Catholic Resistence

Apologies to my Critics

2007-08-24T09:57:00.000-07:00

(posted on new blog above)
Hopefully, this will post as I have not generally been able to post on here in awhile!

As some of you reading my blog know, the other day I came across a 5/9/7 article on me by Jacob Michael and/or his friends.

It was unflattering to say the least. I quickly dashed off a response. I did not see the article when it cam out, I only saw it on 8/22/07, the day of my response.
After responding, later I had second thoughts. We have all wasted a lot of valuable time and energy and resources fighting with each other. What brought this home to me, I guess, included the fact that recently, I lost a friend. I had not spoken to him in several years, but we had maintained communication-albeit through other friends-with each other.

There is no real good reason why we lost contact, it does happen as we age (I turned 36 in May). Last Thursday, he OD on prescription pills and died the day before me rebuttal.
Time is far too short to waste with vindictive, bitter arguments. They waste a lot of time, resources, energy. Also, even though they may not rise to the level of sin, they can still damage others and also us spiritually, mentally and emotionally.

So, to the point of this note:
I have emailed Mr. Jacob Michael and offered my hand in apology and asked him to do likewise. The other day, I asked him to remove the 5/9/07 article on me and told him that I would do likewise with articles on him and his friends.

As he is still hurt and angry, I have chosen to take the first step-one not easy as a man, my pride tends to get in the way, that need of men to fight and argue at times.
I have now purged from this blog (I cannot access other ones I have had in the past, but will still try to do so) any articles on:
-Jacob Michael
-Michael Forrest
-Ben Douglass
-David Palm

and anyone else that has been opposed to me, Dr. Sungenis, CAI or anyone associated with us.
I offer apologies to anyone hurt in this long running dispute. I, after my counter-article of 8/22/07, offered my hand "in Christian Charity" to Mr. Michael and associates. I meant it.
Again, after combing through 9+ months of this blog, I have removed any and all articles on them. I again call on them to do the same. Catholics are called on to forgive, I officially, here ad now, forgive anyone that has hurt me and I ask forgiveness for those I may have hurt. There can be legitimate dispute and discourse, but sadly, this long fight has gone way beyond this and has reached lows that none of us should be associated with.

In the future, we all need to avoid personal attacks-they are the work of the Deceiver-and focus strictly on academic or philosophical differences.

Nope, still no post

2007-02-19T09:24:00.001-08:00

Still cannot post, come see me new site:
http://catholicresistence.bravejournal.com/

Test blog

2006-12-21T06:08:00.000-08:00

This is a test, as I have not been able to blog for weeks

2006-12-07T12:40:00.000-08:00

I still cannot post anything, though I switched to the new Blogger beta, complete with the google (CIA controlled) password, etc.

I worked over 2 hours on a post, just to lose it suddenly as the connections-yet again-failed. Too be sure neo-pagan/Neo-cons are problem-less on here. See my new bravenet.com site

Technical Difficulties

2006-11-21T08:40:00.000-08:00

I have recovered my ability to post pics, colors and bold. I cannot though publish post once I do anything.

Stay tuned as it appears Blogspot is pushing us over to new Beta format, run apparently by Google.

NOR Right on Just War

2006-11-09T12:36:00.000-08:00

The So-Called War on Terror

November 2006

We received a letter from Joe Furka of High Bridge, New Jersey: "You've done yeoman's work putting forth the argument that the war in Iraq is unjust. I hate you for it. As an ardent supporter of the war when it started, you've brought me kicking and screaming to see it in a light I never imagined -- and it sickens me. I'm left with one question: Can you offer your readers insights into how you think this ‘war on terror' could be fought justly?"

Yes, we'd be happy to. There would be no need for any U.S. "war on terror" if the U.S. had an evenhanded policy in the Middle East.

Before 9/11, Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda had grievances against Israel for its presence in Jerusalem and its treatment of Palestinians. Listen to the 2004 9/11 Commission Report: The "mastermind of the 9/11 attacks" was Khalid Sheik Muhammed, and his "animus toward the United States stemmed…from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." And listen to Osama bin Laden's videotape of October 29, 2004, explaining the reasons for the 9/11 attack: "Our patience ran out and we saw the unjustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon [prior to the war in the summer of 2006]…. Contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom, let him explain to us why we don't strike, for example, Sweden?"

Because the U.S. has not been a neutral and honest broker in the Mid-East and has overwhelmingly sided with Israel, radical Muslims have resorted to terror. And there are many imitators of Osama, and terror has spread far and wide. This is not good for America or the world. Both the Republican and Democratic parties -- in their majorities -- are stridently pro-Israel, and neither has an evenhanded policy in the Mid-East. All the U.S. would have to do is have a fair-minded policy in the Mid-East. Why is that so hard to do?

One answer, given by two academics of the realist conservative school of foreign policy, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, is that the Israel Lobby -- particularly the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) -- has a stranglehold on U.S. policy in the Mid-East (The London Review of Books, March 23, 2006). Of course, Mearsheimer and Walt were smeared as "anti-Semites." But they're said to be Jewish; however, we can't confirm that. Over the past thirty years, Israel has taken 33 percent of U.S. foreign aid.

The NOR condemns terror, because it is objectively murder. Why can there not be nonviolent resistance? Why is there no Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., or Lech Walesa when we need them? Unfortunately, many groups have resorted to terrorism, even the Zionists when they were trying to establish the state of Israel. And the U.S. resorted to terrorism on a massive scale. The U.S. deliberately and intentionally murdered innocent civilians toward the end of World War II. At a time when Germany and Japan were essentially defeated, the U.S. firebombed Dresden and other German cities, and used nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At that time, General Curtis LeMay said, "There are no innocent civilians," and that's what Osama says. America's hands are definitely not clean.

The Muslims resent the U.S. for its cultural decadence -- its music, films, pornography, feminism, homosexualism, etc. -- that's been foisted on their Islamic culture. Who can blame them? That's their problem, and we hope they can overcome it. But they shouldn't resort to terrorism because of that.

The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- by the way, the democratically elected President -- said that "Israel must be wiped off the map." There is no way Iran could wipe Israel off the map. Israel has nuclear weapons (an estimated 200 nuclear warheads). At this point, Iran has none.

What has seldom been reported is that Ahmadinejad said the Zionist state should be moved to Europe or North America. Before World War I, among the sites under consideration for a Jewish homeland were Argentina and British East Africa -- so this is not such an outrageous idea. Richard Cohen, writing in the Washington Post (July 18 and 25), referring to the recent Israeli-Hezbollah war, says he supports the Israeli's "disproportionate military response" in Lebanon, saying, "You slap me, I will punch out your lights." Nevertheless, Cohen says, "Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south, [Israel's] most formidable" enemies. Cohen says, "Israel is, as I have often said, unfortunately located…[in] a pretty bad neighborhood."

Nevertheless, the NOR has no objection to the Zionist state being where it is right now, if that's where the Zionist state wants to be.

However, David Ben-Gurion, Israel's founding father and the first Prime Minister of Israel, said, "If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel…. We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that [the Arabs'] fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country" (Nahum Goldmann, The Jewish Paradox). You can understand why Ahmadinejad said the Zionist state should be moved to Europe or North America. Certainly, the Israelis would live in peace there. Moreover, the ultra-orthodox Jews oppose the state of Israel, saying the restoration of Israel can only be accomplished by the expected Messiah. And the overwhelming majority of Israelis are secular Jews, so they don't believe the state of Israel is "God's Promised Land."

Nevertheless, Israel is an established fact in the Mid-East, and some Arab countries have made peace with Israel. If the U.S. had an evenhanded policy in the Mid-East, we think that the Israelis and Muslims could live in peace.

Because of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan (on Iran's eastern border) and Iraq (on Iran's western border), and because of the U.S.'s relentless hostility to Iran, the Iranians are said to want nuclear weapons. Why? Because no nation with nuclear weapons has ever been attacked by another nation. It's called deterrence.

If the U.S. could live with 30,000 Soviet nuclear weapons and missiles, the U.S. and Israel can easily live with a smattering of Iranian nuclear weapons. The NOR believes all nuclear weapons should be done away with. The Nonproliferation Treaty was signed in 1970 and committed member states to impending nuclear disarmament. It was led by the U.S. However, Israel did not sign the Nonproliferation Treaty.

There are worries that if the Iranians intend to get nuclear weapons, they could pass some of their nuclear weapons to terrorists. If Iran were to do that -- and it's extremely unlikely -- the U.S. would no doubt bomb the Iranians back into the Stone Age. And the Iranians know it. Much more likely is that terrorists would get nuclear weapons from the still-unsecured ex-Soviet nuclear sites.

As for the U.S. "war on terror," the U.S. is bogged down in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is making a comeback and Osama has not been caught, and in Iraq, where the principal winners are the Shia fundamentalists, who are close allies of Iran. (Moreover, the U.S. knocked off Saddam, Iran's arch-enemy.)

The U.S. is creating more terrorists than it is eliminating. But don't take it from us: A leaked classified National Intelligence Estimate ("Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States") reported that the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has triggered a new generation of Islamic radicalism without any direct connection to al-Qaeda, that overall terrorism has increased since the 9/11 attacks, and that Muslim terrorism has spread across the world. All this because of our invasion of Iraq. The National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative documents in the intelligence community, and they are approved by John Negroponte, the Director of National Intelligence (The New York Times, Sept. 24).

This "war on terror" makes no sense. As H.L. Mencken said, "The American public…detest more violently…those who try to tell them the truth."

Senator Ernest Hollings wrote an op-ed in the Charleston Post and Courier (May 7, 2004): "With Iraq no threat [to the U.S.], why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel." Sen. Hollings said this right after announcing his retirement from the Senate. Nothing to lose. Of course, he was branded an anti-Semite by the neocon Weekly Standard and the Anti-Defamation League. This was intended to choke off debate. And it usually works. We have received many letters criticizing Israel, but most of their authors insist on withholding their names, because they fear being slurred as anti-Semitic (some letters are anti-Semitic, but most are not).

To automatically brand anyone who criticizes Israel as anti-Semitic is the last refuge of a scoundrel. It's just diversionary name-calling. Or, as the Catechism says, it would be "rash judgment" and "calumny" (#2477).

When Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki recently expressed some support for Hezbollah, Howard Dean, the Chairman of the Democratic Party, blasted him as anti-Semitic. How would he know? We do believe Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic -- in vino veritas (one speaks freely under the influence of alcohol) -- and that takes nothing away from his magnificent Passion of the Christ. But how would Dean know whether al-Maliki is anti-Semitic?

To criticize Israel is seldom anti-Semitic. As Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, said in a lecture on February 28, 2002, "We are wrong to see all criticism of the State of Israel as anti-Zionism, let alone anti-Semitism. No nation is perfect. No nation is above criticism."

Nevertheless, to this day one dare not criticize Israel or the Jews, but you can dump on the Arabs and Muslims all you want. There is such a thing as anti-Semitism, but can there be no such thing as anti-Islamicism? (Hey, we think we just made up a new word!) Insult Israel or the Jews and you're cast into the outer darkness, but insult the Arabs and Muslims and you'll be praised and lionized.

In a story in the Washington Post (Aug. 16, 2002), titled "Israel Urges U.S. to Attack," it was reported that "Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein." Michael Kinsley, an American Jewish columnist, said at Slate magazine (www.slate.com) on October 24, 2002, that Israel's primary role in the upcoming war on Iraq is "the proverbial elephant in the room. Everybody sees it, no one mentions it." Kinsley noted that it was the fear of being tarred as an "anti-Semite." Kinsley is an honest man, but maybe only Jews can point to Israel as the major factor in the Iraq war, but even they do so at their own risk (being called Jew-hating Jews).

In the Washington Post (Nov. 27, 2002), it was reported that American political consultants who had advised Israeli politicians had drafted a memo to Israeli and Jewish leaders on the best way to frame the war on Iraq: "If your goal is regime change…. you do not want Americans to believe that the war on Iraq is being waged to protect Israel [but] rather…to protect America."

And remember that both the Republican and Democratic parties -- in their majorities -- supported the invasion of Iraq. Only when the invasion and occupation of Iraq wasn't going so well did the Dems (in part) object to it, but not to the so-called war on terror.

When Israel bombarded Lebanon in the summer of 2006, virtually all of the Democrats and Republicans supported Israel. Never mind that Israel's was an incredibly disproportionate response: One of the criteria for a just war is that "the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated" (Catechism, #2309).

Oddly, Saddam Hussein protected Christians in Iraq (mostly Catholics), and they thrived. Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, half of all Iraqi Christians have fled Iraq. Apparently, the U.S. doesn't care about Iraqi Christians, and their exodus is certainly downplayed by the media.

Israel would be happy to have the U.S. fight its wars -- and who wouldn't? The U.S. is Israel's sugar daddy. The pro-Israeli neocons have a dominating influence on Bush's foreign-policy establishment; however, these neocons do not reflect the Jewish community in America. Poll after poll shows that America's Jews are more opposed to the war on Iraq than the overall American population. The perennial Jewish question is: "Is it good for the Jews?" The invasion of Iraq is not good for the Jews. It has inflamed the Muslims and Arabs. After there were no WMDs to be found in Iraq, Bush tried to justify his war on the grounds that it would bring democracy to the Mid-East. But that too is backfiring. Through democratic elections, Hamas has come to power in Gaza and the West Bank, Ahmadinejad is the President of Iran, Iraq is now dominated by pro-Iranian Shia fundamentalists, Hezbollah has a dozen seats in the Lebanese Parliament, and in Egypt the radical Muslim Brotherhood has been strengthened. All this because of democratic elections.

There are more terrorists than ever before. Iran is the winner in the Iraq war. Israel is too small a country to subjugate the Muslims and Arabs -- it will never work. So don't blame the Jews; blame it on the lunatic neocon domination of U.S. foreign policy. Why do we call them lunatics? Because U.S. policy in the Mid-East is not working, and the U.S. is losing in Iraq. But don't take our word for it: "Israel's top military historian, Martin van Creveld of Tel Aviv University, whose book The Transformation of War is required reading for all U.S. military officers, has called the U.S. invasion of Iraq the biggest military blunder since Augustus Caesar invaded Germany 2,000 years ago. Writing for the Jewish weekly, The Forward, November 25 [2005], van Creveld declared that…the United States has lost" (The Wanderer, Dec. 8, 2005). More cautious is neocon Max Boot, a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. An ardent supporter of the war in Iraq, Boot now says the U.S. is "losing" (San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 27, 2006). And Newt Gingrich, a Republican who supports the war in Iraq, said, "this campaign to create a free and stable Iraq is clearly failing" (National Review, Sept. 11, 2006).

The U.S. can live with North Korean nuclear weapons; the U.S. can live with Chinese nuclear weapons; but Israel cannot live with one Iranian nuclear weapon (which would take three to ten years to develop). Israel has an estimated 200 nuclear warheads, with more in the works. Regarding Iran, Bush said in March 2006 that "we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel." Both the Republican and Democratic parties -- in their majorities -- will use military might to protect Israel. Again, it's all about Israel.

And the so-called war on terror goes right back to Israel. The Muslim terrorists say so themselves. On CBS's Face the Nation (Sept. 3), Howard Dean said the Dems are as committed to the war on terror as the Republicans, but the Dems will fight it more effectively. It doesn't matter who will fight it more effectively. There will be no relief from terrorism in the world until the U.S. has an evenhanded policy in the Mid-East. Why can't the U.S. figure that out? If the U.S. doesn't figure that out, the so-called war on terror will go on and on and on, ad infinitum.

The Christian Zionists do want war in the Mid-East, nuclear war, especially nuclear war with Iran. There are about 25 to 30 million Christian Zionists in America. They are represented by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Benny Hinn, Tim LaHaye, Hal Lindsey, and many others who support Israel to the hilt. These Christian Zionists are right about abortion, homosexuality, pornography, etc. but they are wrong about the Mid-East. The Christian Zionist eschatology is basically dispensational premillenialism, therefore the more turmoil and terrorism there is in the Mid-East, the sooner the battle of Armageddon, the rapture, and the Second Coming of Christ will occur. This is heresy for Catholics. Moreover, many Christian Zionists support Israel's interests over American interests.

If there is a war with Iran, the same Just War principles that applied to the war on Iraq will apply to Iran. Preventive wars, which the war on Iraq was and any war on Iran would be (barring the extremely unlikely event of Iran attacking the U.S. first), are automatically immoral and unjust and wars of aggression, according to Catholic Just War doctrine.

If there is war with Iran, you can expect neocon Catholics to champion the American Empire (for the benefit of Israel) and spurn Catholic Just War doctrine. On his website, the former Editor of The Catholic World Report, the neocon Domenico Bettinelli Jr., has an advertisement for T-shirts that say "NUKE IRAN." On Ave Maria Radio, filling in for Catholic Al Kresta was Catholic Michael Coren, who said the U.S. should strike Iran with nuclear weapons (Sept. 6, 2006). And they call themselves Catholics? If the U.S. used tactical nuclear weapons on Iran's nuclear facilities, the Defense Department estimates that it would kill (actually, murder) up to a million or more people -- that is, indiscriminately. That makes 9/11 look like child's play. As the Catechism says: "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation" (#2314).

An Editorial in The Forward (April 14), an American Jewish weekly, said that an attack on Iran "fought for Israel's benefit is a delusion," because it would have "disastrous consequences," and quoting Jack Straw (the Foreign Minister of Britain, our most reliable ally) said it would be "completely nuts." Iran could hardly fight back against a U.S. attack, but it would unleash massive terrorism, primarily on Israel via Hamas and Hezbollah, and secondarily on U.S. soldiers in Iraq via the Iraqi Shia militias. Perhaps most ominous of all, on Iran's eastern border and Afghanistan's southern border is Pakistan, whose wobbly dictator is a U.S. ally. He would surely be overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists with close ties to Osama. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons.

No, an attack on Iran would not be good for the Jews. Nor would it be good for Catholics. We commend the National Catholic Register (May 21-27) for printing a letter from Michelle Coldiron: "I believe that Islamic fundamentalism is a ruse, thrown at us by the devil in order to confound us and allow a victory on his part. The real enemy in this world war is secularism. And what is secularism? It is ourselves." We couldn't have said it better.

On 9/11 there were 3,000 murders. Since Roe v. Wade in 1973, abortion has murdered 50,000,000 babies -- that's five times the number of people murdered in Hitler's death camps. It's so much easier to fight wars -- rally 'round the flag, shock and awe, we'll punch your lights out -- than to confront abortion. You can see why Satan wants to take our eyes off the Abortion Holocaust.

The war on terror is a delusion.

DOSSIER: Iraq & the Just War

Mason Watch

2006-11-06T09:10:00.000-08:00

CR-Still, without me making any changees, there is no tool bar to add colors, bold or pictures. I tried to email the webmaster and got a bounced email.

Stay tuned as my may need to use alternative blog (manicfish still inoperative too)

The first article is from Zenit, of note, the Spanish bishops hire as their chief at their radio a Protestant????? There is a problem in itself. 2nd article is in the link, please see it to see pictures as of course we cannot post presently.

Date: 2005-01-30

Freemasonry's Influence in Europe

Incompatible With Christian Religion, Says Historian

MADRID, Spain, JAN. 30, 2005 (Zenit.org).- To understand what is happening in Europe, the phenomenon of Masonry must be taken into account, says Protestant historian César Vidal.

The director of the program "La Linterna" of the Spanish bishops' COPE radio network, Vidal has just written a book, "Los Masones: La Historia de la Sociedad Secreta Más Poderosa" (The Freemasons: History of the Most Powerful Secret Society), published by Planeta.

Among other things, the book addresses the Masonic influence in the most important events of recent Spanish history, especially since the election last March of the Spanish Socialist Labor Party (PSOE).

Vidal says that "the secularist current promoted by the government headed by José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero shares more than enough Masonry's rank anti-clericalism."

The author explains that the Freemasons have an enormous role in the European Union and, by way of example, says that "the project of the European Constitution has been driven by a Freemason," Valéry Giscard D'Estaing, "who has excluded mention of the continent's Christian roots and, in addition, has insisted on the inclusion of an article that subjects the churches of the different nations but frees 'philosophical organizations' from that obligation."

Vidal has doctorates in history, philosophy and theology, and a law degree.

Q: Which outstanding personalities in Spain were and are Masons, a fact known by very few people?

Vidal: The list would be too long and some, only some, are mentioned in my book "The Freemasons." Suffice it to say by way of illustration that the Grand Master of the great Spanish east is Dr. Josep Corominas, PSOE deputy; that the special five-member commission that established Felipe González as the PSOE's secretary-general has three Masons among its members -- one of them the future president of the Senate -- and that Rodríguez Zapatero's grandfather was a Freemason.

Q: Can it be said that Masonry is behind the secularist current that is being witnessed in Spain?

Vidal: What can be said without danger of exaggeration is that the secularist current promoted by the government that José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero heads shares, more than enough, Masonry's rank anti-clericalism.

Q: What role does it have and might have in the European Union?

Vidal: Enormous if one takes into account that the project of the European Constitution has been promoted by a Freemason who has excluded mention of the continent's Christian roots and, in addition, has insisted on the inclusion of an article that subjects the Churches to the different nations but frees "philosophical organizations" from that obligation.

Q: In what way, over the last century, has Masonry been present in the history of Spain?

Vidal: Repeatedly and lamentably. A very important role must be attributed to Masonry in the pro-independence movements of Cuba and the Philippines, in anti-clerical and secularist campaigns, in the erosion of the parliamentary monarchy of the Restoration, going so far as to take recourse to terrorism, in the proclamation of the Second Republic and, very especially, in the redaction of a Republican Constitution which created a social break that led to the Civil War.

Q: Can you tell us about concrete events that prove its struggle against Catholicism?

Vidal: That is the history of Masonry since the 18th century, but suffice it to recall, by way of example, that Rodolfo Llopis, Freemason and Socialist, became secretary-general of the PSOE [and] promoted the anti-Christian educational legislation of the Second Republic; or scandals such as that of the Banca Ambrosiana which were linked directly to the Masons' action.

Q: What were Masonry's origins?

Vidal: The real origins of Masonry date back to the end of the 17th and early 18th centuries, when groups of individuals attracted by occult gnosis founded meeting places in which, supposedly, it was transmitted.

Of course, they talk about origins that refer to pagan religions, to gnosis, to a nonexistent personality of Solomon's time and also to the druids.

Q: What are its most characteristic features, objectives and present structure? Is it a religion?

Vidal: Though Freemasons deny it, the truth is that the Masonic cosmo-vision is not one proper to a philanthropic society as they often say, but that of a religion. That circumstance explains, precisely, the repeated condemnations of the Holy See and of the other Christian confessions, which consider membership in Masonry incompatible with Christianity.

Masonry might be described as a secret society, with an initiative structure, a gnostic cosmo-vision, and an existential manifestation which makes it easy for its members to help one another when it comes to occupying important posts in society.

Q: What percentage of Freemasons are there at present?

Vidal: Without a doubt, very small. In France it is said that they are not more than 0.6% of the population. However, that has not prevented their controlling the Socialist International or their spreading in the Right itself, through personalities such as Giscard D'Estaing.

Q: In what vital points of our society -- especially in economic, political and intellectual circles and the media -- are Freemasons present?

Vidal: There are sectors that have always been of interest to Freemasons. Needless to say, politics where they control the Socialist International and have entered powerfully in parties of the Right. No less is their weight in the world of communications and, very especially, their interest in education, justice and the armed forces.

In France, for example, the "affaire des fiches" revealed to what extent Masonic officers were promoted and Catholics, on the contrary, blocked from promotion.

It's Halloween every day for global guardians
By Judi McLeod

Thursday, November 2, 2006

As JasGrave333 notes, "The picture centered above is not a cultic CGI chapel from a computer game, but the Temple of Understanding at the United Nations.

"Notice the symbol at the bottom of the UN Temple central alter (sic)? "Yes, the crossed symbol of the Square and Compass, the Free Masonry symbol."

Free Mason symbols are not just at home in Manhattan and Washington, they are maintained in just about every corner of the globe.

Masonic Lodge 911 is located on Delaware Road in Kenmore.

Courtesy of Dan Walther, a major in an Army National Guard unit based at the Connecticut Street Armory, there's now a Masonic lodge in Iraq.

"A third-generation Mason, Walther joined Master Builder Masonic Lodge 911 in Kenmore when he was 21, eventually serving as the lodge's master.Now 46, the Town of Tonawanda resident is returning to his base just north of Tikrit after a 15-day leave. (Ryan Haggerty, The Buffalo News, June 21, 2005). "He rejoined the National Guard's Engineer Brigade, 32nd Infantry Division, and will serve as the master of Land, Sea and Air Masonic Lodge 1, the only Masonic Lodge in Iraq.

"The United States is home to more than 13,000 Masonic lodges, whose members adhere to a motto of "friendship, morality and brother love," according to the Grand Lodge of the State of New York's Web site.Masons are dedicated to doing good, not operating underground, Walther said.

"Masonry is not a secret society," he said."Masonry is a society with secrets.If we were a secret society, we wouldn't have signs outside our buildings."

Opening a lodge outside Saddam Hussein's hometown required help from Masons across New York, Walther said.

Saddam and the Masons have a lot in common: both have a love affair with the occult.

"The Grand Lodge of the State of New York and all the Masons have been extremely supportive of everything we've done," Walther said."When the word got around, there was a bunch of red tape to cut through, and everybody jumped up and said, "What can I do?"

New York's Masonic War veterans provided Walther with the supplies he needed at no cost.

The Masons' tight knit relationships should attract new members from the base, Walther said.

"Walther's commitment to Masonry is so deep that he kept his return home a secret from everyone, including his family, so that he could surprise his friend Kent Dorney when Dorney was sworn in as master of the Kenmore lodge.Walther arrived home on Memorial Day, but he had to hide from Dorney, who lies a half-mile away, until the ceremony five days later.The surprise was worth the wait," Dorney said.

Saddam, whose mother was a fortuneteller, merely "reads" the desert sands.

As untold tourists can tell you, the UN has its own soothsayer, Sri Chimnoy, who "reads" hands upon request.

But surely among bureaucratic babble centers, the European Union holds the most unique position in the world of the occult.

Located in the City of Brussels where spelling "Christ" with a capital "C" can get you a fine, the EU has a love affair with the number 666.

Included in the Report on the opening of the Fifth Elected Parliament of Europe in Strasbourg and its occupancy of the new Parliament Buildings, by Ian R.K. Paisley, M.P., M.E.P., is a description of the vacant seat Number 66 in the European Parliament:" The prophetic significance of the European Union has been revealed as the saga unfolds. (See our first two articles on "The Conspiracy behind the European Union".)First, the sign, which it chose as its symbol, was the Woman riding the Beast.This comes from a prophecy in Revelation 17.The depiction of the harlot woman was reproduced on the centenary stamp of the European Union, in a huge painting in the Parliament's new building in Brussels, and by a huge sculpture outside the new E.U. Council of Ministers Office in Brussels.The new European coinage, the Euro, bears the same insignia.The Tower of Babel has been used on the posters emanating from Europe‚Äîa truly suggestive prophetic sign.

"Now, a massive Crystal Palace tower (unofficially called the Tower Building) houses the Fifth Parliament of Europe.

"It is certainly a building of the Space Age.The seats of its massive hemicycle are designed like the crew seats in the Star Trek space machines.There are 679 of them‚Äîbut wait for it!While these seats are allocated to Members, one seat remains unallocated and unoccupied.The number of that seat is 666.The relevant section of the seating-plan provided to each member reads as follows:

655 Couteaux

656 Fitzsimons

657 Hyland

658 Kuntz

659 De La Perriere

660 Marchiani

661 Montfort

662 Quiero

663 Souchet

664 Thomas-Mauro

665 Zissener

666 ----------------

667 Cappato

668 Turco

669 Bonino

670 Pannella

671 Dupuis

672Della Vedova

673 Dell'Alba

674Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso

675 Gobbo

676 Speroni

677 Bossi

678 Formentini

679 Crowley

"Revelation 13:18: "Here is wisdom.Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six Hundred threescore and six."That is 666.

"Today this scripture is being fulfilled before our very eyes.

"The Antichrist's seat will be occupied.The world awaits his full and final development.The Lord will destroy him by the spirit of His mouth (the Word of God) and by the brightness of his coming (2 Thes. 2:8).The coming of the Lord draweth nigh."

More Grumbling from European Clergy

2006-11-02T11:06:00.000-08:00

Pope's Latin Mass Plans Spark Concern
By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor, Reuters

PARIS (Reuters) - It isn't official. It may not even happen. But reports that Pope Benedict could soon revive the old Latin mass are stoking heated debates among European Catholics with some fearing this will turn the clock back.

CR-turn back the clock? This is dialectic that we most move continually forward toward “progress”-for what, I guess for progresses sake. This is an area of the world known for decrepit secularism. Depression, suicide, substance abuse and general malaise is high in Europe. It also assumes that “turning the clock back” would be akin to caveman dwelling and grunting in the dark ages of savagery. I have heard similar comments in regards to Luther, leading us out of this dark.

The uproar is loudest in France, where clergy and laity are ringing alarm bells against bringing back the old liturgy.

CR-See my previous critique:
http://catholicresistence.blogspot.com/2006/10/french-clerics-secular-press-slam-tlm.html

Church leaders in Belgium and Germany have also grumbled, saying demand for the old Tridentine mass in Latin was minimal and warning the traditionalists could use it as a wedge to smuggle more divisive issues into the world's largest church.

CR-Demand in, say 1960, may have been minimal for clown masses and hideous art, depressing sermons and teeth-grinding music. What would these “wedge issues” be? Maybe it would be a call for ending the welfare state that is killing rapidly aging and low birth rate Europe. Maybe calling an end to abortion, gay “marriage”. Maybe it would be a call for evangelization. Yes, that is scary-isn’t it.

"The (Tridentine Latin) rite is only the locomotive -- the issue is the carriages that are pulled behind it," Brussels Cardinal Godfried Danneels said last week. "Behind this locomotive are carriages that I don't want."

CR-again, what carriages? A call to actually do the job of a bishop, which is to preach the Gospel w/o fear. What does this Cardinal not want? End the Globalization, abortion, welfare, sodomy so saturated in Europe. Does the Cardinal then wish to be popular or do his job-that of preaching the Gospel in season and out-especially to his Queen, a Bilderberger globalist and daughter of Nazi sympathizers?

These rumblings hint that Benedict might alienate many mainstream Catholics if he opts for a deal to heal an 18-year schism with the Society of Saint Pius X, a Swiss-based group that rejects the landmark Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).
CR-the would is deep, the body very chalky white and hemorrhaging already, thanks to the “mainstreaming” of the Church in these last several unfortunate months. Also, define mainstream?

"We risk creating a front of sadness, discouragement and disappointment with the Holy See," said Toulouse Archbishop Robert Le Gall, using the Vatican's official name. "The liturgy is just the tip of the iceberg."

CR- Your Eminence, look around, the world is a mess. Your country is part of the problem, as is Europe, the land that gave us Charlemagne, the Hapsburgs, the great warrior kings that repulsed the attack at Vienna, Lepanto. Again, every indicator I have heard is that Europe is even a bigger mess of booze, drugs, sex and depression/suicide.

SIGN OF STEP BACK

The Tridentine mass is seen as a symbol of rejecting modernizing reforms such as more participation by the faithful, respect for Judaism and cooperation with Protestants.

CR-As one that just attend, last night, the TLM-I can tell you that participating in the TLM is more engaging for the concerned Catholic then the NO, where many are sitting around listening and watching the pageantry with a rhapsodic expression to ‘One Bread. One Body” and women rifling through the tabernacle and passing out the Eucharist like a free coupon to Chick-Fil-A. TLM requires constant prayer-praying the Mass, not just saying it or sitting through it. As for Judaism, are goal is a call to call them to convert to the new-and only-covenant with God. Nothing in V2 negates the need for this. We had more Protestants convert PRE-V2 then after. Many today wish to bend the Church to a sort of Roman Protestantism. Others want their own Hebrew Rite. Can you imagine Edith Stein calling for this? No.
See my prior article:

http://catholicresistence.blogspot.com/2006/08/eternally-binding-protection-of-jews.html

Find me one sentence in one V2 document that says the Jews are saved by being Jews or Protestants do not have to convert. Find me the documentation that things were terrible between Catholic and Protestants pre-V2. FCFC, Bart Brewer, Chick-all came on after V2.

Most of the world's 1.1 billion Roman Catholics attend Sunday or daily mass in their own language rather than Latin which Vatican II sidelined. Many agree with the respect for other religions that Vatican II made official Church policy.
Cr-Most attend NO because they had no choice, nor were they ever given one. SO many agree to something, as Pope JP2 states in the mid-80’s visit to the USA, ‘The Church is not a Democracy”. The poor teaching and example of these grumblers has led to many thinking V2 was doctrinal or that we were all in some dark slum prior to V2-throwing out sacred music, ornaments and Traditions. As Pope Pius XII hid thousands of Jews, many in the Vatican and his summer palace, I would say that was respectful without indifference or syncretism. Again, see my article about Pope Gregory X.
Priests can still say mass in Latin. All they need is permission from their bishop.
CR-easier said then done in most dioceses. No doubt, difficult to impossible in these Grumbling shepards territories.

But in fact, few Latin masses are said and few faithful turn out for them, the German bishops conference noted last month after conducting an internal study. "We could not see any growth in interest in it, as some have asserted," they added.
Cr- interest in religion in Germany is largely non-existent, especially since those in love with V2 told us for years the evils of pre-V2, the TLM and that all the past 2000 yrs were a mistake and out the door like so many vessels, copes, instruments, etc.

The Society of Saint Pius X, which has about 1 million followers worldwide and is especially strong in France, does not just champion the solemn old Latin mass but flatly rejects what founder, late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, called "neo-modernist and neo-Protestant" reforms of Vatican II.

Cr-so what, they still cooperated wit the Holy See for years after ward. They are not Sede’s. The V2 was not doctrinal, but pastoral. SSPX chooses to do what liberals have done for years, ignore it. Why the punishment for them alone.

Benedict shares their love of Latin and the traditional liturgy and seems keen to bring them back into the fold so they don't set up a permanent parallel Catholic-like church.

CR-the parallel church is that of the NeoCatholic, New Churchers-embracing indifference, syncretism and Assisi pagan prayer meetings, while ignoring that pre-V2 dark, ghetto Fatima appearance and Our Lady’s messages. And warnings. Least we forget:

I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy ... A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God ... In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them, like Mary Magdalene weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, 'Where have they taken Him?' ... I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments and make her feel remorse for her historical past"

Prophesy of Pope Pius XII (Msgr. Georges Roche, "Pie XII Devant L'Histoire", p. 52-53).

Reports from the Vatican say he is also ready to meet their main demands -- which are the unconditional revival of the Tridentine mass as an alternative to the modern liturgy and the lifting of excommunications of the four SSPX bishops whom Lefebvre consecrated in defiance of the Vatican in 1988.

Cr-and? I thought that the TLM, allowed by bishops, was ok-was it not?

A "LOYAL OPPOSITION"?

