists further believe that governments must incorporate natural law principles into their legal systems before justice can be achieved.” (The Free Dictionary,

At its simplest, natural law is the “law of consequences.” In this essay, “consequence” is used to reference something negative, an inherent penalty, whereas a blessing is a positive result. Life is a series of choices, and with each choice you will receive one of two outcomes: either you will get a blessing or suffer a consequence.

Look at the experience of history. Ancient Rome, before the advent of Christianity and before the empire, was a moral nation. And the blessing for that morality was a blossoming, expanding empire and great power. But, as they became wealthy and powerful, their morality failed, and they began more and more to suffer consequences rather than inherit blessings.

Ezra Taft Benson (Quorum of the Twelve) wrote the following:

“Military service was an obligation highly honored by the Romans. Indeed, a foreigner could win Roman citizenship simply by volunteering for service in the legions of Rome. But, with increasing affluence and opulence, the young men of Rome began avoiding this service, finding excuses to remain in the soft and sordid life of the city. They took to using cosmetics and wearing feminine-like hairdo’s and garments, until it became difficult, the historians tell us, to tell the sexes apart.

“Among the teachers and scholars was a group called the Cynics whose number let their hair and beards grow, and who wore slovenly clothes, and professed indifference to worldly goods as they heaped scorn on what they called ‘middle class values.’

“The morals declined. It became unsafe to walk in the countryside or the city streets. Rioting was commonplace and sometimes whole sections of towns and cities were burned.

“And, all the time, the twin diseases of confiscatory taxation and creeping inflation were waiting to deliver the death blow.

“Then finally, all these forces overcame the energy and ambition of the middle class.”

It’s simple: you do good and good things happen to you; whereas if you do “bad” things, you suffer the consequences of your actions. When we look at the policies modern liberals tend to favor, we shouldn’t be too surprised to see them full of consequences rather than blessings.

Let’s look at some of the causes of our society’s miseries today.

Drug Abuse: People who become addicted to readily available drugs consume all their readily available wealth to support their habit. In the process of being impaired, they are also more likely to commit crimes. Often included in this is a government system that benefits to some degree off the drug trade and doesn’t apply its full efforts to stamp it out, as it has too much wealth to gain from it. Once these drug-slaves’ money runs out, they take to theft and ultimately resort to living on the street, spending any money they obtain to continuing their addiction, expecting the public to support them and provide for their housing and necessities as their health inevitably fails. Isn’t this what we see today? One who cannot support themselves is not only not a free citizen, they are a slave and a public burden. The result of this is rampant crime and class warfare (the “rich” against the “poor”) and the destruction of the economy.

Abortion/Evolutionary Doctrine: When the unborn are regarded callously as mere “tissue” to be removed at the mother’s convenience, the inherent sanctity of all life is demoted. This results in ‘senseless, unthinkable’ violence’. Why shouldn’t people, especially young impressionable youths, see other people as mere animals they have every right to eliminate if it benefits them (or for their simple pleasure)? The very conscience of the people becomes tarnished and what used to be a taboo no longer has the stigma it once held. When life is held to be of little importance, the very fabric of society, that which holds people together is endangered.

Weakening of the Family: When children are taken away from their parents because those parents did not raise them the way someone else, or the government, believed they should, the moral fabric of the nation is further sundered. Children are then moved to homes where more often than not they are molested or abused worse then they were at home. Now, I’m not saying genuine child abuse doesn’t happen, but I believe the majority of the cases of so-called abuse are simply the consequences of a system that is designed to financially benefit from the destruction of families. Social workers are encouraged to use the state’s powers to steal children from their God-given homes for such petty reasons as refusing to vaccinate or seeking alternative medical procedures to treat illnesses. The end result is a Clinton-esque communist government of tyranny where the children are raised (and propagandized) to support the state.

Gender Identity: A nation that can’t tell one sex from another is teetering on the brink of destruction. Such purely natural distinctions should, in an intelligent society, not even be questioned. When they are, you can be sure that the moral decline of that nation is just about at the bottom. Rampant infidelity and promiscuity is the result, with increasing abominations and perversions abounding. Child sex. Bestiality. Even polygamy is a symptom of this decline, as it is not the norm throughout the majority of the world and again common sense should dictate that one person can only really have a true intimate relationship with one other. Crimes against persons and violence inevitably follows a society’s profligate ways. As well, the weakening of the society as a whole, as its members’ roles are now in flux and old-fashioned concepts such as “faithfulness” and “loyalty” disappear.

Greed: When a government can spend the wealth of its people witlessly, on any contrived excuse you know that the end is coming. One thing many nations that have failed have in common is a nominalization of their currency. Rome began with silver. By the end, silver was scarce. The United States was founded, wisely, on a gold standard. Didn’t take too long for that to disappear. Fiat currency is debt currency, not wealth. Inflation and debt are the consequences of foolish spending. When you have a government that has to spend its people’s future on the “environment” (whatever that means), maintaining the other consequences of the society’s decline (homeless shelters, socialist security, state-paid healthcare), when the lazy wait for welfare handouts while the decent members of society struggle with supporting themselves as well as the welfare leeches, you have a society on the downturn.

