Neo-Nazism Is Taking Over Eastern Europe, In Ukraine And Croatia, And It Is Expanding Into Western Europe And Will Make Alliances With The Muslims

Neo-Nazis in Croatia, members of the new “Generation of Renovation” cult, led by Frano Cirko

 By Theodore Shoebat

Neo-Nazism is taking over Eastern Europe, in Croatia and Ukraine, and its expanding into Western Europe. I did a whole video on this:

We Are About To Enter A New World War, A Blood Bath Is About To Commence As The Empire Of The Antichrist Will Rise Up. This Is Why I Wrote The Book, Christianity Is At War, The Most Exhaustive Study Ever Done On Christian Warfare. Click Here To Get The Book Today And Prepare Your Soul For The War That Is To Come.   

  • How much does anybody want to bet those flag waving supremacists actually hate Catholics and Orthodox, even if they went to the Church?

    • Theo…any truth to this in Arabic media?

    • DaKardii

      They’re actually trying to corrupt Orthodoxy in the same manner that the far left is trying to corrupt Catholicism. There are people like Aleksandr Dugin and Matthew Heimbach that are actually going on blogs and promoting the LIE that Orthdodoxy and neo-Nazism are not only fundamentally compatible, but are actually extensions of one another. Meanwhile, we have the Liberation Theologians in Latin America promoting the same lie about Catholicism and Communism. It’s absolutely sickening.

      • Yeah, damn parasite.

        • Filip

          hahahaha yea they had the same thing going on in Romania in Bucharest trying to build a large mosque largest in Europe whiledst supposedly Romania will be allowed to build the largest Orthodox Church in Turkey’s Istanbul that was the “deal” they made with Erdogan… which is actually like getting a lot of repulsiveness from the Romanian people and protests.

      • Стефан Евгений

        Pass me a jug, I need the hard stuff from reading about Heimbach.

  • jami

    Where Nazism exists , Christian Crusaders will be Born.

    • filomena seiffert

      The crusaders time is in the past, when most of Europe were strong believers, further we are weak, disorganized and confused. If we were united could stand a chance. The reason the Turks destroyed the byzantin

      • filomena seiffert

        The reason the Byzantine empire was destroyed was they were separated from Rome. Today is such a confusion, protestants against ea other, Catholics fighting the pope. How we go from here?

        • Стефан Евгений

          filomena, at the time East Romans were in communion with Rome. The West just did not care.

          • DeusLoVult

            I do not believe that is correct. They were (and remain) separate due to the Filioque clause.

          • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

            Even more than that my friend. I am optimistic but we have to all be honest about differences.

          • DeusLoVult

            Indeed, OCA I should not have phrased that as poorly as I did. That is the origin of the Schism, however.

            I retain hope that we shall one day unify, in spite of our differences.

          • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

            We will.

          • DeusLoVult

            Also, it’s good to see you commenting here. 🙂 It’s always a pleasure to read your discourse. Always, I learn from you.

          • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

            I will gradually be working myself back into it, I still have many things which command my attention, being a new husband and perhaps father someday

          • DeusLoVult

            Ah, were you married, my friend? I knew you were engaged but I did not know you were yet wedded. Congratulations! I’m am happy for you. :-))

          • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

            Oh, engaged, but soon to be wedded))). I’m in a hurry but perhaps not too much of a hurry)))

          • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

            Speaking of hurrying, I better go, but I’ll see you all soon here again my friends, thank you!

          • DeusLoVult

            Alright, OA. And thank you for stopping by. God bless you, my friend.

          • Стефан Евгений

            If you wish to put the blame on something? blame Charlemagne and the Franks. Why is it always the Germans that bugger up the world DLV?

          • DeusLoVult

            I’m afraid Charlemagne’s regime is one of the area’s where I am deficient.

            However, more recent history attests to your point. Germany has sowed much destruction in the world.

          • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

            And will continue to do so for a while longer

          • DeusLoVult

            Indeed, much to the sorrow of her neighbors. What a shame. The German people have proven themselves ingenious in war and peace, yet they endeavor to use their talents for malevolent purposes.

          • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

            Yes, I’m working on that aspect specifically during the time of the 20th century for any future articles I may be called to write, about Fascism’s rise and the spiritual collusion with them that the Western Democracies engaged in.

          • DeusLoVult

            I have studied to that effect, as well. Although, I am most interested in the military ambitions and doctrines of the era. Balance of powers, cult of the offensive, mobilization, etc. Such a perfect concoction for catastrophe.

          • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

            the roots of that military doctrine go back to the Germans Freidrich von Bernhardi and Heinrich Von Treitschke, strategists and military historians, and political philosophers who borrowed heavily from Social Darwinism and applied it to Military thinking

          • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

            I should specifically say, the German cult of conquest and continual war as being ‘healthy’, is their influence in modern times upon people like the later Fascists

          • DeusLoVult

            I most certainly agree with you there. Those Fascists, however, were comprised of many veterans of the Great War. One might think of the Second as a renewal of the conflict, rather than a separate one altogether.

          • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

            Many French, Serbs, and Russians would agree, that 1914-1945 was one Great War with a kind of 20 year truce between major flare-ups.

          • DeusLoVult

            And perhaps the ‘peace’ of the present day is simply another long truce before the renewal of conflict….

          • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

            Yes, for in truth the war that began in 1914 didn’t end in 1945 either

          • Стефан Евгений

            That is the key to the whole problem.

          • DeusLoVult

            Not entirely German. Or, at the very least, it had proliferated to the other powers. France’s Plan XVII, Germany’s Schlieffen Plan…that the offensive advantage was too substantial to be counteracted by digging in was the prevailing belief before the war. How ironic that the opposite proved true.

          • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

            Because of Industry. Which is why Stalin insisted in doing in about 10 years what took the West 100 years to do, have a Russian Industrial Revolution. Check this out;

          • DeusLoVult

            I’ll take a look.

            Industry far out paced tactics, unfortunately. The Napoleonic tactics that so obstinately retained prominence in imperial militaries at the beginning of the war encouraged mass slaughter on the battlefield. Even the perceived domineering effect of artillery is anachronistic to the Napoleonic Wars.

          • Стефан Евгений

            He was a Iconoclast, and Arian. Hardly a Catholic as he is supposed to be.

          • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

            Semi-literate warlord, well meaning or not, who did much damage as he built his Carolingian empire

          • DeusLoVult

            Ah, I see…I just read he had six wives as well. His pagan heritage seems quite evident from what I have read so far. He seems to have intended good, at the very least.

          • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

            St Vladimir the Great, Equal to the Apostles, was even more a Heathen who yet became more Christian in his personal life after his baptism. A man more worthy of emulation..

          • DeusLoVult

            All these Saints I do not know….I have much to learn.

          • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

            Ask them to get acquainted with you and they will, but be careful.

          • DeusLoVult

            Be careful?

          • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

            Prelest, or spiritual deception. Test the spirits.

          • Стефан Евгений

            One thing I’m good at is History, DLV.
            Facing the imminent threat, the Union was officially proclaimed by Isidore of Kiev in Hagia Sophia on December 12th 1452. The Emperor, bishops, and people of Constantinople accepted this act as temporary provision until the removal of the Ottoman threat.

          • DeusLoVult

            I too, study history with diligence.

            But I failed to comprehend filomena’s statement. I was thinking of the Crusader era. You are correct.

          • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

            She was thinking that the Orthodox have to cease being what we are as such

          • DeusLoVult

            Yes, I see that. And determination is hardly one that shall lead to more amicable relations with the Orthodox Church. We need more open minded dialogue.

          • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

            I’m all for open minded dialogue as long as one’s brains don’t fall out, lol)))

          • DeusLoVult

            Ah, but that is why we must be level headed as well. 😉

          • OrthodoxChristianAmerican


          • Стефан Евгений

            Ok Forgiven :-))))

          • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

            Ah, but my hero St Mark of Ephesus saw that the Union to be real had to go deeper into the roots of the problem

          • Стефан Евгений

            Like Patriarch Krill said, we can’t have a union by force.

          • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

            Indeed, even the Turk or Mongol at the Gates is not enough to sacrifice the Apostolic Teaching of Christ, the Life-Bestowing doctrine.

          • Стефан Евгений

            I just saw this comment to me DLV…. and I know I’m correct…… I had really good Godfather. Aside from his medical profession was amateur historian.I learned well.