Paris Archbishop Andre Vingt-Trois bluntly spelled out the problems the traditionalists would bring at a Paris conference attended by Cardinal Francis Arinze, the Vatican official in charge of liturgical issues such as how to say mass.
"Under the cover of a campaign to defend a certain type of liturgy, there is a radical critique of the Vatican Council, even outright rejection of some of its declarations," he said.

CR-what was radical was the stripping of altars, throwing out the art, the vessels and brining in the shames that we have documented-radical is allowing clowns and rock Masses. V2 should have no critiques at all? Some clergy apparently wish not to be held up to scrutiny

"The rejection of new liturgies was followed by public insults against the popes and crowned by violent acts such as the forcible seizure of a parish church in Paris and an aborted attempt by the same people to repeat this," he said.

CR-oh, how loyal they are-that’s right, no Pope is allowed to be criticized and held to the same standard. When the late Holy Father JP2 tried to clamp down on liberalism, where was this loyalty then on the part of liberals and do-nothings? New liturgies-there you have it. Forcible seizures? Possible out of righteous anger, but…where then is the criminal charges?

The warning from Vingt-Trois came after a rising chorus of criticism from other clergy in France, where the schism also has strong political overtones because of the links some SSPX followers have with royalist or far-right movements.

CR-there we go again, trying to link Trads to nefarious groups. As the Church is a monarchy, what is wrong with brining back this to France? Is the French Revolution-inspired by Masons and marked by vast bloodbaths better? Far right?-does he mane like trying to police immigration, end welfare and bring back some sense of Christian thought in politics? Yes, lets stick with these liberals, after all, we can see their fruits on society, especially when JP2 was trying to get even a mention in the EU Constitution of Christian history.

In an open letter, 30 young priests said Benedict, 79, should encourage them "to work in the world as it is ... rather than plunge us back into the liturgical life of another age."

CR-nice use of lingo, the young opposing the 79 yr old Pontiff. Message-they are the energetic youth against the old, mean Papa. Reminds me of something-I think it was Chris Ferrara said-the V2 was surrounded by the celebration of youth and the enamorment with being young and hip.

Besancon's Bishop Andre Lacrampe said he would like to welcome traditionalists back into the Church but not in a quick deal that avoided answering the Vatican II question.

CR- if the SSPX are allowed their own leadership, he has no say. And should not.

Danneels, an outspoken moderate in the overwhelmingly conservative College of Cardinals, urged the Vatican to be tough in its negotiations with SSPX.

CR-Get tough? Again, Europe’s condition tells me he can’t even get tough with his own flock.

"I've never heard their leaders say even once that they accept Vatican II," he told the Brussels daily De Standaard.

CR- so, should we have a sort of reverse Oath Against Modernism? Should every clergy member and laity have to sign or publicly endorse V2/ Again, it was PASTORAL, not doctrinal.

"I think the Vatican should demand this."

CR-And I think the Vatican ought to review these grumblers fruits, leading to a reduction in pay, benefits or outright dismissal for poor results. The SSPX, Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, etc is growing and outgrowing their facilities. Many new monasteries and convents are growing, not out of New Church, but from the Traditionalist movements. Not secularized Europe or the compromised European Church.

All Saints Day

2006-11-01T08:46:00.000-08:00

CR-still not bolding, colors or picture abilities available

All Saints

A solemnity celebrated on the first of November, it is instituted to honour all the saints, known and unknown, and, according to Urban IV, to supply any deficiencies in the faithful's celebration of saints' feasts during the year. In the early days the Christians were accustomed to solemnize the anniversary of a martyr's death for Christ at the place of martyrdom. In the fourth century, neighbouring dioceses began to interchange feasts, to transfer relics, to divide them, and to join in a common feast; as is shown by the invitation of Saint Basil of Caesarea (397) to the bishops of the province of Pontus.

Frequently groups of martyrs suffered on the same day, which naturally led to a joint commemoration. In the persecution of Diocletian the number of martyrs became so great that a separate day could not be assigned to each. But the Church, feeling that every martyr should be venerated, appointed a common day for all. The first trace of this we find in Antioch on the Sunday after Pentecost. We also find mention of a common day in a sermon of Saint Ephrem the Syrian (373), and in the 74th homily of Saint John Chrysostom (407).

At first only martyrs and Saint John the Baptist were honoured by a special day. Other saints were added gradually, and increased in number when a regular process of canonization was established; still, as early as 411 there is in the Chaldean Calendar a "Commemoratio Confessorum" for the Friday after Easter. In the west, Pope Boniface IV on 13 May 609 or 610, consecrated the Pantheon in Rome to the Blessed Virgin and all the martyrs, ordering an anniversary. Gregory III (731-741) consecrated a chapel in the Basilica of Saint Peter to all the saints and fixed the anniversary for 1 November. A basilica of the Apostles already existed in Rome, and its dedication was annually remembered on 1 May. Gregory IV (827-844) extended the celebration on 1 November to the entire Church. The vigil seems to have been held as early as the feast itself. The octave was added by Sixtus IV (1471-84). --- Francis Merseman, from the Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright 1907

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scripture quotations are from the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright 1965, 1966 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Assisi-Aftermath and Controversy

2006-10-31T09:19:00.000-08:00

I just received Robert Sungenis' 4 Cd collection Assisi; Interfaith Prayer Meetings. I have only listened to 2 1/2 CDs, but so far, good defense of Tradition and against the strange and unheard of flirtation with syncreticsm.

James Likoudis' response and Sungenis' rebuttal are particularly interesting. In the early 1980's, my parents helped to found a CUF chapter after heresy split in 2 our parish. Likoudis was a guest in our home and stayed with use. We talked, supped and shared stories. My parents to this day still have fond memories and well wishes of Likoudis. Blogspot is for some reason not allowing for colors and pictures at present, will add if possible in future.

He makes some odd comments that I like to comment and and some thoughts.

1. Loyal Catholics must never rebuke the Pope

CR- If we are never to rebuke the Pope, how is he to remain on the narrow path (1) to life, as he is human and subject to sin-especially with the pressure he is under and the Devil kicking hard against him(2).

As Father Corapi stated, in his talk Form Your Conscience, Vote Your Conscience(3) "if the sin is privte, confess it in private, if the sin is public, it must be dealt with publicly".

Praying alongside pagans, allowing them to practice their false religions and their false Gods, as Paul warns us, are really demons (4). Stayed tuned, again, as I am unable right now to download pictures. The pagans affored food, incense and animal sacrifices on Assisi's holy ground and even on Church property. Possibly, even inside churches.

As pastor of the Universal Church, the Pope is responsible to safeguard and protect Holy ground, not invite sacriledge into the Churches. Many argue that he did not tell them to do what they did. This is a naive and obfuscating tactic. If you ainvite someone into your home to pray, they will pray as they know and how they know. A Buddhaist is not going to break into a Rosary.

If the Pope were caught, in public, committing some other sin, say theft, are we then to pretend that it did not happen and write polemics against those that shine a light and call for penance?

I have seen anti-Catholic websites that have plastered the pictures from Assisi and other events, showing the Pope receiving a "blessing" from witch doctors and Aztec "priestesses". Their caption? Ah-ha, Jack Chick was right!. JP2 is a anti-Christ trying to bring about world religion. He is Mystery Babylon.

Now, do we publicly stand up or tuck our tails, not wanting to rock the boat? OF the 9 eays to sin, one if flattery, one is silence and the others:

By counsel
By command
By consent
By provocation
By concealment
By partaking
By defense of the ill done (5)

Again, if the sin is public, it must be dealt with in public, especially as souls are at stake, not only of indifference but falling into Protestantism.

The arguement that the Pope is beyond reproach in personal conduct and scandalous activity flies in the face of Paul, who upbraided Peter (who was Pope at this time) (6).

After Peter was named the Rock of the Church, Jesus upbraided Peter in front of the others.

2.Rebuke, if any, should be in Private

Again, the action was public and worldwide. It needs to be taken care of that way, least we participate in the sin and let others think wrongly of us. Hiding in private or in the dark is a sign of guilt or that of sinners (7).

3.Preserving the Image of the Pope is Better than the Truth

As noted above, his image with Protestants, the most likely to win over to the True Church, took it on the chin as Eveangelicals, Fundamentalists and others see the debacle in Assisi and other areas. They question and attack us for this, we would be more respected standing up for the truth and calling the Pope to repentance or even, stopping these events from ever happening. Speak the truth(8).

4. The world is against the Church, we must not infight

As noted above, we have far less credibility now, what with the priest abuse scandal and the images that have come out of Assisi. I first learned about it from a Catholic-Church-is-mystery-Babylon site. imagine what would happen if I were a lukewarm Catholic, not supernaturally protected by the Holy Spirit in Baptism/Confirmation. Imagine if I were a typical Joe Six Pack, what would I beleive then? I have talked to enough people to know what they are saying. Pre-V2, we had mass conversions, now mass attacks. But trying to hide sin, we have exploded it on ourselves.

We are not to pray with non-believers, esp if they invoke false gods and practicing meaningless or even satanic practices. The Pope spreading out cucumber peels to the snake god is a prime example. Hearing him state that others are seeking God in their own way, WITHOUT Christ is in contrast to Blessed Pope Pius IX (9):

11. The Church not only ought never to pass judgment on philosophy, but ought to tolerate the errors of philosophy, leaving it to correct itself.
15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.
16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.
17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.
21. The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion.
77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.

After teh meetings, I have yet to hear of mass conversions to Christ, a re-uniting of schismatics and heretics. They went home and continued to practice outside the Church, feeling even more empowered that the Pope, the Rock ,the new Eliakim, gave them his blessing in his actions, his lack of Gospel preaching and his full cooperation.

Let us continue to pray for the late Holy Father JP2. let us not continue to cover and lie for him. He, like all men, can sin and fall short. His pontificate is forever marred by the scandals, the lax discipline and Assisi. I have many fond nad happy memories of JP2, the title "great" is not one of them. Likoudis and others need to stop the Papal Idolotry, putting JP2 and others on a pedastal all white and clean (10)

Reference:
1. Mt 7:13-14; Lk 13:24
2. Acts 9:5; Acts 26:14
3. http://www.fathercorapi.com/
4. 1Cor 10:20
5. http://fisheaters.com/lists.html#20
6. Gal 2:11-15
7. Ps 9:30, Ps 16:12, Ps 80:8, Jer 23:24
8. Mt 22:16, Jn 5:33, Jn 6:14, Jn 8:32, Jn 8:44, Jn 8:45, Acts 26:25, Rom 1:18
9. Syallabus of Errors (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm)
10. Paraphrase of Mt 23:27

More Diabolical Disorientation in Portugal

2006-10-30T13:25:00.000-08:00

Portugal Will Keep the Faith and Legalize Abortion?
Cardinal Policarpo Dropping the Ball Again!

The country visited by Our Lady of Fatima—Portugal—risks becoming an abortion mill like so many other “Catholic” countries in Europe. On October 19, 2006, the parliament ratified the proposition of the new socialist government of Jose Socrates to introduce a referendum for abortion on demand until the 10th week of pregnancy.

Until now, abortion is tolerated in Portugal only in cases of rape, congenital malformation of the baby, and serious danger for the mother's life. Already in 1998, a similar referendum had been organized, with a very narrow majority (50.07 %) voting against it, and with a record rate of abstention: 68.11%.

This new referendum could be held as early as in January 2007, if the Constitutional Court and the Presidency pronounce themselves in favor of it, which is yet to be determined.

At the same time, the Church is faltering in this fight. The cardinal patriarch of Lisbon, Cardinal Jose de Cruz Policarpo (responsible for the infamous interfaith meetings at Fatima in 2003), has just recommended abstention (not voting on it) to the undecided voters. The question of abortion should not be, according to him, a religious question, but only one of fundamental ethics. "I don't make any recommendation to voters", declared the Cardinal. According to him, the Church shouldn't lead the campaign for this referendum: "It should be especially the physicians and family fathers who lead the way."

More and more, the victories of abortion proponents in Europe are due to the lack of courage on the part of the shepherds of the Church, who, in general, don't dare defend the life of babies any more, even if some bishops here and there still do. Opposition to abortion has actually become a source of division within the Church when it should be a unifying factor. If the Christians were standing united against the massacre of European babies, there would be no abortion in Europe.

Will Pope Benedict XVI find the courage to remedy this catastrophic situation?

Malta-Shining light in Darkness

2006-10-27T10:16:00.000-07:00

CR- Good article from NOR, read and enjoy. Anyone with immigrating information and job info, let me know.

(flag of Malta)
Contrasts in Christendom: Red Lights in Amsterdam, Neon In Malta

October 2006By Thomas Basil
Thomas Basil entered the Catholic Church in 1996. He resides in the Archdiocese of Baltimore with his wife and six children.

It is sunset in Bugibba. Small tourist hotels and shops crowd a Mediterranean boulevard teeming with holiday-minded Europeans. Most are surely unaware that their vacation spot ranks a full chapter in the New Testament, Acts 28. In A.D. 60 a shipwreck here changed this island forever. The Church of St. Paul's Bonfire now stands in the boulevard's median strip. Here a serpent tried to strike down the Apostle Paul after he was cast ashore on Malta.

Malta is a remnant speck of Christendom off the coast of a post-Christian western Europe. Malta is home to 365 Catholic churches, roughly one for every 1,000 residents. Of her 400,000 citizens, 98 percent profess Catholicism and, more significantly, 85 percent attend Sunday Mass. The national flag is the feudal eight-point Maltese cross. Malta's state university trains future doctors and engineers as well as future priests. Public schools teach Catholicism as a required subject. Political debate is not over a woman's "right" to abort, but over a couple's "right" to divorce. Malta quaintly outlaws both modern liberties.

Before arriving in Malta, my itinerary took me to Amsterdam, where liberties flourish. In her Red Light district, prostitutes in underwear pose in storefront windows in shops directly opposite an obsolete medieval cathedral. Paid by credit card, prostitutes ply their trade shielded from onlookers only by a curtain pulled across their street-level window. Their professional status is secured by a Dutch labor union for "sex workers." Other Amsterdam sights included its airport's "meditation center," which holds a Sunday "multi-religious" service in a "chapel" devoid of any cross, but with a large arrow on the floor showing the direction to pray toward Mecca; and the suburban Amsterdam parish near my hotel where an elderly nun tallied Mass attendance for me as "about 15 on Saturday night; on Sunday about 100.

"Malta's equivalent to Amsterdam's Red Light district is an area known as Paceville. It too is jammed with passersby in search of a good time. But absent are store windows crammed with either prostitutes or obscene sex toys. Instead, its stores include souvenir statues of St. Padre Pio and ceramics of famous Maltese churches. Paceville's most provocative storefront has shelves filled with penis enlargement, breast enhancement, and other hedonistic potions. A neon sign blazes the shop's name: "Made in America."

Malta's Paceville is probably the world's only nightclub zone with a Eucharistic Adoration chapel. Founded by an Augustinian priest named Fr. Hillary, it is called The Millennium Chapel. The chapel's exterior mixes a multi-colored neon sign reading "WOW -- Wishing Others Well," a bronze sign of St. Augustine's famous quote, "Our hearts are restless O Lord until they rest in thee," and statuary of a pregnant woman, a weary businessman, an alcoholic, and a rebellious child at the door. Inside you meet the risen Christ painted in a rainbow of pastels on a triangular canvas. From the aqua-colored monstrance to the background music of waterfalls and birds, the chapel is a rare thing in Malta, an architecturally modernist church.

Open until 2 AM nightly, the Millennium Chapel hosts a 9:30 PM Saturday night Mass for the party crowd, plus a bookstore, a game room, a food pantry, counseling rooms, and a television lounge. A volunteer staff of 100 runs it all. During my visits I always saw young Maltese taking a break from the nightlife, many kneeling before the Blessed Sacrament, behind which the scheduled adorers of an older generation kept watch. It is a remarkable sight.

Many public transit buses in Malta lack doors, and nothing keeps the unsteady passenger from tumbling out except the watchful eye of God, seen in ceramic figurines of Jesus and Mary above the driver. Prayer cards of the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, or a banner reading "Trust in God," adorned other buses but did not prevent drivers from cheating me more than once with too little change in the unfamiliar Maltese lira.

The hand of Providence seems to have guided not only Malta's bus system, but its very geography as well. Not far beyond where St. Paul shipwrecked begins a coastline of sheer cliffs. Had he hit land slightly west, there would have been no survivors. In the capital city of Valetta is the Church of St. Paul Shipwrecked, which depicts in sumptuous baroque murals every event of his life from the Bible. On the feast day of the shipwreck, February 10, its larger-than-life statue of St. Paul preaching is processed through city streets. The statue also was processed in 1798 in divine supplication as Napoleon's invasion fleet approached, and in 1960, when Malta celebrated the 1,900-year anniversary of St. Paul's arrival.

On one altar is enthroned a silver forearm encasing bones from the Apostle's hand. Ancient wax-sealed parchments allege its authenticity. Another altar holds a three-foot-high marble pillar topped by a silver sculpture of a severed head. It was on this pillar that St. Paul was beheaded. In 1818 Pope Pius VII bequeathed it to the Shipwreck Church in gratitude for parishioners' heroic service during an outbreak of the plague.

It is worth comparing the state of Christendom circa 1818 in the lands cleansed of relics by the Reformation. Lutheranism in German seminaries was hot with higher criticism claiming the Bible was unhistorical mythology. Anglicanism in Britain was beginning its theological drift that in a mere two centuries crowned an openly homosexual bishop in the U.S. Calvinism in New England had replaced Christ with Unitarianism. Yet in Maltese Catholicism circa 1818, New Testament relics were showcased in churches that portrayed New Testament stories as both spiritual and historical realities.

Valetta has 38 churches within its walls. Thirty-seven are Catholic. One is an Episcopal cathedral left over from British rule; nearest that altar are inscribed not saints' names but those of British ships that kept Malta supplied during the Nazi siege of World War II and a sort of relic -- a letter from England's Queen Mother. It was a visible reminder that non-Catholic churches typically trace back to a single nationality, and lack a trans-cultural broadness.

The most prominent Christians in Maltese history after St. Paul are the religious order today known as the Knights of Malta, founded in 1070 as the Sovereign and Military Order of the Knights Hospitaller of St. John of Jerusalem. It is the fourth oldest religious order still extant in the Catholic Church. Its motto has remained unaltered since 1099, Tuitio Fidei et Obsequium Pauperum -- "to defend the faith and to serve the poor."

The Knights initial role of hospitals for Catholic pilgrims evolved into military functions during conflicts with Islam, and the Knights became a strong fighting force. The Order was composed of hereditary noblemen from all portions of Europe. Its Grand Master might hail from Portugal, Germany, Spain, Italy, or England, although most were in fact French.

The Knights quit Jerusalem in 1291 when Islam conquered. They next took the Greek island of Rhodes as headquarters, and rebuffed four major Moslem assaults until a six-month siege in 1522, when they surrendered on Christmas Eve to Turkish Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent, who allowed survivor Knights to depart unmolested. In 1530 Holy Roman Emperor Charles V bequeathed Malta to the Knights as their new naval homeport, their navy then being one of the best in the world.

The Knight's worst defeat came not from Islam but from the French Revolution, which confiscated the income of their French estates, and whose Napoleonic fleet ignored the Knights' neutrality and seized Malta in 1798. The Knights reconstituted in 1834 as a Catholic charitable society. Membership today consists of 11,000 Knights and Dames living in 54 nations. The Order maintains diplomatic relations with over 90 nations and has permanent observer status at the United Nations. Its territory consists of one building in Rome. It is something akin to the Red Cross, as it runs hospitals; and somewhat akin to a nation, in that uniformed peacekeeper Knights serve in Bosnia. As for Malta, the British occupied the island in 1803, dallied with returning it to the Knights, but instead made it a colony until granting independence in 1964.

The Knights' noblest moment came during what is still known as the Great Siege of Malta. In 1565 the Turkish Sultan besieged Malta with a fleet of 373 vessels and 40,000 men. Opposing him were a meager 500 Knights, 400 Spanish troops, and 4,000 Maltese men. Despite the hopeless odds, 70-year-old Grand Master Knight Jean Parisot de La Valette outwitted the Sultan's commanders and forced a Turkish retreat. At one point all captive Christians were decapitated by the Moslem commander, their heads displayed on pikes, and their corpses nailed to crosses sent to drift across the harbor to La Valette's fortress. La Valette retaliated immediately by executing all Moslem prisoners and using their severed heads as canon shot. Today Malta's capital city bears La Valette's name.

One guesses that the religious antipathy remains. Despite its position off the north African coast, there were no mosques in Malta until the 1980s, when one -- and only one -- was allowed to open. Unlike the rest of western Europe, one sees almost no Moslem women out on the street, at least none identifiable by the wearing of headscarves. Only 2.2 percent of the populace is immigrant, the lowest proportion of any western European nation. Malta's old capital of Mdina, which bears the name of the first Arabian city ruled by Mohammed, is the only city so named outside of the Moslem world. Yet in the Maltese Mdina there are found only churches, no mosques.

Malta seems overflowing with Catholicism to a visitor from the secularized West. Each village has an annual festival on the feast of its patron saint, and seemingly not just for tourists. Half of all homes seem to have a ceramic Madonna and Child or Sacred Heart of Jesus embedded into their exterior front walls. Midway through a highway tunnel in Valetta, I find a chapel! In this man-made cave is an altar jammed with statues, icons, lights, and votive candles, which are sold in local grocery stores. On a cliff overlooking the tunnel exit is a similar chapel. On open land in the countryside is a life-size status of Joseph and the Infant Jesus, brightly lit. In the center of one traffic circle sits a tiny chapel. In the center of another, a town cross of recent origins. Built into the side of a modern warehouse is a niche holding a statue of the Blessed Virgin.

I'm told that upkeep of each of these shrines is by a local family, a local business, or the municipal government. During my week in Malta I never once saw a shrine that appeared abandoned or in ruins, but I did see a large and spanking new crucifix on the wall behind the hotel reception desk. At my hotel I found on television what I'd never seen elsewhere in Europe: Mother Angelica's EWTN, and unusually enough for modern hotels, no pornography. At five weekday Masses at Fr. Hillary's church I find the pews full. Mass and prayers are said in Maltese, a linguistic descendant of ancient Phoenician.

Malta's Catholicism is obviously not unshaken by postmodern culture. The glossy Malta Economic Update magazine is full of congratulatory stories on women who'd set aside childbearing in favor of business careers. Malta's families now average under two children apiece. Vocations are similarly depopulated. The Carmelite church in Valetta had 38 priests after World War II. Today it has three. The Augustinian church in Paceville once had seven friars, but now has two active and one retired.

Nevertheless, Malta's Catholicism seems still capable of cultural fight. In 2002 the Dutch abortion group Women on Waves sailed its floating abortion clinic, the Aurora, toward Malta. The government declared that anyone who assisted the ship was committing a criminal act, and, I was told, dispatched Navy vessels to chase it away. Intriguingly, the Aurora's website celebrates its trips to Poland and Ireland, but gives no report on the outcome of its Malta trip.

When Malta joined the European Union in 2004, it did so only after signing a protocol exempting its abortion laws from EU jurisdiction. Later that year, a UN committee suggested Malta legalize abortion in "extreme" cases. Malta's three bishops retorted that "abortion is and remains the murder of innocent persons, whatever the reason behind it," and the island remains safe for unborn babies.

In Malta I visited the Chapel of Our Lady's Return from Egypt. It is located on Malta's offshore island of Comino, which spans 743 acres uninhabited except for one farmhouse, two small hotels, and the chapel. The island has banned all automobiles. A tourist boat took me to Comino's famous Blue Lagoon of clear aqua seas and watery caves under its coastal cliffs. These provided a spectacular movie set for The Count of Monte Cristo, starring the soon-to-be famous Jim Caviezel, who later portrayed Jesus in Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. But what impressed me most came later while wandering ashore. I chanced upon a secluded cove, near which stood a tiny church of windowless earthen walls topped by a triple belfry. Tacked to the door was an index card with a handwritten note reading: "Masses: Saturday 5:30, Sunday 9:30." I learned that a priest arrives here by boat every weekend to celebrate Mass.

In Amsterdam from 1581 to 1785 it was illegal for any church building to be used for Catholic worship, although Catholicism remained legal in private residences as long as it was invisible from the street. In 1661 Dutch merchant Jan Hartman converted the upper floors of his canal-front home into an ornate chapel seating 150 persons, complete with organ. Today, Hartman's house is a museum to Catholicism named "Our Lord in the Attic." It is in the middle of the Red Light district of Amsterdam. Prostitutes waved and smiled at me as I walked there midday along streets once home to public Eucharistic processions in which even the Holy Roman Emperor walked.

In Holland history has kept Catholicism in the attic for centuries. In Malta history has kept Catholicism alive, even on uninhabited islands. I think this explains more than a few of the differences I observed. Historian Hilaire Belloc once wrote that in "The re-conversion of our world to the Catholic standpoint lies the only hope for the future [of Western civilization]." Maybe I saw hope for such cultural renewal even in the heart of post-Christian Europe.

Near the Red Light district of Amsterdam, a 19th-century church stands open during the day, guarded by two ushers in suit and tie. During my visit, one rushed up the center aisle to confront a teenager kneeling at the altar rail. Urgent words were spoken, the boy removed his baseball cap, and the usher retreated. By such small steps is Western civilization renewed. Take note that the restoration began in a Catholic church.

French Clerics, Secular Press slam TLM and Trads

2006-10-24T11:58:00.000-07:00

French clerics criticize Pope's Latin mass plans
By Tom Heneghan, Religion EditorReuters

Monday, October 23, 2006; 8:52 AM PARIS (Reuters) - Pope Benedict's expected revival of the old Latin mass has provoked protests from Roman Catholic clergy in France, a major center of the traditionalist schism the Pontiff hopes to overcome with the gesture.

(Mont St. Michel)

CR- this is the same France that has brought us Masonic revolt in the late 1700's and today has sweeping anti-Biblical, family destroying socialism/welfare and Church attendance in the single digits (estimated 15% attend "religious services", encompassing SSPX, mainline Catholics, Muslims and Protestants (1)), except among the SSPX and similar Trad groups. Further, consider this entry:However, in a 2003 poll 41% said that the existence of God was "excluded" or "unlikely".[11] 33% declared that "atheist" described them rather or very well, and 51% said they were "Christian". When questioned about their religion, 62% answered Roman Catholic, 6% Muslim, 2% Protestant, 1% Jewish, 2% "other religions" (except for Orthodox or Buddhist, which were negligible), 26% "no religion" and 1% declined to answer. A Gallup poll established that 15% of the French population attend places of worship.In a more recent Eurostat "Eurobarometer" poll, in 2005, 34% of French citizens responded that "they believe there is a God", whereas 27% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" and 33% that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force". Anyhow, on we press….

Five bishops and 30 priests -- a considerable number in a church normally wary of open dissent -- have expressed grave concern about making this concession to ultra-conservatives who reject the reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).

CR-Open from disent, much of the NO world is in dissent. Further, what constitutes "ultra" in conservative? Who said Trads,orthodox Catholics, SSPX, etc reject V2? Most have demonstratable distrust of J2 and want the ambiguities cleaned up. Least we ahve to say it, NO going Catholics believe the Eucharist is actually body and blood- 30%.

Unswerving loyalty to the old Latin, or Tridentine mass, often goes hand in hand with a rejection of the Vatican II reforms, which opened the church to respect for and cooperating with other faiths and switched to a modern mass conducted in local languages.

CR-so, there was no respect for "other faiths" before? Consider this entry of mine: http://catholicresistence.blogspot.com/2006/08/eternally-binding-protection-of-jews.htmlAgain, who rejects V2? We want (I am not SSPX) clarity and the abuses, by the NO fans, cleaned up and made right. The SSPX, by clinging to the TLM and Church Traditions, is growing in a country over-run by Mohammed and secularism. Again, out of the 15%-how many are NO Mass attendees?Few. Further, why should we be "open to other faiths"? Where is that anywhere? We had, argumentably, more converts pre-V2, then post-V2.

The protests printed in the Catholic press highlighted serious issues the Vatican faces if, as church sources have reported, it announces soon that priests are free to say the vintage mass as an alternative to the modern liturgy.

CR- the faithful always have, I have yet to see on J2 document that did away with the TLM. Not one Iota that prevented anyone from saying it. Vintage is good, modern often bad. The Vatican already faces "serious issues"-like bongo drums, struming guitars, clown masses, leotard wearing Gospel reading women (I have seen this 1st hand). This is the fruit of "open" V2 changes.

Demand for a return the Tridentine mass -- an austere ceremony in which the priest prays in Latin with his back to a silent congregation -- is minimal among the world's 1.1 billion Catholics.

CR- His back is not to the people, but facing Christ in the flesh in the tabernacle-what is more important? The people seeing you or Christ, the High Priest? As one that has attended many Sunday and weekly TLM, we are far from silent, as there are many responses and prayers together offered with the priest. Also, you are not sitting there quietly, but praying along WITH the priest, facing Christ. I have been to many NO Masses where the people are busy talking to each other or sitting their with the enraptured smile celebrating the Celebration. Where is the proof of minimality? We shall see indeed.

In the modern mass, the priest faces the faithful, who pray and sing in active participation with him.

CR-Again, shoddy and lazy research. The Priest faces the King, Christ. He does not have a need to face the people as the peoples priest, leading the people. Gain, ther are several times the priest faces the people in the TLM, blessing and interacting with such responses such as "Dominus Vobiscum", our out loud response "Et Cum Spiritu Tuo". Many prayers, such as the Confiteor, are recited out loud. The Readings, including Gospel is out loud, in my parish 1st in Latin, then in English. We get a sermon afterward. The Final prayers are in English. Anyone not felling they are praying the Mass, not just sitting through a pageantry are either unaccomstomed to the TLM or are lazy, as is the reporter possibly. Doubt me, http://www.angelqueen.org/mass/index.shtml

"This could create grave difficulties, especially for those who have remained loyal to Vatican II," Toulouse Bishop Robert Le Gall told the Catholic daily La Croix.

CR-So, those that go to the TLM, never outlawed by V2, are disloyal to V2? More of this idea that V2 is year 1 in the Church for the NO, New Churchers. How has SSPX, Ecclesia Dei, Una Voce, Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, etc- not been loyal to J2? As it was pastoral and not doctrinal, how is this somehow disobidient or heretical? Again, show me the proof! This writer and others like them need the Ferrara book about EWTN. This is gross arrogance on the part of a man that is acting as part of the problem, one that is clearly not makin much impact on his society with the NO debacle. FYI-I go to NO Masses at my parish, but is closer to TLM then vast majoirty of the NO silliness and entertainment hour. Loyal to V2? Where is that in the V2 documents, that we are now "free" to scrap the 1900 yrs previous, engross ourselves in the Cumba-ya culture, syncretism and feel good blasphemies.

In an open letter, 30 young priests said Benedict, 79, should encourage them "to work in the world as it is ... rather than plunge us back into the liturgical life of another age."

CR- The new age eh? Sounds like these "young priests" (hint, hint-the NO is for the young, instead of old foggy stoggies at the TLM, though 1/2 or more of our parishs' TLM attendees are are mid 40's or less, many under 40. I am 35). Work with clown masses, women "priestesses" and largely an apathetic, lazy Catholicism? Yes, that is a plan-lets work with the weeds, instead of planting and growing wheat (Mt 13). It reminds me of a book of Prophecy by Yves DePont, where many mystics state in the later times, the people will say "let things remain as they are". How right they were. So, instead of clinging to a Mass that brought in mass converts over the years-people like Chesterton-a Mass that is unchanging and instead, work with the world that is immersed in pornography, abortion, substance abuse, gross immorality, child abuse, mass death…I could go on, but let us remember another ancient guy from "another age": If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.(John 15:19)

OPPOSITION
Dating back to 1570, the Tridentine mass was dropped in the 1960s and can now be said only with a bishop's special permission.C

CR-It was never "dropped", many continued to say it, not just the SSPX. The universal indult will take away this power trip from the bishop, making them again more subserviant to the Pope. Again, find me the V2 or other official Church document outlawing it.

But the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), a Swiss-based group launched by the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to oppose 1960s reforms, has demanded a blanket permission, or indult, for the Tridentine mass as a condition for its return to the church.

CR- it is supported by much of the SSPX, but the SSPX are not waiting around for permission, they-through their Bishops permission-the article writers test-HAVE been saying the TLM. The in or out of the Church status is one filing entire books.

SSPX leader Bishop Bernard Fellay and other leaders were excommunicated in 1988.

CR-again, some debate-but reading the JP2 writing, yes they were and a shame, as the NO New Churchers have fully blasphemous Mass that are more joke then sacred.

Fellay says the Vatican looks set to grant the indult soon to take the SSPX back into the church.

CR-An indult to allow something never outlawed, but bishops took away, acting as if they were themselves independent princes, not in line of hiearchy with Rome.

But he insists his million-strong movement, many in France, would continue to contest Vatican II reforms from inside the church, creating a loyal opposition keen to steer it back to earlier practices.

CR-good for them and let that happen. SSPX could be a Athanasius type movement, soo to those not in SSPX, but clinging to Tradition and possibly, the TLM. Yes, I have had negative encounters with SSPX individuals and there are, as history proves, a certain widening crack over time with division.

The Vatican has already provoked protest in Bordeaux by readmitting five SSPX priests who preformed a Tridentine mass in a church they occupied there.

CR-what, are not these protestors in line with the year 1 V2 council? Further, define "occupied". Is the Church owned by SSPX? Are they holding a gun and hold up in the Church as if a western, where the white hats are armed to the teeth and barricaded in the saloon? Odd, if this is a problem, the police were not called in by the Bishop, as anyone would with squatters or burglars.

Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard, Bordeaux archbishop and head of the French Bishops' Conference, has urged French Catholics to welcome rebel priests who return to the church.

CR-rebels? What are they rebelling against? Oh, that’s right-they rebel against the Council of Councils, V2. Oddly, no anathemas promulgated by V2, the self-lifed authority, the great "nano-nano". This is a slight of hand, placing the Trads in the same category as Luther, Calvin, etc. What did they rebel against in Church doctrine? V2 was pastoral, period.

"We can be charitable and welcoming but we also have to be honest," Besancon Bishop Andre Lacrampe told the daily L'Est Republicain. "I'm not ready to receive them because one cannot erase Vatican II with a stroke of a pen."

CR-why cannot V2 be "erased with a stroke of a pen"? This Bishop, writer of the article and millions of others assume V2 erased the TLM. Papa giveth, Papa taketh away, since V2 was NOT doctrinal, but pastoral. Further, who is SSPX and other Trad groups is calling for erasing V2? Who asked him to receive anyone? And if they are not in sin or outright heresy, who is he to act like Macbeth? I guess the Charasmatic, hand holding and celebration, disguised as a Mass, is ok."

There are very deep and painful theological reasons behind this schism," Angouleme Bishop Claude Dagens told the Catholic weekly La Vie. "You can't pretend that Archbishop Lefebvre's break with the church was only caused by the liturgy."

CR-Yes, the "deep and painful theological reasons" are stemming from the V2 gang of P2 Masons and long simmering Modernists, wrecking the Church and despoiling the Mass, the sanctuary, etc. Lefebvre broke over the innovators and the silliness "reforms" such as passing out the Eucharist in cardboard boxes (World Youth Day in Denver, per Ferrara), etc, etc.