Rampant Uncontrolled Crime: When society believes that punishment for crime is inhumane, and ‘mental health’ so-called ‘professionals’ believe that the offenders’ “low self-esteem” is the problem rather than their “extreme arrogance and self-absorption”; when the death penalty is abrogated as being old-fashioned and hard-hearted, while murderers commit crime after crime knowing the just penalty for their crimes will never be served; when “low-risk” offenders commit petty crimes by the barrel-full (often while receiving welfare benefits) and there is no shame – in fact, they believe it’s their right to do so and to receive what is not theirs; when, in short, the concept of crime has become more of a political issue, a revolving door to propagate a corrupt legal system and support reams of attorneys’ high salaries, you know the system is going to fail eventually. Societal distress and violence is the consequence for these failed beliefs and policies.

The Bible lays out the good and the bad, the blessings and the consequences of such things.

Galatians 5:19 “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, (20  Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,  (21  Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (22  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, (23  Meekness, temperance:”

What kind of nation would you rather live in? What consequences do you enjoy enduring? What would it really take to turn this nation around? All you have to do is embody the good, positive aspects of life, decency, morality, honesty, sincerity. A people who reject such common-sense facts of nature deserve their fate. We either allow our nation to continue its decline until it erupts into violence and destroys itself, or we take this nation back, get the economy back to reason, restore the value of life, eliminate crime and justly punish criminal behavior, and require public decency and a return to a more natural and respectful relationship with each other. Otherwise, the degenerate will destroy all that was good in this country.

Isaiah 5:20 “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! (22 Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink: (23 Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!”

2 Timothy 4:3 “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; (4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”


Christian Society vs. World Government

Christianity vs. the World

In thinking about the state of our nation, the contest between conservatism and liberalism, the eroding of our rights and the program to democratize this nation, I came to a realization about the enemy that opposes us.

First, what is liberalism? Yes, I know, I’ve posted about this before, but really, what is liberalism? A form of Marxism. But what is Marxism at it’s foundation, it’s most basic ideology? What, really, is very single other belief system on earth at it’s very core?

A rejection of the Creator. Resistance to what we all are born knowing. OPEN REBELLION.

What is paganism except a man-made construct of ‘deities’ based upon the realities of existence which surrounds us. The humanizing of natural forces based on man’s own imagination (and desire). The creation of gods that mimic (and epitomize) the fallen human existence. What is nature worship but, again, a rejection of God and a worshipping of that which was created. What are philosophical systems (Confucianism, Buddhism) except the vain imaginings of a fallen mankind? God warned us before that this would happen.

Deuteronomy 4:16  “Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, (17 The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air,  (18 The likeness of anything that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: (19 And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.”

1 Corinthians 1:25 “Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”

Isaiah 55:9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

You can look at any religious or philosophical system and you will find only a dogmatic refusal to accept reality. We have Scriptures which have survived the ages, and that give us God’s very words as recorded by His prophets… and none of His prophecies can be proven to have failed. Not one. The record for other faiths, however, is not so reliable. But, I digress…

Marxism is the root of humanism, and the basis of the modern “paganistic” paradigm. Just as ancient Romans were crucifying and killing Christians for sport, so too today’s Marxists have and are killing believers throughout the world. These are some of the same people in our country claiming the educational and moral high-ground, proclaiming that they are more educated, more rational, more individualist thinking, claiming to know better than the rest of us.

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition. The meaning of the term humanism has fluctuated according to the successive intellectual movements which have identified with it. (from Wikipedia)

Superstition is a pejorative term for any belief or practice that is considered irrational: for example, if it arises from ignorance, a misunderstanding of science or causality, a positive belief in fate or magic, or fear of that which is unknown. “Superstition” also refers to religious beliefs or actions arising from irrationality. (from Wikipedia)

So, these ‘rational,’ ‘empiricist thinking’ Marxists are the ones toting, oh, the theory of evolution. This is nothing but one man’s mad philosophy, without one shred of evidence, and which nature and true “empirical” science has consistently and soundly refuted. Evolution has become a “religion”, based on “dogma” and “faith” over fact or evidence.  So, by their own definitions, those Marxists and atheists who subscribe to evolution are superstitious and irrational. Any “theory” of science that has had 150 years for its adherents to prove it as a law of science, and is in fact even further removed from being proven than when it originated, is hardly something to dogmatically rely upon. But it’s all they have, and its either continue to promote it or admit that God exists and all their evidential scrounging’s for the last almost two centuries have been a waste of time. And that is the crux of the issue: their refusal to admit to God’s existence and their responsibilities to abide under His commands to mankind.

To sum up thus far: there are really only two belief systems on earth today: Christian and non-Christian. You either accept the God of the Bible or you don’t. And if you don’t, you imagine something else to worship and serve other than your Creator. We can see this today in our own nation, which was founded upon Christian values and principles, yet that is denied and is not taught in the government schools. What is the alternative we are being force-fed?