            1452 Unification of Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches in the cathedral of Hagia Sophia on December 12, five months before the city fell, on the West’s terms, when Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos, under pressure from Rome, allows the union to be proclaimed by the former Metropolitan of Kiev Isidore (who had participated in the Council of Florence and was now a cardinal in the Roman Catholic church) who read the solemn promulgation of union and celebrated the union liturgy, including the name of the pope, arousing the greatest agitation among the population of the city.[20][21][note 17]
            It was not repealed until 1472 by Patriarchate of Constantinople.


      • jami

        I understand but Nazism was also in the past , isnt it rising now ? , so will Europe also grow into believers again and hence Crusaders. Keep Hope. God is in Controll

        • Kamau41

          There will first be a period of testing/refinement.


        Jami is correct Nazism is an Extension of Islam and our Crusaders need to rise up … The Crusades never really ended and the need to be relitalized

  • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

    Nazism and Fascism exist as a ‘natural’ outgrowth of a very un-natural development, which is modern godless society itself with it’s worship of Mammon and of Mars. Fascistic type idiots will always exist, but it takes a monied elite threatened by the lower classes and by foreign competitors to build these morons into the attack dogs and mercenaries that they really are.

    • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

      Sums up my mood about Fascists and the like quite nicely

  • Richard Dalessandro

    The flag in Ukraine with a lightening bolt and N had a symbol at the bottom that looked very similar to what was at the rally for the Confederate statue.

    Last video I heard the tape as the man was being taped to the cross and thinking I’m atleast they aren’t using nails, then I heard the hammering. Then the fire.

  • Methusalem

    It’s good that you mentioned Austria and that major rally with The Cross & the crescent, Theo, thanks!

    We have a leftist President who last month called on all women to wear headscarves. And, now, nobody seems to have noticed this; last Saturday, at the EUROVISION 2017 Eurovision Song Contest in Kyiv a guy who represented Austria was on stage with the song “Running on Air” sitting on a crescent moon, watch the video listen to the lyrics:

    I’m taking all that struggle
    Reminds me what I’m fighting for
    I’m living it up, I ain’t gonna stop
    Till I make that final score

    Back in 2014 Austrian transvestite performer had been named the winner of the Eurovision Song Contest.

  • concerned american

    It’s interesting that you mention that they have a certain look.

    My brother was called for jury duty and the defendant was on trial for pedophilia.
    My brother was asked if he believed that the defendant was innocent until proven guilty?
    His answer was, NOPE. He’s guilty, I can tell by lookin at him. Everyone laughed but my brother was absolutely serious. To this day he stands on what he said. He could tell by looking at him. It’s a funny story to hear him tell it.

    Needless to say he wasn’t chosen for the jury.

    • David W

      A talk show host found an article on the “new face” of the German anti-immigrant movement. Nothing new about it, it is an angry openly lesbian German female. Although he praised her and other sodomites for their anti-immigrant activism, he seems to forget the past and future atrocities of sexual deviants in Neo-Nazi and eugenicist regimes. This lesbian and her sick sisters could easily be running a labor camp with Orthodox and Catholic prisoners, in my opinion.

  • Стефан Евгений

    Catholics, with your point of view tossed the toys out of the pram, and stormed off a long time ago in a huff.
    The problem is the West always think their way is the best for everybody. We don’t think like you lot, and because we do things by Holy Tradition handed down to us, we don’t agree on how the Church should be governed.
    Because we don’t agree, the West thinks we are the enemy.
    If we are viewed as an enemy. Then we must be subjugated and annihilated.
    Is this not at the core of the Nationalists movements Peto?

  • Never been pro-KGB or a prophet for the KGB. However, I am a Vatican secret agent but never claimed to be a prophet but thanks for the compliment of equating me to one.

    • David W

      I thought the Shoebats were secret Jesuits with a secret handshake! Guess I didn’t carefully read my Jack Chick tracts…pass the vodka comrades!

    • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

      Another Banderist Bandit strikes again…

      So tired of the Fascists.

      • Стефан Евгений

        Oca, they troll the internet looking for stories to comment on.

        • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

          Indeed they do, and here and there I try to dispute them. It is a spiritual blindness they suffer, so near in appearance to the Right Glory but so far from It, from the Light of Mt. Tabor.

  • Стефан Евгений

    There is one thing I have found out, is that it is impossible to have a conversation with a Ukrainian Nationalist. The only thing I can do, is show the Historical facts and documentation on how nasty and un-Christian this movement is.
    My father said once that “Satan can hide behind the vestments of the Church”.

    Uniate Idea: “Thank God” or “Death to Enemies”?

    Cross Procession and Hate Mongering.

    • “it is impossible to have a conversation with a Ukrainian Nationalist”


      Those are the type that only learn when their is a high death toll on their side.

      • Стефан Евгений

        Germany’s poison, went to the root of western Ukraine.

    • DeusLoVult

      And speaking of unity, I don’t know how I forgot to mention this last night.

      Mass was amazing on Sunday. They unveiled a statue of the Virgin Mary that has been in the works since December. It was crafted by a master artisan from Moscow, who immigrated here 25 years ago His uncle is apparently a man of renown in Russia. His name is Alexei (can’t spell his last name) and he’s Russian Orthodox. Quite a special Mother’s Day gift. Incidentally, it was also his birthday. I wish I could post a picture here. It’s magnificent. :))

      God bless, my Orthodox Rusky friend. 🙂

    • concerned american

      My father said once that “Satan can hide behind the vestments of the Church”.

      Yep. A mouse in a cookie jar doesn’t make that mouse a cookie.

  • DeusLoVult

    “Infallibility is not held by one man.”

    If you refer to the Bishop of Rome, we do not believe he is infallible. Many not in communion with the Catholic Church seem to misunderstand the dogma of Papal Infallibility.

    “And indefectibility? The Roman Church has been innovating and changing for a thousand years.”

    We believe the magisterium is compelled to act by the Holy Spirit, Who is indeed faultless. Do you believe the Holy Spirit is imperfect? Do not confuse the erroneous statements made by men with the actual tuition handed down to us.

    • yodave

      ” Many not in communion with the Catholic Church seem to misunderstand the dogma of Papal Infallibility.”
      I was a Roman Catholic all my life. The n I studied Church history. Which leads directly to Orthodoxy. Unchanging, no new innovations, no new dogmas. Following the words of the Apostles. The Church as a whole, is the pillar of truth. It does not rest in one man.
      Jude 1:3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
      Nothing new.

      • DeusLoVult

        “I was a Roman Catholic all my life.”

        And so, many in communion do not understand either. Did you never bother yourself to see how many times it has been invoked? Do you believe it is ever in effect when the Bishop so chooses to speak?

  • yodave

    I apologize for not waiting on the moderator. I guess I am too hot headed. I am sorry.

    • At comment section you are allowed to have scuffles and even at times knife-fights so being hot-headed is a misdemeanor. The comment section here is not for the western sensitive seekers. So have at it.

  • lewjac3

    If this is correct that would make it easier to know where to drop the bombs.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Your church didn’t exist until maybe 500 years ago. Please explain

    • Стефан Евгений

      He is a former Roman Catholic convert to Orthodoxy.

      • DeusLoVult

        And he does no great service to the Orthodox faith through his rantings. He is terribly misinformed on what Catholics believe.

      • Julie LaBrecque

        He, sadly, is misinformed, or is intentionally misleading, or attempting to mislead Deus. Half truths are not truths.

        • Стефан Евгений

          Oh! I see….please explain it to me what he has wrong?

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Grateful for all the background info you provided –

    • Стефан Евгений

      Julie dear, I”d like to say sorry if my outspokenness, has hurt you.
      My big mouth gets me in trouble, I’m even more harsh with my own Orthodox brothers. Even to the point of being asked to leave, when i found pro-Ukraine pamphlets at the church bookstore. ( I have just as much problem if it was Russian) I also confronted a convert who said the Tsars genetic line was divine! I cant tolerate stupid, it gets under my hide.
      I loathe Russian National nutters in costumes, with crosses and with Tsarist banners.
      The orthodoxy or death T-shirt is banned in Russia, he can be arrested if seen by police.
      The Patriarch frowns on this kind of nationalism.

      • Julie LaBrecque

        I’m not hurt – no worry. I plan on meeting you someday in Texas –

        • Стефан Евгений

          we can go see these.