Lille Archbishop Gerard Defois said some SSPX faithful were linked to far-right political movements and noted in a statement that some had "resorted to violent means to occupy churches."

CR-violence, where and when? Where are the police reports? Few doth not a organization make. Further, define "far-right". Are they the ones that want to resverse the athiestic, welfare state? Try to stop Muslims from immigrating to France, as opposed to allowing them in and then crying "help". What crimes do these "far right" people do? This is a wink and nod to the racism card and tin foil hat wearers. Maybe these far rightests remember French kings driving back Muslim invaders and fighting the Nazis, etc. So, SSPX and like minded are driveling, racists. Yes, I see and again, what is Bishop Defois doing to bring back the Faith, win over the Muslims and athiests and restore the nation to Christ? He is busy sullying traditionalists. So to, the writer joins in the abuse. Go to the NO, smile and decided yourself what you believe and chose to follow in the Church, elstwise, you may be a violent, wink-nod "far righter".

And we wonder why the SSPX and others are angry.

1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France#Demographics

(Pic is of Pope Pius V, formulator of the modern TLM, now much maligned and attacked. Guess he to is not too with it and in line with V2)

South American Revolution Masonic

2006-10-24T08:54:00.000-07:00

CR- While I respect Hugo Chavez for standing against the NWO-Mason inspired, he is a large supporter of Simon Bolivar and Bolivar's system, known as "Bolivarianism,"often quoting the Bible and declaring Christ was a socialist. One prays that Chavez continues to resist the NWO and USA's attempts at World Govt through NAFTA, CAFTA, Etc (the EU was formed first by selling economic trade as a crack to open). Lets pray the Chavez endorses, instead, Subsidiarity/Distributism. From a Masonic site, there is this:

(Pic is of Pope Clement XII)
SIMON BOLIVAR
by Elmer E. Rogers 33 degree
THE NEW AGE - SEPTEMBER 1948

The minds of liberty-conscious souls of North and South Americaturned to the beautiful little city, Bolivar, Missouri, on July 5,1948. There the imposing 7-foot bronze figure of Simon Bolivar,South America's Liberator and a Mason, standing on a marble base 11feet high, the gift of Venezuela, was unveiled. As was due one of his social standing, Bolivar was received in audience by the Pope.But one age-old custom at the Holy See, always expected of visitors at such audiences, is that of kissing the Pope's foot.This Bolivar refused to do, "looking the other way." Asked by the Spanish Ambassador, who had taken him to the Vatican, why he had not conformed to the custom, he curtly replied that his respect for the high office of the Pontiff should not be measured by an act of servility.

Like Thomas Jefferson, who had visited Europe, Bolivar saw much and reflected much on the causes of the despair, squalor anddegradation of the masses in Rome and the larger cities of France,Italy and Spain, where Romanism so largely prevailed(1). Having observed the same conditions in his own country, he, a few mornings after his audience with the Pope, climbed to the top of Mount Aventin with his faithful Rodriguez. There, while meditating amidst the ruins caused by the defiance of the power of aristocracy by the people, Bolivar suddenly saw a great light and, throwing his handsheavenward, is said to have taken a vow to devote his life to freeing his own land from the oppressive power of Spain. (2)

Bolivar had spent much time in Paris and there became a Mason in the York Rite and received the Scottish Rite Degrees as far as the30th Degree.

The spirit of revolt having been participated in early by General Miranda, a Mason, who had served under George Washington in the War for Independence, Bolivar was sent by the junta to England to call him back from exile to the colors of the Revolutionaries. Hereturned and headed the revolutionary forces with Bolivar as one of his generals.

Having planned these battles with General Sucre, a Mason, Bolivar went to Lima to organize a civic government and to call a constitutional convention.Intrepid, hopeful, farsighted, indomitable, and profound in his thinking for the welfare of mankind, Bolivar proclaimed, to those who had the vision to see, the following Masonic principles as his life ebbed to the shores beyond:

"All of you must work for the inestimable good of the Union; thepeople obeying the government in order to avoid anarchy; theministers praying to heaven for guidance; and the military usingits sword in defense of social guaranties. . . . If my death contributes to the end of partisanship and the consolidation of the Union, I shall be lowered in peace into my grave."
(http://www.masonicworld.com/education/files/artaug04/simon_bolivar.htm)

Comments:
1. Notice the use of "Romanism", the same term used by those of Reformed Protestantism and a few others. As someone once told me, first the Protestant Revolt, then degradation to Masonary.
2. 2 Corinthians 11 14 And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light.

Bolivar failed to test the spirits, but thought he got some divine revealation to class warfare and division. Antoher example of the rich leading the common people to slavery through man's systems of class warfare, socialism, etc (like Attlee, Lenin, etc).

(Pope Leo XIII, the great opponent of Masons)

From a Virginia Masonic site:http://www.grandlodgeofvirginia.org/whomason.htm:

Masons (also known as Freemasons) belong to the oldest and largest fraternal organization in the world. Today, there are more than two million Freemasons in North America. Masons represent virtually every occupation and profession, yet within the Fraternity, all meet as equals. Masons come from diverse political ideologies, yet meet as friends. Masons come from varied religious beliefs and creeds, yet all believe in one God.

Many of North America's early patriots were Freemasons. Thirteen signers of the Constitution and fourteen Presidents of the United States, including George Washington, were Masons. In Canada, the Father of the Confederation, Sir John A. MacDonald, was a Mason, as were other early Canadian and American leaders.

One of the most fascinating aspects of Freemasonry is how so many men, from so many different walks of life, can meet together in peace, always conducting their affairs in harmony and friendship and calling each other "Brother."

Several Masonic Principles Are:

Faith must be the center of our lives.
All men and women are the children of God.
No one has the right to tell another person what he or she must think or believe. (1)
Each person has a responsibility to be a good citizen, obeying the law.
It is important to work to make the world a better place for all.
Honor and integrity are keys to a meaningful life.

Notable Masons:

Eddy Arnold Roy Acuff Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin Gene Autry L. Van Beethoven Irving Berlin Simon Bolivar Gutzon Borglum Ernest Borgnine Omar Bradley Richard E. Byrd DeWitt Clinton Ty Cobb George M. Cohan Davy Crockett Norm Crosby Cecil B. deMille Jack Dempsey John Diefenbaker Jimmy Doolittle Duke Ellington Sir Alexander Fleming Gerald R. Ford Henry Ford
Benjamin Franklin Clark Gable Benjamin Gilman John Glenn Arthur Godfrey Barry Goldwater John Hancock Harry Hershfield Harry Houdini Sam Houston Hubert H. Humphrey Burl Ives Andrew Jackson Al Jolson John Paul Jones Jack Kemp Rudyard Kipling Marquis de Lafayette Fiorello LaGuardia Charles Lindberg Douglas MacArthur George C.Marshall Thurgood Marshall Charles W. Mayo

William McKinley Lauritz Melchior James Monroe Wolfgang A. Mozart Arnold Palmer Dr. Norman V. Peale J.C. Penny John Pershing Eddie Rickenbacker Branch Rickey Will Rogers Theodore Roosevelt Franklin D.Roosevelt David Sarnoff Jean Sibelius Red Skelton John Philip Sousa Danny Thomas Dave Thomas Lowell Thomas Harry S. Truman George Washington Thomas J. Watson John Wayne(2)

Men Of Character And Integrity Join The Masons

Most are men who go about their jobs and professions with no hint they are Freemasons except for the way they lead their lives. Many are readily recognizable by name, face, or accomplishment. George Washington and thirteen other Presidents, eight Vice Presidents and forty-two Justices of the Supreme Court have been Masons.
(Source:http://www.grandlodgeofvirginia.org/whomason.htm)
Also, there is this site
http://www.grandlodgeofkentucky.org/
excerpt-
A belief in God
Believe in the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of man
Male and at least 21 years old
Be a resident of Kentucky
Be recommended by 2 members of the Lodge
Receive a unanimous ballot for membership (3)
Finally-
http://www.americanmason.com/lightmain.ihtml?ID=8

Comments:
1. This means, obviously, the Pope, Bishops, etc. It also allows for many abuses condemened by Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors.

2. As far as the USA Founders, one wonders if some wer Mason before or after their involvement of the Revolution, in other words, did they join due to their intermingling w/Washington, Franklin, etc? Lafayette should have known better. When he joined would be interesting. Masons like to recruit from the power elite.

3 .No mention of Christ, just the usual syncretism and mingling of who knows who/what.

Papal Encyclicals Condeming Masons:

1. In Eminenti - EnglishIN EMINENTI ON FREEMASONRY PAPAL BULL OF POPE CLEMENT XII April 28, 1738 CLEMENT, BISHOP, Servant of the Servants of God to all the faithful, Salutation, and Apostolic

Benedictionhttp://www.papalencyclicals.net/Clem12/c15inemengl.htm
2. Pope Leo XIIIQuella Fede (On Freemasonry) December 8, 1892 Dall'alto ... apostolico Seggio (On Freemasonry in Italy) October 15, 1890 ... Humanum Genus (On Freemasonry) April 20, 1884 Iampridem (Onhttp://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/index.htm

3. DALL'ALTO DELL'APOSTOLICO SEGGIOON FREEMASONRY IN ITALY DALL'ALTO DELL'APOSTOLICO SEGGIO ... designs and action of Freemasonry in Italy. Yes, this system is ... carried out wherever Freemasonry uses its impious and wickedhttp://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13ms1.htm

4. INIMICA VISON FREEMASONRY INIMICA VIS Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII promulgated on December 8, 1892. To the Bishops of Italy. The enemy forces, inspired by the evil spirit, ever wage war on http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13ms4.htm

5. Pope Clement XII1241 Honorius III 1216-1227 Pope Clement XII July 12, 1730 - February 6, 1740 In eminenti - Papal Bull dealing with the condemnation of Freemasonry (April 28, 1738) English /Latin http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Clem12/index.htm

6. CUSTODI DI QUELLA FEDEON FREEMASONRY CUSTODI DI QUELLA FEDE Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII promulgated on December 8, 1892. To the Italian People. Guardians of that faith to which the Christian nations http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13ms3.htm

7. QUOD APOSTOLICI MUNERISQUOD APOSTOLICI MUNERIS ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO Xlll ON SOCIALISM DECEMBER 28, 1878 To the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops of the Catholic World in Grace and Communionhttp://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13apost.htm

8. Praeclara Gratulationis PublicaePRAECLARA GRATULATIONIS PUBLICAE THE REUNION OF CHRISTENDOM Encyclical Letter of Pope Leo XIII June 20, 1894 To Our Venerable Brethren, all Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops and Bishopshttp://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

9. HUMANUM GENUSHUMANUM GENUS ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII ON FREEMASONRY APRIL 20, 1884 To the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops of the Catholic World in Grace and Communion with hehttp://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13human.htm

10. OFFICIO SANCTISSIMOON THE CHURCH IN BAVARIA OFFICIO SANCTISSIMO Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII promulgated on December 22, 1887. To Our Venerable Brethren the Archbishops and Bishops of Bavaria. Venerablehttp://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13bav.htm

Archbishop Fulton Sheen

2006-10-23T06:05:00.000-07:00

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH:

Personal Data

(May 8, 1895 – December 9, 1979)
Was television's first preacher of note, hosting Life Is Worth Living in the early 1950s on the DuMont Television Network.

Sheen was born in El Paso, Illinois, the oldest of four sons of a farmer. Though he was known as Fulton, his mother's maiden name, he was baptized Peter John Sheen. As an infant, Sheen contracted tuberculosis. After the family moved to nearby Peoria, Illinois, Sheen's first role in the Catholic church was as an altar boy at St. Mary's Cathedral.

Academic

After earning high school valedictorian honors at Spalding Insititute in Peoria in 1913, Sheen was educated at St. Viator College, Bourbonnais, Illinois. Making the debating team in his freshman year, his coach called him aside the night before a major debate with the University of Notre Dame, and told him bluntly: "Sheen, you're absolutely the worst speaker I ever heard."
Sheen attended St. Paul's Seminary in Minnesota before his ordination on September 20, 1919, then followed that with further studies at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C..

Sheen earned a doctorate in philosophy at the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium in 1923. While there, he became the first American ever to win the Cardinal Mercier award for the best philosophical treatise.

Sheen then taught theology at St. Edmund's College, Ware in England, In 1926, the Bishop of his hometown in Peoria asked him to take over St. Patrick's Parish. After eight months, Sheen returned to Catholic University to teach philosophy.

History

Sheen wrote the first of some 90 books in 1925, and in 1930 began a weekly Sunday night radio broadcast, The Catholic Hour

Sheen served as Auxiliary Bishop of New York from 1951 to 1965. In 1951 he also began a weekly television program on the DuMont network, Life is Worth Living. The show, scheduled for Tuesday nights at 8:00 p.m., was not expected to offer much of a challenge against ratings giants Milton Berle and Frank Sinatra, but surprisingly held its own, causing Berle to joke, "He uses old material, too". In 1952, Bishop Sheen won an Emmy Award for his efforts, accepting the acknowledgement by saying, "I feel it is time I pay tribute to my four writers. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."

On October 2, 1979, two months before Sheen's death, Pope John Paul II visited St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City and embraced Sheen, saying, "You have written and spoken well of the Lord Jesus Christ. You are a loyal son of the Church."

In 2002 Sheen's Cause for Canonization was officially opened, and so he is now referred to as a Servant of God.

Reruns of Sheen's various programs continue to air on the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN) and the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN).

AUDIO:

1. Ascension
2. Authority and Infallibility
3. Baptism
4. Birth Control
5. Body of Christ
6. Christ in the Creed
7. Communism and the Church
8. Confirmation
9. Conscience
10. Death and judgment
11. Divinity of Christ
12. Good & Evil #1
13. Good & Evil #2
14. Heaven Is Not So Far Away
15. Holy Orders
16. Holy Sacrament
17. Humanity of Christ
18. Law of Love - Total Commitment
19. Marriage Problems
20. Marriage Sacrament
21. Marriage
22. New Testament Revelation
23. Old Testament Revelation
24. Original Sin and the Angels
25. Original Sin
26. Penance
27. Peter - Vicar of Christ
28. Philosophy of Life
29. Prayer is a Dialogue
30. Purgatory
31. Revealed Truth
32. Sacrament of the Sick
33. Sanctifying Grace
34. Sex is a Mystery
35. Sin and Penance
36. Sin
37. Suffering, Death, Ressurrection
38. The Blessed Trinity
39. The Commandments - part 1
40. The Commandments - part 2
41. The Effects of Original Sin
42. The Eucharist Sacrifice
43. The Hell there is
44. The Holy Spirit
45. The Mass
46. The Mother of Jesus
47. The Sacraments
48. The World the Soul and Things

QUOTES:

If you don't behave as you believe, you will end by believing as you behave."

"Bye now, and God love you!" - Sheen's traditional closing to the program.

"Too many people get credit for being good, when they are only being passive. They are too often praised for being broadminded when they are so broadminded they can never make up their minds about anything." -Seven Words to the Cross, page 93.

"The danger today is in believing there are no sick people, there is only a sick society." -Life Is Worth Living(Second Series), page 186

"Communism is the final logic of the dehumanization of man." -Life Is Worth Living(Second Series), page 122

"Some will not look on suffering because it creates responsibility." -Those Mysterious Priests, page 66

"The principle of democracy is a recognition of the sovereign, inalienable rights of man as a gift from God, the Source of law." -Whence Come Wars, page 60

“There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions of people who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church— which is, of course, quite a different thing.” -foreward to Radio Replies Vol. 1, page ix

Cause for Archbishop Fulton Sheen advancesPeoria, Jul. 25, 2006 (CNA) -

The process of canonization for Archbishop Fulton Sheen is advancing steadily. Copies of a report on an alleged miracle that took place in 1999 through the intercession of the Archbishop were signed Sunday by Roman Catholic Church officials and will be sent to the Vatican for review, reported The Journal Star. The 500-page report and supporting documents will be delivered to Rome by canon lawyer Dr. Andrea Ambrosi, postulator of the cause. The cause was officially begun in 2003. Archbishop Sheen was born in the Woodford County town of El Paso in 1895 and ordained in the Diocese of Peoria in 1919. He became widely known and respected as a teacher of the faith through his television programs in the 1950s and 1960s. He died in 1979.

The alleged miracle involves a Champaign woman, then 72 years old, who was undergoing lung surgery when a tear was discovered in her main pulmonary artery. The woman's husband told investigators he prayed for his wife's recovery invoking the archbishop. The woman is still alive and in good health.

WHY HE MADE A HOLY HOUR:

THIS GREAT SACRAMENT OF LOVE
A couple of months before his death Bishop Fulton J. Sheen was interviewed on national television. One of the questions was this:

"Bishop Sheen, you have inspired millions of people all over the world. Who inspired you? Was it a Pope?"

Bishop Sheen responded that it was not a Pope, a cardinal, another bishop, or even a priest or a nun. It was a little Chinese girl of eleven years of age. He explained that when the Communists took over China, they imprisoned a priest in his own rectory near the Church. After they locked him up in his own house, the priest was horrified to look out of his window and see the Communists proceed into the Church, where they went into the sanctuary and broke into the tabernacle. In an act of hateful desecration, they took the ciborium and threw it on the floor with all of the Sacred Hosts spilling out. The priest knew exactly how many Hosts were in the ciborium: thirty-two.

When the Communists left, they either did not notice, or didn't pay any attention to a small girl praying in the back of the Church who saw everything that had happened. That night the little girl came back. Slipping past the guard at the priest's house, she went inside the Church. There she made a holy hour of prayer, an act of love to make up for the act of hatred.

After her holy hour she went into the sanctuary, knelt down, bent over and with her tongue received Jesus in Holy Communion, (since it was not permissible for laymen to touch the Sacred Host with their hands.)

The little girl continued to come back each night to make her holy hour and receive Jesus in Holy Communion on her tongue. On the thirty-second night, after she had consumed the last and thirty-second host, she accidentally made a noise and woke the guard who was sleeping. He ran after her, caught her, and beat her to death with the butt of his rifle. This act of heroic martyrdom was witnessed by the priest as he watched grief-stricken from his bedroom window.

When Bishop Sheen heard the story he was so inspired that he promised God he would make a holy hour of prayer before Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament everyday of his life. If this frail, little child could give testimony and witness to the world concerning the real and wonderful Presence of her Savior in the Blessed Sacrament, then the Bishop was absolutely bound by all that was right and true, to do the same. His sole desire from then on was to bring the world to the burning Heart of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament.

The little girl showed the Bishop what true courage and zeal really is; how faith could overcome all fear, how true love for Jesus in the Eucharist must transcend life itself. What is hidden in the Sacred Host is the glory of His love. The sun in the sky is symbolic of the Son of God in the Blessed Sacrament. This is why most monstrances are in the form of a sunburst. As the sun is the natural source of all energy, the Blessed Sacrament is the supernatural source of all grace and love. The Blessed Sacrament is JESUS, the Light of the world.

Excerpt from an article "Let the SON shine out" by Rev. Martin Lucia

*Note: Communion should never be taken in the hand. (Read more...)
If you wish to make a holy hour before the blessed Sacrament, visit this site that has a listing of all the adoration chapels in the United States: http://www.therealpresence.org/chap_fr.htm
Links to other sites:The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

http://www.knight.org/advent/cathen/05573a.htmThe Real Presence http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/euch_fr.htmMissionaries of the Blessed Sacrament Chapels http://www.acfp2000.com/index.html

O Sacrament Most Holy, O Sacrament Divine, all praise and all thanksgiving be every moment Thine!
(from http://www.tldm.org/news3/sheen.htm)

Discourse with a Reformed Protestor

2006-10-20T11:06:00.000-07:00

Recently, I went to Reformed.org to see if I could raise interest in a debate between Reformed Theology and Catholic Faith for a apostolate I work with (I leave un-named as I enjoy me privacy).

Not surprisingly, I was immediately attacked and temporarily suspended. False Christians (not every Protestant is one), especially Calvinists love this tactic-to label you, attack and then suspend and/or boot you from the forum without allowing a rebuttal. Rather like Calvin's Police state of Geneva. I merely went to different categories and posted a honest and respectful challenge. We can see why New England was a miserable place to live pre-Revolution.

The following is the response I got from one of the posters, his response in Red, mine this time in Green:

Dear Sir:

If you are truly interested in being converted from your false religion, then I suggest that you contact Dr. James White. Here is his website where you may contact him:

http://www.aomin.org/

Because of your excessive posting of only one post on our website we have temporarily banned you from it. If you would like to discuss Papist vs Protestant theology on our site we can more than accomodate you.

However, your rude introduction to our site has caused you to be placed on hold. If you desire to continue to post, then you must promise to conduct yourself in an orderly fashion, and to discuss things theological.

Grace and Peace,

Goodwin

Might I suggest anger management, as you seem to have a lot of it. If Catholicism is false, how then to Calvin know ANYTHING about the Bible or basic theological standards. Answer, we wrote it, canonized it and he was educated in it.

As you are a Protestor, conversion to heresy for me is non-optional.

I posted-what?-8 or 9 offers to debate? That is excessive? Geesh, you may want to define on your site what is "excessive".

Thanks for admitting you are a Protestant-ie, a protestor against legitimate authority, we all know the father of that, eh!

BTW- no one of any credibility uses the slur "papist" anymore, just like I try not to call you-just your theology-a heretic and anathema.

Finally, define orderly. Is it 1 post a hour? a minute? a day? Only what you think is "orderly" per....?

You exhibit an angry arrogance I have grown accostomed to from Reformed"true" Christians.

We've debated White, ......next!!??

Dear Sir:

There is nothing "angry" about my reply to you. Are you interested in finding out why Catholicism is a false Christian religion? or, are you one of those confirmed Catholics who just like to bash Protestants with your false traditions? My hope is that you are of the former and not the latter.

John Calvin taught from the writings and sayings of Jesus and His Apostles. We commonly call this the Bible. When Roman Catholic "Traditions" contradict the Bible we (Calvin and Calvinists/Reformed) reject such teaching as false and contrary to the Word of the Living God. Consequently, the Romish Popes are not apostles of Jesus Christ because they constantly contradict the teachings of Jesus on Faith and Morals, and they constantly contradict themselves.

The sand of human opinion (i.e. the edicts of the Popes over the centuries on matters of Faith and Morals) are not the Word of God. For example:

The very Bible which you claim has been handed down to us through the Papal Church reads:"

Now the Spirit speaks expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy: having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats..."

The Papal Church is the only Church that has forbidden its priests to marry, and requires celibacy in order for one to become a priest. Such was never taught in the Bible. Marriage is good, and just, and holy, and true, and it was created by God from the very beginning for all men, Gen. 2:18. Only one in league with the "doctrines of demons" would forbid such to a person.

You are a follower of the Pope, and not Jesus Christ. Thus, the term "papist" is rightly applied to you and your religion.I will release your hold on our forum.

But, you are on probation.Grace and Peace,-

CalvinandHodge
Moderator of reformed.org

Your first paragraph states you, apparently, want to "school" me in true doctrine, but then goes on to rail against my supposed "false traditions".I guess that is not a bash, eh?

John Clavin, based on the 1500+ years prior to him, did NOT teach from theBible. Either way, from whence was his authority? And why is it all youReformed folks say "we don't follow Calvin, we follow the Bible...yada,yada.."?

By what authority do you judge what is or is not in the Bible? yourcontinuing fractures tell me that no one really knows.

The Popes contradict, huh? Name specifically when, where , how, what-etc.Further, no one in the Church uses the title "Romish"-a quient slur andone from your past, but not accurate. I am-get this one straight please-a LATIN RITE CATHOLIC. That is the name, that is what it is. There areseveral Eastern Rites in the CHurch that are not "Roman, Romish" etc.

Finally, Paul's exhortation in Corinthians is rather clear to the openminded, he states it is better not to marry for preachers of the word. Hedid not marry and preached. Christ did not marry and preached. Contrary tothe birth control loving Protestant populace, sex urges can be controlled,despite the homosexuality of Calvin (at least in his teens) and the ample supply of filthy writings by Luther-whereas he seemed to love bathroom humor and "sin all you want, just pray and believe all the more"

You Reformed folks really have a fixation on the marrying stuff, yet overlook that it is a discipline, NOT DOCTRINE!. Further, the Eastern Rite clergy (except in America) are allowed to marry and the majority do!Sooo.. if we are this great apostate church, based on your quote below, itis in one Rite only, not the others-yet we are all one big, happy Church.

If clergy not marrying to get out their uncontrolable lusts is bad to you,tell it to the Eastern Rite, the Latin Rite for the first severalcenturies, Paul, Christ...well, that is a start for ya!

As for Demons, I have seen your divisions and your invented doctrines like"essential and nonessential doctrine" to get around this. I have read thewritngs of your founders-Luther, Calvin.

I can see whom is a real Christian. You reject the doctrines, theauthority, the sacrements-that Christ and his Apostales gave the Church.You my friend are a Protestor, your father is the Devil (John 8:44). Ifyou truly followed Christ, you would heed his words (John 10:27)

We gave you the Bible, you decided to follow a self appointed Geneva dictator and recovering Sodomite

.Now, stop wasting my time. I offered for _ to debate your pastors,theologians, Seminary professors, etc-I have not the time to debate theirautomatons.

BTW-marriage was raised to be a sacrement by Christ, followed by his Church. You have been fed a dirty porridge and show your ignorance of what the Catholic Church teaches. Yours is a straw man for the weak minded to step up and tear down.

Stay tuned for more updates as I am sure they cannot take a "hint" . Paul sets forth celibacy in 1Cor Chapter 7, here is the passage from DR, w/Challoner's commentary:

Lessons relating to marriage and celibacy. Virginity is preferable to a married state.

1 Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.

2 "Have his own wife"... That is, keep to his wife, which he hath. His meaning is not to exhort the unmarried to marry: on the contrary, he would have them rather continue as they are. (Ver. 7: 8.) But he speaks here to them that are already married; who must not depart from one another, but live together as they ought to do in the marriage state.

6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt. 10 But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband.

6 "By indulgence"... That is, by a condescension to your weakness. 9 "If they do not contain"... This is spoken of such as are free, and not of such as, by vow, have given their first faith to God; to whom if they will use proper means to obtain it, God will never refuse the gift of continency. Some translators have corrupted this text, by rendering it, if they cannot contain.

11 And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife. 12 For to the rest I speak, not the Lord. If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she consent to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And if any woman hath a husband that believeth not, and he consent to dwell with her, let her not put away her husband. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband: otherwise your children should be unclean; but now they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever depart, let him depart. For a brother or sister is not under servitude in such cases. But God hath called us in peace.

12 "I speak, not the Lord"... Viz., by any express commandment, or ordinance. 14 "Is sanctified"... The meaning is not, that the faith of the husband or the wife is of itself sufficient to put the unbelieving party, or their children, in the state of grace and salvation; but that it is very often an occasion of their sanctification, by bringing them to the true faith.

16 For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? Or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? 17 But as the Lord hath distributed to every one, as God hath called every one, so let him walk: and so in all churches I teach. 18 Is any man called, being circumcised? let him not procure uncircumcision. Is any man called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing: but the observance of the commandments of God. 20 Let every man abide in the same calling in which he was called.

21 Wast thou called, being a bondman? care not for it; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. 22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a bondman, is the freeman of the Lord. Likewise he that is called, being free, is the bondman of Christ. 23 You are bought with a price; be not made the bondslaves of men. 24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God. 25 Now concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord; but I give counsel, as having obtained mercy of the Lord, to be faithful.

26 I think therefore that this is good for the present necessity, that it is good for a man so to be. 27 Art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 28 But if thou take a wife, thou hast not sinned. And if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned: nevertheless, such shall have tribulation of the flesh. But I spare you. 29 This therefore I say, brethren; the time is short; it remaineth, that they also who have wives, be as if they had none; 30 And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as if they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;

31 And they that use this world, as if they used it not: for the fashion of this world passeth away. 32 But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. 33 But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. 34 And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 And this I speak for your profit: not to cast a snare upon you; but for that which is decent, and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment.

36 But if any man think that he seemeth dishonoured, with regard to his virgin, for that she is above the age, and it must so be: let him do what he will; he sinneth not, if she marry. 37 For he that hath determined being steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but having power of his own will; and hath judged this in his heart, to keep his virgin, doth well. 38 Therefore, both he that giveth his virgin in marriage, doth well; and he that giveth her not, doth better. 39 A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband die, she is at liberty: let her marry to whom she will; only in the Lord. 40 But more blessed shall she be, if she so remain, according to my counsel; and I think that I also have the spirit of God.

36 "Let him do what he will. He sinneth not"... The meaning is not, as libertines would have it, that persons may do what they will and not sin, provided they afterwards marry; but that the father, with regard to the giving his virgin in marriage, may do as he pleaseth; and that it will be no sin to him if she marry.

-posted 10/20/06

False Christ arises

2006-10-20T06:12:00.000-07:00

CR- Please watch the video clips-carefully, see what is said and done. Bear in mind, the GOP loves t oview itself, aided by a complacent media, as "Christian", "Conservative" and the Party of "values".

Watch, listen and learn. As for me, I am Catholic first, American a distant 2nd and politically, I support:

By returning the nation to its Constitutional limits, we come-politically at least, the closest we can to Subsdiarity, etc. Get Govt off our backs and let the people have a chance. The CP is a means to the end, not the end. Nor do I ignore the many faults of the Constitution and America's founding on the shaky grounds of Enlightenment philospohy. But, I degress.....

Rev. Moon a false Christ and usurper of Christ. Supported by Congressman and George HW Bush. Shocking as he is crowned Emperor of the Universe, King of Earth, etc.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8364826129247149817&q=moonies(this includes Pat Boone, Beverly LaHaye, Ralph Reed, Jack Kemp and Bush)

Orrin Hatch honors Moon, the self declared Messiah:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1961946080781504816&q=moonies

See movie where in US Govt offices, with several GOP Congressman in attendance, Moon is crowned Messiah!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5858563460160204776&q=rev+moon

Moon celebrates birthday-apparently-with GHW Bush and Barbara:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6635016828331713634&q=rev+moon

John 5 43 I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive.

Also,

1 John 2
18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists: whereby we know that it is the last hour.

2 1 John 2
22 Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son.

3 1 John 4
3 And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world

4 2 John 1
7 For many seducers are gone out into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: this is a seducer and an antichrist.

What I found in My King James Bible

2006-10-19T09:37:00.000-07:00

(Picture of St. Jerome)

For some time, I have been wanting to do a report on this. I promised several months ago to do it, especially on the FCFC site (oddly,or not, I was banned for "nonbiblical" views-after posting biblical verses supportive of the Catholic position).

After my grandfather was moved to a Veterans home to recover, we had to clean out his house, knowing he would not return as his health was declining. After a few happy months there, he passed away 2 yrs ago. He was as a ayoung child aconvert, thanks to his mother and lived a good and decent Catholic:

Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord; and let perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace. Amen.

I somehow got a hold of a KJV bible that he had. It was never opened and was in mint condition. I kept it for the archeology sections and other info. I should note that on my old site at manicfish, I posted several articles on the faulty KJV translations and shoddy work going in to make it, plus many that were quesitonable cultists. None the less, we should use it when possible against the Protestants and use it as a resource. As we shall see, the following excerpts crush the Protestant theology and support Catholicism.

The following is what I found in this copy. My words will be in blue, the qoutes from the KJV bible in red:

The copy in question is a King James Bible, printed in 1958 and copyrighted in USA. It is called the King James Memorial Bible.

Dedication:

..Queen Elizabeth of most happy memory, some thick and palpable clouds of darkness would so have overshadowed this Land, that men should have been in doubt which they were to walk;

So, the Queen, a vicious perscutor of Catholics, is "of happy memory"-a term used usually in regards to the Pope and other Catholic clergy. Elizabeth earned the term "bloody" far more than her cousin Mary. The dedication continues to laud her as a Sun, etc, etc. The clouds of darkness is a veiled reference to those coniving, evil "Papists" I am sure.

Introducing the Bible
by Huber L. Drumwright(1)

From Page 3:

The term "bible" was not used to designate the Holy Scriptures until the time of the early Church Fathers about 400 AD.

Well, so if the term was not used, where then is the word "bible" IN THE Text? Since it was not, are then we and the Protestants using an extra-biblical source? As it is not in the book, apparently so. We will also see down the road he reveals more Catholic doctrine in adverse to Protestant theology. Next time you talk to a Protestant, ask him/her where IN THE TEXT is the word "bible".

Also, if we are going to go by the Bible ALONE, what is up with these Fathers? Why are they called "fathers" as some Protestants loathe the term? What happened in 400 AD? Well, lets continue.....

During the 1200 or more years when its materials were being written, the Bible did not circulate as a single book.

Wait, then, how can we go by the Bible ALONE? Sola Scriptura falls apart as the Bible was not available to everyone to read nad decide for themselves waht is-and is not-true. Who were these surpressors of the Word then? No answer and apparently, no blame imputed to those bible-chaining papists.

It was not until the 4th century AD that all of its units were copied together in a single codex or volume.

So, what happened in the 4th century? Most Protestants deny a heirarchical Church (2), so was it a movement of the spirit, moving through all Bible belivers at once? Oops, since the Bible was no together, I guess there was no Sola Scriptura, so I guess it was some-what-joint mind control of all true beleivers. How did they all get together and where was the democratic votes to nominte these men that decided the canonicity of the books? Who took the lead in this (according to Protestants) democractic bottowm-up Church?

As the Orthodx beleive in the highest authority as a Council-and have not had one for over 1200 yrs-how did this monumental achievement happen? It goes back to the unanswered question-if Christ and/of the Apostles wanted Sola Scriptura-why did they not put the Bible together sooner? Were they slack? Why did not Christ just drop the Authorized KJV Bible down in boxes as he arose into the sky and departed (3).

Pages 4-5

It was not unitl the close of the first Christian century, at the Rabbinical Council of Jamnia (about 90 AD) that hte rest of the Old Testement was finally fixed and declared authoratative...

We, here is a stark admission that the Protestant bible was based on a Jewish rabbinical gathering. A problem-the Jewish faith was now superseded by the authority of the Church Christ established, his body (4). Now adays, many Protestants are arguin the old covenant is still in force, but that was not always the teaching of the ancient Church. First, what does Paul say is the upholder and protector of the truth?

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (1Tim 3:15). So, what Church, the Church Christ established, not rabbinical judiasm, which rejected Chirst.

By the time of Jamina, the Catholic Church-the only true body of Christ, was alive, well and functioning. Judiasm was persecuting Christians both in Israel and throughout the Empire. We already had 2-3 Popes reigning. We already had the Council of Jerusalem. The Jamina Council had no authority, anymore than they do now or what some Buddhist gathering might decree. Luther, Calvin and Co. cite St. Jerome's opposition to the so-called "Apocrapha" was not scripture. One Church Father doeth not make a infallible decision make. Also, whay then did Luther and Co cling to one Father in rejecting that which they did not like, but rejected the copious writing of other Fathers, including Jerome that agreed together in the Real Presence, Authority of the Pope, etc, etc??