Well, our children and our society are being taught a disrespect and disparagement of law. There are two factors to consider: 1) “Law” as it is being passed in legislatures and the Congress today are not all good, not all moral laws, so in this case there are laws which should not necessarily be respected. 2) Long-standing laws which are based on protecting the public morals and maintaining the public peace.

Those who used to be pillars of authority, unquestioned and institutions in our society are no longer respected. How many Hollywood productions and television sitcoms show men as either abusers or fools especially when compared to their wives or children?  Police are being rendered as objects of derision, and the military as well. Authorities are being belittled and made fun of. This disrespect is a symptom of a more serious illness. What’s the point of it all?

“The origin of its law is its god. The final authority for our law is our God. Since we are a people under God’s Law, we are a people under God, or God’s people.

Wherever the emperor is accepted as the source of law, the emperor is also hailed as god. If Der Fuhrer or Il Duce, or The Leader, or the Soviet dictator, gives and enforces the law, he is openly declared to be god. If the final authority is claimed for parliament, parliament usurps the place of Divinity. Such a claim, in fact, incited a War of Independence in the American Colonies. But if the final authority is believed to be in the whole people, the demos, then the voice of the people is said to be the voice of god and we have set up the tyranny of the mob.” The World Under God’s Law, T. Robert Ingram, 1962, p. 3-4.

Mobocracy is Democracy. Democracy eventually fails, every time it is tried. That is why the United States was founded to be a representative Republic. We are, however, via the legal system, Hollywood, political system, societal engineers of any and every kind, being driven to a tyranny once again.

What is law?

“Law in its simplest form is the set of rules which are consented to and imposed upon all members of any group of people, and its purpose is to preserve the existence and identity of the group as a whole. The law sets forth the terms which every individual must observe for the sake of the whole body. The end and purpose of the law in this world is to protect society as a whole. The law protects the nation or the people from the vagaries of individuals.” The World Under God’s Law, T. Robert Ingram, 1962, p. 3.

“There is a foreboding distortion of truth in the recent pronouncements from the Supreme Court of the United States to the effect that the function of law is to protect the individual from society. That perverted philosophy of law has produced a spate of decisions from the Supreme Court which are not only a travesty on law and justice, but an insult to humanity, an offense against nature, and a breeding ground of chaos and violence.” The World Under God’s Law, T. Robert Ingram, 1962, p. 4.

So, the non-Christians are out to destroy everything created by our Christian forefathers. Is this a surprise to anyone?

“The liberal movement is dedicated to the establishment of a supreme world tyrant whose conscious human will is law and whose decree cannot be questioned. It cannot achieve its purpose until it succeeds in breaking down God’s legal system built upon the Ten Commandments, and substituting therefore a system of regulation by law of all human conduct. The recognition of the Ten Commandments as law in the United States and all Christian nations is the bastion of defense of Christian freedom and a rock against which every tyrant must smash.” The World Under God’s Law, T. Robert Ingram, 1962, p. 3.

Thus, the movement to eliminate the 10 Commandments from all government/public buildings. Bring up an issue of morality with a liberal. They will laugh in your face. They have no conscious concept of or tolerance for morality, which is clear in our world that normalizes fornication and legalizes removal of the consequences for such acts (hence abortion). The murder of the resulting child is societally insignificant. Is this situation purely accidental? No, it was planned.

“The alternative to God’s law is not no law, but human law. Governments who do not jealously guard the majesty of God have no choice but to uphold the majesty of their own human authority. Where crime is not an offense against the moral order of God, it is an offense against the arbitrary power of the state.” The World Under God’s Law, T. Robert Ingram, 1962, p. 6.

“The will of one man is the alternative to the will of one God, but one will there must be. The distinctive mark of a world government under man as opposed to the present arrangement under God is that it kills for political insubordination – rioting, rebellion, treason, spying, and such like. Christian governments kill for insubordination to the Divine majesty – violations of the law of God.” The World Under God’s Law, T. Robert Ingram, 1962, p. 18

“The modern word for such a government is totalitarian: a government that arrogates to itself total power. The crowning goal of Satan is to have a totalitarian world government.” The World Under God’s Law, T. Robert Ingram, 1962, p. 24

I only have time for one illustration. I’ve often wondered at the liberal dislike of corporeal punishment. It just seems like the most logical, rational solution for those who have proven to be an irredeemable threat to society. Otherwise, it is inhumane punishment on society to support these worthless, dangerous people in prison for their entire lives. Also, the fact is that God ordered the deaths of murderers.

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.”

But, it seems liberals would rather incarcerate than execute. Why? A helpless baby is prone to be eliminated without thought, they actually defend the ‘right’ of mothers to murder their own children, but hardened killers, they must be kept alive. Why?