    Good job Theodore just imagine if our youth in America did the half of the homework you do on these pressing issues .Unfortunately it is also a large American problem I have pertsonally had to deal with many times

  • Стефан Евгений

    It seems, like all the years I’ve commented on Shoebat dot com is a wasted effort.
    How do I even get through to you people? I guess seeing is believing, my writing
    sure has not gotten through.

    This is what Greek Catholic Ukrainian Nationalists did to their fellow Catholics.
    to Jews, Russians, and those that did not agree to what the Ukraine should be like.

    • I am Catholic but on this one I take the side of the Orthodox.
      I am Palestinian but I take the side of the Jews.
      I was raised Muslim but I now take the side of the Christians.

      To most I must be the greatest traitor alive.

      • Стефан Евгений

        I despise Russian Nationalists, with the same contempt, loathing as anyone who defends these butchers. I despise the White Russian emigre circles that sided with right-wing Nationalists. They are the ones who pulled down Russia and turned it over to the Bolsheviks.
        I loathe the Catholics And! Orthodox, that use the Church as a platform to hurl venom and murderous hate.

        • OrthodoxWarrior

          My brother if you’re righteous there is no need to prove anything to anyone. Just always speak the truth .

          • Стефан Евгений

            Pslam 90, how lovely, Thanks OW.

        • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

          Indeed, Irony that a ‘White’ Russia, had they ‘won’, would have been a colonized and unfree Russia to this day, I believe…

    • Remember, my Russian friend, “Don’t touch, it will stink.”

      • Стефан Евгений

        It, already started stinking before I touched it.

    • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

      Don’t tire too fast, the Lord will give you seven pair of iron boots to wear out before the journey is completed:-)

  • “What is your obsession with attacking only Ukrainian nationalists?”

    Here is the obsession that I cannot understand:

    1-Why is it that Ukranians have an obsession defending their case?
    2-Why is it that Serbians also have an obsession defending their case?
    3-Why is it rare to find a Serbian defending Ukrainian case?
    4-Why is it rare to find a Ukrainian defending the Serbian case?
    5-Why is all this, while both sides say that they are Christians first and nationalists second?

    I am Palestinian, but most of the time I take Israel’s side. Why? It is extremely rare.

    Would you admit that to you nationalism comes first and Christ comes second?

    Now watch how you will not answer my question and change the subject. I guarantee it 100%.

  • Стефан Евгений

    What is your obsession with attacking only Ukrainian nationalists? Are you this vicious against the Russian nationalists/fascists who are marching in the streets of Moscow?

    I hate and loathe all Nationalist, including my own like the Vlasovtsy and Krasnov’s traitors. Note well how so many of them ended as CIA hacks and rightwing fringe nutters… one treason wasn’t enough, I guess. It’s ironic… the greatest examples of Sergianism and “Chekists in riassas” are found here, in the USA, not in the Rodina.

    Betrayal is a terrible sin, as traitors abuse natural feelings and relationships. Betrayal facilitates the victory of evil, hypocrisy triumphs, arrogance prevails, and slyness wins. The actions of a traitor intensify all of these terrible vices. A traitor is always a negative person, not only in the eyes of honest people but also in the eyes of other betrayers. Traitors never get respect; often, no one deems them worthy witnesses. This is why the suicide of Judas seemed a lucky stroke… as if there was no betrayal if there wasn’t any Judas. He left life, solving a knotty problem for the priests and scribes. They could boldly accuse the Saviour… no one would know that his closest disciple betrayed an innocent man.
    Kirill Gundyaev
    Patriarch of Moscow and all the Russias.

    Here’s what the Russians/Soviets did to the Ukrainians during the Holodomor (death by hunger):
    Oh please! you lot always trot this broken pony out. More people died in Kazakstan. It was not just little Russians that were killed.
    Here is the truth from a Russian, on the Communists.

    One more point. You mention the “Greek Catholic Ukrainian Nationalists.” Why is the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church more nationalistic? Because it is an outgrowth of the Orthodox Church. And how is the Orthodox Church organized? Orthodoxy today is centered around the nation state (i.e. Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Georgian Orthodox,etc.)
    We always get this from asshats who don’t understand how Orthodoxy is governed. The Church condemns Phylitism.

    After all, your own Patriarch Kirill refused to meet at the inter-Orthodox council organized by the Patriarch of Constantinople last year due to his not wanting to give up the significant power that his national church has.

    So let’s be consistent in our criticism here, Really I don’t recall Russian Orthodox priests, calling on the people to kill Jews, Ukrainians, or Negros.

    The Inter-Orthodox council, was a crock of shat, and most Orthodox knew it.

    Anyway, I’m not a theologian but I was uncomfortable with the idea that not every bishop was invited nor would every bishop that attended would be granted a vote. Deacon John Chryssavgis (the YouTube face of the Council) tried to spin this as some Hamiltonian stroke of conciliar brilliance, i.e. “one Church, one vote” type of thing. In reality, it was nothing of the kind, more like “one primate, one vote”, no matter what the other bishops in the delegation thought.
    Fr Peter Heers.

  • DeusLoVult

    No, I did not. I said you misunderstood it. And you have proved me right with abundant clarity.

    “According to your Church, you are under an anathema.”

    LOL And how have you come to that conclusion? What heresy am I guilty of? Do you even understand how anathema works? Are you aware that anathema was abolished in 1983?

    You clearly lack even an elementary understanding of the Church

    Try reading factual information on infallibility for a change:

  • susan
  • DeusLoVult

    “That is not a denial of Papal infallibility?”

    If you had bothered to read the articles I posted, you would know that it is not. I don’t know where you got your information, but it is wholly inaccurate. Do not be lazy, read what I have posted.

    “So much for the indefectibility part as well huh?”

    Not at all. It was simply deemed unnecessary. If you read what anathema actually is, you would see why. It’s abolition is not indicative that it was an unjust practice.

  • Anyone can write and say that this comment of yours is simply false,… another load of hysterical-crap,… exaggerated nonsense,… as much as the Leftist-media like to exaggerate and distort information in order to float their hysterical-agenda. You are not a truth-teller. Ideas, Truth, and Courage MATTER!

  • DeusLoVult

    “You simply contradict yourself”

    No, you are simply lazy. You will not read because you do not wish to be proven wrong.

    “the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals.”

    You made it sound as if we think he is sinless. But now we’re getting to the bottom of it. I wish you had clarified in the beginning. You are partially correct, but….”Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25).”

    The Magisterium as a whole can define doctrine infallibly. If the Church could err in its teachings, then Christ would have lied when he said the gates of H*ll shall not prevail against it. For, if the Church taught heresy, it would have apostasized from Christ, and therefore cease to be of Christ. I am not aware of how the Orthodox define their doctrines, but do you believe they can teach error?

    “A new dogma, thought of as a lie 10 years prior to it being defined.”

    To that I respond with the following quote: “An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.

    Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.”

    Furthermore, your premise that it could have been “thought of as a lie” assumes that the Church can teach something erroneous, which, as I have stated many times, is false. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, Who is inerrant.

  • susan

    What did Jesus preach about circumcision? And what caused you to stumble? If Pope Francis were to speak in “infallibility” mode and stated that the Orthodox was the true church would you then believe him? I’m not being hypothetical. I mean if that were to happen tonite…then what?

  • Kamau41

    The original Church is Catholic.

    Furthermore, here are the words from St. Ambrose:
    “We saw the Prince of Priests coming to us, we saw and heard Him offering His blood for us. We follow, inasmuch as we are able, being priests; and we offer the sacrifice on behalf of our people. And even if we are of but little merit, still, in the sacrifice, we are honorable. For even if Christ is not now seen as the one who offers the sacrifice, nevertheless it is He Himself that is offered in sacrifice here on earth when the Body of Christ [the Eucharist] is offered. Indeed, to offer Himself He is made visible in us, He whose word makes holy the sacrifice that is offered [on the altar at Mass].”
    He further says, which matches Jesus’s words,
    “It is to Peter himself that He says, ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church [Mt 16: 18].” Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church, no death is there, but life eternal.”
    Commentaries on Twelve of David’s Psalms [381-397 A.D.]

  • Removed your comments? Ted is not the moderator. He rarely reads comments over here.

  • phlsfo,

    Fair enough,

    But how do you propose the way to heal? How do you propose to become “blessed are the peace makers”?

    I say to each examine there own evils they did and forgive the evils the other side did. If each side did this there will be unity.