...(he names the many disputed books and then notes...) and doubts about their authority continued until the Council of Jamina.

Again, see above..also, note how he Capitlizes the name of the gathering, maybe its proper Englsih-I was not the best in grammer, but it makes it sound authoratative, which-for real Christians, it was not. He then continues a discourse noting the "Apocarapha" failed to gain acceptance for 2 centuries bofore Christ and 1 century AFTER Jamina. Again, as he-and Catholic history attests, the Bible was not canonized until the 4th century, so...?

He also note steh full Bible was in the Wycliff bible, Wycliff seen by many as a proto-Protestant by Protestants.

The Apocarapha were included in the Canon of the Septuagint, the translation of the Old Testement made for the Greek-speaking Jews of Aexandria. WHICH BECAME THE BIBLE OF THE EARLY CHURCH (emphesis mine); these books also appear in the Old Latin Bible, as well as the Latin Vulagate, Jerome's revision. They were carried over into the early German translation of the Latin Bible in the 14th century. (He then goes into talk about them 'APocarapha" being in the Wycliff Bible).

Well now, there we have it. The so-called Apocrapha was a part of the Early Church, in Jerome's Bible and still in the 14th century bible. So, the first Bible Luther probably had had the books as well. A great admission, but more to follow......

Both the Greek and Roman Church have ALWAYS RECOGNIZED THE APOCRAPHA AS CANONICAL (Emphesis mine). The Exclusion of these books from the Bible came as a result of the Reformation. When Luther translated the Old Testement from the Hebrew, these books were of course absent; but recognizing their presence in the Latin Bible, Luther translated them and put them in a group by themselves, between Testements.

Wow, again-a stark admission. First, that the oldest Churches, those of the East and the authoratative Body of Christ, the Catholic Church, have always recognized the canonicity of the so-called "Apocrapha". Two, that Luther-apparently on his own authority, translated the Hebrew Masoretic script-adopted at Jamina, a non-authorative council by a revoked Covenant church wihout authority, without the Body of Christ and active persecutor of the Body. Luther could not get around Jerome's Bible, apporved by Pope Damasus and his succesors. Luther put them in between Testsements? Whose authority did he do these things? HIs own, as his own "pope", that individualistic subjectivism, so the hallmark of Protestantism and society's breakdown.

There they remained in most Protestant Bibles unitl the 19th century, when publishers, led by the British and Foreign Bible Society, VOLUNTARILY (emphesis mine) began to omit them.

There we have it again, the Protestants on their own decision, apparently at a publishers level, decided to cut them completely out of scripture. Dod we hear this admission today in Protestant churches? Nope, not at all. Admitted on the FCFC site? Definately not at all. When Jack Chick states these books were a plot (haw haw haw) by Catholics to get Protestants "Catholcized", does he talk about this at al-well, we all know his multi-million dollar empire of carny literature would start to come down around him and his sad, poisonous spew, coming from the pit of his Father(see John 8:44 and John's letters in regards to the AntiChrist).

Ask again, by whose authority do they do these things?

Page 7, he continues

It was the Greek translation of the Old Testement, the Septuagint, begun in Egypt in the 3rd century BC, that the order of hte books altered. Since the SEPTUAGINT WAS THE BIBLE OF THE EARLY CHURCH (emphesis mine), it order was followed.

Again, if the Septuagint was the version of the early CHurch, then Protestants have to ask:

1. Was the early Church wrong?
2. If not, why does MY church not use the Septuagint.

Many will claim this is part of the corruption of the early Church, yet they never-ever can show definitive proof that the Church as completely and utterly destroyed. The allegations of Pope Gregory, Constantine, etc-they are undocument charges not backed up by history or any common sense. No credible historian believes them, only the under-educated masses of the fundamentalist churches. Only those in it for the profit like Chick, LaHaye, etc.

More revealing on page 8:

The writer details something that many Protestants refuse to admit, that prior to Luther, there wer many versions out there, in native languages. Going strictly from this writer, there was also:

Tynadale's Bible (1526)
Coverdale's Version (1535)
John Rogers' Bible (1537)
Geneva Bible (1560)
Bishops Bible (1568)
KJV (1611)

Also, just prior to the KJV, the Douay-Rheims (cited in this article).

Further..

At the end of the first Christian century, as we have seen, the Jewish rabbis, at the Council of Jamina, closed the canon of Hebrew books to be considered authorative.

Not to kick a dead horse, but what authority does this post-Old Testement covenant group have? Why listen to rabbis that rejected Christ and worked hard to crack down-often using the power of the State to do so? He also notes why the Jamnia COuncil adopted what it did, noting in the 3rd reason:

(3) the disputes with Christians over their interpretations of the Jewish Scriptures in preaching and writing.

Ok, sooo...the Catholics sided with their brethern from this time, the Protestants sided with the enemy of the Church and its first persecutors. Ok then, got it. He goes on to note disputed books that the Church authoratatively decided on in late 4th century.

He continues...

As far as it is known, it was the Easter letter of Archbishop Athanasius of Alexandria in 367 AD that first listed the 27 books of our New Testement as authoratative. Jerome, by his Latin translation of these same 27 books (382 AD) further established this list as canonical for hte Churches.

Well, what have we here. A bishop (ask the average Protestant where HIS bishop is-they must carry the name "bishop" per scripture, no some mealy-mouthed flopping they use to mean minister) AUTHORATATIVLY decided what was and was not scripture!! So too did Jerome, working on behalf of Pope Damasus! There then we have an authoratative Church, not a bottom up democracy that most Protestants defend and speel as the "biblical model".

It was the Catholic Church that decided the Canon. It was Holy Mother Church that decided disputes and make the decisions.

CHRONOLOGY OF THE BIBLE TRANSLATION

In this section, the writer again lays out a timeline of events, noting that the Septuagint was the Bible of the Early Church and still is with the Orthodox and Catholics. He then states that Wycliff completes teh English language Bible in 1382 (so much for the Church keeping the Bible in Latin only to keep the "people" from reading it!). He notes that the Gutenberg Bible wa an edition of the Latin Vulgate. He notes that Erasmus completed his Bible-in Greek- in 1516. He admits tha chapters and verse divisions came about long after Jamnia and the Early Fathers, by Catholics.

SUMMARY

So, it was the Protestants that sided with the Jews and against the Early Church. They looked to an authoratative source-the post OT covenant Jews. They rejected the Body of Christ and considred Christ a liar that "the gates of Hell shall not prevail".

Thanks to the writer of this part of my KJV Bible, for he makes a good case for Holy Mother the Church. In order to turn this off, you have to accept the Revolt of Luther, Calvin, et al. They proclaimed loudly Non Servium!

Something to note-from one of the books cut out and thrown away by the Protestants (read and and you will see why):

And when they had joined battle, it happened that a few of the Jews were slain. 35 But Dositheus, a horseman, one of Bacenor's band, a valiant man, took hold of Gorgias: and when he would have taken him alive, a certain horseman of the Thracians came upon him, and cut off his shoulder: and so Gorgias escaped to Maresa.

36 But when they that were with Esdrin had fought long, and were weary, Judas called upon the Lord to be their helper, and leader of the battle: 37 Then beginning in his own language, and singing hymns with a loud voice, he put Gorgias' soldiers to flight. 38 So Judas having gathered together his army, came into the city Odollam: and when the seventh day came, they purified themselves according to the custom, and kept the sabbath in the place. 39 And the day following Judas cam with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchres of their fathers. 40 And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain.

41 Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. 42 And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. 43 And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, 44 (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) 45 And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them (5).

We see now the connection? Not only was this book rejected for its obvious reference to Purgatory, but the slain were killed due to the fact they carried idols of Jamnia! The false church of Judiasm met there, decided the Masoretic text and this was adopted by the Protestants-in opposition to the Early Church, the Catholic Church. A coincidence? I think, probably not.

Notes:
1. Drumwright is a deceased member of the faculty at SouthWestern Baptist Theological Seminary
http://www.dtl.org/versions/misc/translators.htm
2. Good refute:http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html
3. Lk 24:51-53
4. Col 1:24; Eph 1:23, 5:23;
5. 2nd Mach :36-45

(picture is of the DR Version Bible, the most authoratative and accurate Bible-I use this as my official bible and the RSV-CE edition for study and highlighting, etc)

Sola Scriptura NOT Scriptural!

2006-10-17T08:49:00.000-07:00

CR-stay tuned for a original article, I am working on a long overdue article on What my KJV Bible tells me (hint, it backs up Catholic teaching, NOT Protestant teaching). In the meantime, enjoy this work and thank the author. The link above is from the fellow that provided me the article!

Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura
By Joel Peters

What is Sola Scriptura?

"We believe in the Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety as the sole rule of faith for the Christian!"

You may have heard these words or something very similar to them from a Fundamentalist or Evangelical Protestant. They are, in essence, the meaning of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, or "Scripture alone," which alleges that the Bible – as interpreted by the individual believer – is the only source of religious authority and is the Christian’s sole rule of faith or criterion regarding what is to be believed. By this doctrine, which is one of the foundational beliefs of Protestantism, a Protestant denies that there is any other source of religious authority or divine Revelation to humanity.

The Catholic, on the other hand, holds that the immediate or direct rule of faith is the teaching of the Church; the Church in turn takes her teaching from the divine Revelation – both the written Word, called Sacred Scripture, and the oral or unwritten Word, known as "Tradition." The teaching authority or "Magisterium" of the Catholic Church (headed by the Pope), although not itself a source of divine Revelation, nevertheless has a God-given mission to interpret and teach both Scripture and Tradition. Scripture and Tradition are the sources of Christian doctrine, the Christian’s remote or indirect rule of faith.

Obviously these two views on what constitutes the Christian’s rule of faith are opposed to each other, and anyone who sincerely seeks to follow Christ must be sure that he follows the one that is true.

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura originated with Martin Luther, the 16th-century German monk who broke away from the Roman Catholic Church and started the Protestant "Reformation." (1) in response to some abuses that had been occurring within the Catholic Church, Luther became a vocal opponent of certain practices. As far as these abuses were concerned, they were real and Luther was justified in reacting. However, as a series of confrontations between him and the Church hierarchy developed, the issues became more centered on the question of Church authority and – from Luther’s perspective – whether or not the teaching of the Catholic Church was a legitimate rule of faith for Christians.

As the confrontations between Luther and the Church’s hierarchy ensued and tensions mounted, Luther accused the Catholic Church of having corrupted Christian doctrine and having distorted Biblical truths, and he more and more came to believe that the Bible, as interpreted by the individual believer, was the only true religious authority for a Christian. He eventually rejected Tradition as well as the teaching authority of the Catholic Church (with the Pope at its head) as having legitimate religious authority.

An honest inquirer must ask, then, whether Luther’s doctrine of "Scripture alone" was a genuine restoration of a Biblical truth or rather the promulgation of an individual’s personal views on Christian authority. Luther was clearly passionate about his beliefs, and he was successful in spreading them, but these facts in and of themselves do not guarantee that what he taught was correct. Since one’s spiritual well-being, and even one’s eternal destiny, is at stake, the Christian believer needs to be absolutely sure in this matter.

Following are twenty-one considerations which will help the reader scrutinize Luther’s doctrine of Sola Scriptura from Biblical, historical and logical bases and which show that it is not in fact a genuine Biblical truth, but rather a man-made doctrine.

1. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not taught anywhere in the Bible

Perhaps the most striking reason for rejecting this doctrine is that there is not one verse anywhere in the Bible in which it is taught, and it therefore becomes a self-refuting doctrine.
Protestants often point to verses such as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 or The Apocalypse (Revelation)22:18-19 in defense of Sola Scriptura, but close examination of these two passages easily demonstrates that they do not support the doctrine at all.

In 2 Timothy 3:16-17 we read, "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work." There are five considerations which undermine the Sola Scriptura interpretation of this passage:

1) The Greek word ophelimos ("profitable") used in verse 16 means "useful" not "sufficient." An example of this difference would be to say that water is useful for our existence – even necessary – but it is not sufficient; that is, it is not the only thing we need to survive. We also need food, clothing, shelter, etc. Likewise, Scripture is useful in the life of the believer, but it was never meant to be the only source of Christian teaching, the only thing needed for believers.

2) The Greek word pasa, which is often rendered as "all," actually means "every," and it has the sense of referring to each and every one of the class denoted by the noun connected with it. (2) In other words, the Greek reads in a way which indicates that each and every "Scripture" is profitable. If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then based on Greek verse 16, each and every book of the Bible could stand on its own as the sole rule of faith, a position which is obviously absurd.

3) The "Scripture" that St. Paul is referring to here is the Old Testament, a fact which is made plain by his reference to the Scripture’s being known by Timothy from "infancy" (verse 15). The New Testament as we know it did not yet exist, or at best it was incomplete, so it simply could not have included in St. Paul’s understanding of what was meant by the term "scripture." If we take St. Paul’s words at face value, Sola Scriptura would therefore mean that the Old Testament is the Christian’s sole rule of faith. This is a premise that all Christians would reject.

Protestants may respond to this issue by arguing that St. Paul is not here discussing the canon of the Bible (the authoritative list of which books are included in the Bible), but rather the nature of Scripture. While there is some validity to this assertion, the issue of canon is also relevant here, for the following reason: Before we can talk about the nature of Scripture as being theopneustos or "inspired" (literally, "God-breathed"), it is imperative that we identify with certainty those books we mean when we say "Scripture"; otherwise, the wrong writings may be labeled as "inspired." St. Paul’s words here obviously took on a new dimension when the New Testament was completed, as Christians eventually considered it, too, to be "Scripture." It can be argued, then, that the Biblical canon is also the issue here, as St. Paul – writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit – emphasizes the fact that all (and not just some) Scripture is inspired. The question that begs to be asked, however, is this: "How can we be sure we have all the correct writings?" obviously, we can only know the answer if we know what the canon of the Bible is.

Such a question poses a problem for the Protestant, but not for the Catholic, as the latter has an infallible authority to answer it.

4) The Greek word artios, here translated "perfect," may at first glance make it seem that the Scriptures are indeed all that is needed. "After all," one may ask, "if the Scriptures make the man of God perfect, what else could be needed? Doesn’t the very word ‘perfect’ imply that nothing is lacking?"

Well, the difficulty with such an interpretation is that the text here does not say that it is solely by means of the Scriptures that the man of God is made "perfect." The text – if anything – indicates precisely the opposite to be true, namely, that the Scriptures operate in conjunction with other things. Notice that it is not just anyone who is made perfect, but rather the "man of God" – which means a minister of Christ (cf. 1 Tim. 6:11), a clergyman. The fact that this individual is a minister of Christ presupposes that he has already had training and teaching which prepared him to assume his office. This being the case, the Scriptures would be merely one item in a series of items which make this man of God "perfect." The Scriptures may complete his list of necessary items or they may be one prominent item on the list, but surely they are not the only item on his list nor intended to be all that he needs.

By way of analogy, consider a medical doctor. In this context we might say something like, "The Physician’s Desk Reference [a standard medical reference book] makes our General Practitioner perfect, so that he may be ready to treat any medical situation." Obviously such a statement does not mean that all a doctor needs is his PDR. It is neither the last item on his list or just one prominent item. The doctor also needs his stethoscope, his blood pressure gauge, his training, etc. These other items are presupposed by the fact that we are talking about a doctor rather than a non-medical person. So it would be incorrect to assume that if the PDR makes the doctor "perfect," it is the only thing which makes him so.

Also, taking this word "perfect" as meaning "the only necessary item" results in a biblical contradiction, for in James 1:4 we read that patience – rather than the Scriptures – makes on perfect: "And patience hath a perfect work; that you may be perfect and entire, failing in nothing." Now it is true that a different Greek word (teleios) is used here for "perfect," but the fact remains that the basic meaning is the same. Now, if one rightly acknowledges that patience is clearly not the only thing a Christian needs in order to be perfect, then a consistent interpretive method would compel one to acknowledge likewise that the Scriptures are not the only think a "man of God" needs in order to be perfect.

5) The Greek word exartizo in verse 17, here translated "furnished" (other Bible versions read something like "fully equipped" or "thoroughly furnished") is referred to by Protestants as "proof" of Sola Scriptura, since this word – again – may be taken as implying that nothing else is needed for the "man of God." However, even though the man of God may be "furnished" or "thoroughly equipped," this fact in and of itself does not guarantee that he knows how to interpret correctly and apply any given Scripture passage. The clergyman must also be taught how to correctly use the Scriptures, even though he may already be "furnished" with them.
Consider again a medical analogy. Picture a medical student at the beginning of internship. He might have at his disposal all the equipment necessary to perform an operation (i.e., he is "thoroughly equipped" or "furnished" for a surgical procedure), but until he spends time with the doctors, who are the resident authorities, observing their techniques, learning their skills, and practicing some procedures of his own, the surgical instruments at his disposal are essentially useless. In fact, if he does not learn how to use these instruments properly, they can actually become dangerous in his hands.

So it is with the "man of God" and the Scriptures. The Scriptures, like the surgical instruments, are life-giving only when properly used. When improperly used, the exact opposite results can occur. In once case they could bring physical ruin or even death; in the other case they could bring spiritual ruin or even spiritual death. Since the Bible admonishes us to handle rightly or rightly divide the word of truth (cf. 2 Tim. 2:15), it is therefore possible to handle incorrectly or wrongly divide it – much like an untrained medical student who incorrectly wields his surgical instruments.

Regarding The Apocalypse (Revelation) 22:18-19, there are two considerations which undermine the Sola Scriptura interpretation of these verses. The passage – almost the very last in the Bible – reads: "For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book."

1) When these verses say that nothing is to be added to or taken from the "words of the prophecy of this book," they are not referring to Sacred Tradition being "added" to the Sacred Scripture. It is obvious from the context that the "book" being referred to here is Revelation or The Apocalypse and not the whole Bible. We know this because St. John says that anyone who is guilty of adding to "this book" will be cursed with the plagues" written in this book," namely the plagues he described earlier in his own book, Revelation. To assert otherwise is to do violence to the text and to distort its plain meaning, especially since the Bible as we know it did not exist when this passage was written and therefore could not be what was meant. (3)

In defense of their interpretation of these verses, Protestants will often contend that God knew in advance what the canon of Scripture would be, with Revelation being the last book of the Bible, and thus He "sealed" that canon with the words of verses 18-19. But this interpretation involves reading a meaning into the text. Furthermore, if such an assertion were true, how is it that the Christian knows unmistakably that Revelation 22:18-19 is "sealing" the canon unless an infallible teaching authority assures him that this is the correct interpretation of that verse? But if such an infallible authority exists, then the Sola Scriptura doctrine becomes ipso facto null and void.

2) The same admonition not to add or subtract words is used in Deuteronomy 4:2, which says, "You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it: keep the commandment of the Lord your God which I command you." If we were to apply a parallel interpretation to this verse, then anything in the Bible beyond the decrees of the Old Testament law would be considered non-canonical or not authentic Scripture – including the New Testament! Once again, all Christians would reject this conclusion in no uncertain terms. The prohibition in Revelation 22:18-19 against "adding," therefore, cannot mean that Christians are forbidden to look to anything outside the Bible for guidance.

2. The Bible Indicates that In Addition to the Written Word, we are to accept Oral Tradition

St. Paul both commends and commands the keeping of oral tradition. In 1 Corinthians 11:2, for instance, we read, "Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you." (4) St. Paul is obviously commending the keeping of oral tradition here, and it should be noted in particular that he extols the believers for having done so ("I praise you...."). Explicit in this passage is also the fact that the integrity of this Apostolic oral tradition has clearly been maintained, just as Our Lord promised it would be, through the safeguarding of the Holy Spirit (cf. John 16:3).

Perhaps the clearest Biblical support for oral tradition can be found in 2 Thessalonians 2:14(15), where Christians are actually commanded: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." This passage is significant in that 1) it shows the existence of living traditions within the Apostolic teaching, b) it tells us unequivocally that believers are firmly grounded in the Faith by adhering to these traditions, and c) it clearly states that these traditions were both written and oral. Since the Bible distinctly states here that oral traditions – authentic and Apostolic in origin – are to be "held" as a valid component of the Deposit of Faith, by what reasoning or excuse do Protestants dismiss them? By what authority do they reject a clear-cut injunction of St. Paul?

Moreover, we must consider the text in this passage. The Greek word krateite, here translated "hold," means "to be strong, mighty, to prevail." (5) This language is rather emphatic, and it demonstrates the importance of maintaining these traditions. Of course one must differentiate between Tradition (upper-case "T") that is part of divine Revelation, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, Church traditions (lower-case "t") that, although good, have developed in the Church later and are not part of the Deposit of Faith. An example of something that is part of Tradition would be infant Baptism; an example of a Church tradition would be the Church’s calendar of feast days of Saints. Anything that is part of Tradition is of divine origin and hence unchangeable, while Church traditions are changeable by the Church. Sacred Tradition serves as a rule of faith by showing what the Church has believed consistently through the centuries and how it is always understood any given portion of the Bible. One of the main ways in which Tradition has been passed down to us is in the doctrine contained in the ancient texts of the liturgy, the Church’s public worship.

It should be noted that Protestants accuse Catholics of promoting "unbiblical" or "novel" doctrines based on Tradition, asserting that such Tradition contains doctrines which are foreign to the Bible. However, this assertion is wholly untrue. The Catholic Church teaches that Sacred Tradition contains nothing whatsoever that is contrary to the Bible. Some Catholic thinkers would even say that there is nothing in Sacred Tradition which is not also found in Scripture, at least implicitly or in seminal form. Certainly the two are at least in perfect harmony and always support each other. For some doctrines, the Church draws more from Tradition than from Scripture for its understanding, but even those doctrines are often implied or hinted at in the Sacred Scripture. For example, the following are largely based on Sacred Tradition: infant Baptism, the canon of Scripture, the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Sunday (rather than Saturday) as the Lord’s Day, and the Assumption of Our Lady.

Sacred Tradition complements our understanding of the Bible and is therefore not some extraneous source of Revelation which contains doctrines that are foreign to it. Quite the contrary: Sacred Tradition serves as the Church’s living memory, reminding her of what the faithful have constantly and consistently believed and who to properly understand and interpret the meaning of Biblical passages. (6) In a certain way, it is Sacred Tradition which says to the reader of the Bible "You have been reading a very important book which contains God’s revelation to man. Now let me explain to you how it has always been understood and practiced by believers from the very beginning."

3. The Bible Calls the Church and not the Bible the "Pillar and Ground of the Truth."

It is very interesting to note that in I Timothy 3:15 we see, not the Bible, but the Church – that is, the living community of believers founded upon St. Peter and the Apostles and headed by their successors – called "the pillar and ground of the truth." Of course, this passage is not meant in any way to diminish the importance of the Bible, but it is intending to show that Jesus Christ did establish an authoritative and teaching Church which was commissioned to teach "all nations." (Matt. 28:19). Elsewhere this same Church received Christ’s promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18), that He would always be with it (Matt. 28:20), and that He would give it the Holy Spirit to teach it all truth. (John 16:13). To the visible head of His Church, St. Peter, Our Lord said: "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and, whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matt. 16:19). It is plainly evident from these passages that Our Lord emphasized the authority of His Church and the role it would have in safeguarding and defining the Deposit of Faith.

It is also evident from these passages that this same Church would be infallible, for if at any time in its history it would definitively teach error to the Church as a whole in matters of faith or morals – even temporarily – it would cease being this "pillar and ground of the truth." Since a "ground" or foundation by its very nature is meant to be a permanent support, and since the above-mentioned passages do not allow fro the possibility of the Church ever definitively teaching doctrinal or moral error, the only plausible conclusion is that Our Lord was very deliberate in establishing His Church and that He was referring to its infallibility when He called it the "pillar and ground of the truth."

The Protestant, however, has a dilemma here by asserting the Bible to be the sole rule of faith for believers. In what capacity, then, is the Church the "pillar and ground of the truth" if it is not to serve as an infallible authority established by Christ? How can the Church be this "pillar and ground" if it has no tangible, practical ability to serve as an authority in the life of a Christian? The Protestant would effectively deny that the Church is the "pillar and ground of the truth" by denying that the Church has the authority to teach.

Also, Protestants understand the term "church" to mean something different from what the Catholic Church understands it to mean. Protestants see "the church" as an invisible entity, and for them it refers collectively to all Christian believers around the world who are united by faith in Christ, despite major variations in doctrine and denominational allegiance. Catholics, on the other hand, understand it to mean not only those true believers who are united as Christ’s Mystical Body, but we simultaneously understand it to refer to a visible, historical entity as well, namely, that one – and only that one – organization which can trace its lineage in an unbroken line back to the Apostles themselves: the Catholic Church. It is this Church and this Church alone which was established by Christ and which has maintained an absolute consistency in doctrine throughout its existence, and it is therefore this Church alone which can claim to be that very "pillar and ground of the truth."

Protestantism, by comparison, has known a history of doctrinal vacillations and changes, and no two denominations completely agree – even on major doctrinal issues. Such shifting and changing could not possibly be considered a foundation or "ground of the truth." When the foundation of a structure shifts or is improperly set, that structure’s very support is unreliable (cf. Matt. 7:26-27). Since in practice the beliefs of Protestantism have undergone change both within denominations and through the continued appearance of new denominations, these beliefs are like a foundation which shifts and moves. Such beliefs therefore cease to provide the support necessary to maintain the structure they uphold, and the integrity of that structure becomes compromised, Our Lord clearly did not intend for His followers to build their spiritual houses on such an unreliable foundation.

4. Christ tells us to submit to the Authority of the Church

In Matthew 18:15-18 we see Christ instructing His disciples on how to correct a fellow believer. It is extremely telling in this instance that Our Lord identifies the Church rather than Scripture as the final authority to be appealed to. He Himself says that if an offending brother "will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican" (Matt. 18:17) – that is, as an outsider who is lost. Moreover, Our Lord then solemnly re-emphasizes the Church’s infallible teaching authority in verse 18 by repeating His earlier statement about the power to bind and loose (Matt. 16:18-19), directing it this time to the Apostles as a group (7) rather than just to Peter: "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matt. 18:18).

Of course there are instances in the Bible where Our Lord does appeal to Scripture, but in these cases He, as one having authority, was teaching the Scriptures; He was not allowing the Scriptures to teach themselves. For example, He would respond to the Scribes and the Pharisees by using Scripture precisely because they often tried to trip Him up by using Scripture. In these instances, Our Lord often demonstrates how the Scribes and Pharisees had wrong interpretations, and hence He corrects them by properly interpreting Scripture.

His actions do not argue that Scripture should be sola, or an authority in itself and, in fact, the only Christian authority. Quite the contrary; whenever Christ refers His hearers to the Scriptures, He also provides His infallible, authoritative interpretation of them, demonstrating that the Scriptures do not interpret themselves.

The Catholic Church readily acknowledges the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. But the Catholic doctrine is that the immediate rule of faith for the Christian is the teaching authority of the Church – an authority to teach and interpret both Scripture and Tradition, as Matt. 18:17-18 shows.

It should also be noted that implicit (perhaps even explicit) in this passage from Matthew is the fact that the "Church" must have been a visible, tangible entity established in a hierarchical fashion. Otherwise, how would anyone have known to whom the wrongdoer should be referred?
If the Protestant definition of "church" were correct, then the wrongdoer would have to "hear" each and every believer who existed, hoping that there would be unanimity among them regarding the issue at hand. The inherent absurdity of this scenario is readily apparent. The only way we can make sense of Our Lord’s statement here is to acknowledge that here was a definite organization, to which an appeal could be made and from which a decisive judgment could be had.

5 Scripture itself states that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher, but rather needs an interpreter.

The Bible says in 2 Tim. 3:17 that the man of God is "perfect, furnished to every good work." As we noted above, this verse means only that the man of God is fully supplied with Scripture; it is not a guarantee that he automatically knows how to interpret it properly. This verse at most argues only for the material sufficiency of Scripture, a position which is held by some Catholic thinkers today.

"Material sufficiency" would mean that the Bible in some way contains all the truths that are necessary for the believer to know; in other words, the "materials" would thus be all present or at least implied. "Formal sufficiency," on the other hand, would mean that the Bible would not only contain all the truths that are necessary, but that it would also present those truths in a perfectly clear and complete and readily understandable fashion. In other words, these truths would be in a useable form," and consequently there would be no need for Sacred Tradition to clarify and complete them or for an infallible teaching authority to interpret them correctly or "rightly divide" God’s word.

Since the Catholic Church holds that the Bible is not sufficient in itself, it naturally teaches that the Bible needs an interpreter. The reason the Catholic Church so teaches is twofold: first, because Christ established a living Church to teach with His authority. He did not simply give His disciples a Bible, whole and entire, and tell them to go out and make copies of it for mass distribution and allow people to come to whatever interpretation they may. Second, the Bible itself states that it needs an interpreter.

Regarding the second point, we read in 2 Peter 3:16 that in St. Paul’s epistles there are "certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest [distort], as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction."

In this one verse we note three very important things about the Bible and its interpretation: a) the Bible contains passages which are not readily understandable or clear, a fact which demonstrates the need for an authoritative and infallible teacher to make the passages clear and understandable; (8) b) it is not only possible that people could "wrest" or distort the meaning of Scripture, but this was, in fact, being done from the very earliest days of the Church; and c) to distort the meaning of Scripture can result in one’s "destruction," a disastrous fate indeed. It is obvious from these considerations that St. Peter did not believe the Bible to be the sole rule of faith. But there is more.

In Acts 8:26-40 we read the account of the deacon St. Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. In this scenario, the Holy Spirit leads Philip to approach the Ethiopian when Philip learns that the Ethiopian is reading from the prophet Isaias, he asks him a very telling question: "Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?" Even more telling is the answer given by the Ethiopian: "And how can I, unless some man show me?"

Whereas this St. Philip (known as "the Evangelist") is not one of the twelve Apostles, he was nonetheless someone who was commissioned by the Apostles (cf. Acts 6:6) and who preached the Gospel with authority (cf. Acts 8:4-8). Consequently, his preaching would reflect legitimate Apostolic teaching. The point here is that the Ethiopian’s statement verifies the fact that the Bible is not sufficient in itself as a teacher of Christian doctrine, and people who hear the Word do need an authority to instruct them properly so that they may understand what the Bible says. If the Bible were indeed sufficient of itself, then the eunuch would not have been ignorant of the meaning of the passage from Isaias.

There is also 2 Peter 1:20, which states that "no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation." Here we see the Bible itself stating in no uncertain terms that its prophecies are not a matter for which the individual is to arrive at his own interpretation. It is also most telling that this verse is preceded by a section on the Apostolic witness (verses 12-18) and followed by a section on false teachers (chapter 2, verses 1-10). St. Peter is obviously contrasting genuine, Apostolic teaching with false prophets and false teachers, and he makes reference to private interpretation as the pivotal point between the two. The clear implication is that private interpretation is one pathway whereby an individual turns from authentic teaching and begins to follow erroneous teaching.

6. The first Christians did not have a Bible

Biblical scholars tell us that the last book of the New Testament was not written until the end of the 1st century A.D., that is, until around the year 100 A.D. (9) This fact would leave roughly a 65-year gap between Our Lord’s Ascension into Heaven and the completion of the Bible as we know it. The question that begs to be asked, therefore, is this: "Who or what served as the final, infallible authority during that time?"

If the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then since the Church existed for a time without the entire written Word of God, there would have been situations and doctrinal issues which could not have been resolved with finality until all of the New Testament books were complete. The ship would have been left without a rudder, so to speak, at least for a time. But this goes contrary to the statements and promises that Our Lord made about His Church – particularly, "behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt. 28:20) – not to mention that He told His disciples: "I will not leave you orphans." (John 14:18).

This issue is of particular importance, as the first several decades of the Church’s existence were tumultuous. Persecutions had already begun, believers were being martyred, the new Faith was struggling to grow, and some false teachings had already appeared (cf. Galatians 1:6-9). If the Bible were the Christian’s only rule of faith, and since the Bible was not fully written – much less settled in terms of its canon – until 65 years after Christ’s Ascension, how did the early Church possibly deal with doctrinal questions without an authority on how to proceed?

Now the Protestant may be tempted to offer two possible responses: 1) that the Apostles were temporarily the final authority while the New Testament was being written, and 2) that the Holy Spirit was given to the Church and that His direct guidance is what bridged the time gap between Our Lord’s Ascension and the completion of the New Testament.

Regarding the first response, it is true that Jesus Christ invested the Apostles with His authority; however, the Bible nowhere indicates that this authority’s active role within the Church would cease with the death of the last Apostle. Quite the contrary, the Bible record is quite clear in that a) it nowhere says that once the last Apostle dies, the written form of God’s Word will become the final authority; and b) the Apostles clearly chose successors who, in turn, possessed the same authority to "bind and loose." This is shown in the election of Matthias as a replacement for Judas Iscariot (Cf. Acts 1:15-26) and in St. Paul’s passing on his Apostolic Authority to Timothy and Titus (cf. 2 Timothy 1:6, and Titus 1:5). If anything, a Protestant only gives credence to the Catholic teaching by insisting on the authority of the Apostles.

Regarding the second response – that the Holy Spirit’s direct guidance bridged the time gap – the problem with such a position is that the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit Himself is an extra-Biblical (That is, "outside of the Bible") source of authority. Naturally the Bible speaks very clearly of the Holy Spirit’s presence among the believers and His role in teaching the disciples "all truth," but if the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit were, in fact, the ultimate authority during those 65 years, then the history of the Church would have known two successive ultimate authorities: first the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, with this guidance then being replaced by the Scriptures, which would have become sola, or the "only" ultimate authority. And if this situation of an extra-Biblical ultimate authority is permissible from a Protestant perspective, does this not open the door to the Catholic position, which says that the teaching authority of the Church is the direct ultimate authority – deriving her authority from Christ and her teaching from Scripture and Tradition, guided by the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit was given to the Church by Jesus Christ, and it is exactly this same Spirit who protects the Church’s visible head, the Pope, and the teaching authority of the Church by never permitting him or it to lapse into error. The Catholic believes that Christ indeed did give the Holy Spirit to the Church and that the Holy Spirit has always been present in the Church, teaching it all truth (John 16:13) and continually safeguarding its doctrinal integrity, particularly through the office of the Pope. Thus the Gospel would still have been preached – authoritatively and infallibly – even if not a single verse of the New Testament had ever been written.

7. The Church produced the Bible not vice-versa

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura overlooks – or at least grossly underemphasizes – the fact that the Church came before the Bible, and not the other way around. It was the Church, in effect, which wrote the Bible under the inspiration of Almighty God: the Israelites as the Old Testament Church (or "pre-Catholics") and the early Catholics as the New Testament Church.
In the pages of the New Testament we note that Our Lord gives a certain primacy to the teaching authority of His Church and its proclamation in His name. For instance, in Matthew 28:20 we see Our Lord commissioning the Apostles to go and teach in His name, making disciples of all nations. In Mark 16:15 we note that the Apostles are commanded to go and preach to all the world. And in Luke 10:16 we see that whoever hears the seventy-two hears Our Lord. These facts are most telling, as nowhere do we see Our Lord commissioning His Apostles to evangelize the world by writing in His name. The emphasis is always on preaching the Gospel, not on printing and distributing it.