“The whole Christian doctrine of temporal government rests upon administration of a system of rewards and punishment according to the laws of God. That is what we mean by justice. The execution of punishment is the specific work of the head of government. The cornerstone of the power or authority to punish is the power to execute the chief punishment, which is death. The death penalty thus becomes the symbol of temporal power in a Christian republic. The proposition is recognized from both sides of the issue, by those who believe it is good and right, and by those who believe it is wicked and wrong. John Locke, in his treatise on civil government, writes: ‘Political power, then I take to be a right of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties… and of employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws…’ Consequently, all less penalties is the phrase that acknowledges the key importance of what is commonly called the ‘capital’ or ‘chief’ punishment. In the opposing camp, a Dr. John R. Silber quotes Dr. Sheldon Glueck of Harvard University as follows: ‘The presence of the death penalty as the keystone of our penal system bedevils the administration of criminal justice all the way down the line and is the stumbling block in the path of general reform in the treatment of crime and criminals.’

The liberal movement confirms the key importance of capital punishment by its own dedication to its ‘abolition’. It is necessary to try to strip the government of its power to kill in order to destroy Christian civilization and replace it with a reformed system whose head, himself, sits in the place of God and whose own will and decrees are the only things inviolable… You and I and our state governments are the targets of this mammoth drive. It is our way of life that is to be abolished. The reformed system would be a world government. There can be no world government as long as Texas, for example, retains it sovereignty. Texas loses what Christians have always recognized constitutes temporal sovereignty the minute it gives up the power to put criminals to death under the criminal code of God. The only alternative to utter chaos, then, is the identifying socialist passion to set up a government to rule the whole world. The socialist blueprint for world government is well attested by a leading socialist spokesman, Dr. Martin Buber, who recognizes that such a government must be under man rather than under God. He writes that, ‘for Utopia everything is subordinated to conscious human will, as though there were no other factors at work than conscious human will.’ And again, ‘if… the whole population is to be limitlessly determined in all branches of its life, and thought by one central authoritarian will [God’s will?] then it is inconceivable how such a stage can ever evolve into socialism.’” The World Under God’s Law, T. Robert Ingram, 1962, p. 17-18.

The liberals, or at least the leadership, know exactly what they are doing.

“Even the liberals or socialists who are so passionately trying to demolish these principles know perfectly well what it is they have set about to destroy. Remember the devils were among the first to recognize Jesus. And the enemies of Christ are among the best informed on the score of what Christian government looks like. The trouble with relying on a liberal scholar is that in his passion to destroy, he is apt to distort. Moreover, what the Christian approves, the liberal abhors. If you accept the liberal mind as the standard of approval, then you may hear the Christian position accurately described, but viewed with horror and alarm. For example, discrimination is said to be a bad word. It is simply wrong, say the liberals, to discriminate. Now Christians not only do discriminate, but we regard discrimination as of the essence of all Godly activity. Our whole life in Christ is a process of discriminating choices in every phase of activity – from acquiring knowledge to choosing our associates. We are told that it is an abomination to hold any person guilty by association. But Christians have always quipped, “Birds of a feather flock together.” And Christian legal principles recognize the charge of being guilty as an accomplice to a crime by association under certain conditions with the criminal after the crime is all over.

The socialist has no qualms about disagreeing with what Christ holds to be good, because he has rejected Christ’s authority in the first place. But he is never in any real doubt as to what Christ has said, and what Christian authorities in all churches have generally agreed Christ said.” The World Under God’s Law, T. Robert Ingram, 1962, p. 16.

“Everywhere in the Christian world there is underway a powerful, highly organized movement to abolish the power of governments to punish men for violations of the Ten Commandments and to substitute therefore the power of the state to uphold arbitrary decrees, because, say the socialists, when the government speaks it must be obeyed. If, they argue, we will submit to absolute human sovereignty, resistance to which must bring swift execution, men will have peace such as we cannot know under the moral laws of God.” The World Under God’s Law, T. Robert Ingram, 1962, p. 8.

Something as simple and seemingly insignificant is actually just another attack on our Christian foundations. It’s just another step the liberals/communists/non-Christians are using to destroy what our Founders created, a system with God as it’s head. Think the forbidding of prayer in schools was an accident? Nope, it too was a rung on Satan’s ladder to world government.

“The alacrity with which the liberal movement springs to the attack against any hint that the government might function under Christ is too familiar to need further illustration. It does need to be pointed out, however, that the very denial of a Christian basis for keeping the government out of the regulation or prohibition of practices of worship leaves only the alternative of a totalitarian human supreme will in the place where God ought to be. Apart from Christ, the principle becomes a legal guarantee of atheism. The government must be obeyed: and the government must forbid worship in any activities with which it is connected. The fact that this principle also results in a bald-faced violation of the Constitution against the prohibition of Christian worship is ignored. The fact remains that when the Court rules that the schools may not provide Christian teaching, it is prohibiting Christian worship. One may argue that the government has a perfect right to do so in its schools; yet it is the subjects of that government who are affected and whose freedom, unrestricted, to worship as Christ commanded, is forbidden in a school they are required to attend. Two violations do not produce an affirmation; they merely result in confusion worse confounded.” The World Under God’s Law, T. Robert Ingram, 1962, p. 30.

Wake up before it’s too late. Many liberals may simply be ignorant and misguided, but undoubtedly many also know exactly what they are doing, and unless we oppose their foolishness in seeking a “utopia” on earth without God, we will all suffer the consequences of their foolish attempts.