    But lets be practical, people do not forgive nor do they forget.

    I forgive what Jews did when hundreds of Palestinian villages were taken over. Now my nation has become Israel. But the Muslims insist on creating a Palestine. This is not a way to peace, this is a way to destruction.

    As long as the human soul lacks forgiveness, he is in turmoil. But as long as he thrives to save souls instead of lands, he will find happiness and joy.

    Nationalism is a blessing when it comes to defending your borders from an outside enemy, but its a curse when it consumes the soul.

    There is always room for strangers to live in your land, so long they respect your laws.

    The Palestinians lived in Lebanon after they were exiled out of Jordan for causing havoc for the King. They were welcomed by the Maronite Catholic Christians who had been antagonists towards Israel and the Jews.

    But the Palestinians extended their welcome and began to abuse the Christians.

    The Christians finally with the aid of the very Jews they hated ended up defeating the Palestinians and then committed the massacres of Sabra and Shatilla.

    So what do I do? As a Palestinian myself, I joined a Maronite Church.

    They hated me of course.



    But I did not hate them. People can hate all they want. I cannot prevent hatred. But I sure can show love.

    Thats they key to victory.

  • DeusLoVult

    “How is that making it sound like he is sinless?”

    When most people criticize infallibility, they do so believing we hold the Pope as a perfect individual. Therefore, I assumed that was your argument as well.

    I will start by saying you have provided absolutely no sources to enforce your argument. Quite sad. Nevertheless, I will do my best to address them.

    “Your Church admits that half of all its marriages are invalid. And those are just the ones people want out of. What about the rest? How can a Roman Catholic know they have a valid marriage when annulments are so common?”

    Proof? You have none Do you realize how difficult it is to have a marriage annulled? The most common reason for annulment is that the “most common annulments are granted due to the lack of canonical form, such as Catholics married by a justice of the peace or a non-Catholic minister, because canon law requires a Catholic priest or deacon with faculties to officiate the marriage.” Source:

    “The church taught for hundreds of years divorced Catholics could not receive the sacraments. Now they can.”

    Incorrect. A basic google search reveals this instantly:

    “One can still buy British printed catechisms from 1860 which call papal infallibility a protestant myth.”

    It was a widely held, yet not formally defined doctrine since the beginning. Even by the Church Fathers.


    Example: St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage writing about 256 A.D. said, “Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?”

    “The Immaculate Conception was viewed as heresy by saints and Popes for hundreds of years. And can’t be found in an Cathlic writings for the first millennia of the Church. It was an invention.”

    The Immaculate Conception was not explicitly rejected, even though it was hotly contested for many centuries. By the time Pius IX declared it as doctrine, it had received overwhelming support. How ironic for you to deny the Immaculate Conception when it first gained traction with Byzantine theologists. Theotokos, remember?

    Example: By the seventh century the doctrine of Mary’s freedom from original sin had become well elaborated that there was no controversy on the substance of the teaching (Carol, 1:354). Sophronius, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, describes Mary as:

    “holy, immaculate in soul and body, entirely free from every contagion.”


  • Стефан Евгений

    Phlsfo, all you know is what you learned from the Ukrainian diaspora circles. I was born near Uzhorod, Zakarpattia Oblast.
    You, were defending a butcher. Bandera was still running things from his jail cell in Germany. I have just as much loathing for Russians in ROCOR circles who support Russian collaborators.
    Take a good look at the map, just what is Ukrainian? its only a small western part that used to be part of Poland. You never learned of Middle Russia or Novo Russia or Little Russia.

    First and foremost the The Bolsheviks, and Soviets were anti-Russian. You would have found out if you did one simple thing, Turn on the closed caption button to get a English translation. They killed over a Hundred million Russians. the so called Holodomor, was not just against Ukrainians.

    I also notice how you don’t refute the Pogroms that happened under the Czar’s watch.
    Why should I, they happend.

    On the Orthodox Church Government paragraph:
    I also don’t recall any Ukrainian Greek Catholic priests calling on people “to kill Jews, (in this case) Russians, or Negros.”
    If you bothered to look at the documentation I provided they are there.
    Here is what the Patriarch had to say

    Did I mention Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky ? no I didn’t.
    I’m more concerned about the present day.

    I’d also say that one does also have to ask the question, why did the Soviets allow the Russian Orthodox Church to remain out in the open while persecuting the Roman and Ukrainian Catholic Church’s?……… Simple it was not free, and under persecution itself from the likes of Philaret Denisenko.

    Finally, I’d like to comment on your statement: “We always get this from asshats who don’t understand how Orthodoxy is governed.” That’s a great way for me to get a better understanding of Orthodoxy. By calling me names! I don’t think I was disrespectful to you. There is no reason that you have to respond in such a manner.

    We get so much stupid and uninformed comments, on this blog,that I have become hardened and frustrated by the Total lack of what Orthodox believe.
    It does not take rocket science, to google from a reliable source what we teach. so I apologize.
    I don’t hate Greek Catholics, I have them in my own family, Most are innocent, its the rabid radical clerics I see the most spew.

  • Стефан Евгений

    In The Gulag Archipelago, the Nobel laureate wrote: “With Ukraine, things will get extremely painful.”

    Even during Soviet times, Alexander Solzhenitsyn prophetically did not rule out the idea that Ukraine may break away, although “a referendum may be required for each region”, given the Bolshevik way of lumping together lands that had never historically belonged to Ukraine.

    The Gulag Archipelago, Part 5, Chapter 2

    … It pains me to write this as Ukraine and Russia are merged in my blood, in my heart, and in my thoughts. But extensive experience of friendly contacts with Ukrainians in the camps has shown me how much of a painful grudge they hold. Our generation will not escape from paying for the mistakes of our fathers.

    To stamp one’s foot and shout: “This is mine!” is the easiest option. It is far more difficult to say: “Those who want to live, live!” Surprising as it may be, the Marxist teaching prediction that nationalism is fading has not come true. On the contrary, in an age of nuclear research and cybernetics, it has for some reason flourished. And time is coming for us, whether we like it or not, to repay all the promissory notes of self-determination and independence; do it ourselves rather than wait to be burnt at the stake, drowned in a river or beheaded. We must prove whether we are a great nation not with the vastness of our territory or the number of peoples in our care but with the greatness of our deeds. And with the depth of ploughing what we shall have left after those lands that will not want to stay with us secede.

    With Ukraine, things will get extremely painful. But one has to understand the degree of tension they feel. As it has been impossible for centuries to resolve it, it is now down to us to show good sense. We must hand over the decision-making to them: federalists or separatists, whichever of them wins. Not to give in would be mad and cruel. The more lenient, patient, coherent we now are, the more hope there will be to restore unity in future.

    Let them live it, let them test it. They will soon understand that not all problems are resolved through separation. (Since in different regions of Ukraine there is a different proportion of those who consider themselves Ukrainians, those who consider themselves Russians and those who consider themselves neither, there will be many difficulties there. Maybe it will be necessary to have a referendum in each region and then ensure preferential and delicate treatment of those who would want to leave. Not the whole of Ukraine in its current formal Soviet borders is indeed Ukraine. Some regions on the left bank [of the River Dnieper] clearly lean more towards Russia. As for Crimea, Khrushchev’s decision to hand it over to Ukraine was totally arbitrary. And what about Carpathian (Red) Ruthenia? That will serve as a test, too: while demanding justice for themselves, how just will the Ukrainians be to Carpathian Russians?)

    Written in 1968; published in 1974.

    April 1981. Extract from a letter to the Toronto conference on Russian-Ukrainian relations, Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute
    I totally agree that the Russian-Ukrainian problem is one of the major current issues and, certainly, of crucial importance to our peoples. Yet, it seems to me that the red-hot passion and the resultant sizzling temperatures are pernicious to that cause.

    …I have repeatedly stated and am reiterating here and now that no one can be retained by force, none of the antagonists should resort to coercion towards the other side or towards its own side, the people on the whole or any small minority it embraces, for each minority contains, in turn, its own minority… In all cases local opinion must be identified and implemented. Therefore, all issues can be truly resolved only by the local population rather than in remote arguments in émigré circles, whose perceptions are distorted.