Thus it follows that the leadership and teaching authority of the Church are indispensable elements in the means whereby the Gospel message is to reach the ends of the earth. Since the Church produced the scriptures, it is quite biblical, logical and reasonable to say that the Church alone has the authority to interpret properly and apply them. And if this is so, then by reason of its origin and nature, the Bible cannot serve as the only rule of faith for Christian believers. In other words, by producing the Scriptures, the Church does not eliminate the need for itself as teacher and interpreter of those Scriptures.

Moreover, is it not unreasonable to say that simply by putting Apostolic teaching into writing, the Church somehow made that written teaching superior to her oral teaching? Like the teaching organization Our Lord established, His Word is authoritative, but because the word is one form rather than another does not mean one form is to be subjugated to the other. Since God’s one Revelation is twofold in form, to deny the authority of one form would be to deny the authority of the other form as well. The forms of God’s Word are complementary, not competitive. Thus, if there is a need for the Scriptures, there is also a need for the teaching authority which produced them.

8. The idea of the Scripture's Authority existing apart from the authority of the Teacher Church is utterly foreign to the Early Church.

If you look at the writings of the Early Church Fathers, you will see references to the Apostolic Succession, (10) to the bishops as guardians of the Deposit of Faith, (11) and to the primacy and the authority of Rome. (12) The collective weight of these references makes clear the fact that the early Church understood itself has having a hierarchy which was central to maintaining the integrity of the Faith. Nowhere do we see any indication that the early followers of Christ disregarded those positions of authority and considered them invalid as a rule of faith. Quite the contrary, we see in those passages that the Church, from its very inception, saw its power to teach grounded in an inseparable combination of Scripture and Apostolic Tradition – with both being authoritatively taught and interpreted by the teaching Magisterium of the Church, with the Bishop of Rome at its head.

To say that the early Church believed in the notion of "the Bible alone" would be analogous to saying that men and women today could entertain the thought that our civil laws could function without Congress to legislate them, without courts to interpret them and without police to enforce them. All we would need is a sufficient supply of legal volumes in every household so that each citizen could determine for himself how to understand and apply any given law. Such an assertion is absurd, of course, as no one could possibly expect civil laws to function in this manner. The consequence of such a state of affairs would undoubtedly be total anarchy.

How much more absurd, then, is it to contend that the Bible could function on its own and apart from the Church which wrote it? It is precisely that Church – and not just any Christian – who alone possesses the divinely given authority to interpret it correctly, as well as to legislate matters involving the conduct of its members. Were this not the case, the situation on any level – local, regional or global – would quickly devolve into spiritual anarchy, wherein each and every Christian could formulate a theological system and develop a moral code based simply upon his own private interpretation of Scripture.

Has not history actually seen precisely this result since the 16th century, when the so-called Reformation occurred? In fact, an examination of the state of affairs in Europe immediately following the genesis of the Reformation – particularly in Germany – will demonstrate that the direct result of Reformation teaching was both spiritual and social disorder. (13) Luther himself bemoaned the fact that, "Unfortunately, it is our daily experience that now under the Gospel [his] the people entertain greater and bitterer hatred and envy and are worse with their avarice and money-grabbing than before under the Papacy." (14)

9. Heresiarchs and heretical movements based their doctrines on Scripture interpreted apart from Tradition and the Magisterium.

If you look at the history of the early Church, you will see that it continually struggled against heresies and those who promoted them. We also see the Church responding to those threats again and again by convening Councils (15) and turning to Rome to settle disputes in matters of doctrine and discipline. For example, Pope Clement intervened in a controversy in the Church at Corinth at the end of the 1st century and put an end to a schism there. In the 2nd century, Pope Victor threatened to excommunicate a large portion of the Church in the East because of a dispute about when Easter should be celebrated. In the earlier part of the 3rd century, Pope Callistus pronounced the condemnation of the Sabellian heresy.

In the case of these heresies and/or conflicts in discipline that would arise, the people involved would defend their erroneous beliefs by their respective interpretations of Scripture, apart from the Sacred Tradition and the teaching Magisterium of the Church. A good illustration of this point is the case of Arius, the 4th-century priest who declared that the Son of God was a creature and was not co-equal with the Father.

Arius and those who followed him quoted verses from the Bible to "prove" their claims. (16) The disputes and controversies which arose over his teachings became so great that the first Ecumenical Council was convened in Nicaea in 325 A.D. to settle them. The Council, under the authority of the Pope, declared Arius’ teachings to be heretical and made some decisive declarations about the Person of Christ, and it did so based on what Sacred Tradition had to say regarding the Scripture verses in question.

Here we see the teaching authority of the Church being used as the final say in an extremely important doctrinal matter. If there had been no teaching authority to appeal to, then Arius’ error could have overtaken the Church. As it is, a majority of the bishops at the time fell for the Arian heresy. (17) Even though Arius had based his arguments on the Bible and probably "compared Scripture with Scripture," the fact is that he arrived at an heretical conclusion. It was the teaching authority of the Church – hierarchically constituted – which stepped in and declared he was wrong.

The application is obvious. If you ask a Protestant whether or not Arius was correct in his belief that the Son was created, he will, of course, respond in the negative. Emphasize, then, that even though Arius presumably "compared Scripture with Scripture," he nonetheless arrived at an erroneous conclusion. If this were true for Arius, what guarantee does the Protestant have that it is not also true for his interpretation of a given Bible passage? The very fact that the Protestant knows Arius’ interpretations were heretical implies that an objectively true or "right" interpretation exists for the Biblical passages he used. The issue, then, becomes a question of how we can know what that true interpretation is. The only possible answer is that there must be, out of necessity, an infallible authority to tell us. That infallible authority, the Catholic Church, declared Arius heretical. Had the Catholic Church not been both infallible and authoritative in its declaration, then believers would have had no reason whatsoever to reject Arius’ teachings, and the whole of Christianity today might have been comprised of modern-day Arians.

It is evident, then, that using the Bible alone is not a guarantee of arriving at doctrinal truth. The above-described result is what happens when the erroneous doctrine of Sola Scriptura is used as a guiding principle, and the history of the Church and the numerous heresies it has had to address are undeniable testimony to this fact.

10. The Canon of the Bible was not settled until the 4th Century.

One historical fact which proves extremely convenient for the Protestant is the fact that the canon of the Bible – the authoritative list of exactly which books are part of inspired Scripture – was not settled and fixed until the end of the 4th century. Until that time, there was much disagreement over which Biblical writings were considered inspired and Apostolic in origin. The Biblical canon varied from place to place: some lists contained books that were later defined as non-canonical, while other lists failed to include books which were later defined as canonical. For example, there were Early Christian writings which were considered by some to be inspired and Apostolic and which were actually read in Christian public worship, but which were later omitted from the New Testament canon. These include The Shepherd of Hermas, The Epistle of Barnabas, and The Didache, among others. (18)

It was not until the Synod of Rome (382) and the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) that we find a definitive list of canonical books being drawn up, and each of these Councils acknowledged the very same list of books. (19) From this point on, there is in practice no dispute about the canon of the Bible, the only exception being the so-called Protestant Reformers, who entered upon the scene in 1517, an unbelievable 11 centuries later.

Once again, there are two fundamental questions for which one cannot provide answers that are consonant with Sola Scriptura: A) Who or what served as the final Christian authority up to the time that the New Testament’s canon was identified? B) And if there was a final authority that the Protestant recognizes before the establishment of the canon, on what basis did that authority cease being final once the Bible’s canon was established?

11. An "Extra-Biblical" Authority Identified the Canon of the Bible.

Since the Bible did not come with an inspired table of contents, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura creates yet another dilemma: How can one know with certainty which books belong in the Bible – specifically, in the New Testament? The unadulterated fact is that one cannot know unless there is an authority outside the Bible which can tell him. Moreover, this authority must, by necessity, be infallible, since the possibility of error in identifying the canon of the Bible (20) would mean that all believers run the risk of having the wrong books in their Bibles, a situation which would vitiate Sola Scriptura. But if there is such an infallible authority, then the doctrine of Sola Scriptura crumbles.

Another historical fact very difficult to reconcile with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is that it was none other than the Catholic Church which eventually identified and ratified the canon of the Bible. The three councils mentioned above were all councils of this Church. The Catholic Church gave its final, definitive, infallible definition of the Biblical canon a the Council of Trent in 1546 – naming the very same list of 73 books that had been included in the 4th century. If the Catholic Church is able, then, to render an authoritative and infallible decision concerning such an important matter as which books belong in the Bible, then upon what basis would a person question its authority on other matters of faith and morals?

Protestants should at least concede a point which Martin Luther, their religion’s founder, also conceded, namely, that the Catholic Church safeguarded and identified the Bible: "We are obliged to yield many things to the Catholics – (for example), that they possess the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise, we should have known nothing at all about it." (21)

12. The Belief that Scripture is "Self-Authenticating" Does Not Hold Up under Examination

Lacking a satisfactory answer to the question of how the canon of the Bible was determined, Protestants often resort to the notion that Scripture is "self-authenticating," that is, the books of the Bible witness to themselves that they are inspired of God. The major problem with such an assertion is simply that even a cursory examination of ecclesial history will demonstrate it to be utterly untrue.

For example, several books from the New Testament – James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation – were disputed in terms of their canonical status for some time. In certain places they were accepted, while simultaneously in other s they were rejected. Even spiritual giants like St. Athanasius (297-373), St. Jerome (c. 342-420) and St. Augustine (354-430) had drawn up lists of New Testament books which witnessed to what was generally acknowledged as inspired in their times and places, but none of these lists corresponds exactly to the New Testament canon that was eventually identified by the Catholic Church at the end of the 4th century and which is identical to the canon that Catholics have today. (22)

If Scripture were actually "self-authenticating," why was there so much disagreement and uncertainty over these various books? Why was there any disagreement at all? Why was the canon of the Bible not identified much earlier if the books were allegedly so readily discernible? The answer that one is compelled to accept in this regard is simply that the Bible is not self-authenticating at all.

Even more interesting is the fact that some books in the Bible do not identify their authors. The idea of self-authentication – if it were true – might be more plausible if each and every Biblical author identified himself, as we could more easily examine that author’s credentials, so to speak, or at least determine who it was that claimed to be speaking for God. But in this regard the Bible leaves us ignorant in a few instances.

Take St. Matthew’s Gospel as one example; nowhere does the text indicate that it was Matthew, one of the twelve Apostles, who authored it. We are therefore left with only two possibilities for determining its authorship: 1) what Tradition has to say, 2) Biblical scholarship. In either case, the source of determination is an extra-Biblical source and would therefore fall under condemnation by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Now the Protestant may be saying at this point that it is unnecessary to know whether or not Matthew actually wrote this Gospel, as one’s salvation does not depend on knowing whether it was Matthew or someone else. But such a view presents quite a difficulty. What the Protestant is effectively saying is that while an authentic Gospel is God’s Word and is the means by which a person comes to a saving knowledge of Christ, the person has no way of knowing for certain in the case of Matthew’s Gospel whether it is Apostolic in origin and consequently has no way of knowing it if its genuine (i.e., God’s Word) or not. And if this Gospel’s authenticity is questionable, then why include it in the Bible? If its authenticity is certain, then how is this known in the absence of self-identification by Matthew? One can only conclude that the Bible is not self-authenticating.

The Protestant may wish to fall back on the Bible’s own assertion that it is inspired, citing a passage like 2 Timothy 3:16 – "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable..." However, a claim to inspiration is not in and of itself a guarantee of inspiration. Consider the fact that the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of the Christian Science sect, claim to be inspired. The writings of Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon sect, claim to be inspired. These are but two of many possible examples which demonstrate the that any particular writing can claim just about anything. Obviously, in order for us to know with certainty whether or not a writing is genuinely inspired, we need more than a mere claim by that writing that it is inspired. The guarantee of inspiration must come from outside that writing. In the case of the Bible, the guarantee must come from a non-Biblical source. But outside authentication is excluded by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

13. None of the Original Biblical Manuscripts is Extant.

A sobering consideration – and one which is fatal to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura – is that we do not possess a single original manuscript of any book of the Bible. Now it is true that there are thousands of manuscripts extant which are copies of the originals – and more likely than not they are copies of copies – but this fact does not help the Sola Scriptura position for the simple reason that without original manuscripts, one cannot know with certainty if he actually possesses the real Bible, whole and entire. (23) The original autographs were inspired, while copies of them are not.

The Protestant may want to assert that not having original Biblical manuscripts is immaterial, as God preserved the Bible by safeguarding its duplication down through the centuries. (24) However, there are two problems with this line of reasoning. The first is that by maintaining God’s providence with regard to copying, a person claims something which is not written in Scripture, and therefore, by the very definition of Sola Scriptura, cannot serve as a rule of faith. In other words, if one cannot find passages in the Bible which patently state that God will protect the transmission of manuscripts, then the belief is not to be held. The fact of the matter is that the Bible makes no such claim.

The second problem is that if you can maintain that God safeguarded the written transmission of His Word, then you can also rightly maintain that He safeguarded its oral transmission as well (recall 2 Thessalonians 2:14 [15] and the twofold form of God’s one revelation). After all, the preaching of the Gospel began as an oral tradition (cf. Luke 1:1-4 and Rom. 10:17). It was not until later on that some of the oral tradition was committed to writing – becoming Sacred Scripture – and it was later still that these writings were declared to be inspired and authoritative. Once you can maintain that God safeguarded the oral transmission of His teaching, you have demonstrated the basis for Sacred Tradition and have already begun supporting the Catholic position.

14. The Biblical Manuscripts Contain Thousands of Variations

It has just been noted that there are thousands of Biblical manuscripts in existence; these manuscripts contain thousands of variations in the text; one writer estimates that there are over 200,000 variations. (25) Whereas the majority of these deal with minor concerns – such as spelling, word order and the like – there are also variations of a more important nature: a) the manuscript evidence shows that scribes sometimes modified the Biblical texts to harmonize passages, to accommodate them to historical fact, and to establish a doctrinal correctness; (26) and b) there are portions of verses (i.e., more than just a single word in question) for which there are several different manuscript readings, such as John 7:39, Acts 6:8, Colossians 2:2 and 1 Thessalonians 3:2. (27) These facts leave the Protestant in the position of not knowing if he possesses what the Biblical authors originally wrote. And if this is the case, then how can a Protestant profess to base his beliefs solely on the Bible when he cannot determine with certainty the textual authenticity of the Bible? (28)

More importantly, there are several more major textual variations among New Testament manuscripts. The following two examples will illustrate the point:

First, according to the manuscripts that we have, there are four possible endings for Mark’s Gospel: the short ending, which includes verses 1-8 of chapter 16; the longer ending, which includes verses 1-8 plus verses 9-20; the intermediate ending, which includes 2 to 3 lines of text between verse 8 and the longer ending; and the longer ending in expanded form, which includes several verses after verse 14 of the longer ending. (29) The best that can be said about these different endings is that we simply do not know for certain, from the Bible itself, where St. Mark’s Gospel concluded, and, depending on which ending(s) is/are included in a Protestant’s Bible, the publisher runs the risk of either adding verses to or omitting verses from the original text – thus violating the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which requires "the Bible alone and in its entirety" as the basis of faith. Even if a Protestant’s Bible includes all four endings with explanatory comments and/or footnotes, he still cannot be certain which of the four endings is genuine.

Second, there is manuscript evidence for alternate readings in some pivotal verses of the Bible, such as John 1:18, where there are two possible wordings. (30) Some (such as the King James Version) read along the lines of the Douay-Rheims: "No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son Who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." Either wording is substantiated by manuscript evidence, and you will therefore find Biblical scholars relying on their best educated judgment as to which one is "correct." A similar situation occurs at Acts 20:28, where the manuscript evidence shows that Saint Paul could be referring to either the "church of the Lord" (Greek kuriou) or the "church of God" (Greek theou). (31)

Now this point may seem trivial at first, but suppose you are trying to evangelize a cult member who denies the divinity of Jesus Christ. While John 1:18 and Acts 20:28 are clearly not the only passages to use in defense of Our Lord’s divinity, you still may be unable to utilize these verses with that person, depending on which manuscript tradition your Bible follows. That would leave you marginally less able to defend a major Biblical doctrine, and the very nature of this fact become quite problematic from the perspective of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

15. There Are Hundreds of Bible Versions.

As mentioned in Point 14 above, there are thousands and thousands of variations in the Biblical manuscripts. This problem is compounded by the fact that history has known hundreds of Bible versions, which vary in translation as well as textual sources. The question which begs to be asked is, "Which version is the correct one?" or "Which version is closest to the original manuscripts?" One possible answer will depend on which side of the Catholic/Protestant issue you situate yourself. Another possible answer will depend upon which Bible scholars you consider to be trustworthy and reputable.

The simple fact is that some versions are clearly inferior to others. Progress in the field of Biblical research made possible by archaeological discoveries (e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls) has vastly improved our knowledge of the ancient Biblical languages and settings. We know more today about the variables impacting upon Biblical studies than our counterparts of 100, 200, or 1,000 years ago. From this point of view, modern Bible versions may have a certain superiority to older Bible versions. On the other hand, Bibles based on the Latin Vulgate of Saint Jerome (4th century) – in English, this is the Douay-Rheims – are based on original texts which have since perished, and thus these traditional versions bypass 16 centuries of possible textual corruption.

This fact causes a considerable problem for the Protestant, because it means that modern Protestants may have in some respects a "better" or more accurate Bible than their forbears, while in other respects they may have a "poorer" or less accurate Bible – which in turn means that modern Protestants have either a "more authoritative" final authority or a "less authoritative" final authority than their predecessors. But the existence of degrees of authoritativeness begins to undermine Sola Scirptura, because it would mean that one Bible is not as authentic a final authority as another one. And if it is not as authentic, then the possibility of transmitting erroneous doctrine increases, and the particular Bible version then fails to function as the final authority, since it is not actually final.

Another point to consider is that Bible translators, as human beings, are not completely objective and impartial. Some may be likely to render a given passage in a manner which corresponds more closely with one belief system rather than with another. An example of this tendency can be seen in Protestant Bibles where the Greek word paradoseis occurs. Since Protestants deny the existence of Sacred Tradition, some Protestant translations of the Bible render this word as "teachings" or "customs" rather than "tradition," as the latter would tend to give more weight to the Catholic position.

Yet another consideration is the reality that some versions of the Bible are outright perversions of the Biblical texts, as in the case of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation. Here the "translators" render key passages in a manner which suits their erroneous doctrines. (32) Now unless there is an authority outside of the Bible to declare such translations unreliable and dangerous, by what authority could someone call them unsuited for use in teaching doctrine? If the Protestant responds by saying that this issue can be determined on the basis of Biblical scholarship, then he is ignorant of the fact that the Jehovah’s Witnesses also cite sources of Biblical scholarship in support of their translation of these passages! The issue then devolves into a game of pitting one source of scholarship against another – one human authority against another.

Ultimately, the problem can only be resolved through the intervention of an infallible teaching authority which speaks on behalf of Christ. The Catholic knows that that authority is the Roman Catholic Church and its Magisterium or teaching authority. In an exercise of this authority, Catholic Bishops grant an imprimatur (meaning "Let it be printed") to be included on the opening pages of certain Bible versions and other spiritual literature to alert the reader that the book contains nothing contrary to the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. (33)

16. The Bible Was Not Available to Individual Believers until the 15th Century.

Essential to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the idea that the Holy Spirit will enlighten each believer as to the correct interpretation for a given Bible passage. This idea presupposes that each believer possesses a Bible or at least has access to a Bible. The difficulty with such a presumption is that the Bible was not able to be mass-produced and readily available to individual believers until the advent of the printing press in the 15th century. (34) Even then, it would have taken quite some time for large numbers of Bibles to be printed and disseminated to the general population.

The predicament caused by this state of affairs is that millions upon millions of Christians who lived prior to the 15th century would have been left without a final authority, left to flounder spiritually, unless by chance they had access to a hand-copied Bible. Even a mere human understanding of such circumstances would make God out to be quite cruel, as He would have revealed the fullness of His Word to humanity in Christ, knowing that the means by which such information could be made readily available would not exist for another 15 centuries.

On the other hand, we know that God is not cruel at all, but in fact has infinite love for us. It is for this reason that He did not leave us in darkness. He sent us His Son to teach us the way we should believe and act, and this Son established a Church to promote those teachings through preaching to both the learned and the illiterate. "Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the Word of Christ." (Rom. 10:17). Christ also gave to His Church His guarantee that He would always be with it, never allowing it to fall into error. God, therefore, did not abandon His people and make them rely upon the invention of the printing press to be the means whereby they would come to a saving knowledge of His Son. Instead, He gave us a divinely established, infallible teacher, the Catholic Church, to provide us with the means to be informed of the Good News of the Gospel – and to be informed correctly.

17. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Did Not Exist Prior to the 14th Century.

As difficult a reality as it may be for some to face, this foundational doctrine of Protestantism did not originate until the 14th century and did not become widespread until the 16h century – a far, far cry time-wise from the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. This simple fact is conveniently overlooked or ignored by Protestants, but it can stand alone as sufficient reason to discard the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. The truth that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura did not exist before John Wycliffe (forerunner of Protestantism) in the 14th century and did not become widespread until Martin Luther came along in the 16th century and began setting up his own "traditions of men" in place of authentic Christian teaching. The doctrine, therefore, not only lacks the historical continuity which marks legitimate Apostolic teaching, but it actually represents an abrupt change, a radical break with the Christian past.

Protestants will assert that the Bible itself teaches Sola Scriptura and therefore that the doctrine had its roots back with Jesus Christ. However, as we have seen above, the Bible teaches no such things. The claim that the Bible teaches this doctrine is nothing more than a repeated effort to retroject this belief back into the pages of Scripture. The examination of historical continuity (or lack thereof) provides an indication whether or not a particular belief originated with Jesus Christ and the Apostles or whether it appeared somewhere much later in time. The fact is that the historical record is utterly silent on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura prior to the 14th century.

18. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Produces Bad Fruit, Namely, Division and Disunity.

If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then it should be expected that Protestants would all be in agreement in terms of doctrine, as the Bible could not simultaneously teach contradictory beliefs. And yet the reality is that there are literally thousands (35) of Protestant sects and denominations, each of which claims to have the Bible as its only guide, each of which claims to be preaching the truth, yet each of which teaches something different from the others. Protestants claim that they differ only in non-essential or peripheral matters, but the fact is that they cannot even agree on major doctrinal issues such as the Eucharist, salvation, and justification – to name a few.

For instance, most Protestant denominations teach that Jesus Christ is only symbolically present in the Eucharist, while others (such as Lutherans and Episcopalians) believe that He is literally present, at least to some extent. Some denominations teach that once you are "saved" you can never lose your salvation, while others believe it is possible for a true Christian to sin gravely and cease being "saved." And some denominations teach that justification involves the Christian’s being merely declared righteous, while others teach that the Christian must also grow in holiness and actually become righteous.

Our Lord categorically never intended for His followers to be as fragmented, disunited and chaotic as the history of Protestantism has been since its very inception. (36) Quite the contrary, He prayed for His followers: "That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us." (John 17:21). And St. Paul exhorts Christians to doctrinal unity with the words, "One body and one Spirit... One Lord, one faith, one baptism." (Eph. 4:4-5). How, then, can the thousands of Protestant denominations and sects all claim to be the "true Church" when their very existence refutes this claim? How can such heterodoxy and contradiction in doctrine be the unity for which Our Lord prayed?

In this regard, the reader should be reminded of Christ’s own words: "For by the fruit the tree is known." (Matt. 12:33). By this standard, the historical testimony afforded by Protestantism demonstrates that the tree of Sola Scriptura is producing bad fruit.

19. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Does Not Allow for a Final, Definitive Interpretation of any given Passage of Scripture.

As we have seen above, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura maintains that the individual believer needs only the Bible as a rule of faith and that he can obtain a true interpretation of a given Scripture passage simply by comparing it with what the rest of the Bible teaches. In practice, however, this approach creates more problems than it solves, and it ultimately prevents the believer from knowing definitively and with certainty how any given passage from the Bible should be interpreted.

The Protestant, in reality, interprets the Bible from a standpoint of subjective opinion rather than objective truth. For example, say Protestant person A studies a Scripture passage and concludes interpretation X. Protestant B studies the identical passage and concludes interpretation Y. Lastly, Protestant C studies the same passage and concludes interpretation Z. (37) Interpretations X and Y and Z are mutually contradictory. Yet each of these people, from the Protestant perspective, can consider his or her interpretation to be "correct" because each one has "compared Scripture with Scripture."

Now there are only two possible determinations for these three Protestants: a) each of them is incorrect in his interpretation, or b) only one of them is correct – since three contradictory interpretations cannot simultaneously be true. (38) The problem here is that, without the existence of an infallible authority to tell the three Protestants which of their respective interpretations is correct (i.e., objectively true), there is no way for each of them to know with certainty and definitively if his particular interpretation is the correct one. Each Protestant is ultimately left to an individual interpretation based on mere personal opinion – study and research into the matter notwithstanding. Each Protestant thus becomes his own final authority – or, if you will, his own "pope."

Protestantism in practice bears out this fact. Since the Bible alone is not sufficient as a rule of faith (if it were, our three Protestants would be in complete accord in their interpretations), every believer and denomination within Protestantism must necessarily arrive at his/her/its own interpretation of the Bible. Consequently, if there are many possible interpretations of Scripture, by definition there is no ultimate interpretation. And if there is no ultimate interpretation, then a person cannot know whether or not his own interpretation is objectively true.

A good comparison would be the moral law. If each person relied on his own opinion to determine what was right or wrong, we would have nothing more than moral relativism, and each person could rightly assert his own set of standards. However, since God has clearly defined moral absolutes for us (in addition to those we can know by reason from the natural law), we can assess any given action and determine how morally good or bad it is. This would be impossible without moral absolutes.

Of course any given denomination within Protestantism would probably maintain that its particular interpretations are the correct ones – at least in practice, if not formally. If it did not, its adherents would be changing denominations! However, if any given denomination claims that its interpretations are correct above those of the other denominations, it has effectively set itself up as a final authority. The problem here is that such an act violates Sola Scriptura, setting up an authority outside Scripture.

On the other hand, if any given denomination would grant that it’s interpretations are no more correct than those of other denominations, then we are back to the original dilemma of never knowing which interpretation is correct and thus never having the definitive truth. But Our Lord said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life." (John 14:6). The predicament here is that each and every denomination within Protestantism makes the same claim – either effectively or formally – regarding its interpretations being "correct." What we are left with are thousands of different denominations, each claiming to have the Scriptural "truth," yet none of which is capable of providing an objective determination regarding that "truth." The result is an inability to obtain a definitive, authoritative and final interpretation of any given Scripture passage. In other words, the Protestant can never say that "the buck stops here" with regard to an y given interpretation for any given passage of the Bible.

20. The Protestant Bible Is Missing 7 Entire Books

Much to their chagrin, Protestants are actually guilty of violating their own doctrine. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura prohibits anyone from adding to or deleting from the Bible, but Protestants have, in fact, deleted seven entire books from the Old Testament, as well as portions of two others. The books in question, which are wrongly termed "the Apocrypha" ("not authentic") by Protestants, are called the "deuterocanonical" ("second canon") books by Catholics: they are Tobias (Tobit), Judith, 1 and 2 Machabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (or Sirach), and Baruch. Portions of Daniel and Esther are also missing.

In defense of their deficient Old Testament canon, Protestants invariably present one or more of the following arguments: 1) the shorter, Pharisaic (or Palestinian) canon (39) of the Old Testament was accepted by Christ and His Apostles, as they never quoted from the deuterocanonical books; 2) the Old Testament was closed by the time of Christ, and it was the shorter canon; 3) the Jews themselves accepted the shorter, Pharisaic canon at the Council of Jamnia (or Javneh) in 90 A.D.; and 4) the deuterocanonical books contain unscriptural material.
Each of these arguments is wholly flawed.

1) Regarding the claim that Christ and His Apostles accepted the shorter, Pharisaic canon, an examination of the New Testament’s quotation of the Old Testament will demonstrate its fallacy. The New Testament quotes the Old Testament about 350 times, and in approximately 300 of those instances (86%), the quotation is taken from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament in widespread use at the time of Christ. The Septuagint contained the dueterocanonical books. It is therefore unreasonable and presumptuous to say that Christ and His Apostles accepted the shorter Old Testament canon, as the clear majority of the time they used an Old Testament version which did contain the seven books in question.

Or, take the case of Saint Paul, whose missionary journeys and letters were directed to Hellenistic regions outside of Palestine. It has been noted, for example, that his sermon at Antioch in Pisidia "presupposed a thorough acquaintance among his hearers with the Septuagint" and that once a Christian community had been founded, the content of his letters to its members "breathed the Septuagint." (40) Obviously, Saint Paul was supporting the longer canon of the Old Testament by his routine appeal to the Septuagint.

Moreover, it is erroneous to say either that the deutero-canonical books were never quoted by Christ (41) and His apostles or that such citation is a prerequisite for a book’s inclusion in the Biblical canon. According to one list, the deutero-canonical books are cited or alluded to in the New Testament not less than 150 times! (42) In addition, there are Old Testament books, such as Ecclesiastes, Esther and Abdias (Obadiah), which are not quoted by Christ or the Apostles, but which are nonetheless included in the Old Testament canon (both Catholic and Protestant). Obviously, then, citation by Christ or the Apostles does not singlehandedly determine canonicity.

2) Regarding the claim that Christ and the Apostles worked with a closed Old Testament canon – which Protestants maintain was the shorter canon – the historical evidence undermines the allegation. First, there was no entity known as the Palestinian canon, for there were actually three cnaons in use in Palestine at that time, (43) in addition to the Septuagint canon. And second, the evidence demonstrates that "Judaism in the last two centuries B.C. and in the first century A.D. was by no means uniform in its understanding of which of its writings were considered sacred. There were many views both inside and outside of Israel in the first centuries B.C. and A.D. on which writings were deemed sacred." (44)

3) Using the Council of Jamnia in support of a shorter canon is manifestly problematic for the following reasons: a) The decisions of a Jewish council which was held more than 50 years after the Resurrection of Christ are in no way binding on the Christian community, just as the ritual laws of Judaism (e.g., the prohibition against eating pork) are not binding on Christians. b) It is questionable whether or not the council made final decisions about the Old Testament canon of Scripture, since "the list of books acknowledged to ‘defile the hands’ continued to vary within Judaism itself up through the 4th century A.D." (45) c) The council was, to some extent, a polemic directed specifically against the "sect" of Christianity, and its tone, therefore, was inherently opposed to Christianity. These Jews most likely accepted the shorter Pharisaic canon precisely because the early Christians accepted the longer Septuagint canon. d) The decisions of this council represented the judgment of just one branch of Pharisaic Judaism within Palestine and not of Judaism as a whole.

4) Lastly, for Protestants to aver that the duetero-canonical books contain unscriptural material is decidedly a case of unwarranted dogmatism. This conclusion was reached simply because the so-called Reformers, who were clearly antagonistic toward the Catholic Church, approached the Bible with an a priori notion that it teaches "Reformed" (Protestant) doctrine. They discarded the deutero-canonical books because in certain instances these books contain decidedly Catholic doctrine, as in the case of 2 Machabees 12:42-46, which clearly supports the doctrine of prayers for the dead and hence of Purgatory: "It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." (2 Mach. 12:46). Luther, in fact, wanted to discard also the New Testament books of Revelation and James, the latter of which he termed an "epistle of straw" and which he felt had "nothing evangelical about it" (46) – no doubt because it clearly states that we are saved by faith and works (cf. James 2:14-26), in contrast to Luther’s erroneous "faith alone" doctrine. Luther was ultimately persuaded by his friends to retain these books.

In addition to the above is the fact of historical testimony and continuity regarding the canon of the Bible. While we have seen that there were disputes regarding the Biblical canon, two considerations are nonetheless true: 1) the deuterocanonical books were certainly used by Christians from the 1st century onward, beginning with Our Lord and His disciples, and 2) once the issue of the canon was settled in the 4th century, we see no change in Christian practice regarding the canon from that point onward. In practice, the only challenge to and disregard of these two realities occurs when the so-called Reformers arrive on the scene in the 16th century and decide that they can simply trash an 11-centuries-long continuity regarding the canon’s formal existence and a nearly 15-centuries-long continuity regarding its practical existence.

The fact that any individual would come along and single-handedly alter such a continuity regarding so central an issue as which books comprise the Bible should give the sincere follower of Christ serious pause. Such a follower is compelled to ask, "By whose authority does this individual make such a major change?" Both history and Luther’s own writings show that Luther’s actions were based on nothing but his own personal say-so. Surely such an "authority" falls grossly short of that which is needed for the canonical change he espoused, especially considering that he process of identifying the Bible’s canon was guided by the Holy Spirit, took centuries, and involved some of the greatest minds in Christianity as well as several Church Councils. More disturbing still is the fact that the other so-called Reformers – and Protestants ever since – have followed suit by accepting Luther’s changed canon, yet all the while they claim to honor the Bible and insist that nothing can be added to or deleted from it.

21. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Had its Source in Luther’s Own Emotional Problems.

If anything at all can be said with certainty about Martin Luther, it is that he was deeply and chronically troubled by a combination of doubts and despair about his salvation and a sense of utter impotence in the face of temptation and sin. Luther himself notes, "My spirit was completely broken and I was always in a state of melancholy; for, do what I would, my ‘righteousness’ and my ‘good works’ brought me no help or consolation." (47)

In light of this reality, one must assess Luther’s psychological and emotional frame of mind in terms of their impact on the origins of his Sola Scriptura doctrine. Even a cursory examination will demonstrate that this doctrine was born out of Luther’s need to be free from the guilt feelings, despair and temptation which "tortured" him.

Considering that Luther himself admits to an obsessive concern with his own sinfulness, as well as an inability to resist temptation, it seems reasonable to conclude that he suffered from scrupulosity, and even Lutheran scholars will admit to this. (48) Scrupulosity means that a person is overly anxious about having committed sins when there is no real basis for such anxiety, and a scrupulous person is one who often exaggerates the severity of his perceived sinfulness, with a corresponding lack of trust in God. It is also relevant to note that scrupulosity "often seems to be based on some psychological dysfunction in the person." (49)

In other words, Luther probably never had a moment of emotional or psychological peace, since the voice of "conscience" always pricked him about some matter, real or imagined. It would be quite natural for someone so plagued to seek refuge from that voice, and for Luther that refuge was found in the doctrine of Sola Fide, or salvation by "faith alone."

But since the avoidance of sin as well as the performance of good works are necessary components for our salvation, and since these facts were steadfastly taught and defended by the Catholic Church, Luther found himself diametrically opposed to the teaching authority of the Church. Because the Church asserted the necessity of doing exactly what he felt incapable of doing, Luther made a drastic decision – one which "solved" his scrupulosity problem: he rejected the teaching authority of the Church, embodied in the Magisterium with the Pope at its head, and claimed that such was contrary to the Bible. In other words, by claiming Sola Scriptura to be true Christian doctrine, Luther dismissed that authority which compelled him to recognize that his own spirituality was dysfunctional.