Funny; on an ending note, those who oppose the will of God are the ones fulfilling His prophecies. If they stopped trying to create a world government, stopped corrupting our nations and opposing God’s people at every step, His prophecies of the end times might actually fail (not that they will, but philosophically speaking). By pursuing their agenda they are assuring the successful accomplishment of God’s Word.

Today’s Ecumenicalism

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.]


Comparison of the Progressive and Conservative Ideologies via the Party Platforms

Civil and Religious Liberty Progressive (Liberal) Position

Supports rights as set forth in the US Constitution, UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People and Washington State Constitution. Religious rights not specifically supported.

Rights granted per government authority.


Conservative Position

Civil and religious rights are given by God and are thus inalienable, as per the US Constitution, and the Washington State Constitution. Includes the right of the individual to practice the religion of their choice in public as well as in private.

Rights granted per God’s authority.

Limits of Government Progressive (Liberal) Position

Supports government oversight and overriding authority in all aspects of national governmental and business functions.

Government involvement in all aspects of a citizen’s life, i.e. communism.


Conservative Position

Limited and enumerated powers of government. Strict compliance with federal and state Constitutions.

All citizens to be free of unnecessary government intrusion and to be personally responsible for their own life.

Rights Progressive (Liberal) Position

Civil and human rights (see Civil and Religious Liberty above), education, healthcare, human services, free immigration, living wage, separation of church and state, sex identity, abortion.

Acceptance of all lifestyles and life choices and anything declared by the state as a “right”.


Conservative Position

Rights as set forth in the Bill of Rights, and those rights not specifically enumerated in that document, and which include the right to life, the right to private property, the right of the citizen to be “left alone” by their government.

Traditional understanding of rights per Bible, English common law and the US Constitution.

Public Morals Progressive (Liberal) Position

A person’s individual values. No reference to “morals” specifically, only ‘values’ and ‘choices’.

No concept of morality per se.


Conservative Position

Traditional Judeo-Christian moral code. Right vs. Wrong. Good vs. Evil. The basis of any society is how the citizens relate to each other. Murder, theft, perversion, unnatural relationships are destructive of the public morals and society as a whole.

Education Progressive (Liberal) Position

Free access and fully funded government-operated public school system from K-college for all children. Particular regard for students based on educational and human services needs, specific populations, migrants and undocumented.


Conservative Position

Primary authority and responsibility of the education of children belongs to the parents. Support elimination of the Federal Department of Education, and the waste and poor standards emanating therefrom, and the substitution of school choices including home schooling, privatizing schools, charter schools and vocational and technical training in its place.  Free public education is the 10th plank of the Communist Manifesto.

National Sovereignty Progressive (Liberal) Position

Cooperative and fully funded participation in international organizations including the United Nations and international courts of justice, provided that the national security interests of the United States are protected. Leading global efforts to prevent the radicalization of religions. Support giving developing countries more influence in the running of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.

Extensive international networking and cooperation with foreign powers. Believe they are “citizens of the planet” and an “interdependent world”.


Conservative Position

The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The government shall not ratify any treaties, UN resolutions, agendas or foreign law, religious or otherwise, that is contrary to the US Constitution. Agenda 21/2030, the Kyoto Protocol, Sharia Law, and other agreements threaten our sovereignty. Judges, state and local authorities must be barred from using or applying foreign agendas, law, and resolutions for the purposes of interpreting US and State laws and must be bound by their original intent. Command and control of US armed forces must never be relinquished to the UN or any other foreign power.

Are citizens of the American Republic, the Union of States first and foremost.

Fiscal Policy Progressive (Liberal) Position

An incremental increase in the state and federal minimum wage, with a living wage as the goal. A progressive tax system at both the federal and state level, including taxing unearned income at the same rate as earned income. Increasing the rate of food assistance. Repealing tax breaks and incentives. Removing the cap on income subject to Social Security tax. A major increase in funding for assistance and construction of affordable and low-income housing.

Heavy taxation and lots of social programs to support those that will not, and those that genuinely cannot, work.

“Taxes, after all, are the dues we pay for the privilege of membership in an organized society.” – Franklin Delano Roosevelt


Conservative Position

Inflation, skyrocketing debt are the consequences of a debt-based monetary system using fiat currency. Support returning to the US dollar to the gold standard. Debt is the result of over-spending, not one of insufficient taxation. Increasing taxation only stifles economic growth. Supports strict qualifications for all welfare-type social programs including proof of citizenship and good behavior requirements, and implementation of a strict time limit for receipt of benefits.

A person is not free who cannot or will not support themselves.

“With all our blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens – a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, and shall otherwise leave them free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government…”

Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural Address, 1801

Environment Progressive (Liberal) Position

Immediate aggressive action to minimize climate change, as global climate change is the foremost threat to survival of Earth. Protecting environmentally sensitive areas by prohibiting oil, gas, and mineral exploration, extraction, and transportation in such areas. Enacting new laws and enforcing current regulations to eliminate pollution to Washington waters.