    …I find this fierce intolerance in the discussion of the Russian-Ukrainian problem (fatal for both nations and beneficial only for their enemies) particularly painful because I myself am of mixed Russian-Ukrainian origin, grew up under the joint influence of both these cultures and never saw and do not see any antagonism between them. I have on numerous occasions written and spoken in public about Ukraine and its people, about the tragedy of the Ukrainian famine; I have many old friends in Ukraine; I have always known that Russians’ and Ukrainians’ suffering were of the same order of suffering caused by Communism. In my heart, there is no place for a Russian-Ukrainian conflict, and if, God forbid, things get to the extreme, I can say: never, under any circumstances, will either I or my sons join in a Russian-Ukrainian clash, no matter how some hotheads may be pushing us towards one.

    Published in Russkaya Mysl, June 18, 1981. In Russia, published for the first time in Zvezda magazine, No 12, 1993.

    Address to Ukrainians and Belarussians
    To separate Ukraine today means to cut through millions of families and people: just consider how mixed the population is; there are whole regions [in Ukraine] with a predominantly Russian population; how many people there are who find it difficult to choose which of the two nationalities they belong to; how many people there are of mixed origin; how many mixed marriages there are (by the way, nobody has until now thought of them as mixed). In the thick of the general population, there is not a hint of any intolerance between Ukrainians and Russians.

    Of course, should the Ukrainian people really decide to secede, nobody would dare to try and keep them by force. But, this vastness is diverse and it is only the local population that can decide the fate of their locality, of their region, while each newly formed ethnic minority on that locality should be treated with the same non-violence.

    Written and published in 1990 in Rebuilding Russia.

    15 / 08 / 2014

  • susan

    Well…are we talking about the church’s errors? Or the errors of God? Here. I copied this to see if there are any pieces you find which are in error.
    The Demand for a Sign.
    * a The Pharisees and Sadducees came and, to test him, asked him to show them a sign from heaven.
    * He said to them in reply, “[In the evening you say, ‘Tomorrow will be fair, for the sky is red’;
    b and, in the morning, ‘Today will be stormy, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to judge the appearance of the sky, but you cannot judge the signs of the times.]
    c An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah.”* Then he left them and went away.
    The Leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
    d In coming to the other side of the sea,* the disciples had forgotten to bring bread.
    e Jesus said to them, “Look out, and beware of the leaven* of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
    * They concluded among themselves, saying, “It is because we have brought no bread.”
    When Jesus became aware of this he said, “You of little faith, why do you conclude among yourselves that it is because you have no bread?
    f Do you not yet understand, and do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many wicker baskets you took up?
    g Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you took up?
    How do you not comprehend that I was not speaking to you about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
    Then they understood* that he was not telling them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
    Peter’s Confession About Jesus.*
    h When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi* he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
    i They replied, “Some say John the Baptist,* others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
    He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
    * j Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
    Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood* has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
    k And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
    l I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.* Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
    * m Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.
    The First Prediction of the Passion.*
    n From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he* must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.o
    * Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, “God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.”
    p He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”
    The Conditions of Discipleship.*
    This is what I find so amazing. 1) God reveals to Peter. Do you agree that God is the one who revealed to Peter who Jesus was?

  • Mladi,

    I did not remove any comments. Its just you need to wait till a comment gets approved.

  • Your complaint about comment removal is showing so if I remove comments I would have also removed this comment. I did Not.

  • You stated ” certain guy called, Lazar, who is a Serb, a masked very young man who is not older than 30 years, was fighting in Kosovo war 1998/9. This guy was a toddler or very young boy at that time. I’m really puzzled with your “trustworthy” source.”

    Lazar joined at 19 and he is 39. This completely debunks your allegation which you assume an age you cannot possibly tell.

    When I see accusations like this it tells me that the complainer doesn’t ask or investigates first but makes conclusions and provides them as evidence.

    You could have started on the right footage by not assuming.

    Thank you

  • DeusLoVult

    “Rome comes along and yes. ‘True, but she was not inclined to sin like other people, she was Immaculately Conceived. Therefore not sinning was easy for her.’ Such adoration.”

    That’s the single most vacuous critique of Immaculate Conception I’ve ever heard in my life.

    “EMMA GREEN SEP 8, 2015
    “For almost a year, Church watchers have predicted this day would come: The Vatican has officially changed canon law on marriage annulments, making it easier for Catholics to split from their spouses with the blessing of the Church. ” More from the unchanging Church. The Sacraments instituted by Christ are theirs to control. Proof? Stats! ”

    Reading further…”But before Catholics rush out to their local Church tribunal to ask for a reversal of their vows, a few notes. First, Tuesday’s changes speak specifically to the issue of nullity, or the question of whether a marriage was ever valid in the eyes of the Church. These are reforms to the “the relatively complicated and time-consuming judicial procedure that the Church has used since at least the Middle Ages to deal with issues of marital breakdown,” said Father John Beal, a professor of canon law at Catholic University.”

    Oops. Left that out, didn’t you?

    ” that those who remarry without annulment are excommunicated, hasn’t been the case since 1977.” Oh. 40 years ago they changed it.”

    And this proves????

    Complete misrepresentation of St. Gregory’s beliefs. Here, also from St. Gregory:

    “Who does not know that the holy Church is founded on the solidity of the Chief Apostle, whose name expressed his firmness, being called Peter from Petra (Rock)?…Though there were many Apostles, only the See of the Prince of the Apostles, which is the See of one in three places, received supreme authority in virtue of its very principate.” (Letter to the Patriarch Eulogius of Alexandria, Ep. 7)”

    And before you try using the often touted, and ostensibly refutative quote, “which is the See of one in three places”, that is easily explained by the following:

    “Although all the catholic churches spread abroad throughout the world comprise but one Bridal Chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman church has been placed at the forefront, not by the councilor decisions of the churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, Who says: “You are Peter …(Matt 16:18-19).” In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero, equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph, they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the world. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he came to Rome, and where the name ‘Christians’ was first applied, as to a new people.” (Decree of Damasus # 3, 382 A.D.)

    Alexandria and Antioch, therefore, are subject to Rome, not equal in authority. What unscrupulous commentary of yours that you should employ the words of a Saint, a Pope, no less, to insinuate that the Church Christ founded is of the Antichrist.

  • susan

    Which church Fathers are you referring to? I’m going to buy some books soon.
    So now you’re NOT believing in these scriptures? What I’m trying to say, i believe these scriptures and Jesus did choose Peter BECAUSE …..”My Heavenly Father”..revealed to Peter who Jesus was.
    With regards to arguing who is greatest, Jesus says, “Whomever humbles himself like a child”.

  • susan

    “If this is so important why is it recorded in one Gospel only?”

    Because sometimes God speaks clearly the first time. Jesus gave the keys to Peter. Look. I do know it’s a stick and a craw for most to accept. Especially since this same Peter denied our Lord three times. But if one chooses to see, even the infallibility was there from the beginning. Now Peter and his successors however flawed and imperfect, have something no one else was given. The ability to loose and bind on earth and heaven. Jesus also said “the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it”. Another specific promise. A powerful one.
    Here are further clues.
    The Appearance to the Seven Disciples.
    * After this, Jesus revealed himself again to his disciples at the Sea of Tiberias. He revealed himself in this way.a
    Together were Simon Peter, Thomas called Didymus, Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, Zebedee’s sons,* and two others of his disciples.
    * Simon Peter said to them, “I am going fishing.” They said to him, “We also will come with you.” So they went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.b
    When it was already dawn, Jesus was standing on the shore; but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus.c
    Jesus said to them, “Children, have you caught anything to eat?” They answered him, “No.”d
    So he said to them, “Cast the net over the right side of the boat and you will find something.” So they cast it, and were not able to pull it in because of the number of fish.
    So the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord.” When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he tucked in his garment, for he was lightly clad, and jumped into the sea.
    The other disciples came in the boat, for they were not far from shore, only about a hundred yards, dragging the net with the fish.
    * e When they climbed out on shore, they saw a charcoal fire with fish on it and bread.
    Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish you just caught.”
    So Simon Peter went over and dragged the net ashore full of one hundred fifty-three* large fish. Even though there were so many, the net was not torn.f
    Jesus said to them, “Come, have breakfast.” And none of the disciples dared to ask him,* “Who are you?” because they realized it was the Lord.
    Jesus came over and took the bread and gave it to them, and in like manner the fish.g
    * This was now the third timeh Jesus was revealed to his disciples after being raised from the dead.
    Jesus and Peter.*
    When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter,* “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?”* He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
    He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
    He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” [Jesus] said to him, “Feed my sheep.i
    * Amen, amen, I say to you,j when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.”
    He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, “Follow me.”k
    The Beloved Disciple.
    Peter turned and saw the disciple following whom Jesus loved, the one who had also reclined upon his chest during the supper and had said, “Master, who is the one who will betray you?”l
    When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about him?”
    Jesus said to him, “What if I want him to remain until I come?* What concern is it of yours? You follow me.”m
    * So the word spread among the brothers that that disciple would not die. But Jesus had not told him that he would not die, just “What if I want him to remain until I come? [What concern is it of yours?]”
    It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them,* and we know that his testimony is true.n
    There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