Summary

For all these reasons, then, it is evident that the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is an utterly unbiblical, man-made, erroneous belief which must be wholly rejected. Those who are genuine Christian believers and who have a commitment to the truths that Jesus Christ taught – even if those contradict one’s current religious system – should be compelled by the evidence to see the inherent flaws in this doctrine, flaws which are clearly obvious from Scripture, logic and history.

The fullness of religious truth, unmixed with error, is found only in the Catholic Church, the very Church which Jesus Christ Himself established. According to the teaching of this Church, founded by Christ, Sola Scriptura is a distorted, truncated view of Christian authority. Rather, the true rule of faith for the followers of Christ is this:

The immediate or direct rule of faith is the teaching of the Church; the Church in turn takes her teaching from Divine Revelation – both the written Word, called Sacred Scripture, and the oral or unwritten Word, known as "Tradition," which together form the remote or indirect rule of faith.

Scripture and Tradition are the inspired sources of Christian doctrine, while the Church – a historical and visible entity dating back to St. Peter and the Apostles in an uninterrupted succession – is the infallible teacher and interpreter of Christian doctrine. It is only by accepting this complete Christian rule of faith that followers of Christ know they are adhering to all the things that He commanded His Apostles to teach (cf. Matt. 28:20). It is only by accepting this complete Christian rule of faith that the followers of Christ are assured of possessing the whole truth which Christ taught, and nothing but that truth.

Footnotes

Note: Among the references are a few Protestant authors; their works are not cited as "recommended reading," but they show that the points made in the present work are valid even by Protestant standards.

1. The Protestant Reformation was not a reform in the true sense of the word, but rather it was a revolution – an upheaval of the legitimate, established religious and civil order of the day.
2. W. E. Vine [Protestant Author], Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (McLean, VA: MacDonald Publishing House, n.d.), p. 387. Cf. St. Alphonsus Liguori, An Exposition and Defense of all the Points of Faith Discussed and Defined by the Sacred Council of Trent; along with a Refutation of the Errors of the Pretended Reformers, etc. (Dublin: James Duffy, 1846), p. 50.
3. While all the books of the New Testament are considered to have been written by the time St. John finished The Apocalypse (Revelation), they were not formally identified as "the Bible" until much later on.
4. The word translated as "ordinances" is also translated "teachings" or "traditions"; for example, the New International Version gives "teachings," with a footnote: "Or traditions."
5. Vine, op. Cit., p. 564.
6. One example of this interpretive memory involves Revelation 12. The Early Church Fathers understood the "woman clothed with the sun" to be a reference to the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. For someone to assert that this doctrine did not exist until 1950 (the year Pope Pius XII formally defined the doctrine) represents ignorance of ecclesial history. Essentially, the belief was held from the beginning, but it was not formally defined until the 20th century. Bear in mind that the Church often did not have a need to define a doctrine formally until it was formally challenged by someone (usually a heretic). Such occasions gave rise to the need officially to define the "parameters" of the doctrine in question.
7. Catholic teaching states that "the body of bishops," successors of the Apostles, also teach infallibly when they, in union with the Pope, "exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council." (Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, #891). Also, "binding and loosing" is Rabbinical terminology, and it refers to the power to pronounce authoritative interpretations and teachings. Christ clearly intended, then, for His Apostles, under the leadership of Saint Peter (for Saint Peter alone received the power of the keys), to possess the authority to render these authoritative interpretations and teachings.
8. The assertion by Protestants that the Bible is its own interpreter is nothing more than an exercise in futility. They claim that a person can correctly interpret any given Scripture by comparing it with what the rest of the Bible teaches. The problem with this line of reasoning can be readily demonstrated. Ask ten people to give their respective interpretations of a given Scripture passage, and you could get as many as ten different explanations. If the Bible were able to interpret itself, as Protestants claim, why do you not always obtain ten identical interpretations, even if you allow these people an ample amount of time to conduct study and research? And if this diversity of interpretation is true for a mere ten people, image the results, when you multiply that number by one hundred, or one thousand, or one million. History has already seen such a result, and its name is Protestantism.
9. There are some Biblical scholars who maintain that 2 Peter was actually the last New Testament book written, dating it sometime in the earlier part of the 2nd century. Since there is not a consensus among scholars that this date is accurate, it is sufficient for our purposes here to accept the generally held view that all of the New testament books were complete with the composition of Revelation.
10. See, for instance: Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3; Tertullian’s Prescription against Heretics, Chapter 32; and Origen’s First Principles, Book 1, Preface.
11. See, for instance: Ignatius’ Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Chapters 8-9; Ignatius’ Letter to the Philadelphians, Introduction and Chapters 1-4; and Ignatius’ Letter to the Magnesians, Chapter 7.
12. See, for instance: 1 Clement, Chapters 2, 56, 58, 59; Ignatius’ Letter to the Romans, introduction and Chapter 3; Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3, no. 2; Tertullian’s Prescriptions against Heretics, Chapter 22; and Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, Chapter 24, no. 9.
13. See Msgr. Patrick F. O’Hare, LL.D., The Facts about Martin Luther (Cincinnati: Pustet, 1916; Rockrord, IL: TAN, 1987), pp. 215-255.
14. Walch, XIII, 2195, as quoted in The Facts About Luther (Cincinnati: Pustet, 1916; Rockford, IL: TAN, 1987), pp. 215-255.
15. Bear in mind that the decrees of an Ecumenical Council had no binding force unless they were ratified by the Pope.
16. Two favorite verses for Arians of all ages to cite in support of their beliefs are Proverbs 8:22 and John 14:28.
17. See John Henry Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Century.
18. Henry G. Graham, Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1911; Rockford, IL: TAN, 1977, 17th printing), pp. 34-35.
19. This list is the same as the list given in the Church’s final, definitive, explicit, infallible declaration as to which books are to be included in the Bible, which was made by the Council of Trent, Session IV, in 1546. Earlier lists of canonical books were the list in the "Decretal of Gelasius," which was issued by authority of Pope Damasus in 382, and the canon of Pope Saint Innocent I, which was sent to a Frankish bishop in 405. Neither document was intended to b an infallible statement binding the whole Church, but both documents include the same 73 books as the list of Trent some 11 centuries later. (The Catholic Encyclopedia [New York: The Encyclopedia Press, 1913], Vol. 3, p. 272).
20. The reader must note that the Catholic Church does not claim that by identifying the books of the Bible it rendered them canonical. God alone is the author of canonicity. The Catholic Church instead claims that it and it alone has the authority and responsibility of infallibly pointing out which books comprise the Biblical canon already authored by God.
21. Commentary on John, chapter 16, as cited in Paul Stenhouse’s Catholic Answers to "Bible" Christians (Kensington: Chevalier Press, 1993), p. 31.
22. Graham, op. cit., p. 31.
23. The earliest copies of the Bible, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, both date from the 4th century A.D., and neither one contains the entire Bible, as parts of the manuscripts have been lost or destroyed. The vast majority of the manuscripts that exist are only portions of the Bible.
24. The irony here is that it was due to the tireless efforts of Catholic monks working laboriously in their monasteries that the written Word of God survived down through the centuries. The claim that the Catholic Church did everything in its power to suppress the Bible is a most pernicious falsehood, and it can readily be refuted by even the most cursory examination of and research into Church history. Quite the contrary, the Catholic Church, in its unique role as guardian of the Deposit of Faith, protected the Bible’s integrity from spurious and faulty translations, and it was these spurious and faulty copies of the Bible which it burned or destroyed to prevent false gospels from being circulated.
25. Raymond F. Collins, Introduction to the New Testament (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1983), p. 77.
26. Ibid., pp. 100-102.
27. Bruce M. Metzger (Protestant author), The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 221-225, 234-242.
28. It has been maintained by Protestants that in all the variations in Biblical manuscripts, not one touches upon a major doctrine. Even though this assertion is untrue, it does not alter the fact that the Protestant is here admitting, at least obliquely, that it is permissible to accept something which is less than or different from the "real" Bible. And if this is true, then the Protestant himself has begun to undermine Sola Scriptura.
29. Metzger, op. cit., pp. 226-228.
30. Collins, op. cit., p. 102.
31. Metzger, op. cit., p. 234.
32. Of the numerous examples which could be cited, space considerations confine us to just a few to illustrate the point. In John 1:1, the NWT reads, "... and the Word was a god" rather than "and the Word was God," because Witnesses deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. In Colossians 1:15-20, the NWT inserts the word "other" into the text four times because Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ Himself was created. In Matthew 26:26 the NWT reads "... this means my body..." instead of "This is my body," because Witnesses deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
33. Moreover, the old Latin Vulgate version of the Bible received a very particular approval by the Church at the Council of Trent among all the Latin editions of the Scriptures then in circulation. The Council of Trent declared: "Moreover, the same Holy Council [of Trent]... ordains and declares that the old Latin Vulgate Edition, which, in use for so many hundred years, has been approved by the Church, be in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions held as authentic, and that no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it." (Fourth Session, April 8, 1546). Hence, as Pope Pius XII stated in his 1943 encyclical letter Divino Afflante Spiritu ("On the Promotion of Biblical Studies"), the Vulgate, "when interpreted in the sense in which the Church has always understood it," is "free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals."
In 1907 Pope Saint Pius X (1903-1914) initiated a revision of the Vulgate to achieve even greater textual accuracy. After his death, this huge project was carried on by others. In 1979 Pope John Paul II promulgated a "New Vulgate" as "Editio typica" or "normative edition.
34. It should be noted that the inventor of the printing press – Johannes Gutenberg – was Catholic, and that the first book he printed was the Bible (circa 1455). It should also be noted that the first printed Bible contained 73 books, the exact same number as today’s Catholic Bible. Protestants deleted 7 books from the Old Testament after the Bible had already begun being printed.
35. By some estimates there are approximately 25,000 different Protestant denominations and sects. In the approximately 500 years since Protestantism’s origin with Martin Luther (usually dated at 1517), this number translates into an average of one new Protestant denomination or sect every week! Even if you take a conservative estimate of 10,000 denominations and sects, you still have a new one developing every 2 ½ weeks.
36. Even the original "Reformers" – Martin Luther, John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli – did not agree on doctrinal matters and labeled each other’s teachings heretical.
37. The quantity of three is used here for illustrative purposes only. The actual historical quantities (i.e., the number of variant interpretations for various passages) are far larger.
38. It is not denied here that a given passage from Scripture can have different levels of interpretation or that it may have different levels of meaning in terms of its application in the life of a believer. It is, however, denied here that a given passage can have more than one theological or doctrinal meaning in the face of opposing interpretations. For example, if two people assert, respectively, "X" and "not-X" for a given interpretation, they cannot both be correct. Take the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, for instance. If the first person says that the bread and wine at Mass actually become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and the second person says that they do not, it is impossible for both views to be objectively true.
39. The Pharisaic canon, which was used by Jews in Palestine, did not contain the deuterocanonical books. The Septuagint or Alexandrian canon, which was used largely by Jews living in the Dispersion (i.e., Hellenistic regions outside of Palestine), did contain the deuterocanonical books.
40. W. H. C. Frend [Protestant author], The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1984), pp. 99-100.
41. For some examples, compare the following passages: Matt. 6:14-15 with Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 28:2; Matt. 6:7 with Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 7:15(14); Matt. 7:12 with Tobit (Tobias) 4:16(15); Luke 12:18-20 with Sirach 11:19 (Ecclus. 11:19-20); Acts 10:34 with Ecclus. 35:15 (Sirach 35:12); Acts 10:26 with Wisdom 7:1; and Matt. 8:11 with Baruch 4:37.
42. Lee Martin McDonald [Protestant author], The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon, Appendix A (Nashville, TN: The Parthenon Press, 1988). (Listing entitled "New Testament Citations and Allusions to Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal Writings," adapted from The Text of the New Testament, by Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, two well-known Biblical scholars.)
43. They include a) the Qumran canon, which we know of from the Dead Sea Scrolls, b) the Pharisaic canon, and c) the Sadducees/Samaritan canon, which included only the Torah (the first books of the Old Testament).
44. McDonald, op. cit. p. 53.
45. Ibid, p. 60.
46. Hartmann Grisar, S.J., Martin Luther: His Life and Work (B. Herder, 1930; Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1961), p. 426.
47. Jansen, Vol. III, p. 84, as quoted in O’Hare, op. cit., p. 51.
48. Cf. Fr. William Most, "Are We Saved by Faith Alone?", cassette tape from Catholic Answers, P.O. Box 17490, San Diego, CA 92177.
49. Father Peter Stravinskas, ed., Catholic Encyclopedia (Huntington, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 1991), p 873.
Copyright (c) 1997-1999 Ecclesia MilitansAll Rights ReservedUpdated: July 15, 2002

A Woman Clothed with the Sun

2006-10-13T08:01:00.000-07:00

CR-Today marks the the Miracle of the Sun 89 yrs ago at Fatima. Seen by 70,000+ people, including Masons and athiests. Below are some articles very various orthodox sites about Fatima-its apparitions, miracles and message.

THE STORY

The Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, appeared six times to three shepherd children ("the Three Seers" (See Related Articles) ) near the town of Fatima, Portugal between May 13th and October 13th 1917. Appearing to the children, the Blessed Virgin told them that She had been sent by God with a message for every man, woman and child living in our century. Coming at a time when civilization was torn assunder by war and bloody violence, She promised that Heaven would grant peace to all the world if Her requests for prayer, reparation and consecration were heard and obeyed.

"If My requests are granted ... there will be peace" Our Lady of Fatima explained to the children that war is a punishment for sin and warned that God would further castigate the world for its disobedience to His Will by means of war, hunger and the persecution of the Church, the Holy Father and the Catholic Faithful. God's Mother prophesized that Russia would be God's chosen "instrument of chastisement," spreading the "errors" of atheism and materialism across the earth, fomenting wars, annihilating nations and persecuting the Faithful everywhere.

"If My requests are not granted, Russia will spread its errors throughout the world, raising up wars and persecutions against the Church. The good will be martryed, the Holy Father will suffer much and various nations will be annihilated."

In all Her appearances at Fatima, the Blessed Mother repeatedly emphasized the necessity of praying the Rosary daily, of wearing the Brown Scapular (See Related Articles) of Mount Carmel and of performing acts of reparation and sacrifice. To prevent the terrible chastisement at the hands of Russia and to convert "that poor nation", Our Lady requested the solemn public Consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart by the Pope and all the Catholic bishops of the world. She also asked that the Faithful practice a new devotion of reparation on the first Saturday of five consecutive months ("the Five First Saturdays" (See Related Articles) )The heart of Our Lady's Message to the world is contained in what has come to be called the "Secret" which She confided to the three child seers in July 1917.

The Secret actually consists of three parts, the first two of which have been publicly revealed. The first part of the Secret was a horrifying vision of hell (See Related Articles) "where the souls of poor sinners go" and contained an urgent plea from Our Lady for acts of prayer and sacrifice to save souls. The second part of the Secret specifically prophesized the outbreak of World War II and contained the Mother of God's solemn request for the Consecration of Russia (See Related Articles) as a condition of world peace. It also predicted the inevitable triumph of Her Immaculate Heart following Russia's consecration and the conversion "of that poor nation" to the Catholic Faith.

The last part of the Secret (often called the "Third Secret" (See Related Articles) ) has not yet been made public, but was written down by Lucy Dos Santos, the last living Fatima seer, in 1944 and has been in the possession of the Holy See since 1957. Most informed sources speculate that this portion of the Secret concerns chaos in the Catholic Church, predicting widespread apostasy and a loss of faith beginning in the seventh decade of the 20th century.

Beginning

In the spring of 1916, three young Portuguese shepherds, Lucy dos Santos and her cousins Francisco and Jacinta Marto, led their sheep to graze on a hill called the Cabeço. Rain began to fall, so the children found a place on the hillside to serve as a shelter. Even after the rain had passed and the sun had returned, the little shepherds spent the day at this spot, eating lunch, saying the Rosary and playing games. Lucy was then only nine years old, Francisco was eight, and Jacinta was six.

As they were playing, a strong wind suddenly blew, shaking the trees, and the children saw a figure approaching above the olive trees. Lucy described the figure as having "the appearance of a young man of fourteen or fifteen, whiter than snow, which the sun rendered transparent as if it were of crystal, and of great beauty. We were surprised and half absorbed. We did not say a word.

"While coming closer to us, the Angel said: ‘Do not fear! I am the Angel of Peace. Pray with me.’ And kneeling on the earth, he bent his forehead to the ground. Prompted by a supernatural movement, we imitated him and repeated the words which we heard him pronounce: ‘My God, I believe in Thee, I adore Thee, I hope in Thee and I love Thee. I ask pardon for all those who do not believe in Thee, do not adore Thee, do not hope in Thee and do not love Thee.’

"Having repeated that prayer three times, he got up again and said to us: ‘Pray in this way. The Hearts of Jesus and Mary are attentive to the voice of your supplications.’ And he disappeared."

Lucy recalled, "The supernatural atmosphere which enveloped us was so intense that, during a long moment, we barely realized the fact of our own existence. We remained in the position in which the Angel had left us, always repeating the same prayer. The presence of God made itself felt in such an intense and intimate manner, that we did not dare even to speak any longer among ourselves. The next day, we still felt our spirit enveloped in this atmosphere which only disappeared very slowly."

The Angel of Peace had come to speak to the children, to infuse them with this extraordinary grace through which they were penetrated with the Divine Presence, and to demonstrate to them the attitude, posture and fervor with which to pray to God. Interestingly, during the apparition Francisco could not hear the words of the Angel, and had to be told what was said afterward; this would be the case for all of the other apparitions as well. After some time the three little shepherds recovered their physical strength and playfulness.

The second apparition of the Angel took place during the summer of 1916. While the children were playing around their favorite well, the Angel suddenly appeared. "What are you doing?" he asked. "Pray, pray a great deal! The Holy Hearts of Jesus and Mary have designs of mercy on you. Offer unceasingly prayers and sacrifice yourselves to the Most High."

Lucy asked the Angel how they were to make sacrifices.

The Angel replied, "Make of everything you can a sacrifice and offer it to God as an act of reparation for the sins by which He is offended, and in supplication for the conversion of sinners. In this way, you will draw peace upon your country. I am its Guardian Angel, the Angel of Portugal. Above all, accept and bear with submission the sufferings which the Lord will send you."

Lucy comments, "Those words of the Angel engraved themselves in our spirit, as a light which made us understand Who God is, how much He loves us and wants to be loved by us, the value of sacrifice and how pleasing it is to Him, and that out of respect for it, God converts sinners." The dominant theme in this second apparition of the Angel was the importance of making offerings to God through every possible action and sacrifice, even the smallest, and of making the offerings with special intentions, especially for the conversion of sinners.

In the autumn of the same year, the children took their sheep to the same place where the first apparition took place. There in the blessed place of the Cabeço, they were reciting the prayer the Angel had taught them when above them an unknown light appeared. Lucy relates, "We got up again to see what was happening, and we saw the Angel again, who had in his left hand a Chalice over which was suspended a Host, from which some drops of Blood fell into the Chalice."

Leaving the Chalice and the Host suspended in the air, he prostrated himself down to the earth near the children and repeated three times this prayer:

Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I adore You profoundly, and I offer You the Most Precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, present in the tabernacles of the world, in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges and indifferences by which He, Himself is offended. And I draw upon the infinite merits of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, that You might convert poor sinners.

Then, getting up, the Angel took the Chalice and Host. He gave Lucy the Sacred Host on the tongue. Then while giving the Precious Blood from the Chalice to Francisco and Jacinta, he said:

"Eat and drink the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, horribly outraged by ungrateful men. Make reparation for their crimes and console your God." Then, prostrating himself on the ground he repeated with the children three times the same prayer: Most Holy Trinity, etc., and disappeared.

This final apparition of the Angel was clearly the summit of the three, as the children were graced to see the Precious Blood of Our Lord fall from the Sacred Host into the Chalice, and then receive Holy Communion from the hands of the Angel.

Again, the need for converting poor sinners was a theme in this final apparition of the Angel.

The prayer repeated by the Angel demonstrates that through our prayers, united with the infinite merits of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, sinners can be converted. Our prayers and sacrifices alone amount to very little; but when they are united to the merits of the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, they become infinitely valuable. Also emphasized was the need for reparation for the sins committed against God, by which He is constantly hurt and seeking consolation. In addition, the way the children received Holy Communion is particularly instructive for our time: they received Communion in the kneeling position, and the Sacred Host was given on the tongue.

The appearance of the Angel of Peace to three little Portuguese shepherds was a preparation for the signal grace that was about to be bestowed upon them: the appearance of the Queen of Heaven, the Blessed Virgin Mary. The apparitions of the Angel prepared them for seeing the Mother of God, through the transforming Divine graces the Angel showered on them, and his instructions about prayer, sacrifice and offerings. Through his apparitions to Lucy, Francisco and Jacinta, the Angel of Peace came to ready them for the decisive roles they were each to play in the most important event of the Twentieth Century, the appearance of Our Lady at Fatima.

Yet the Angel of Peace’s instructions were not meant for the children alone. They apply to each of us, and just as they prepared the children for the apparitions of the Blessed Virgin, they can also serve as a preparation for our reception of Our Lady’s Fatima Message.

1917 APPARITIONS

May 13, 1917

By May of 1917 several months had passed since the final apparition of the Angel to the three children. They had continued their task of shepherding their flocks, and had resumed their former vivaciousness and playfulness. On the thirteenth of May, after Sunday morning Mass, they chose to lead their sheep to a property of Lucy’s parents called Cova da Iria. After eating their meal at noon and praying the Rosary, the children began to play. Suddenly they saw a kind of lightning, making them believe that a storm was approaching, and they began to descend the hill to make for home.

When about halfway down the slope there was another flash of light, and a Lady appeared above a holm-oak tree. Lucy says that the Lady was "all dressed in white, more brilliant than the sun, radiating a light clearer and more intense than a crystal glass filled with clear water pierced by the most burning rays of the sun." The children stopped and found themselves in the light that emanated from Her.

Lucy describes the apparition in this way:

Then Our Lady said to us: ‘Do not be afraid. I will do you no harm.’

‘Where is Your Grace from?’ I asked Her.

‘I am of Heaven.’

‘What does Your Grace want of me?’

‘I have come to ask you to come here for six months in succession, on the 13th day, at this same hour. Later on, I will tell you who I am and what I want. Afterwards, I will return here yet a seventh time.’

‘Shall I go to Heaven too?’

‘Yes, you will.’

‘And Jacinta?’

‘Also.’

‘And Francisco?’

‘Also, but he will have to say many Rosaries.’

I remembered then to ask about two girls who had died recently. They were friends of mine and they used to come to my home to learn weaving with my eldest sister.

‘Is Maria das Neves already in Heaven?’

‘Yes, she is.’

It seems to me that she was about sixteen years old.

‘And Amelia?’

‘She will be in Purgatory until the end of the world.’

It seems to me that she must have been between eighteen and twenty years old.

‘Are you willing to offer yourselves to God to bear all the sufferings He wants to send you, as an act of reparation for the sins by which He is offended, and for the conversion of sinners?’

‘Yes, we are willing.’

‘You are then going to have much to suffer, but the grace of God will be your comfort.’

It was in pronouncing those last words (the grace of God, etc.) that Our Lady opened Her hands for the first time, and communicated to us, as by a reflection which emanated from them, a light so intense that, penetrating our heart and even to the depths of our soul, it made us see ourselves in God, Who was this light, more clearly than we see ourselves in the best mirrors.

Then, moved by an interior impulse which was communicated to us, we fell on our knees and said repeatedly: ‘O Most Holy Trinity, I adore Thee. My God, my God, I love Thee in the Most Holy Sacrament.’

The first moments passed, and Our Lady added:

‘Recite the Rosary every day in order to obtain peace for the world and the end of the war.’

‘Can You tell me whether the war will still last a long time, or if it will soon end?’

‘I cannot tell you yet, as I have not yet told you what I want.’

Then She began to rise serenely, going up towards the east until She disappeared in the immensity of the sky.

During the apparitions, each child’s part was distinct: Lucy was the only one who spoke to Our Lady; Jacinta saw and heard Her but did not speak; and Francisco saw Her but could not hear Her, and had to be told afterward what She said.

In the Divine light that had shone forth from Our Lady’s hands in this apparition, the most profound impression the children received, especially Francisco, was the sadness of God. In fact, consoling the sadness of God would afterward become Francisco’s particular vocation. The children understood that God is very much offended by the sins of humanity. Another important theme that would be reaffirmed in each apparition was the necessity and power of the Rosary. Our Lady always held a Rosary in Her hands when She appeared, and in each apparition reminded the children to say the Rosary to obtain peace.

Lucy explains the experience: "The apparition of Our Lady came once again to plunge us into the supernatural, but in a much milder manner [than the apparitions of the Angel]. Instead of this annihilation in the Divine Presence, which prostrated us, even physically, this last apparition left us a peace, an expansive joy which prevented us from speaking afterwards about what had happened."

Since Our Lady did not ask them to make known what they had been told, the children decided that it would be best to remain silent about the apparition. Little Jacinta, however, could not contain her joy for long and, prompted by a special grace, immediately gave an enthusiastic account of the apparition to her parents. As a result, the news spread quickly.

June 13, 1917

The children went to the Cova da Iria on June 13 as they had promised Our Lady, even though it meant missing all of the festivities for the Feast of St. Anthony, who was Patron Saint of their parish and of Portugal. When they arrived at the Cova that morning there were already several dozen people gathered there, mostly from the neighboring hamlets, where word of the apparition had spread.

By noon the number of spectators had risen to about fifty.

The crowd had just finished praying the Rosary when Lucy cried out, "There is the lightning! ... Our Lady is arriving!" The crowd saw neither the lightning nor Our Lady, but one witness observed that "the branches of the tree gave way on all sides, as if the weight of Our Lady had really been supported on them." This observation demonstrates that Our Lady was in fact physically present, in Her glorified body, and that the children were not merely "seeing" a vision of questionable authenticity. Others present related that they had heard something like the sound of a very light voice, though they could not make out what was being said. Also observed was that the bright noontime sun had dimmed considerably.

Lucy gives an account of the second apparition of Our Lady in her Fourth Memoir:

... we saw Our Lady, on the holm-oak, just as in the month of May.

‘What does Your Grace want of me?’ I asked.

‘I wish you to come here on the 13th of next month, to pray the Rosary every day, and to learn how to read. Later I will tell you what I want.’

I asked for the cure of a sick person.

‘If he is converted, he will be cured within the year.’

‘I would like to ask You to take us to Heaven.’

‘Yes, I will take Jacinta and Francisco soon, but you, Lucy, are to stay here some time longer. Jesus wishes to make use of you in order to make Me known and loved. He wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. To whoever embraces this devotion, I promise salvation; those souls will be cherished by God, as flowers placed by Me to adorn His throne.’

‘Am I to stay here alone?’ I asked painfully.

‘No, My daughter. Are you suffering a great deal? Do not lose heart, I will never forsake you! My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge and the way that will lead you to God.’

It was at the moment when She pronounced those last words that She opened Her hands and communicated to us, for the second time, the reflection of that immense light. In it we saw ourselves as submerged in God. Jacinta and Francisco appeared to be in the part of that light which elevated itself to Heaven, and I in the part which spread itself on the earth.

In the palm of the right hand of Our Lady there was a Heart, surrounded by thorns which seemed to pierce it. We understood that it was the Immaculate Heart of Mary, outraged by the sins of humanity, which demanded reparation.

Then, as Our Lady left them, the crowd heard a sound like a firecracker in the distance. Lucy rose quickly and pointing, cried, "See, She is going, She is going!" The crowd did not see Her, but did note a small cloud that rose from above the tree and, moving toward the east, gradually disappeared. The holm-oak tree, on which Our Lady had stood, had its branches bent slightly toward the east.

In this apparition Our Lady had once again conveyed to them the reflection of that Divine light, through which they were given a special knowledge of and increased love for the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Lucy writes,

It seems to me that on that day, that reflection of light had as a principal goal to instill in us a knowledge and a special love towards the Immaculate Heart of Mary; in the same way as the other two times, it had that same goal, but with respect to God and to the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity. Since that day, we felt in our hearts a more ardent love for the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

July 13, 1917

The third apparition brought to the Cova da Iria a crowd of 5,000 people. Lucy led the Rosary and the crowd answered. At noon she rose and looked toward the east, crying, "Close the umbrellas! Close the umbrellas! (They used umbrellas to protect themselves from the intense noontime sun) ... Our Lady is arriving!"

The apparition then began in the usual way, with a flash of something like lightning and the appearance of Our Lady atop the holm-oak. Lucy relates the apparition in her memoirs:

‘What does Your Grace want of me?’ I asked.

‘I want you to come here on the 13th of next month, to continue reciting the Rosary every day in honor of Our Lady of the Rosary, in order to obtain peace in the world and the end of the war, because only She can help you.’

‘I should like to ask You to tell us who You are, and to work a miracle so that everyone will believe that Your Grace is appearing to us.’

‘Continue to come here every month. In October, I will say who I am and what I want, and I will perform a miracle so that all might see and believe.’

Here I made some requests which I do not remember. What I do remember, is that Our Lady said it was necessary to say the Rosary in order to obtain these graces throughout the year.

Our Lady continued: ‘Sacrifice yourselves for sinners, and say often to Jesus, especially whenever you make a sacrifice: O Jesus, it is for love of Thee, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.’

As Our Lady spoke these last words, She opened Her hands once more, as She had done during the two previous months. The rays of light seemed to penetrate the earth, and we saw as it were a sea of fire. Plunged in this fire were demons and souls in human form, like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, floating about in the conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames that issued from within themselves together with great clouds of smoke, now falling back on every side like sparks in huge fires, without weight or equilibrium, amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fear. (It must have been this sight which caused me to cry out, as people say they heard me). The demons could be distinguished by their terrifying and repellent likeness to frightful and unknown animals, black and transparent like burning coals. That vision lasted only a moment, thanks to our good Mother of Heaven, Who, at the first apparition, had promised to bring us to Heaven. Without that, I think we would have died of terror and fear.

Terrified and as if to plead for succor, we looked up at Our Lady, who said to us, so kindly and so sadly:

‘You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end; but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the reign of Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that He is about to punish the world for its crimes by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father.

‘To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. If My requests are heeded, Russia will be converted and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated. In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world. In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved, etc. Do not tell this to anybody. Francisco, yes, you may tell him.

(Heir-Apparant and family to Portugal's Throne)

‘When you pray the Rosary, say after each mystery: O my Jesus, forgive us, save us from the fires of hell. Lead all souls to Heaven, especially those who are most in need.’

After this, there was a moment of silence, and then I asked, ‘Is there anything more that You want of me?’

‘No, I do not want anything more of you today.’

Then, as before, Our Lady began to ascend towards the east, until She finally disappeared.

In the cycle of the apparitions, the apparition of July 13 is decidedly the most important. It was in this third apparition of Our Lady that the Secret was given to the seers. Also, the announcement of the October miracle was made for the first time, clearly indicating its date, time and place. Our Lady would reiterate the coming miracle in the August and September apparitions as well.

August 13 & 19, 1917

On August 13, between 10,000 and 20,000 people gathered at the Cova da Iria to await the arrival of Our Lady. The three little seers, however, were not present. The administrator of the district, Artur de Oliveira Santos, a prominent Freemason, had imprisoned the children on August 13, and for two days he used many means, including the threat of boiling them in oil, to pry from them either the Secret itself, or a confession that they were lying. Courageously the children refused to betray their confidence and remained steadfast under every tactic used. In fact, believing that they were soon to be killed, they were full of joy at the thought of soon being in Heaven. This willingness to suffer martyrdom is another proof of the truthfulness of the Message. Realizing that he was getting nowhere, after two days the administrator released the children.

While the seers were being held on August 13, Our Lady still came to the Cova da Iria and manifested Her presence to the large crowd. One faithful woman described the scene:

The clap of thunder was more or less similar to that of the preceding time. Some say that it came from the road, others from the holm-oak …. It seemed to me that it came from very far. Everyone kept quiet, frightened .... At the clap of thunder there followed lightning, and at once we began to notice a small cloud, very pretty, white in color, very light, which hovered some moments over the holm-oak, then rose towards the sky, and disappeared in the atmosphere.
While looking around us, we observed a strange thing, which we had already seen the previous time, and which we were going to see again in the future. The faces of the people had all the colors of the rainbow: pink, red, blue ... The trees did not appear to have branches and leaves but only flowers; everything seemed laden with flowers, and every leaf appeared to be a flower. The ground was covered with squares of different colors. Clothes were also of every color of the rainbow.

On the afternoon of August 19, Lucy and Francisco, accompanied by Francisco’s older brother John, went to put their sheep to pasture. This is the account that Sister Lucy gave of what occurred:

I felt that something supernatural was approaching and enveloping us. Suspecting that Our Lady was going to appear to us, and feeling sorry that Jacinta would not be there to see Her, we asked her brother John to go and get her.

However John wished to stay and see Our Lady. Lucy, therefore, gave John one coin to fetch Jacinta, and promised him another when he brought her back. While he ran to get her, Lucy and Francisco saw the characteristic flash of light, and just as Jacinta arrived, Our Lady appeared above a holm-oak tree. Lucy’s account continues:

[Lucy asked:] ‘What does Your Grace want from me?’

‘I want you to continue going to the Cova da Iria on the 13th, that you continue praying the Rosary every day. On the last month, I will perform a miracle so that all may believe. If they had not taken you to the town, the miracle would have been greater. Saint Joseph will come with the Child Jesus, to give peace to the world. Our Lord will come to bless the people. Our Lady of the Rosary and Our Lady of Sorrows will come also.’

‘What do You want them to do with the money the people leave at the Cova da Iria?’

‘Have two litters made. You will carry one with Jacinta and two other girls dressed in white; the other one Francisco is to carry, with three boys, like him, dressed in white. It will be for the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary. What is left over will help towards the construction of a chapel that is to be built.’

‘I should like to ask You to cure some sick persons.’

‘Yes, I will cure some of them during the year.’

Then looking more sad, Our Lady said: ‘Pray, pray very much, and make sacrifices for sinners, for many souls go to Hell because they have no one to make sacrifices and pray for them.’
As usual, Our Lady began to ascend towards the east.

After the apparition of August 19, the three children looked for ways to make more sacrifices to offer to Jesus, "for His love, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the offenses against the Immaculate Heart of Mary."

Lucy describes one example:

Some days after [the apparition of August 19], we were following a path with our sheep and I found a piece of rope which had fallen from a cart. I took it and amused myself by attaching it to one of my arms. I did not take long to notice that the rope hurt me. I then said to my cousins:

‘Look, that hurts! We could attach it around our waist and offer this sacrifice to God.’ The poor children accepted my idea immediately and we then decided to share that rope among the three of us. A sharp stone, rubbing on another, served as a knife. Whether because of the size and roughness of the rope, or because sometimes we squeezed it too much, that instrument made us suffer horribly. Sometimes Jacinta shed some tears because of the discomfort which the rope caused her. I told her on several occasions to take it off, and she replied, ‘No! I want to offer this sacrifice to Our Lord in reparation and for the conversion of sinners.’