Opposes increased production of fossil fuels and natural minerals through destructive techniques such as, but not limited to, hydraulic fracturing and mountaintop removal, and offshore well-drilling for petroleum; and opposes increased use of nuclear power.


Conservative Position

Changes in climate occur naturally and warming from human-generated activity has not been proven and should not be a basis for public policy.

Supports investment in safe nuclear energy and hydroelectric plants to be officially classified as renewable energy.

“Climate change” is a radical agenda driven not by freely functioning science but by cronyism between big government and institutionalized science. It results in suppression of free and open debate, enrichment of certain favored parties at the expense of others, and a significant loss of the liberty of the people.

Form of Government Progressive (Liberal) Position

We are a Democracy – “A government of masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of “direct” expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is Communistic-negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagoguism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.”

From: U.S. Government Training Manual No. 2000-25 for Army Officers, published by the War Department on Nov. 30th, 1928


Conservative Position

We are a Republic – “Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best suited to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.”

From: U.S. Government Training Manual No. 2000-25 for Army Officers, published by the War Department on Nov. 30th, 1928

“Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote.” ― Marvin Simkin



Unity or Confusion?

GOP in Control

This most recent election highlights something that I have often believed, but that is not often very evident. The majority of Americans are conservative. Yet, the conservative “agenda” rarely if ever gets promoted. Why?

First, what is a conservative?

Conservative – the root of the word is “conserve” meaning to preserve, protect from harm, and safeguard. What do ‘conservatives’, politically speaking, stand to protect? Liberty, human rights, the system of government enacted by the founders of this nation and codified in such documents as the Constitution for the United States and the Declaration of Independence.

As the article from the Yakima Herald Republic, from July 24, 2017, linked above, states, the Republicans (asserted to be the “conservative” party) have the majority in almost all branches of government. Yet, their program is not getting advanced.  They are in turmoil, infighting and backstabbing runs rampant. Why?

The short answer is: the Republican party is composed of conservatives at the lower levels, but liberals (Marxists, Communists, Socialists, Humanists, etc.) at its upper echelons. How can this be, you ask?

At a meeting of the Teenage Republicans (TARs) a couple weeks ago, one of the adult Republican volunteers overseeing the formation of this group spoke about the origins of the Republican party. He stated that many parties dissolved around the slavery issue and others, and the Republican party formed from this disparate group of people with miscellaneous beliefs and ideas. The term he used was that the Republican party was a “big tent” where people with a multitude of beliefs could work together. That sounds great, very ecumenical one could even say… But is that true today, and should it be…?

Today there are essentially two doctrines of how the government should work: the “liberal” ideology, based as I said in Marxism, and the “conservative” ideology, based around the beliefs and structures formed by this nation’s founding fathers. These ideologies are mutually exclusive, they cannot and should not be joined.

2 Cor. 6:14  “…for what fellowship does righteousness have with lawlessness? And what partnership does light have with darkness?”

Good and evil do not have common ground, neither does liberalism and conservatism.

So, now we have the Democratic Party which is dedicated to promoting and enforcing the tenets of Marxism, and the Republican Party which is supposed to be in opposition to those “liberal” ideals… Yet it consistently refuses to enable a truly conservative candidate to run for higher office, like Ron Paul for example, and even Donald Trump himself was not liked by the Republican powers-that-be and faced many challenges in getting the party’s nomination.

But, you might be saying, if the Republicans have the majority in all branches of government, surely then they’ve won. Surely they will get their way. Wrong.

Amos 3:3  “Can two walk together unless they are agreed?”

In the Bible, the idea that two people could walk together when they disagree on the way is ludicrous. Yet, good Republicans would have us believe that just anyone can be a good Republican and the party will advance as a result of all the different (I would say “opposing”) ideas. This is an example of natural law, basic physics. If you have two equal forces opposing each other, which direction do they move? Answer: they don’t.  They oppose each other until one or the other becomes stronger. So it is within the Republican party. Until the mainstream/liberals are ousted or learn the foolishness and unnatural nature of their ideology, and the true conservatives gain control, the party will continue to be unproductive regardless of how many elections they win, how much of a ‘majority’ they have at any given time.

Inter-party bickering is only one way the Republicans lose, there are others, such as the idea of “compromise”. This word has both positive and negative connotations. Let me demonstrate. Today it is commonly thought of as praiseworthy for a politician to “compromise” with the opposition in passing legislation, to not be an “obstructionist”. Yet, in order to achieve a ‘compromise’, a politician almost always has to “compromise” their values and standards and beliefs. Is this what people elect representatives to do? I believe that this most recent election proves that people are tired of “compromisers” and want real, true, God-fearing conservative statesmen who can be trusted to do what they are elected to do, to stand behind their standards and oppose the “innovations” of the socialists. A party must promote candidates that stand for their party’s values and who truly believe in and actually advance that party’s ideology. Republicans who consistently compromise are worse than Democrats, in my opinion, since they advance the Progressive agenda to the detriment of the party itself and of the nation as a whole. In truth, compromise is the method by which the Progressives get their agenda passed, contrary to the will of the people; a little bit of compromise here, a little bit there, more socialism and with the next compromise, a little bit more, until they have passed their agenda and the liberties we are promised in the Constitution have been further diluted.