    Is there any verse here that particularly grabs your attention? I always liked the response Jesus gave Peter regarding another disciple. It seems there are some things Jesus told Peter that are not his concern. They belong to our Lord. So while we see specifics we also see limits.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Hardly – ‘Peter has spoken through Leo’ – care to expound on that? Peter, and Peter alone, singularly, was given the keys to the Kingdom. Peter, and , and Peter alone, was to feed and tend ALL the sheep – that includes the other bishops. If need be, I’ll do an OT primer on The Royal Steward – he held the keys –

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Is it just a coincidence that ALL the heresies that The church has battled throughout the ages – all originated from Bishops outside of Rome?

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Why are you painting only a small portion of the picture? You know darn good and well that Peter iS the rock – need I remind you that the first time that Jesus met Simon that he prophesied that he would rename him ROCK? That’s St John 1:42. Wish to deny this unambiguous scripture?

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Hey – I know diddly crap about the Ukraine/Croatia, etc – I simply thanked this person for the info. I’m too old to study the history of that area, so I will leave that to those who hail from there.

    • Стефан Евгений

      I dislike half- truth history and outright lies, I think Greek Catholic/Orthoschismatic Ukrainian nationalism is a danger to us Orthodox and Catholics too.
      Will they listen? History has proven they won’t.

      Pope Francis has called on Catholic and Latin-rite bishops in Ukraine, which is immersed in continuing violence and social unrest, to stay out of political debates and focus their energies on caring for their people and in reaffirming Christian values.
      Speaking in separate audiences Friday to Catholic, Greek Catholic and Byzantine Rite Catholic prelates of the country, Francis said he understood that “recent historical events that have marked your land are still present in the collective memory.”

      But, the pope said, those events are not for bishops to respond to.

      “These are questions that have in part a political basis and to which you are not called to give a direct answer,” he said. “But there are also sociocultural and human tragedies that await your direct and positive contribution.”

      • Julie LaBrecque

        I don’t know how he keeps up with the numerous hot spots of the world. Thanks for the update.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    I just let him know that all I did was to thank you for the information. I’m totally ignorant of the history over there, so a shirt snippet is all I care about.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Care to comment on the apparition of Mary in 1830 to Catherine LaBoure, in which she called herself ‘The Immaculate Conception? Also, comment on the fact that the body of St. Catherine LaBoure is incorruptt – surely had she lied her body would have suffered decomposition? Also comment on the thousands of miracles due to the Medal of the Immaculate Conception. i see that the Holy Spirit is ‘greasing the wheels’ before the advent of ‘The Antichrist’ – He is Revealing the truths about His spouse, Mother Mary, so as to send the devil into hyper mode. I expect to see the Dogma of Mary as Co-Mediatrix to be declared before the Antichrist is revealed. After all, it is in Scripture – Genesis 3:15.

  • Grace Ziem

    The Johnson Amendment is now being pushed by the “Freedom From Religion Foundation”.(FSOH: freedom to send others to hell). It punishes pastors for any speech construed as political campaign activity in churches. This is fascism coming to the United States. Christians need to be bold and not be blocked by the vicious group that already tries to control our schools and other organizations.

    If leftists and anti-Christian agitators win, pastors/priests could be banned from speaking on issues deemed political: protecting life, sexual integrity, other morality, creation, and other moral and Biblical issues.

  • STOP slandering Aquinas and START quoting Aquinas. (Summa Theologiae III:27:4):

    “I answer that, God so prepares and endows those, whom He chooses for some particular office, that they are rendered capable of fulfilling it, according to 2 Cor. 3:6: ‘(Who) hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament.’ Now the Blessed Virgin was chosen by God to be His Mother. Therefore there can be no doubt that God, by His grace, made her worthy of that office, according to the words spoken to her by the angel (Lk. 1:30,31): ‘Thou hast found grace with God: behold thou shalt conceive,’ etc. But she would not have been worthy to be the Mother of God, if she had ever sinned. First, because the honor of the parents reflects on the child, according to Prov. 17:6: ‘The glory of children are their fathers’: and consequently, on the other hand, the Mother’s shame would have reflected on her Son. Secondly, because of the singular affinity between her and Christ, who took flesh from her: and it is written (2 Cor. 6:15): ‘What concord hath Christ with Belial?’ Thirdly, because of the singular manner in which the Son of God, who is the ‘Divine Wisdom’ (1 Cor. 1:24) dwelt in her, not only in her soul but in her womb. And it is written (Wis. 1:4): ‘Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins.’

    “We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial; so that what is written (Cant 4:7) is fulfilled: ‘Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee,’ etc. ”

    I will not tolerate someone slandering.

    • Julie LaBrecque

      Thanks for intervening here while I was away – amazing how the Orthodox will go to Aquinas as authority (Immaculate Conception) when ever it suits their perspective, then slander him on Transubstantiation. Jealousy and Pride make for a dangerously noxious cocktail.

      • His last response was even worse. He agreed that Aquinas quote was correct. He never acknowledged his error than proceeded with his own intellectual argument against St. Mary.

        He is rather a twisted individual.

  • Strange,

    You have no problem with the quote which debunked your slander that Aquinas rejected the spinelessness of Mary, yet you instantly try to refute the very quote (which you said you had no problem with and it debunked your claim about Aquinas) by presenting your logic.

    I am done with this nonsense. Time out.

    • DeusLoVult

      Did this champion of calumny get the ban, sir? What deviant behavior, maligning the Church so unjustly. I’ll never understand those people.

  • DeusLoVult

    “Infallible? Confirming heresy?”

    Again, you prove your ignorance of infallibility. ALL of Honorius’ controversial opinions were relayed in private letters. NOT public encyclicals. Honorius never spoke ex cathedra on the matter. He left it unsettled. He never made an authoritative pronouncement. Thus, the best argument against papal infallibility is undone. For someone who claims he was once Catholic, you lack even elementary knowledge on Catholic beliefs.

  • DeusLoVult

    “Subject to Rome? They are giving an order of dignity, nothing else. An order that was changed more than once. Your quote proves this!”

    Nonsense! It speaks to their AUTHORITY. You fail to finish your alleged refutation because it proves you wrong. Like so:

    ” In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero,….” Are you going to say Paul was then the equal of Peter?

    After that…”and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph, they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the world.” Why do you think the Pope is in Rome??? Furthermore, nothing in your quote implies that Paul is equal to Peter. Paul, in fact, further affirms Rome’s authority: “[Paul] equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman church to Christ the Lord;” Paul affirmed

    “How? They were his words. Not a little snippet. He was very specific. You parrot the talking points of all Papists. Ignore, leave out, hide. Look for the one or 2 things we can find to discount everything else. An entire Epistle is thrown out in favor of a decree you can misinterpret.”

    My quote is plain as day. There is no other way to interpret it. None whatsoever. Even you cannot offer an alternative explanation. You did not even try. Which is why you seek to deemphasize its value by calling it a “little snippet”.

    “It proves that your indefectable Church is not so indefectable is it?
    40 years ago it was changed, from what?
    Now it is being changed again?”

    First of all, it is not being changed. That is false. As I proved in a quote you chose not to address because you knew you were wrong.

    Secondly….that is CANON LAW, which deals in discipline, NOT faith and morals. Canon Law can be changed. They do not conflict.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    “You know more than the Church Fathers.” Origen – you quote him. Origen is not a Church Father. Next ?

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Where is this opinion of Honorius put forth as binding on the faithful to believe? Your issue is that you worm and squirm, using your own logic against yourself.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    He saith to him, “Feed my sheep”. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter?
    He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of
    the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia]
    over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say “Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?”, I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world.