September 13, 1917

On September 13 as many as thirty thousand people gathered at the Cova da Iria. While waiting for noon to arrive, Lucy led the Rosary for the crowd. At noon, a certain phenomenon announced the arrival of Our Lady to many in the crowd. As one witness relates,

The sky was blue, without any clouds. I also looked up, and began to scrutinize the immensity of the firmament, to see what other eyes, more fortunate than mine, had already contemplated. To my great astonishment, I then saw, clearly and distinctly, a luminous globe, traveling from the east to the west, and gliding slowly and majestically in space … Suddenly the globe, with its extraordinary light, disappeared from our eyes.

The light of the sun then dimmed, and the atmosphere became a yellow-gold color, like it had during the former apparitions. Some reported that they could see the stars, the sky had darkened to such an extent. Lucy then spoke to Our Lady, asking, "What does Your Grace want of me?"

‘Continue to pray the Rosary in order to obtain the end of the war. In October, Our Lord will come as well as Our Lady of Sorrows and Our Lady of Mount Carmel, and Saint Joseph will appear with the Child Jesus in order to bless the world. God is satisfied with your sacrifices, but He does not want you to sleep with the rope. Wear it only during the day.’

‘There is a little girl here who is a deaf-mute. Would not Your Grace wish to cure her?’

Our Lady replied that a year from now, the girl would be better.

‘I have many other requests, some for conversion, others for a cure.’

‘I shall cure some, but others no, because Our Lord does not trust them.’

‘The people would indeed like to have a chapel here.’

‘With half of the money received so far, they should make litters and carry them on the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary; the other half can be used to build the chapel.’

Lucy then offered Her two letters and a small flask of water with a fragrance, which had been given her by a man of the parish of Olival. In offering them to Our Lady, she said to Her: "They gave me that. Does Your Grace want it?"

"That is not suitable for Heaven," Our Lady replied. "In October I will perform the miracle so that all may believe."

Our Lady then ascended toward the east and disappeared as usual. The crowd once again saw the luminous globe, which had accompanied Her upon Her arrival, rise up toward the east and disappear.

October 13, 1917

There were about 70,000 people present at the Cova da Iria for the October 13 apparition and Miracle of the Sun. Beginning the night before and persisting throughout the morning of the 13th, a cold rain fell on the crowd. The ground was muddy and the rain soaked everything. At the time when Our Lady was due to arrive, Lucy begged the people to close their umbrellas, which they did at once.

‘What does Your Grace want of me?’ [Lucy asked.]

‘I want to tell you that a chapel is to be built here in My honor. I am the Lady of the Rosary. May you continue always to pray the Rosary every day. The war is going to end and the soldiers will soon return to their homes.’

‘I had many things to ask You: to cure some sick people, to convert some sinners, etc.’

‘Some yes, others no. They must amend their lives and ask pardon for their sins.’

Then taking on a more sorrowful air, Our Lady said:

‘Do not offend the Lord Our God any more, for He is already too much offended!’

‘You want nothing more from me?’ [Lucy asked.]

‘No, I want nothing more from you.’

"Then I do not ask anything more of You either."

As Our Lady ascended into Heaven, Lucy shouted: "She is going! She is going! Look at the sun!"

The miracle announced by Our Lady then took place: the sky abruptly cleared and the sun "danced". The people were able to look at the bright sun directly, without it bothering their eyes at all. A physician, Dr. Almeida Garrett, testified:

Suddenly I heard the uproar of thousands of voices, and I saw the whole multitude spread out in that vast space at my feet … turn their backs to that spot where, until then, all their expectations focused, and look at the sun on the other side … I turned around, too, toward the point commanding their gazes, and I could see the sun, like a very clear disc, with its sharp edge, which gleamed without hurting the sight … It could not be confused with the sun seen through a fog (there was no fog at that moment), for it was neither veiled, nor dim. At Fatima, it kept its light and heat, and stood out clearly in the sky, with a sharp edge, like a large gaming table. The most astonishing thing was to be able to stare at the solar disc for a long time, brilliant with light and heat, without hurting the eyes, or damaging the retina.1

The testimony of Avelino de Almeida, editor-in-chief of O Seculo, Lisbon’s anticlerical and Masonic daily newspaper, is similar:

And then we witnessed a unique spectacle, an incredible spectacle, unbelievable if you did not witness it. From above the road … We see the immense crowd turn towards the sun, which appeared at its zenith, clear of the clouds. It looked like a plate of dull silver, and it was possible to stare at it without the least discomfort. It did not burn the eyes. It did not blind. One might say that an eclipse had occurred.2

Others also testified:

"It shook and trembled; it seemed like a wheel of fire." (Maria da Capelinha)3

"The sun turned like a fire wheel, taking on all the colors of the rainbow." (Maria do Carmo)4

"The sun took on all the colors of the rainbow. Everything assumed those same colors: our faces, our clothes, the earth itself." (Maria do Carmo)5

The most terrifying aspect of the Miracle of the Sun then took place:

"We suddenly heard a clamor, like a cry of anguish of that entire crowd. The sun, in fact, keeping its rapid movement of rotation, seemed to free itself from the firmament and, blood-red, to plunge towards the earth, threatening to crush us with its fiery mass. Those were some terrifying seconds." (Dr. Almeida Garrett)6

"The sun began to dance and, at a certain moment, it appeared to detach itself from the firmament and to rush forward on us, like a fire wheel." (Alfredo da Silva Santos)7

"Finally, the sun stopped and everybody breathed a sigh of relief …" (Maria da Capelinha)8

"From those thousands of mouths I heard shouts of joy and love to the Most Holy Virgin. And then I believed. I had the certainty of not having been the victim of a suggestion. I had seen the sun as I would never see it again." (Mario Godinho, an engineer)9

Yet another astonishing aspect of the Miracle was that all of the thousands of people, most of whom were soaked to the bone and dirty from the mud, suddenly found that their clothes were dry and clean.

"The moment one would least expect it, our clothes were totally dry." (Maria do Carmo)10
"My suit dried in an instant." (John Carreira)11

The academician Marques da Cruz testified:

This enormous multitude was drenched, for it had rained unceasingly since dawn. But – though this may appear incredible – after the great miracle everyone felt comfortable, and found his garments quite dry, a subject of general wonder … The truth of this fact has been guaranteed with the greatest sincerity by dozens and dozens of persons of absolute trustworthiness, whom I have known intimately from childhood, and who are still alive (1937), as well as by persons from various districts of the country who were present.12

In one aspect, this is the most astonishing effect of the miracle and an indisputable proof of its authenticity: The amount of energy needed to accomplish this process of drying in a natural way and in such a short a time, would have incinerated everyone present at the Cova at that time. As this aspect of the miracle contradicts the laws of nature radically, no demon could ever have achieved it.

Finally, many miracles of conversion, the greatest miracle God can bestow, also occurred.

Here are two examples:

The captain of the regiment of soldiers on the mountain that day – with orders to prevent the gathering of the crowd – was converted instantly. Apparently so were hundreds of other unbelievers, as their testimony will show.13

"There was an unbeliever there who had spent the morning mocking the ‘simpletons’ who had gone off to Fatima just to see an ordinary girl. He now seemed paralyzed, his eyes fixed on the sun. He began to tremble from head to foot, and lifting up his arms, fell on his knees in the mud, crying out to God." (Father Lourenço)14

A number of other cases of cures and conversions are documented in, among other places, the following books: Documentação Crítica de Fátima and Fatima from the Beginning.15

The great Miracle of the Sun lasted for ten minutes. Many more accounts of the miracle have been taken and recorded from the masses of people present, which verify this incredible manifestation of the authenticity of the entire Fatima Message. (For more accounts, see Chapter 1 of The Devil’s Final Battle.)

During the Miracle of the Sun, the three children were witnessing something else: the beautiful spectacle promised by Our Lady. Lucy writes:

Our Lady having disappeared in the immensity of the firmament, we saw, beside the sun, Saint Joseph with the Child Jesus and Our Lady clothed in white with a blue mantle. Saint Joseph and the Child Jesus seemed to bless the world with gestures which they made with their hands in the form of a cross.

Soon after, that apparition having ceased, I saw Our Lord and Our Lady, Who gave me the impression of being Our Lady of Sorrows. Our Lord seemed to bless the world in the same manner as Saint Joseph.

That apparition disappeared and it seemed to me that I saw Our Lady again, this time as Our Lady of Mount Carmel.

These three successive visions are connected to one of the dominant messages of Fatima:

the Rosary. In each of Her six apparitions, Our Lady asked that the Rosary be prayed and here, in these visions granted to the three children, the mysteries of the Holy Rosary were represented. With the vision of the Holy Family we find the Joyful mysteries; the Sorrowful mysteries are represented by the vision of Our Lord and Our Lady of Sorrows; and the Glorious mysteries are represented in the vision of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel.

When the visions had disappeared and the sun was again normal, Lucy was placed on the shoulder of a man in the crowd and carried safely through the masses to the road. As she was moving past the people, she cried out to them, pleading one of the important themes in the Fatima Message: to convert, return to God and to flee sin. Her exact words were: "Do penance! Do penance! Our Lady wants you to do penance!" but Frère Michel states that in Portuguese this does not mean "performing mortifications", but rather "being converted, returning to God, fleeing sin." Through this plea Lucy was reiterating the sorrowful request Our Lady had made of humanity in Her final apparition: "Do not offend the Lord our God any more, because He is already too much offended."

Thus the Miracle of the Sun, witnessed by 70,000 people, concluded the cycle of the apparitions at Fatima. Yet the Message of Fatima, with its great depth and scope, was to continue to be unfolded to the eldest of the three seers, Lucy. In the years to come Heaven’s Messenger would be visited and, as promised by Our Lady in the July 13 apparition, would be instructed to reveal Heaven’s plan for peace for a turbulent world: the Reparatory devotion of the Five First Saturdays and the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Related Articles:
Chapter 1 of The Devil’s Final Battle
Notes:
Frère François de Marie des Anges, Fatima: Intimate Joy World Event, Book One: The Astonishing Truth, (English edition, Immaculate Heart Publications, Buffalo, New York, 1993) pp. 172-173.
O Seculo, article of October 15, 1917.
Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité, The Whole Truth About Fatima, Volume I: Science and the Facts, (Immaculate Heart Publications, Buffalo, New York, U.S.A., 1989) p. 337.
Frère François de Marie des Anges, Fatima: The Astonishing Truth, p. 178.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid, pp. 178-179.
Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité, The Whole Truth About Fatima, Volume I, p. 340.
Frère François de Marie des Anges, Fatima: The Astonishing Truth, p, 179.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité, The Whole Truth About Fatima, Volume I, p. 340. See also Father John de Marchi, I.M.C., Fatima From the Beginning, (Missoes Consolata, Fatima, Portugal, 1981, third edition, first published in 1950) p. 141; and Joseph A Pelletier, A.A., The Sun Dances at Fatima, (Doubleday, New York, 1983) pp. 129-130.
John M. Haffert, Meet the Witnesses, (AMI International Press, Fatima, Portugal, 1961) p. 62.
Ibid., p. 65.
Documentaçáo Crítica de Fátima, Volume II, (Santuário de Fátima, 1999) 17 cases documented on pp. 277-372; and Father John de Marchi, I.M.C., Fatima From the Beginning.

MORE ON RUSSIA

True to Her word, Our Lady reappeared to Sister Lucy on June 13, 1929 at Tuy, Spain, when in a great and sublime vision representing the Blessed Trinity, She announced that "the moment has come for God to ask the Holy Father to make, in union with all the bishops of the world, the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart. By this means, He promises to save Russia."

When God sent Our Lady to convey His command that Russia be consecrated, it seems clear that He expected swift obedience from the Pope and bishops. The pastors of the Church, however, chose to delay and, on August 19, 1931, Our Lord Himself appeared to Sister Lucy in Rianjo, Spain and expressed His displeasure, saying "make it known to My ministers that, given they follow the example of the King of France in delaying My command, they will follow him also into misfortune."

Our Lord's warning is a grave one indeed, referring as it does to His command, through St. Margaret Mary Alocque, to the King of France that he consecrate his nation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. The King chose to ignore the command and thus condemned his dynasty and throne to the horrors of revolution, chaos and the guillotine.The Blessed Virgin's request for the consecration of Russia remains one of the most controversial aspects of the entire Fatima Message.

While several popes have undertaken consecrations of the world since the request was made public (including Pope John Paul II in 1982 and 1984), sadly, none of these have fulfilled the specific requirements of Our Lord and Our Lady's requests. In repeated visits to Sister Lucy, Heaven's King and Queen have insisted that it is Russia (and Russia only) that is to be the object of this public act of obedience and prayer.

In addition, Our Lord and Our Lady have indicated that the Holy Father is to be joined in the act of consecration by all the Catholic bishops of the world on the same day and at the same time in their respective dioceses. Interestingly, only Pope Pius XII's consecration of the world in 1942 included substantial involvement of the bishops.

Sister Lucy has written that this imperfect act of obedience, while not fulfilling Our Lady's Fatima request, nevertheless hastened the end of the Second World War, thus sparing the lives of tens of millions of souls.In response to Sister Lucy's question why He would not convert Russia without the Holy Father consecrating that nation to His Mother's Immaculate Heart, Our Lord replied "Because I want My whole Church to acknowledge that consecration as a triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary so that it may extend its cult later and put the devotion of the Immaculate Heart beside the devotion to My Sacred Heart."

FATHER GRUNER ON THE 3Rd SECRET

What is generally called the "Third Secret" is, in actuality, the third and final part of the full prophetic Secret which the Blessed Virgin gave to three child seers on July 13, 1917. The other two sections of the Secret (the vision of hell (See Related Articles) and the rise of Communist Russia (See Related Articles)) were publicly revealed with the publication of Sister Lucy’s Memoirs in the 1940s, the final part of the revelation remains in the possession of the Vatican and has not yet been disclosed to the world.

It was under the direct order of her bishop and, with the assistance of Our Lady, that Sister Lucy dos Santos wrote the third part of the Secret down on January 2, 1944. Speaking to Sister Lucy, the Queen of Heaven told her that it was God’s Will that she commit the Secret to paper and entrust it to her bishop and, through him, to Pope Pius XII.

At that time, the Blessed Virgin also indicated that this part of the Secret was to be revealed to the Faithful no later than 1960.

Upon learning that her bishop was unwilling to open the envelope containing the Secret, Sister Lucy "made him promise," in the words of Canon Galamba, "that the Third Secret would be opened and read to the world upon her death or in 1960, whichever would happen first." If her bishop died first, it was agreed that the Secret would be confided to the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon. Despite this agreement, the Secret was, in fact, delivered to the Vatican where it has remained undisclosed to the public for over fifty years.

"Dangers threatening the faith and life of a Christian ... and therefore the world."

Since 1960 when, after reading the Secret, Pope John XXIII decided not to reveal the contents publicly, there has been growing speculation concerning what it contains. While in the past, speculation often identified the Secret with all sorts of cataclysms and disasters, more recent scholarship has indicated that it most likely concerns the widespread chaos, confusion and loss of faith that has gripped the Roman Catholic Church over the last three and a half decades.

In an interview conducted in November 1984, Cardinal Ratzinger (of the Holy Office) confirmed that, with the Pope’s permission, he had read the Secret and that it concerns, in his words, "a radical call to conversion, the absolute gravity of history, the dangers threatening the Faith and the life of a Christian, and therefore the world. And also the importance of the last times."

The Cardinal went on to explain that "if it is not published ... it is to avoid confusing religious prophecy with sensationalism. But the things contained in the Third Secret correspond to what has been announced in Scripture and are confirmed by many other Marian apparitions."

While the precise wording of the Secret remains unknown to the public, the labors of such famous Fatima scholars as Father Joachin Alonso (former official archivist of Fatima) and Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinitè have nevertheless provided invaluable insights into its meaning and contents. The latter’s monumental 850-page work, The Third Secret is particularly noteworthy in this regard.

"The devil has succeeded in bringing in evil (to the Church) under the guise of good and the blind are beginning to lead others."

In his book, Frère Michel reports that, when questioned about the Secret, Sister Lucy said:

"It’s in the Gospel and in the Apocalypse, read them!"

He notes that she then particularly indicated Chapters VIII through XIII of the Apocalypse (Chapter XIII specifically concerns the rise of the Antichrist). In his study of the Third Secret, Frère Michel builds a powerful and compelling case that the Third Secret is a grave warning of apostasy within the Catholic Faith and a serious indictment of those in the Church hierarchy who have promoted dissent and outright heresy.

Although Sister Lucy is not permitted to reveal the final Secret of Our Lady until the Holy Father himself deems the moment opportune, nothing has prevented her from giving her opinion on the crisis in the Church as an individual person. In a series of letters written between 1969 and 1972, Sister Lucy reacted vigorously against modernists and others in the Church, in particular those who seek to minimize the importance of the Rosary.

"This disorientation is diabolical," she wrote, and "it is sad that so many people let themselves be dominated by the diabolical wave sweeping over the world! And they are blinded to the point where they are incapable of seeing error! Their principal fault is that they have abandoned prayer." The saddest part of all, according to Sister Lucy, is that so many priests, religious and bishops are swept away in the confusion. "The devil has succeeded in bringing in evil (to the Church) under the guise of good and the blind are beginning to lead others, as the Lord tells us in His Gospel."

In the conclusion to his study of the Third Secret, Frère Michel sums up his findings as follows:

"Having reached the end of our inquiry, we are able to discern, with near certainty, the essential elements of Our Lady’s final secret: While ‘in Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved,’ in many nations, perhaps in almost the entire world, the Faith will be lost.

The pastors of the Church will fail gravely in the duties of their office. Through their fault, consecrated souls and the Faithful in great number will let themselves be seduced by pernicious errors spread everywhere. This will be the time of the decisive battle between the Blessed Virgin and the devil. A wave of diabolical disorientation will be hurled over the world. Satan will introduce himself even to the highest summit of the Church. He will blind the minds and harden the hearts of pastors. And God will deliver them to themselves as a chastisement for their refusal to obey the requests of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. This will be the great apostasy predicted for the ‘last times’; ‘the False Lamb’ and ‘False Prophet’ will betray the Church to the profit of ‘the Beast,’ according to the prophecy of the Apocalypse."

3rd SECRET (from http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/fatima.htm)

VATICAN CITY, JUN 26, 2000 (VIS) - Given below is the complete translation of the original Portuguese text of the third part of the secret of Fatima, revealed to the three shepherd children at Cova da Iria-Fatima on July 13, 1917, and committed to paper by Sr. Lucia on January 3, 1944: "I write in obedience to you, my God, who command me to do so through his Excellency the Bishop of Leiria and through your Most Holy Mother and mine.

"After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendor that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: 'Penance, Penance, Penance!'. And we saw in an immense light that is God: 'something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it' a Bishop dressed in White 'we had the impression that it was the Holy Father'. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God."

MORE TO READ:

The Miracle of the Sun
The Three Child Seers
The Apparitions at Pontevedra (1925-1926)
The Apparition at Tuy (1929)
The Apparition at Rianjo (1931)
Approval by the Bishop (1930)
The Consecrations of Portugal (1931, 1938) and Their Benefits
Portugal Saved by the Rosary (1974-1975)
Approvals by the Popes
Fatima Introductory Booklets
Special Introductory Crusader
God's Endorsement of Fatima
Special Rosary Crusader
Magnificent Promise of the Five First Saturdays
Our Lady's Urgent Appeal
The Secret of Fatima...Revealed
Third Secret Hoax
Jesus Tells Us...'Make it Known'
Historical Context of Portugal
1910-1917 - Religious, Political, Social For More Info
-->
Fatima: The Place
Online Pilgrimage to Fatima
Information about our pilgrimages
Photo album from past pilgrimages

Anniversary of Our Lady of La Sallette

2006-10-12T08:55:00.000-07:00

CR- a bit late I know, but in honor of the 160 anniversary of Our Lady of La Sallette. Some comments may follow in this color.

“It is time. The sun is darkening. . . The time is at hand. The abyss is opening,…..Only the faith will survive.”

The message was approved by the Catholic Church and was published in its entirety at Lecce. France, on November 15, 1979 with the imprimatur of Bishop Zola.

The following Secret was given by Our Lady to two children, Mélanie Calvat and Maximin Giraud, on September 19, 1846, while they were tending cattle on the mountain of La Salette, France. The Message of Our lady of La Salette:

"Mélanie, what I am going to tell you now will not always be a secret; you can publish it in 1858".

"Priests, my Son's ministers, priests, by their evil life, by their irreverences and their impiety in celebrating the holy mysteries, love of money, love of honor and pleasures, priests have become sewers of impurity. Yes, priests call forth vengeance, and vengeance is suspended over their heads. Woe to priests, and to persons consecrated to God, who by their infidelities and their evil life are crucifying my son anew! The sins of persons consecrated to God cry to heaven and call for vengeance, and now here is vengeance at their very doors, for no longer is anyone found to beg mercy and pardon for the people; there are no more generous souls, there is now no one worthy of offering the spotless Victim to the Eternal on the worlds behalf".

(CR- Consider MT 24:22-25)

"God will strike in an unparalleled manner. Woe to the inhabitants of the earth! God will exhaust His anger, and no one will be able to escape so many evils at once. The heads, the leaders of the people of God, have neglected prayer and penance, and the devil has darkened their minds; they have become those wandering stars which the ancient devil will drag with his tail to destruction. God will permit the ancient serpent to sow divisions among rulers, in all societies and in all families; both physical and moral punishments will be suffered. God will abandon men to themselves and will send chastisements one after the other for over 35 years."

(CR-consider 2Tim 3:8, Rom 1:28, Titus 1:16, 2Kng 21:14)

"Society is on the very eve of most terrible scourges and greatest events; one must expect to be governed by a rod of iron and to drink the chalice of God's wrath."

(CR- consider Apoc 2:27, Apoc 19:15, Apoc 12:5, Psalms 2:9)

"Let not my Son's Vicar, the Sovereign Pontiff Pius IX leave Rome after the year 1859; but let him be steadfast and generous, let him do battle with the weapons of faith and love; I shall be with him. "

"Let him beware of Napoleon; his heart is double, and when he will want to be both Pope and emperor at the same time, God will soon withdraw from him; he is that eagle who, desiring always to rise, will fall on the sword he wanted to use to force the peoples to exalt him. "

"Italy will be punished for its ambition in wanting to shake of the yoke of the Lord of lords; thus she will be handed over to war; blood will flow on all sides; Churches will be closed or desecrated; priests, religious will be driven out; they will be put to death, and to a cruel death. Many will abandon the faith, and the number of priests and religious who will separate themselves from the true religion will be great; even Bishops will be found among these persons."

(CR- consider MT 26:31, Mk 14:27, Lk 12:45, Apoc 11:6, Apoc 19:15)

"Let the Pope beware of miracle workers, for the time has come for the most astonishing wonders to take place on the earth and in the air. "

(CR-consider MT 24:24, Mk 13:22, Jn 4:48)

"In the year 1864 Lucifer, together with a great number of devils, will be loosed from hell; little by little they will abolish the faith, and that even in persons consecrated to God; they will so blind them, that without a special grace, these persons will take on the spirit of these evil angels; a number of religious houses will lose the faith entirely and cause many souls to be damned"

"Bad books will abound over the earth, and the spirits of darkness will everywhere spread universal relaxation in everything concerning God's service: they will have very great power over nature; there will be churches to serve these spirits. People will be transported form one place to another by these evil spirits, and even priests, because they will not have lived by the good spirit of the gospel, which is a spirit of humility, charity and zeal for the glory of God. The dead and the just will be made to rise."

(CR-consider Apoc 3:16)

[Mélanie interpolated here: "That is to say, these dead will assume the prospect of righteous souls who once lived on earth, in order to seduce men more easily; these so-called resurrected dead, who will be nothing other than the devil under these faces, will preach another Gospel contrary to that of the true Christ Jesus, denying the existence of heaven, if these be not in fact the souls of the damned. All these souls will appear joined to their bodies."]

"There will be extraordinary wonders every place because the true faith has been extinguished and false light illumines the world. Woe to the princes of the church who will be occupied only with piling up riches upon riches, with guarding their authority and lording with pride!"

(CR-consider Mt 13:22, Mk 4:19, Mk 10:23, James 5:2, Lk 12:18-20)

"My Son's Vicar will have much to suffer, because for a time the Church will be handed over to great persecutions: it will be the time of darkness; the Church will undergo a frightful crisis."

(Mk 13:19, Acts 7:10, Acts 14:21, 1 Thess 3:4)

"With God's holy faith forgotten, each individual will want to direct himself and rise above his peers. Civil and ecclesiastical authority will be abolished , all order and justice will be trampled underfoot. Only murders, hatred, jealousy, lying and discord will be seen, with no love of country or family."

(CR-sounds like Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura and Protestant individualism and Reformation. Odd, Holzhauser saw the terrible 5th period starting in 1520!. Mt 10:34, Lk 12:53)

"The Holy Father will suffer greatly. I shall be with him till the end to receive his sacrifice."

(CR-sounds like the 3rd secret of Fatima, the Pope to die in the ruined city and procession on the hill)

"The wicked will make a number of attempts on his life without being able to harm him; but neither he nor his successor will see the triumph of God's Church."

"Civil governments will all have the same objective, which will be to abolish and make every religious principle disappear, to make way for materialism, atheism, spiritism and vices of all kinds."

(CR-the Popes have warned us, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius XI and Pius XII)

"In the year 1865, the abomination will be seen in the holy places; in the convents the flowers of the Church will putrefy, and the devil will establish himself as king of all hearts. Let those who are at the head of religious communities be on their guard concerning the persons they are to receive, because the devil will use all his malice to introduce into religious orders persons given to sin, for disorders and love of carnal pleasures will be widespread over the whole earth."

"France, Italy, Spain and England will be at war, blood will flow in the streets; Frenchmen will fight Frenchmen, Italian with Italian; then there will be a general war which will be appalling. For some time God will no longer remember France or Italy, because the Gospel of Jesus Christ is no longer known. The wicked will unleash all their malice; even in homes there will be killing and mutual massacres."

(CR- the BVM has warned us time and again the the Masons have this plan in mind, a one world anti-Christ Govt. So to the Popes over the last 300 yrs.)

"With the first lightning blow of His sword, the mountains and all nature will tremble with dread, because the disorders and crimes of men are piercing the vault of the heavens. Paris will be burned and Marseilles swallowed up; a number of large cities will be shattered and swallowed by earthquakes; all will seem lost; only murders will be seen, the clash of arms and blasphemies heard. The righteous will suffer greatly; their prayers, their penances and their tears will rise to heaven and all God's people will ask pardon and mercy and will ask my help and intercession. Then Jesus Christ, by an act of His justice and His great mercy toward the righteous, will command His angels to put all His enemies to death. At one blow the persecutors of the Church of Jesus Christ and all men given to sin will perish, and the earth will become like a desert. "

(CR-consider Mt13:39, 49: Mt 16:27)

"Then there will be peace, the reconciliation of God with men; Jesus Christ will be served, adored and glorified; charity will flourish everywhere. The new kings will be the right arm of Holy Church, which will be strong, humble, pious, poor, zealous and imitative of the virtues of Jesus Christ. The Gospel will be preached everywhere, and men will make great strides in the faith, because there will be unity among Jesus Christ's workers and men will live in the fear of God."

"This peace among men will not last long: 25 years of abundant harvests will make them forget that the sins of men are the cause of all the woes which happen on earth."

"A precursor of the Antichrist, with his troops drawn from many nations, will wage war against the true Christ, sole Savior of the world; e will shed much blood and will seek to annihilate the cult of God so as to be regarded as a god. "

(CR-consider 2 Thess 2:3, 1Jn 2:18,22: 1Jn 4:3, 2Jn 1:7)

"The earth will be struck with plagues of all kinds;" [Mélanie added here: "Besides pestilence and famine, which will be widespread"] "there will be wars up to the last war, which will then be waged by the ten kings of the Antichrist, kings who will all have a common design and will be the sole rulers of the world. Before this happens, there will be a sort of false peace in the world; people will think only of amusing themselves; the wicked will indulge in all kinds of sin; but the children of Holy Church, children of the true faith, my true imitators, will grow in the love of God and in the virtues dearest to me. Happy the humble souls lead by the Holy Ghost! I shall battle along with them until they reach the fullness of maturity.

(CR-Apoc 9:18, Apoc 9:20)

"Nature begs vengeance on account of men, and she shudders with dread, awaiting what must happen to the crime-stained earth."

"Tremble, earth, and you who profess to serve Jesus Christ, while interiorly you adore yourselves, tremble; for God will hand you over to His enemy, because the holy places are in a state of corruption; many convents are no longer houses of God, but pastures for Asmodeus and his own."

(CR-Tobias 3:8)

"It will be at this time that the Antichrist will be born of a Hebrew nun, a false virgin who will be in communication with the ancient serpent, master of impurity; his father will be a bishop (Ev.). [We spell out the word "bishop" here. In the French text appear only the first two letters of évèque, the French word for bishop, but there is little doubt that this is the word they stand for, because in Mélanie's first draft of the message the whole word is spelled out.]

"At birth he will vomit blasphemies, he will have teeth; in a word, this will be the devil incarnate; he will utter terrifying cries, he will work wonders, he will live only on impurities. He will have brothers who, although not incarnate devils like himself, will be children of evil; at the age of twelve, they will be noted for the valiant victories they will win; soon they will each be at the head of armies, assisted by legions from hell."

(CR-consider Apoc 13:6)

"The seasons will be changed, the earth will produce only bad fruits, the heavenly bodies will lose the regularity of their movements, the moon will reflect only a feeble reddish light; water and fire will lend convulsive motions to the earth's sphere, causing mountains , cities, etc., to be swallowed up.

(CR-consider Apoc 6:12, Apoc 8:12, Mt 24:3-25)

"Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.

(CR-several prophecies, from the Church Fathers on state the AntiChrist and his minions will march on Rome, kill the Pope and drive the Church out and back into the catacombs. Jack Chick and others, doing Satan's obfiscative bidding)

"The demons of the air, together with the Antichrist, will work great wonders on the earth and in the air, and men will become ever more perverted. God will take care of His faithful servants and mend of good will; the Gospel will be preached everywhere, all peoples and all nations will have knowledge of the Truth.

(CR-consider Mt 26:13, Mk 13:10)

"I address a pressing appeal to the earth: I call upon the true disciples of the God living and reigning in the heavens; I call upon the true imitators of Christ made man, the one true Savior of men; I call upon my children, my true devotees, those who have given themselves o me so that I may lead them to my Divine Son, those whom I bear as it were in my arms, those who have lived in my spirit; finally, I call upon the Apostles of the Latter Times, the faithful disciples of Jesus Christ who have lived in contempt of the world and of themselves, in poverty and humility, in contempt and silence, in prayer and mortification, in chastity and in union with God, in suffering, and unknown to the world. It is time for them to emerge and come enlighten the earth. Go, show yourselves to be my dear children; I am with you and in you, provided your faith is the light enlightening you in these evil times. May your zeal make your famished for the glory and honor of Jesus Christ. Do battle, children of light, you, the few who see thereby; fir the time of times, the end of ends, is at hand.

"The Church will be eclipsed, the world will be in consternation. But there are Enoch and Elias, they will preach with the power of God, and men of good will will believe in God, and many souls will be comforted; they will make great progress by virtue of the Holy Ghost and will condemn the diabolical errors of the Antichrist.

(CR-consider Apoc 11:3-13, 1 Para 5:3, Jude 1:14. Also, many modern and Church Fathers tell us that the 2 witnesses will be Enoch and Elias. The refrences to Enoch were cut out of the Protestant bible, wonder why....)

"Woe to the inhabitants of the earth. There will be bloody wars, and famines; plagues and contagious diseases; there will be frightful showers of animals; thunders which will demolish cities; earthquakes which will engulf countries; voices will be heard in the air; men will beat their heads against the walls; they will call on death, yet death will constitute their torment; blood will flow on all sides. Who could overcome, if God doesn't shorten the time of trial? At the blood, tears and prayers of the righteous, God will relent; Enoch and Elias will be put to death; pagan Rome will disappear; the fire of Heaven will fall and consume three cities; the whole universe will be struck with terror, and many will allow themselves to be seduced because they didn't adore the true Christ living in their midst. It is time; the sun is darkening; Faith alone will survive.

(CR-see above)
"The time is at hand; the abyss is opening. Here is the king of the kings of darkness. Here is the beast with its subjects, calling itself the savior of the world. In pride he will rise skyward to go up to Heaven; he will be stifled by the breath of St. Michael the Archangel. He will fall and the earth -which for three days will be in constant change- will open its fiery bosom; he will be plunged forever with all his followers into hell's eternal chasms. Then water and fire will purify the earth and consume all the works of men's pride, and everything will be renewed; God will be served and glorified."

(CR-consider Apoc 12:7-18, also 2Thess:2-10. Challoner in his commentary states:

3 "A revolt"... This revolt, or falling off, is generally understood, by the ancient fathers, of a revolt from the Roman empire, which was first to be destroyed, before the coming of Antichrist. It may, perhaps, be understood also of a revolt of many nations from the Catholic Church; which has, in part, happened already, by means of Mahomet, Luther, &c., and it may be supposed, will be more general in the days of the Antichrist.

3 "The man of sin"... Here must be meant some particular man, as is evident from the frequent repetition of the Greek article: 'the man of sin, 'the son of perdition, 'the adversary or opposer. It agrees to the wicked and great Antichrist, who will come before the end of the world. 4 "In the temple"... Either that of Jerusalem which some think he will rebuild; or in some Christian church, which he will pervert to his own worship: as Mahomet has done by the churches of the east.

Also, good link:
http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/mary/fatima-controversy10.htm
Some corresponding links:

http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/epimeth.htm
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1846sallette.html

Response to this from SSPX:
http://www.christthekingmaine.com/Our_Lady_of_La_Sallette.html

CR-

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in the day of Battle; Be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the Devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, cast into Hell, Satan and all the other evil spirits, who prowl through the world, seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

Responses to My Lefamine Report

2006-10-10T10:17:00.000-07:00

All Emails in their raw and original forms-no editing, other than weeding out personal info (such as Ph#, addresses, etc). Any of these participants have right to request me to remove any or all of the info they feel they do not wish to be public. From what I heard, they posted and shared my emails on the Yahoo Constitutionalist site. I have agreed to bury the hatchet with all these folks, have not heard back from Susan-suspect I will not.

I was not always polite nor Christ-like, I have apologized to these folks and they to me, I have repented and we need to move on.