It’s a sad state of affairs when the party of Reagan, Lincoln and now Trump, the party that stands for everything this country used to be and can still return to being, is the very party that allows liberalism to advance, by effectively neutering itself by accepting the doctrines and definitions of the enemy. When “compromise” becomes a praiseworthy act, this country is in trouble.

A party that opposes itself cannot stand.

Mark 3:25  “And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.”

Fellow Republicans, purge out your dross, your liberals and compromisers, and do what the People elect you to do, and do it with fortitude and determination… otherwise, electing you is a waste of time, money and energy; and the party, and the nation itself, will fall into the dark night of Karl Marx’s dream: The end of freedom and the elevation of the State as parent, provider and god.


A History About the Washington State Constitution, circa 1878

picWith Excerpts taken from the above.

“When Washington Territory was created on March 2, 1853, it included what is now Idaho and western portions of Montana and Wyoming. In a few years the miners and cattle men in that vast area east of the Cascade Mountains became ambitious along the lines of government. Three counties – Shoshone, Nez Perce and Idaho – were created in 1861. In January of that year a memorial to Congress was introduced in the Washington Territorial Legislature asking for the creation of the Territory of Walla Walla. It was not adopted and the eastern men then circulated a petition asking the Legislature to submit to the voters a constitution for a proposed State of “Idaho” to include the whole eastern area. On the last day of the session, January 29, 1868, a motion was carried to change the bill by substituting the word “Washington” for “Idaho” and in its amended form the bill was tabled. The mountain and valley men of the east then took their cause to Congress and on March 3, 1868, the Territory of Idaho was created, giving Washington the eastern boundary that has remained unchanged.

The people in the northern part of “panhandle” of Idaho were not content. They memorialized for a return to Washington. In 1867 there began a legislative agitation for statehood, the northern end of Idaho to be included. Each session of the Legislature submitted the question to the voters but no adequate response was received. In 1878 another scheme was attempted to create a new territory which should include Eastern Washington and the “panhandle” of Idaho. Then followed the preparation to participate in the Centennial Exposition. Aspirations were stimulated.

The Legislature in an act approved on November 9, 1875, once more submitted to the voters the question as to whether or not a constitution should be prepared for submission to Congress with a request for statehood. Contrary to former experiences, if was found in the general election of 1876 that more than 7,000 voters had responded and the majority in favor of framing such a constitution was 4,168. At the next session of the Legislature, by an act approved on November 9, 1877, provisions were made for delegates to be elected and to convene at Walla Walla on the second Tuesday of June, 1878, to frame a constitution…

The delegates assembled in Walla Walla and on Tuesday, June 11, their formal sessions began. After forty working days they adjourned on July 27. The men were in earnest.

The constitution was ratified by the people at the general election in November. However, it was never put into operation. When it had become known that a convention was going to be held, the Delegate in Congress, Orange Jacobs, introduced a bill in Congress for the admission of the State of Washington, in December 1877. Again, after the Constitution had been framed and approved by the people, the newly elected Delegate in Congress, Thomas H. Brents, introduced another bill for the admission of the State. Neither of these bills received favorable action. Washington was to remain in territorial tutelage for another decade.”

What do we know from the above? First, the people ratified a constitutional convention for the State of Washington, which was every bit their right to do. Having approved a Constitution, the “Territory” became a State. The Constitution included very explicit instructions on how the Territorial government would be replaced by the Constitutional government, but as we know, through outright corruption, the elections for State offices was never held.

Understand, the people have the right to form a State. Admission to the Union of States was up to Congress, but Congress had no authority to deny Statehood. At the point that the Constitution was ratified, Washington became a State, but not a part of the United States.

“The delay was largely a matter of national politics. Professor Frederic L. Paxson says: “In Congress, however, there was little disposition to admit new states. Colorado had come in in 1876, and since its last territorial delegate, Thomas M. Patterson, was a Democrat, there had been hope that it would cast three electoral votes for the Democratic candidate for President. Without its three, which were thrown against Tilden, General Hays never could have made a successful contest for the office, and the course of history might have been changed.” (“Admission of the Omnibus States,” from the Proceedings of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin for 1911, page 81). The Democrats has control of one or more branches of the Government from that time until the Fifty-First Congress, 1889 – 1891, with the exception of the Forty-Seventy Congress, 1881 – 1883. During the last named Congress, the bill for the admission of Dakota got at least a hearing. As soon as the Republicans regained control, in the Fifty-First Congress, six new Western States were admitted within two years, four of them by one act.”

So, what we know is that Washington became a State with the Constitution of 1878, but was denied admission to the Union because the Democrats didn’t want their majority upset. (Typical). But the fact that the authors above seem to miss is that Washington became a State by the decree of the people regardless of Congress. Membership into the Union wasn’t within the people’s power, but the people had every right and authority to form a state. The original 13 colonies/states came into existence before the Union of States was even formed. Statehood is self-determinate by the will of a sovereign people, not dependent upon concession from Congress. We the People create states, not the federal government, otherwise states would merely be puppets of the United States government.

As stated before, the 1878 Constitution included explicit conditions by which the newly created State offices would replace the Territorial offices. The requirements for amendments and/or replacement of the Constitution were laid out in Article XVI “Amendments” section 1-3. The schedule for the implementation of the constitution and State offices under the Constitution was specified in Article XVI “Schedule” Section 1-21. Understand, this Constitution was formed and ratified with the intention of the State thereby formed becoming a part of the Union of States. Such membership being initially denied, the Statehood created by the Constitution was still a fact in law. However, the lawful election of state officers was never held, the state continued to operate as a Territory in rebellion against the lawfully created Constitution.

The following is an excerpt from “History of the State of Washington”, copyright 1947 by D. C. Health and Company:

“Delegates to the convention met in Walla Walla in June of 1878. (A delegate from the Idaho Panhandle was present but had no vote). The convention spent twenty-four days in drafting a constitution. A request for admission to the Union was made shortly after. Congress did not act favorably on the request and the work of the convention went for nothing.”

Went for nothing? That’s what the powers that be would like us to think. There was a lawfully ratified Constitution and State formed, regardless of its non-admission to the Union at that time.

And that is the history of the lawful Constitution for the State of Washington. The 1889 Constitution, what of it? Well, ok, let’s go into the history of that just a bit, then I will come to the conclusion of the matter of which Constitution is the real Washington State Constitution. The following is another quote from “History of the State of Washington”:

“It became more and more evident that Washington’s claims to statehood could not be denied any longer, and on February 22, 1889, Congress passed an enabling act setting up the conditions under which statehood could be achieved.”

Again, is it Congress’ prerogative to create states, or the will and vote of the People? The People had already formed a State, it just needed to be accepted into the Union. Ultimately, it was. That is the crux of the issue. Today the so-called 1889 Constitution, which is portrayed on the Washington State Attorney General’s website, is a counterfeit, false Constitution imposed by the moneyed-powers that sought to usurp the rightful Constitution the People had previously ratified, and which didn’t fit into their interests. You want proof? Contact the National Archives and request a certified copy of the Washington State Constitution. 50th Congress, 2nd session, Senate miscellaneous document #55. The text is that of the 1878 Constitution ratified by the people and rejected for admission into the Union of States at that time. Yet, it is ironic that somehow, through some confusion perhaps, or the hand of God Himself, the correct Constitution, the 1878 Constitution for the State of Washington, was the one brought before and ratified by Congress.

What is the difference between the two Constitutions? I don’t claim to be an expert, but there are a few very large differences I think would benefit every Washington citizen.

“Article VI, Section 15: No bill, except for general appropriations, shall be passed, containing more than one subject, which shall be expressed in the title, but if any subject shall not be expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be so expressed.”

No more “riders”. No more laws that have hidden agendas and corruptions behind its supposed intent. Each bill was to be of one specific subject and be clearly expressed in the title of that bill.

“Article II, Section 3: The people of the State, in their rights of sovereignty, are declared to possess the ultimate property in and to all lands within the jurisdiction of the State; and all lands, the title of which shall fail from a defect of heirs, shall revert or escheat to the State.”

No federal ownership or oversight of State lands. The People of the State would own everything within their sovereign capacity. Where is this in the 1889 constitution?

“Article V, Section 3: All persons are by nature free, and equally entitled to certain natural rights; among which are those of enjoying and defending their lives and property, and of seeking and obtaining happiness…”

The right of self-defense and protection of property is constitutionally mandated.

“Article V, Section 4: All persons have a natural and indefeasible right to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences.”

I believe that a business refusing service to any customer is an indefeasible right.

“Article V, Section 23: All lands within the State are declared to be allodial; and feudal tenures, with all their incidents, are prohibited.”

What does “allodial” mean? According to the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, it means “Pertaining to allodium; freehold; free of rent or service; held independence of a lord paramount; opposed to feudal”

According to it means:

Allodial title is a real property ownership system where the real property is owed free and clear of any superior landlord. In this case, the owner will have an absolute title over his or her property. Property owned under allodial title is referred as allodial land. Allodial lands are the absolute property of their owner, and are not subject to any service or acknowledgment to a superior. In allodial lands there will not be any control by a superior landlord.

What it means is that you could not lose your property for failing to pay taxes. Your property is totally, truly yours. That doesn’t mean that payment wouldn’t be due prior to it being passed on to an heir, or sold, but the government wouldn’t be able to take your land to pay a debt. Wouldn’t this be a nice right? Can you see now why the powers that be would want an inferior Constitution for this State?

So, ultimately, the argument state and federal officers might have regarding which constitution governs Washington State is moot, for the 1878 Constitution was ratified, erroneously or not, in 1889 and became our State Constitution. It was ratified by the People in 1878, and created a State, whether regarded by the US government or not is irrelevant. The National Archives proves what is right. So, why is our state operating with the wrong Constitution?


A Treatise on Anti-Semitism

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.”