    [St. John Chrysostom, Homily 88 on John, 1. Cf. Origen, “In
    Ep. ad Rom.”, 5:10; Ephraem Syrus “Hymn. in B. Petr.” in
    “Bibl. Orient. Assemani”, 1:95; Leo I, “Serm. iv de natal.”, 2].

  • Julie LaBrecque

    He saith to him, “Feed my sheep”. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence nowthat his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say “Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?”, I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see
    but of the whole world.

    [St. John Chrysostom, Homily 88 on John, 1. Cf. Origen, “In
    Ep. ad Rom.”, 5:10; Ephraem Syrus “Hymn. in B. Petr.” in
    “Bibl. Orient. Assemani”, 1:95; Leo I, “Serm. iv de natal.”, 2].

  • Julie LaBrecque

    You’ve proven nothing but your ignorance of the definition of infallibility.The young buck Deus is schooling you.

    • DeusLoVult

      I’m certainly trying, my lady. 😉

      • Julie LaBrecque

        Doing swell…

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Why is that all the heresies that existed came from Bishops outside of Rome? ARIAN HERESY: taught by 8 Bishops of Antioch: Paulinus, Eulaluis, Euphronius Flacillus,
    Stephen I, Leontius, Eudoxius, Ammmonius; 4 Bishops of Constantinople: Eusebius, Macedonius, Eudoxius, Demophilus. MONOPHYSITISM taught by 3 Bishops of Antioch: Palladius, Severus, Athanasius; 6 Bishops of Alexandria: Dioscorus
    I, John IIH, John IIIN, Dioscurus II, Timothy IV, Theodosius I; 2 Bishops of Constantinople: Timothy I, Anthimius. MONOTHELITISM taught by 1 Bishop of Antioch: John III; 1 Bishop of Alexandria; Cyrus P; 3 Bishops of Constantinople; Sergius I, Pyrrhus, Paul II.
    NESTORIANISM taught by 1 Bishop of Constantinople –

    • DeusLoVult

      And now I have learned something, my lady. Constantinople seems to have been the source of much conflict.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Some of your own even admit the supremacy of Peter.

  • DeusLoVult

    “The definition had to worded in a very specific way. For this very reason. But what are the results?”

    Oh, you were there, were you? Is that how you know?

    “A Pope can be a heretic, just as long as he does not try and teach the heresy. Cause then that would mess up the infallibility rule.”

    And that was the implied rule long before Honorius came along. The fact remains that he never spoke ex cathedra and thus never spoke infallibly. Nor did any such heresy ever become Church doctrine.

  • DeusLoVult

    “Peter & Paul starting the Church there gives it preeminence in standing. Thats all Unless you are now claiming infallibility is also passed on from Paul as well? The forefront, not leadership, not head of, not authority.”

    ” but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, Who says: “You are Peter …(Matt 16:18-19).”

    Nowhere in there does it imply that Paul is also infallible because he affirms the legitimacy of Rome. It does just what the texts states; it proves Roman hegemony. Also….what the h*ll do you think forefront means??? Forefront, a definition: “the leading or most important position or place.”

    “It was quite clear that the rule stating divorced and remarried Catholics could not receive communion was changed in the 70’s !! CHANGED.”

    They STILL cannot receive communion. Did you not even read what you posted??? The only difference now is that they are not automatically excommunicated. That is the change in canon law, which DOES NOT violate infallibility, as it pertains to DISCIPLINE, not FAITH and MORALS.

    “Where is his claim that he as Pope is head? He did not believe it!!!”

    I already gave you the quote that provides all the information you seek. You are misinterpreting the one you provide. You equate “universal bishop” with Pope. Notice that nowhere in there is the word “Pope” used. You are reading out of context. I doubt you even know from whence your quote originated. That is part of a letter sent to John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople, who wanted to be bishop even of the dioceses of subordinate bishops, reducing them to mere agents, and making himself the universal or only real bishop. Pope Gregory condemned this intention, and wrote to John the Faster telling him that he had no right to claim to be universal bishop or “sole” bishop in his Patriarchate. The Pope has supreme power, but not the ONLY power, and nor is he the ONLY bishop. Likewise, John the Faster could not make himself the ONLY bishop. None of this detracts from the Pope’s role as head of the Church.

    So, no, your quote does nothing to contradict infallibility. St. Gregory firmly believed, as my quote proves, that the Church is subject to Rome.

  • DeusLoVult

    “If he as a Pope was the head of the Church in and of himself, how is it that a council had the authority to to do so? Showing again the authority of a council over a Pope.”

    Incorrect, the council acted through the authority of Pope Leo II. Without his approval, they could not have made that pronouncement.

  • DeusLoVult

    “So you agree, a nonCatholic can be the head of the Catholic Church. I am sure thats what Jesus had in mind.”

    He was anathematized posthumously. Not while living.

  • susan

    You sound like those others who can’t grasp the role of the Mother of God, Mary. Why do you think that when God gives something, He must always take something from someone else? That’s how satan gives. Not our Heavenly Father.

  • DeusLoVult

    “Actually you are wrong. John the Faster was given the title by the Emperor.”

    John the Faster himself also advanced the the claim. He wrote a letter to the Pope proclaiming as much. And even if that were not the case, even if it was just the emperor, are you trying to tell me then that the emperor has authority over the Church?

    “Not at all. If it proves the opposite. No where does he demand, compel, or order by his authority, John to renounce the title. He asks specifically because he views all bishops as equals, ‘brethren’ .”

    Of course he wanted him to renounce the title. Why do you think he so vehemently condemned this claim? St. Gregory makes clear the Pope’s position as head of the Church, saying’ “who doubts that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See?” and again: “I know of no bishop who is not subject to the Apostolic See”

    Deny it all you wish, St. Gregory is not condemning the authority of the Pope.

  • susan

    To me it is a simple matter of obedience.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Care to answer if Thomas was stripped of his Bishopric while he was a heretic? After all, you must believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ to be a Christian. Likewise, was Judas stripped of his Bishopric for turning in our Lord? Was Stripped Peter stripped of his leadership for denying our Lord? You are nothing more than a protestant wrapped in Ortho garb.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Where the Sadducees stripped of their authority for denying the canonicity of the Old testament other than the Pentateuch? Were the Pharisees stripped of their authority due to their multitudiny of heresies? I do recall Jesus making the following statement/declaration, that was BINDING – ” the scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’s seat- therefore, do whatsoever they tell you…. all would agree that they were heretics.
    Did Jesus strip Caiphas of His SEAT of authority? Hardly. If ever there was a heretic, Caiphas would fit the bill. You need to find another bone to throw.

  • DeusLoVult

    “Who called for the Council of Nicea to determine the Arian question? The Emperor, who by the way lived in Rome at the time. Had he been aware of the Popes universal infallible authority, he could have saved a lot of people a lot of effort by not even convoking the council. He could have just gone to the Pope.”

    That does not give him power over the Church, fool! Why do you think had the council convened in the first place??? Because he knew that the council would INFALLIBLY decide on a matter of FAITH and MORALS, that being Arianism.

    “He utterly refuted it, as does Innocent in asking for a council to deal with St. Johns removal as Patriarch of Constantinople. He never once issued a decree or demand in the name of his authority as Pope. History again shows the error.”

    I have shown you quote after quote, and you have NEVER refuted a single one! You simply move on to the next without addressing it because you can’t.

    “Who does not know that the holy Church is founded on the solidity of the Chief Apostle, whose name expressed his firmness, being called Peter from Petra (Rock)?…Though there were many Apostles, only the See of the Prince of the Apostles, which is the See of one in three places, received supreme authority in virtue of its very principate.” (Letter to the Patriarch Eulogius of Alexandria, Ep. 7)”

    That is a quote directly about the primacy of Peter, unlike yours, which is a mere distortion of its intended purpose, reworked to fit your agenda.

    Also written to John the Faster by St. Gregory:

    “You pretended to be anxious to avoid the patriarchate, but now you have got it you act as though you had canvassed for it. Having confessed yourself unworthy to be called a bishop, you now seek to be called the only bishop. You disregarded the admonitions of Pope Pelagius, you neglected my own. Though your office is to teach humility to others, you have not yet learnt yourself the elements of this lesson.”

    And have some more:

    Pope Gregory in his appeal to the Emperor Maurice — (Epp v:37) also states: “It is clear to every one who knows the Gospel that the CARE of the WHOLE CHURCH has been committed to the blessed PETER, CHIEF of the Apostles. For him it is said: [quotes from John 21:15-17; Luke 22:31-32; and Matt 16:18-19]. Behold, he receives the keys of the kingdom of heaven; to him is given the power of binding and loosing; to him the CARE and PRIMACY of the WHOLE CHURCH is committed; and yet he is never called the Universal Apostle. But that most holy man, my fellow-bishop John, wishes to be called the Universal Bishop. I am compelled to exclaim, O tempora! O mores!”

    “Most Religious Lord, am I defending my own cause, am I vindicating a wrong done to myself alone? NO; it is the cause of Almighty God, the cause of the UNIVERSAL CHURCH. We know of a truth that many bishops of the Church of Constantinople have fallen into the whirlpool of heresy, and have become not only heretics, but heresiarchs.” [Gregory quotes as instances Nestorius and Macedonius]

    “If, then, any bishop of that Church assumes the title Universal, the Universal Church must be overthrown with the fall of the Universal Bishop. God forbid! Far from all Christian hearts be that blasphemous name, by which one bishop madly arrogates all honour to himself, taking it away from the rest of his brethren!”

    Regarding the same issue:

    “As regards the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Why, both our most religious Lord the Emperor and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople continually acknowledge it” (Epistles 9:26).”

    Also from St. Gregory, ” “I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church”

    Go ahead, TRY perverting that! I can hardly wait to see what story you conjure to say it doesn’t mean what it actually means.

    • A man who knows his history always wins in the ring. Great response Dues for I admire your superb knowledge on history.

      • DeusLoVult

        Thank you, sir. I know very little on such matters off-hand, but I know how to research when challenged. Touting unfounded or misconstrued historical claims is as grave an error as one can make when arguing. Especially concerning the Faith.

        • I’ll count on you when I err then lest I sin this way I make confession and repair myself.

          • DeusLoVult

            Let us watch one another, sir. No man is impeccable, which is why we all must partake of the humble pie. For one thing or another. You are theologically more adept than I ever will be, so I trust you will correct me if I ever speak in error on the Faith. My journey is just beginning and I could fill a vast library with what I have yet to learn.

          • John Logan

            Can I talk to Theodore soon?

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Here is another opportunity for you to dodge the question/subject: In Matthew 16:18-19 hearkening back to Isaiah 22:22-25? YES or NO. Even Protestant/Evangelical Biblical scholars state that Peter IS THE ROCK in Matt 16:18: Alford, Broadus, Keil, Kittel, Cullman, Albright, Robert
    McAffe Brown, R.T. France, and D.A. Carson.

    • Instead of discussing about rocks with Yodav, here have a rock and get this Yodav over with Palestinian style 😉

  • Julie LaBrecque

    St. John 21:15-17

    15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.”
    Are the Patriarchs of the Orthodox considered ‘sheep”?

    Luke 22:31-32Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)

    Jesus Predicts Peter’s Denial

    31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to
    have you,[a] that he might sift you[b] like wheat, 32 but
    I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned
    again, strengthen your brethren.”

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Prove that Honorius died a heretic. Prove that anybody died or did not die a heretic – you must be God Almighty to know what happened at the hour of anybody’s death. Let us all bow to you.
    Speaking of heresy, would you say it a heresy to state the St. Vladimir is/was equal to the Apostles?

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Your ignorance is showing. Judas most certainly WAS A BISHOP!!!!!!!! You’re a little light on scripture, big boy : Acts 1:20 “For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and HIS BISHOPRICK let another take.”

  • Apparently you do not look for the word “if” in her statement.

    Listen, I let you go on for a while now harassing my customers at the Falafel stand. Can you ease up and try to CHANGE LOST SOULS INSTEAD?

  • susan

    It is only an example. Look at Peter when he climbed out of the boat and onto the waters. He did fine as long as he kept his eyes on Jesus. When the waters (peoples) stirred up and roared and Peter took his eyes off Jesus, he sank. That has been true of the Papcy from the beginning and continues all throughout the church’s history. Jesus even asks Peter…”Do you love me more than these?” Jesus tells Peter that satan wants to sift him like wheat. Now I know you already know and agree that Jesus set up Peter and Peter’s successors to keep the foundational truths and to feed those truths to the sheep. Jesus also gave the keys to Peter. Since you are a former Catholic and now are Orthodox (which still makes you my brother, in my eyes) i was wondering how the Orthodox view the keys. Perhaps you can help me with that? 🙂

  • susan

    No. It is EXACTLY how Jesus wants it. Jesus was always OBEDIENT to the Father. Obedience is so overlooked today. But without it nothing great can be accomplished. You interestingly mentioned the three that Jesus took with Him to the garden in His passion and also the transfiguration. Do you know where James and John went? What areas they spread the gospel? 🙂

  • DeusLoVult


    Are you blind???? Universal Bishop and Pope are NOT, I repeat, are NOT the same! He is abundantly clear on this! He rejects the implications of John’s claim, that he is the ONLY true Bishop in the Patriarchate, he is NOT rejecting the authority of the Pope! “It is clear to every one who knows the Gospel that the CARE of the WHOLE CHURCH has been committed to the blessed PETER, CHIEF of the Apostles.” He says he is in command of the Church! Why do you ignore the entire quote???? Such selective reading I’ve never before seen.

    “But even if all this is wrong and Peter was granted authority over all, where does it say this authority would be passed on? And if it was passed to his successors, the the Bishop of Antioch would hold the same claim to authority as the Bishop of Rome.”

    That question is easy, and frankly, ridiculous. Peter is the Rock and Peter went to Rome, not Antioch. Where does it say it was passed on? History records that Peter himself appointed a successor, as recorded by none other than Eusebius, and many others. Pope Linus. If Peter’s authority, which was given unto him by Christ, was not conferred on, then no other Apostle’s was. Look at governments around the world. Do they not appoint people to succeed their current leaders? The implication of your question undermines anyone’s right, including the Orthodox, to claim Apostolic Succession. Did Moses not appoint Joshua to succeed him? Was that invalid?

  • Julie LaBrecque

    The Ortho schism is only 6 decades older than Luther’s rebellion.

    • rudycarrera

      Not quite.

      • Julie LaBrecque

        They did not repudiate their union with Rome until 1453 after Constantinople had fallen to the Muslims, and under pressure from the Muslims – Russia pulled away from, and claimed independence from Constantinople in 1589 …the other churches splintered after this – I don’t believe they have had any ‘ecumenical’ councils. I do believe that Kallistos Ware would agree with this statement. The “1st’ schism, we could say, happened in 343 when the Arian Bishop was appointed by Constantius – Pope Julian excommunicated the Bishop – and Constantinople remained “schismatic” until St. John Chrysostom was installed as Patriarch in 398.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Guess you missed “do you love me MORE THAN THESE’ part – you’re are the typical grasshopper, you stop long enough to make a mess, then you hop somewhere else.

  • Yodave,

    Not all Catholic priests face the people and your argumentations have nothing to do with the article which is about Neo-Nazism.

    We will not have people rob the comment section as if it is a discussion board on whatever suits their fancy. I have warned you once before to rap up your arguments and kindly to stop this thread. I have been patient. There will be no 3rd warning.

  • Days ago I told you to rap it up. You don’t even remember.

  • susan

    Let’s wrap it up and move on. :). And if Jesus was “only” talking about being obedient to the church then how come we have so many “different” ones? Get it? Anyways. We’ve hogged this thread enough. Cya around.

  • Vinny Zee

    The verse you quoted actually proves the foundation of the Catholic Church and not sola scriptura. Note that Paul said the church was the pillar and ground of the truth, not sola scriptura. This is why Paul said scripture is God breathed and useful, it is given to the church, the foundation of the truth to accurately interpret it. The verse you quote says nothing against infallibility. Otherwise, how is it that you believe the scripture is infallible? Would you care to quote which verse(s) in the scripture tell us the word of God is infallible?

  • racarrera

    Wait up. Julie is my friend. I will never go back to Catholicism because I’m a historian by profession, but she is one of the sharpest minds in this place. Show her due respect. Differences aside, she is decent in all ways.

  • John Logan

    This was a very good video. I should note that the Croatian Fascists were forced into cooperating with the Nazis just as Franco was forced to do in Spain. The Ustaše banned birth control and blasphemy. Many Eastern Europeans saw Nazism as the lesser evil but that doesn`t mean that the Neo-Nazis in Croatia support the Holocaust. At least not all of them.