Reed Responds:

CR: would rather have you on my side in the fight against baby killers, sodomites and NWO'ers than them any day.
"Reed R. Heustis, Jr." <Reed@ReedHeustis.com> wrote:

AIM: LosAngelesDude
Y!: RRHeustisJr
Sign up for my *free* email newsletter:
http://ReedHeustis.com
----- Original Message -----
From: John Chance
To: Reed R. Heustis, Jr.
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: Thanks
I am not all over the place, it is you that obfiscate. You cannot prove your system of Bible ALone. You cannot prove your system at all. You cannot address the simple charges I made about anything.
As in my last email to you, we have nothing to discuss until you can prove, clearly and without any doubt, that the Bible says "do not listen to anything that is not written in this book".
As you cannot, will see you on the other side!!!!!!!
"Reed R. Heustis, Jr."wrote:
Reed@ReedHeustis.com
AIM: LosAngelesDude
Y!: RRHeustisJr
Sign up for my *free* email newsletter:
http://ReedHeustis.com
----- Original Message -----
From: John Chance
To: Reed R. Heustis, Jr.
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: Thanks
Reed,
you are a broken record, side stepping my comments about your bigoted and outdated lingo. IF you went by the Bible alone, why do you need the Reformed beleifs and creeds brought to you by Calvin?
Rather-what is your favorite word of the day-hypocritical.
IF you did follow the Bible, then get thee behind me and back into the One and Only Church of Christ, the Catholic Church. If not, then we are really wasting our time here, no??
"Reed R. Heustis, Jr." <Reed@ReedHeustis.com> wrote:
Scott Whiteman responds:

CR:
ahaha

No, the "room" should go to the Bostonian fist loving sodomites. Look forward to hearing the great work still for you to do in the future!

Best to you and your family,

JCScott Whiteman wrote:
#message #yiv1168971136 v\:* {}#message #yiv1168971136 o\:* {}#message #yiv1168971136 w\:* {}#message #yiv1168971136 .shape {}
#message #yiv1168971136 st1\:*{}
One of the guys previously copied told me last night he stopped reading when it appeared that you and I ought to get a room.

Scott T. Whiteman
Attorney, Peroutka & Peroutka
SWhiteman@Peroutkalaw.com
From: John Chance [mailto:catholicresistence@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 4:53 PMTo: Scott WhitemanSubject: RE: Fw: Steve Lefamine Profile

I accept any apology and I apologize as well for unkind words, thoughts and the like. We can disagree over theology. I will continue to pray for you, please d othe same for me, as I can always use prayers.

I seek not disagreements and would look forward to moving forward in peace and good will, though we have differences. As one of my best friends is a Baptist minister (still trying to win him over to CP, a little too Neo-conny still) and my wife and family are Protestants (more distant family, not parents), I can disagree but have amiable relationships.

I wish you and your family health and happiness. You as well, as I assume that you are healed adequately from your injury and life changing events.

Not sure why you were drawn to Reformed as opposed to Catholic upbringing, but that is you business-to share or otherwise.Scott Whiteman wrote:
If you are so inclined, I have not, nor have the time really, looked for any particular nasty-names I’ve called you on TAV. Do you recall any done in public? If so, or if you find them, send me a love-note, and I’ll either remove the reference, or apologize, or both, as the case may demand. You suggest that unlike Lofton, I’ve called you names. If that is true, again I apologize, but I want to go a step further to fix it.

I want yours and my disagreements, if we must have them, to be over Theology, not name-calling.

Scott T. Whiteman
Attorney, Peroutka & Peroutka
SWhiteman@Peroutkalaw.com
From: John Chance [mailto:catholicresistence@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 11:34 AMTo: Scott WhitemanSubject: RE: Fw: Steve Lefamine Profile

I agree, I too "backslid" as some Evangelicals use the term. I repented and strive daily to improve my understanding and strengthen the Faith. As I noted to Joe Liberty a few minutes ago, you may be a swell fellow to hang with and have a beer with. I do not know. You and I can work together against a common foe, for instance, schools that have un-natural interests in fists and Sodomites. etc.

As I am concerned, yes I say we have a truce. I accept any/all apologies and offer my sincerest as well. Please pass along to Joe, Reed, Angela, Susan, etc as they may not get the message from me.

Best to you and your family, please pass along same to Michael Peroutka and John Lofton -2 men I have some disagreements with but at least respect and would also rather have in my corner than the lukewarm.

-CRScott Whiteman wrote:
Quote: “How do you, a mere man, know you were going to Hell? Rocking in impurity?”
Yup. My “social life,” my blasphemies, my idolatries, my scandals, my thoughts, my actions, my gods, etc. I was a miserable wretch, and still am. As then my sin merited my damnation, now Christ’s sacrifice earns my salvation, and for that I will never be ashamed.

Thanks for your second note. I trust you and I are reconciled as to sins committed against each other. If any one brings to my attention, “Did you see what John Chance wrote about you” on any date prior to 4:21 PM, October 4, 2006, I will say, “Covered over.” Same?

If you must make accusations against me, please be specific, provide notice, and permit me the opportunity to respond (if not review). As stated, I will neither make any against you on TAV (I have no other venue), nor permit others to. If you see any from any one else on TAV, please notify me and I will correct it, and them.

Seems to me, iron did sharpen iron, as both of us have relented, even if just a bit.

Scott T. Whiteman
Attorney, Peroutka & Peroutka
SWhiteman@Peroutkalaw.com
From: John Chance [mailto:catholicresistence@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 4:13 PMTo: Scott WhitemanSubject: RE: Fw: Steve Lefamine Profile

First, sory to hear abou t the injury this was tragic and glad you were able to bounce back, I truly am.

No, I am not into anus', men or any combo you noted below. Just trying to be funny-apparently, no night at the Appollo for me.

Sorry I responded, I will respond to you in this email and the other one yet unopened. Then, you can respond all you want, just make sure to tell your allies I will not write back.

Why the turning from the Faith, nominally or otherwise? It is not a waste to bring back a brother from error, nor to pray for them. How do you, a mere man, know you were going to Hell? Rocking in impurity? or just plain old Catholic? The 1st will get you there, the second-nope.

As far as dealing with you, yes you left and your wit nad mind-both sharp, will no longer apply pressure to Hansen. If you do not wish to build the Party with Mormons, then who else should be "excluded"?

What did your side think about Mormonism and your take on it in ref to Tampa ?

Well, God bless and let me review your other note to me.Scott Whiteman wrote:
In what I hope to have been your last letter, you started out with the bang by stating, “Your constant use of ‘shut up’ is rather childish and far beneath me to respond anymore to you.” But then you ruined it by responding.

Done some research on me, eh? Was that in insult, “put that in your undercover tape recorder”? I didn’t know you supported adult men teaching kids how to stick their hands into each other’s anus’. Yup. I was an excellent runner. Fastest Senior in the nation in the 1000yrds in 1992. First-Team NCAA All-American in 1993. First-rate sinner going to hell until Christ saved me.

I’m sorry you wasted such time – I’m certainly not worth the effort. For the record, I was practically, if not nominally, Reformed prior to God having yanked my hamstring from my hip-bone and bunching it in my knee, ensuring I would not pursue my dreams of being an Olympian, and rather diverting me to His paths.

I wanted to make Tampa about Mormonism. I was outvoted by “my side.” I did leave the CP afterward, and probably would have even if “our side” won, because I personally cannot work with non-Christians in “kingdom building.” Shearer quoted me as having written (para.), “when we build we must do so with Christians.” He took it out of context, since it wasn’t a recommendation for CP, rather an appeal as one Reformed Christian to another, Howard Phillips, and a declaration of my intent personally if the vote doesn’t go against the Mormons in Tampa .

I’m gone now, along with my big and nasty words. So why am I even an issue to you? I’m just an attorney in Maryland with no connection to CP in any way. If Shearer, Odem, etc. have a problem with me, I know they’ll deal with as uncharitably and scandalously as in the past in the California Statesman.

Scott T. Whiteman
Attorney, Peroutka & Peroutka
SWhiteman@Peroutkalaw.com
From: John Chance [mailto:catholicresistence@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 2:44 PMTo: Scott WhitemanSubject: RE: Fw: Steve Lefamine Profile

Your constant use of "shut up" is rather childish and far beneath me to respond anymore to you.

I, unlike you, do not have all day to spend on the web. I was thinking and having good exchanges on the TAV site, you just did not like the responses and content, let alone your rather unbalanced responses to me on TAV. Others, while not always agreeing with me, seem not to have a problem with me as you did. White on rice were YOUR comments, though your attitude, tone and constantly hounding on me were telling.

I had rather few oppotunities that you seem to think so, alwo, you cut me off many times nad diverted. I have seen on the TAV site and other links on the web that you are described as a member of Peroutka and Peroutka-do you Lawyer for free? OF course not. No, know one was "kicked off for being non-Reformed", but we were certainly ganged up on and attacked constantly. Even before the Tampa vote, you and your allies did not clearly tell other, non-Reformed members TAV was Reformed site. You let them, as they saw TAV as a continuation of the Peroutka 2004 camapign and that Peroutka was a Executive member of CP, be attacked. Yes, you suuure did not have a religious purification agenda with the CP, esp since you stated repeatedly stated you cannot work with others outside your Reformed camp.

Why, then, your fight in Tampa ? Just leave the Babylon CP and start your very own, Reformed Party? No, as Gary Odom noted, the abortion issue was a red herring. Mayb teh CP represnted a new Geneva Dictatorship. Who knows.

Yes, legal talk can at times be above my training, so you do not need to "talk down to me" as YOU put it, but make it clearer. You are mighty arrogant in your education, are you not?

Guess being a Calvin follower makes you that way, no?? Reformed's are generally this way, not all, but too many.

BTW- what happened to you in the sports accident? What made you, while recooperating, turn for the True faith to man made Calvinism??

Peroutka is largely humble, you have an almost possessed nature. Too bad you did not spend the time studying your Faith.

As to costing Michael,. I have yet to hear, either from Odom, Shearer or anyone else, criticisms of Peroutka absent of you. You seem to be the big mouth that has turned Tz1, Brenda, me and others off at TAV-we no longer support TAV nor want much to do with it. IF Peroutka ran again, I would be reeeal hard to support him, unless he did not have you on staff.

Rarely, then, do others or I have issues with Peroutka. You are the one that is the wild boar in the woods.

Finally, how would I know what your contract is, beyond the point you are a lawyer-probably with school debts and an employee of Peroutka's. So again, are you sitting on millions of $$? No, you have to earn an income somehow. I am sure, if I wanted to waste a lot of time, I could find out. As Micheal is largely insulated at TAV, I wont know as he does not talk to us individually too much.

IF you want me to dig into your back ground, fine. I have several articles on you I have found, your income is public record. I do not have the time, energy or interest to do so.

As your title says,
Attorney, Peroutka & Peroutka
http://us.f398.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=SWhiteman@Peroutkalaw.com

I have apologized for name calling and it is up to you to forgive the "crap" comment.

As to your childish "shut ups", that is more in line with your kids than a overtly proud attorney. And you think you are predestined

-JCScott Whiteman wrote:
You seem to impute my lack of regard for you to anti-Catholicism. Truth be told, it’s anti-John Chancism. I gave you opportunity after opportunity on TAV to substantiate your claims, rather than just assert them. You did not. Because you lack information. If you cannot demonstrate the truthfulness of any of your 6 assertions below, shut up.

“White on rice” wasn’t about you being non-Reformed – it was about you being non-thinking.
Prove how I get paid, and what the details of my contract are. Also, prove that I don’t like spending time with Steve Peroutka – you cannot prove it.
TAV has not kicked any one out for being non-Reformed. If you can prove otherwise, please do so – otherwise, shut up.
How is it back room if I’ve done things in the open? Have I cost Michael? Prove it. If so, I am sorry, to him, because I know he does not agree with my tact or opinion on many things.
Specify that from which I must repent. You have not. You give general charges. Truth, I sin. But I don’t repent of “sin,” rather specific sins. Help me identify them – or shut up.
You are without knowledge of my contractual relationship with Michael – nor the speed at which I can type, so you have no idea how much time I’ve spent on anything.

Haven’t read your blog. What, did Joe? Perhaps he is wasting his time. I don’t have any control over Joe.

I’m sorry for revealing the amount I contributed to CP. I should not have done that.

If using language legal in nature is above you, I will talk down to you from now on.

Scott T. Whiteman
Attorney, Peroutka & Peroutka
SWhiteman@Peroutkalaw.com
From: John Chance [mailto:catholicresistence@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 1:22 PMTo: Scott WhitemanSubject: RE: Fw: Steve Lefamine Profile

Wow, and they say I am crude and rude. I see your normal attitude in emails are the same as on your site.

As far as Peroutka, I still respect him and glad for my vote of him in 2004.

As for your dealings:

1. On your site, you area pit bull and attack anyone that is non-Reformed (you know, on my like white on rice")
2. Peroutka pays you via your employment at Peroutka and Peroutka (it must gall you to hang out with Stephen and other Peroutka Papists)
3. There is no reigning in your leach with your attacks and purging of non-Reformed members of TAV. You have largely, with your allies there, purged many of us that came over to TAV after the 2004 election that were non-Reformed.
4. You have cost him greatly for your sniveling tactics and backroom machinations. He is laregly done in CP not because he is decent, kind nad fair, but thanks to your unhinged tactics.
5. I have yet to hear, see, read, etc any correction of your words and actions at TAV.
6. You seem to have plenty of time on your hands, so Peroutka must not seem to care that you apparently do any Lawyer-ing there.

I, in my last email to Joe to apologize for my "piece of crap" comment about you, noting that as afalllen person, I was harsh and uncharitable.

You have left CP and I am busy with my blog. IF you all do not like it, do not read it. I do not have hte $$$ to have my own TAV-like site.

As a side note, you in one of your last notes to me on Forum of TAV noted you are saving your $1000 contribution you used to give to CP-this is a rather shameful bragging. Soe to use your use of Agency of Law. I am not a lawyer, as few people are. You may wish to use everyday language in the future, unless your use of AL is another "look how damn smart I am" ploy.

There is that, put that in your undercover tape recorder.Scott Whiteman wrote:
Would you please substantiate your as of late unfounded claim that Michael Peroutka hides behind me, a piece of crap attack dog and mouth piece. As far as the law of agency goes, have I ever held myself out as Michael’s mouth piece, or further, as Agency Law would actually require, has Michael ever claimed that I speak on his behalf? You are utterly without understanding, and suffer from a complete dearth of knowledge about the inter-workings of my business with Michael.

Prove that Michael agrees with me, or shut it.

Scott T. Whiteman
Attorney, Peroutka & Peroutka
SWhiteman@Peroutkalaw.com
----- Original Message ----From: John Chance To: Joe Liberty Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2006 8:00:52 AMSubject: Re: Fw: Steve Lefamine Profile
Read my blog about the AHP-you will see the cookies and milk are definately not out.

I am not anti-Protestant (my wife is Baptist, my mother entire side is as well). I oppose the false, devil inspired system, not the people entrapped in it.

IF Steve is proud, well, good for him. Lets all stop acting and be ourselves. Dan Eby from what I hear was at least honest enough to leave the CP as it was "soiled" by use non-Calvin lovers.

Too bad Peroutka hides behind that piece of crap Whiteman-his attack dog and mouth piece. Peroutka persona non grat in the CP is thanks to Scott, for most that I have talked to place the blame at Scott's door, but as a Peroutka hirling, he brings the whole ship down.

Guess Angela did not take long to whine at TAV, eh??Joe Liberty wrote:
Angela,

Defend Steve against what exactly? John accuses him of being "anti-Catholic." I could be wrong, but I doubt very much that Steve would object to that label. If anybody is anti-Catholic surely Steve is. As a Reformed Christian I suppose you could describe me as anti-Catholic as well. I would think most Catholics are anti-Protestant as well. It is really a news flash that,historically, Reformed Christians have viewed Catholics as anti-Christ and Catholics have viewed Protestants as schismatics and heretics? I really wouldn't expect a blog for and about Catholics to sing Steve's praises.

I believe John is wrong in calling the AHP a "Protestant-only" party. I specifically asked their chairman Dan Eby about it and he indicated Catholics are welcome to join as long as they believe Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior (that's my recollection of our phone conversation of a few weeks ago). To my knowledge Stave has not joined the AHP.
----- Original Message ----From: Angela Wittman To: Constitutionalists Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2006 5:35:22 PMSubject: [CDF] Fw: Steve Lefamine Profile
Dear Friends,

Please rally to the defense of our brother Steve Lefemine!

Angela WittmanAmerican Heritage Party, Illinoishttp://www.americanheritageparty.org/For more information, please contact: http://us.f398.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=contact@ahparty.org

"To walk in the truth, imports a life of integrity, holiness, faithfulness, and simplicity.. ." The Prince of Preachers: Charles Haddon Spurgeon

----- Original Message -----
From: John Chance
To: http://us.f398.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=wittman@htc.net
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 1:58 PM
Subject: Steve Lefamine Profile

http://catholicresistence.blogspot.com/2006/10/steve-lefamine-bigot-on-move.html

Angela, sent to Steve at last known address, do hope it was received. As he joined your Protestant only AHP yet??
.
Joe Liberty Responds to me:

John, You described the AHP as "Protestant-Only." Yet when I asked their chairman if Catholics were welcome, he told me that they were. I told him that several members of our state party are Roman Catholic and he said that would not prevent our party from affiliating with the AHP if we chose to do so. You say you are not anti-Protestant, yet you call our faith a devil-inspired system. That makes you anti-Protestant, just as much as Steve is anti-Catholic. We don't hate Catholics, we just disagree with their religion. This is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Referring to Scott as a "piece of crap" reveals you to be the very sort of bigot you whine about, and uncouth as well. And what "whole ship" are you talking about? If I'm not mistaken Scott resigned from the Executive Committee and Maryland withdrew from the Constitution Party. If you are a member of the Constitution Party, what exactly are you complaining about? It seems to me you are well on your way to purging the party of Reformed Christians, which sounds like what you want anyway. You don't like Steve Lefemine because he is anti-Catholic? So what? He isn't in your party and hasn't been for a long time now. Pretend you're right and Catholics are not welcome in the AHP. You are not a member of that party, so why do you care?
----- Original Message ----From: John Chance <catholicresistence@yahoo.com>To: Joe Liberty <joseph@patriotsaints.com>Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2006 8:00:52 AMSubject: Re: Fw: Steve Lefamine Profile
Read my blog about the AHP-you will see the cookies and milk are definately not out. I am not anti-Protestant (my wife is Baptist, my mother entire side is as well). I oppose the false, devil inspired system, not the people entrapped in it. IF Steve is proud, well, good for him. Lets all stop acting and be ourselves. Dan Eby from what I hear was at least honest enough to leave the CP as it was "soiled" by use non-Calvin lovers. Too bad Peroutka hides behind that piece of crap Whiteman-his attack dog and mouth piece. Peroutka persona non grat in the CP is thanks to Scott, for most that I have talked to place the blame at Scott's door, but as a Peroutka hirling, he brings the whole ship down. Guess Angela did not take long to whine at TAV, eh??
Joe Liberty <joe_liberty@yahoo.com> wrote:
Angela, Defend Steve against what exactly? John accuses him of being "anti-Catholic." I could be wrong, but I doubt very much that Steve would object to that label. If anybody is anti-Catholic surely Steve is. As a Reformed Christian I suppose you could describe me as anti-Catholic as well. I would think most Catholics are anti-Protestant as well. It is really a news flash that,historically, Reformed Christians have viewed Catholics as anti-Christ and Catholics have viewed Protestants as schismatics and heretics? I really wouldn't expect a blog for and about Catholics to sing Steve's praises. I believe John is wrong in calling the AHP a "Protestant-only" party. I specifically asked their chairman Dan Eby about it and he indicated Catholics are welcome to join as long as they believe Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior (that's my recollection of our phone conversation of a few weeks ago). To my knowledge Stave has not joined the AHP.
----- Original Message ----From: Angela Wittman <wittman@htc.net>To: Constitutionalists <Constitutionalists@yahoogroups.com>Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2006 5:35:22 PMSubject: [CDF] Fw: Steve Lefamine Profile
Dear Friends, Please rally to the defense of our brother Steve Lefemine! Angela WittmanAmerican Heritage Party, Illinoishttp://www.american/ heritageparty. org/For more information, please contact: contact@ahparty. org "To walk in the truth, imports a life of integrity, holiness, faithfulness, and simplicity.. ." The Prince of Preachers: Charles Haddon Spurgeon ----- Original Message ----- From: John Chance To: wittman@htc. net Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 1:58 PM Subject: Steve Lefamine Profile http://catholicresi/ stence.blogspot. com/2006/ 10/steve- lefamine- bigot-on- move.html Angela, sent to Steve at last known address, do hope it was received. As he joined your Protestant only AHP yet??. __,_._,___

CR:Joe, Please tell Susan to scamper back to her liberlaistic, modernistic New Church. The Sacrement is Penance, "reconcilliation" was a give away. For the record, since you wish to dredge up a Prop Catholic, I was not attacking Scott personally and have apologized to him and to others for my "piece of crap" comment. John Lofton and I disagree, I have NEVER been called names by him nor mistreated. I have no beef w/him other than his comments, such as that immigrants from south of the border, whne entering, need to have religious tests (see my past blogs as I will not recount) to "see what they believe". This is suspicious. I have never stated explicitly that either are 'Catholic haters". The words Scott and others (exempting Lofton) have used is hateful, as is their approach to me at TAV and the wording. Too many Catholics have a naivete, thinking that Protestants are all lovy-dovy and think of us as equals, etc. Most have never read a Papal Encyclical and most are dwelling in never-never land of Evangelicals, largely sold out to the Robertsons of the world that just looove Catholics, providing they drag us down with them in GOP Idolotry. Susan needs to get a grip and find out what her Faith teaches. She seems to have indifferentism. Also, though a bit overdue, I go to confession/Penance every few months, supplanting it with Benediction/Adoration weekly and Latin Mass when possible. No doubt, she has not read or seen all that has been said, in these emails and at TAV forum. Again, if TAV from the start was declared Reformed site, I would have avoided it. Istead, Catholics and Mormons were weeded out and turned off the the CP long before the Tampa vote. Susan maybe a nice gal, but she is blind if all she knows is IOTC and the 2 men. She has not read, heard and seen up close anything. Tell her a priest is my spiritual director, not a woman and certainly not one that has little to no facts and experience to back up her quisling attacks. I have apologized to those I may have been harsh with and accepted apologies to me. I have nothing against Peroutka, nor Lofton. I am trying to find some understanding, common ground and mend fences with Whiteman now. I stand with Protestant friends, family and others for common interests, but I also know that over-familiartiy with non-Catholics can breed laxity, confusion and temptations. Please pass on to Susan that Scott leaving the Church is an act, in the eyes of the Church, as heretical and anti-Catholic (no, not the same anti as active persecution of us). I am sure that Scott is a wonderful fellow, decent guy and probably a heck of a buddy to have a beer with, etc. Susan needs to take her Faith more seriously, and worry less about what she thinks is sinful. No Susan, in the eyes of Christ, it DOES mater "what ever sect of Christianity you chose to follow", yet again more liberal New Church lingo. As far as vile and hateful, Susan needs to read up more on CHurch history and needs to really know what has been said to us Catholics on TAV and other outlets before posing as my moral director and your quisling. I suggest she start with Pope Pius IX Syallabus of Errors. All Christian faiths are NOT equal, nor equally salvic. If she wants vile, let her read Repent America's forum, where many of the same folks there are in the Pro crowd (exempting Lofton, Peroutka and Scott). They are not all warm and touchy-feely for us. Let her read ALL the past posts of Catholics, from their first to their last and see what others said to them. Remember, I have monitored, read and participated in the TAV from the start. My smash mouth words are a response to this, it is not may nature to start out with people like this. Let her read my past blogs. As the book says, there is a time for peace and a time to fight. I came in peace to TAV, I tried to reach out my hand and asked for forgiveness when I wronged others. I tried to participate hoeslty nad charitably. You all at TAV responded with suspicion, attacks, insults (including last Christmas insults against the BVM) and the like. IF she wish to be that yellow stripe in the raod, that is her business, I will not. I work with Protestants all day on common goals. My wife is one. Some of our friends are (as well as her minister and wife). We can look for common goals and common understandings, but I will not lay down and be insulted and attacked. NO Catholic needs to run to "reconcilliation" for shining light into dark and defending the Faith. In the end, as I noted to Reed, I would rather have him in the trenches with me then the enemy--or a obvious liberal New Churcher
Joe Liberty <joe_liberty@yahoo.com> wrote:
FYI
----- Forwarded Message ----From: Susan Scanlon susiefrog2000@yahoo.com
I have been silent for a while, but feel I must respond now. As one who works for Michael Peroutka and Institute on the Constitution, I know John Lofton and Scott Whiteman personally. I am Roman Catholic and neither Scott nor John has ever said or done anything remotely anti-Catholic. Both of them vehemently disagree with some Catholic doctrine, but to paint either of these men as anti-Catholic or Catholic haters is wrong. I consider both of these men to be my friends, and am blessed to have such friends. Mr. Chance, I expect you to seek the sacrament of Reconciliation in the near future as the vile, hateful, un-Catholic accusations you have heaped upon my friends are sinful, no matter what sect of Christianity you choose to follow.

CR NOTE-indifferentism!!!

Angela Wittman response to me part 1:

Shake the dust I truly will, but a Christian needs to throw out the "lifeline", so-you pray for me, I will pray for you. Cant let your soul go, I will say a Rosary tonight for you!!

Best to you!!!Angela Wittman wrote:
Dear John,

I really believe it is time for you to shake the dust off your feet and let me go to hell.

Thank you,
Angela Wittman
----- Original Message -----
From: John Chance
To: Angela Wittman
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: [CDF] Re: Thanks
This is so childish and laughable, I have little to say. You were told-or should have been-to PROVE IT!!.

You cannot. As to false teaching, Arminianists, Anabaptists, Calvinsits, etc all go by the Bible ALone, yet you are constantly fighting with each other and no one can agree. HEnce you make up "essential/non-essential" doctrines, etc.

You have no guide, you are blind. Read about the Ethiopian, he-educated and wealthy as he was, did not understand Isaiah without Phillip guiding him the faith in Christ.

The Catholic Faith is 2000 yrs old, founded by Christ and is undivided in doctrine. We have the history, the biblical sacrements and the magestarium still.

Your faith is 500 yrs old, divided and has multiple guides going in every direction like a blidn guide.

I pray for YOU, as you have now been told the truth and it is incumbant on you to search for the Truth. Otherwise, prayer for you after you die is in vain. Start then to develop a love of heat, sulphur and terror.

final excerpt to ponder:

No Salvation Outside of the Church :"Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus"
There is no salvation outside of Christ, and the Church is the Bride of Christ -- become His Body, one Flesh in marriage. Therefore, there is no salvation outside of the Church and not belonging formally to the Catholic Church is objectively sinful:
Matthew 18:17"If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican" Luke 10:16"He that heareth you heareth Me, and he that despiseth you despiseth Me, and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me" Mark 16:16"He that believeth not will be condemned" John 3:18"He that believeth not is already judged"Luke 11:23"He that is not with Me is against Me and he that gathereth not with Me, scattereth"
This does not mean, however, that if one is necessarily damned if one is not a formal member of the visible society of God's Kingdom on earth -- the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. What it means is that: Christ founded one Church with Peter as His Vicar; that this Church was given the powers of binding and loosing, that this Church exists today; that it is the source of the Gospel and the earthly source of the Sacraments without which, normatively, one cannot be saved. Those who are not formal members might be saved and become associated with the soul of the Church if they:
are validly baptized by water and spirit, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (all who are baptized are subject to the Church even if they are not formal members because Baptism belongs to the Church), and
have not committed a mortal sin (or who, if they have committed a mortal sin, have made a perfect act of contrition), which means a sin concerning a grave matter committed with full knowledge and consent of the will, and
are animated by charity and a supernatural Faith in God's existence, and
seek Him, and
firmly believe that their religion is the true religion such that there is no conflict or doubt about such in their ill-formed conscience, and
are not formally outside of the Church in spite of doubts about the possibility that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ (if one believes it is possible that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ, one is duty-bound to investigate)
In addition, those individuals who, through no fault of their own, have no means to hear of Christ-given Baptism and are invincibly ignorant -- who've never heard the Name Jesus, know nothing of the Church, or misunderstand Church teachings -- but who obey the Natural Law written in all men's hearts and who truly seek God are left to the mercy of Christ Who may save them as He desires. Christ will judge our wills, hearts, intellects, and deeds, and shall have mercy and compassion on whom He will have mercy and compassion (Romans 9:15); those whom He deigns to save He can well give the grace of the Sacraments to in a manner beyond our ken -- perhaps even in their final breath, by illuminating their souls in a supernatural way such that they desire Baptism, even if implicitly, and therefore become associated with the Soul of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. This is something we can never presume -- but we can pray for. I note here, too, that there is also the possibility of Limbo -- a state of perfect natural happiness -- for those who die unregenerated (unbaptized) and with the stain of original sin, but who've committed no personal sin. While these people would not enter Heaven as they are not born again of water and Spirit (or the desire for it), they would also experience no subjective sufferings. This teaching is not a part of revelation and is, therefore, not a matter of dogma. There is no consensus among the Church Fathers on the matter; some believed in the existence of Limbo (e.g., most of the Greek Fathers, St. Augustine in his early writings, St. Gregory Nanzianus, St. Ambrose, St. Thomas Aquinas) while others didn't (e.g., St. Augustine in his later writings, St. Anselm). But it is a most definite possibility that can be piously believed given the truths that God is not only merciful but just and, therefore, will not punish someone for that which involves no personal guilt. While believing this proposition, which is the prevalent belief among traditional Catholics, one must never forget how easy it is to sin -- and that most everyone who's reached the age of reason has (in fact, because of the rarity of those who've reached the age of reason and have not committed personal sins, "Limbo" is often referred to as "Children's Limbo.")These possibilities are left to the mercy of God, however, and the presumption of salvation in any sense on the part of anyone who is not a formal member of the the visible Church is a sin against the Holy Spirit. We can pray for such, but we cannot presume such. We cannot presume this association with the Soul of the Church on the part of any particular individual who is not a manifest member the Church; in fact, we are to presume the opposite because they are objectively in sin, even if not culpably so, and we must do all we can to bring them to the Sacraments, which are true media of grace. We are to preach the fullness of the Truth, pray for God's mercy on all who are apart from the Sacraments, and always remember that material heresy is still heresy, no matter the level of culpability a material heretic might possess. While some who are not formal members of the Church might be illumined before death such that they desire Baptism and are then allowed to see Heaven by the Grace of Christ and become, therefore, associated with the Soul of the Church, the non-Catholic elements of other religions do not mediate grace in and of themselves, and it is always God's will that all formally become part of the eternally unified Mystical Body of Christ. The salvation of these souls would be in spite of, not because of, their religion. In this regard, any "ecumenism" that is not false will have as its goal the bringing of all into the Church as formal members, be they Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, pagan, or secular. The goal of any true "ecumenism" isn't "unity" because the Church is already unified; His Body is already unified. The return of heretics, schismatics, and apostates to the bosom of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Catholic Church is the only goal of true ecumenism.The proper attitude to take toward the Truth that those who are not formal members of the Church might be saved if they meet the above criteria is expressed well in this analogy by Harold E. Welitz:
Let's say that a father kept a loaded gun in the house. Now, certainly it has occurred since the invention of the revolver that a bullet has failed to fire when the trigger was pulled. Therefore, based on this possibility should the father continually remind his children that if they play with a gun and shoot at each other, it may not go off? Would that be a wise and prudent father, one who truly cares for his children? If the father continually discussed the possibility that the gun may not go off if the trigger were pulled, would he be misleading his children? Yes! Although what he is saying is not false, it is deceptive because it implies that something that is rare is actually likely. The result will be that the children will become more negligent in playing with loaded guns, which most likely will kill one of them. Should the father not say: "Do not play with a loaded gun, whatever you do! If you play with a loaded gun, someone will get killed." A wise and prudent father may realize there are a very slight percentage of bullets that are defective, but he knows it is not wise to continually remind his children of this, lest they become forgetful of the dangers of playing with loaded guns.
To carry the metaphor further: Catholics don't let non-Catholics play with guns. When others do play with guns, we can pray and have human hope that they don't get shot, but we can't expect or have a "good hope" that they won't. If, in fact, they are not "shot," we know that they are a part of the Church outside of which there is no salvation.Bottom line: We can't know the subjective states of the souls of manifest heretics, and we can't know how God might or might not illumine the the souls of the invincibly ignorant. But we can and do know what He has revealed about Himself, and we must tell others this Gospel. We can and do know what He told us about His Church, and we must bring people to it. We can and do know what He told us to do, and we must do it. And we must do these things with firmness, boldness, prudence, and great charity, all while begging mercy for sinners, including ourselves.
(http://www.fisheaters.com/101.html)

Maybe limbo?Angela Wittman wrote:
Dear John,

I remember having similar discussions with Christopher Hansen, to no avail and this is why I refuse to argue with you.

Unless you believe in Scripture alone, you will forever be prey to false teaching.

I pray the LORD will deliver both you and Mr. Hansen from your false religions.

For His Glory, Angela Wittman Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised. Proverbs 31:30 KJV http://www.angelawittman.net/

----- Original Message -----
From: Reed R. Heustis, Jr.
To: John Chance
Cc: CDF
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 12:48 PM
Subject: [CDF] Re: Thanks
I guess that acknowledgement is not forthcoming.

Oh well, I tried.

Reed R. Heustis, Jr.Los Angeles County, California

Angela Wittman part 2:

First, God be praised you are out of that miserable condition of-presumbly-depression and the like.

Glad you are a Christian, since I presume, you had no Christian faith (Protestant or Catholic) prior.

Beleive me or not, you have far more to offer the world here and as happy as you are now. I for one am thrilled to see that you are here and doing what you think is right.

Ultimately, God alone decides ones eternal disposition.

BTW- Sola Scriptura is Anti-Bible and Anti-Christian. Doubt me, find one Early Church Father that stated we are to go by the Bible ALONE. Find one scripture passage that says it. Paul is clear we are to follow scripture and the Church teachers.

But, glad you are here Ma'am!!!!!Angela Wittman wrote:
Dear John and all others,

Prior to 1993 I was a miserable, wretched sinner on the verge of suicide as I could not find the strength to make myself good enough to be a disciple of Jesus Christ. I knew my works were filthy rags, even though I was not in deep sin. I was a homemaker (and still am) married to a wonderful man with two sons in a large, expensive home on 8 acres with a lake, pond, and a creek in an upper scale neighborhood .

I had it all in material possessions, but spiritually I was bankrupt, and I knew it.

Praise the LORD! He pulled me out of the pit I was in and placed me in a Presbyterian Church where I finally learned the doctrines of grace.

Sola Scriptura!

For His Glory, Angela Wittman Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised. Proverbs 31:30 KJV http://www.angelawittman.net/
----- Original Message -----
From: John Chance
To: Angela Wittman
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: Steve Lefamine Profile
See blog, inclusive of comments w/links for anyone to read for themselves (you know, kinda like sola scriptura). HE lays down w/dogs, up w/fleas

BTW- the AHP is not a Protestant only site?

Her eis what ANgela Wittmans states her self, after telling us she apparently was not a Christian until 1993 (great deal, but what were you prior to 1993???)

http://www.angelawittman.net/index_files/page0003.htm
I am now a member of the American Heritage Party which “affirms its belief in the triune God of the Holy Bible and acknowledges that the Bible is the highest and final authority to which all other authorities and ideas must ultimately yield."

Viola-Sola Scriptura, hence a Protestant faith community belief.
Try again and please pass on to Reed and others for simplicity of traffic.Angela Wittman wrote: