Major Western Theologians Teach That The Catholic Church Killed One Hundred Million Christians And That The United States Killed Two Hundred Million Native Americans

By Walid Shoebat (Shoebat Sunday Special)

Many sola-scripturists insist that the Catholic Church killed one hundred million sola-scripturists and is why they do not trust the Catholic Church. These insist we must search the scriptures and only obey the scriptures.

But if I am to only obey and search the scriptures, then my first step is to search the scriptures for the word ‘obey’.

So what do we find in the scriptures regarding obedience? Besides all the verses that says to obey God, God finally funnels such obedience towards “prelates” “magistrates” “bishops” and church authority. It is just as the Old Testament in ancient Israel funneled all theology to the realm of the Levites.

“Obey your prelates, and be subject to them” God says in the book of Hebrews (13:17). The reference here is to the religious and not civil authority (see Barnes Notes on Hebrews 13:17).

But even civil authorities, Paul in Romans 13:2 includes magistrates and he affirms this in a clear way:

“whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.” (Romans 13:2)

Therefore, everyone who says that you ‘must obey scripture’ is biblically sound, while everyone who has ever said that ‘you must obey scriptures ‘alone‘, by itself, and by applying their own foreign and personal interpretations, is not sound.

So all these Bible-aloneists go against God’s ordinances and even scripture itself. It is God Who appoints the authority. So as long as authority does not infringe on your obedience to God, then obedience to such authority is obedience to God, while disobedience to such appointed authority is disobedience to God.

These short lines I wrote above should end all arguments. But they don’t. Why?

The renegade insists on using scripture to determine who is this qualified authority and he is always crying out how corrupt the authority is.

But no matter how corrupt the authority is, we have ample and credible Church fathers whom Christians throughout the ages agree were competent and godly saints who correctly interpreted scripture.

But ask the renegade to obey these and you will instantly get the same circular reasoning: you must obey scripture alone because the authorities are corrupt, especially that the Catholic Church murdered a hundred million sola-scripturist saints.

But the argument still remains: our fathers correctly interpreted the scriptures. Even Christ, He never argued with the authorities knowledge and correct interpretation of scripture, He condemned them for their disobedience of it.

But this is the endless circular reasoning you will always encounter with millions of these ‘blind leading the bind’. And by this faulty reasoning, the renegade has a goal. It is not ‘scripture alone’ he wants you to follow but ‘him alone’.

He demands you obey him. He does this while he says that you ‘must obey the scripture’. Reality is, he wants to isolate you to strictly obey his private interpretations of scripture.

Why such wolf are evil is simple to explain: the wolf by telling you to obey his interpretations, instead of the fathers interpretations, he masquerades as if he is God. These do not hate authority, they in fact love authority: them.

They are rabid blasphemers who claim they have a direct open-line to Jesus as if Jesus did not establish His church.

But who is then this ‘authority’ that scripture speaks of?

The bible-aloneist will always argue–100% of the time–of himself as the authority, his pastor, or a book he purchased, or a Youtube video, or a weblink to be such authority. He insists that you immediately need to review and follow his direction. He will instantly state that “Pope Frances is an environmentalist,” and “the other pope before him was found kissing a Quran” and that “the Vatican is infested with gays and pedophiles”.

And so when you address the “gay problem” by using the very scriptures, which he claims to ‘obey’ and you tell him: these according to the Book of Romans are “worthy of death”. Civil authority historically used to punish the homosexual and all this ‘love’ without punishment simply crept in the last few decades.

Say that and these very ‘scripture-aloneists’ will be the first to turn on you. They say that “according to the New Testament we must love the homosexual” and not punish him.

Why then not also love the murderer instead of applying civil punishment? Therefore, by using such an argument we must then all become liberal activists carrying banners that say “united against the death penalty”.

But you would never see sola-scripturists with a Bible in hand carrying such placards.

So even if you bring up the Bible, or even the Church fathers, these would still object arguing that the ‘fathers’ ordained the “killing of millions of sola-scripturist saints”.

The Catholic Church, they say, is “drunk with the blood of the saints and the martyrs of Jesus Christ” (Revelation 17:6).

Such language is another clue that what you are dealing with here is a wolf in sheep clothing and not a saint. A rabid blaspheming wolf will rarely speak about the blood of millions of Catholics and Eastern orthodox who fought Islam. These will always elevate any heretical blood except the blood of apostolic-successon saints.

John MacArthur, for example, rejects the biblical discourses of the fathers and prefers the heretical groups as orthodox Bible expositors writing “While the period [12th-13th century] produced some famous preachers, such as Peter the Hermit, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Thomas Aquinas, none handled the text in an expository fashion. Faint hints of Bible exposition have been detected among independent groups such as the Paulicians, Waldenses, and Albigenses, despite the fact that these groups are commonly dismissed as “heretics.” (MacArthur, Preaching: How to Preach Biblically, ch. 3)

To further his defense of these ‘heretics’ MacArthur says that: “according to Protestant Historian John Dowling, the Roman Catholic Church has put to death more than fifty million of these “heretics” between A.D. 606 (the birth of the papacy) and the mid-1800s” (The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, John 12-21, P.p. 188)


It is always the case on how you spot the true heretic. To the heretic, only the blood of Catholics and Orthodox is rendered worthless, while the theology of the Manichean Albigenses including their blood is considered sacred-worthy.

And this is the case no matter who you deal with from that realm.

But you would never find these explain to their congregants who truly are these Paulicians, Albigenses, Bogomils, Manicheans and Cathars.

All These were Dualists. Their belief stemmed from the East, from a Zoroastrian named Mani (3rd century). After a pilgrimage to India, Mani came back to preach in Iran. Mani was  visited by an angel: the Messenger of the light of Paradise, who asked him to proclaim his doctrine far and wide.

Manichaen/Cathar belief is itself a melange of Persian Zoroastrianism and early Christian Gnostic Dualism. The grandfather of dualist doctrines in Europe is Manichaeanism, which flourished in the early Christian era. It died out but dualism didn’t. In the twelfth century a new strand erupted from the old: Catharism. This heresy invaded the West from the Balkans and festered in parts of France and Italy.

SCRIPTURE SAYS: Beware of a double minded man (James 1:8)

These dualists believed in two universal principles, a New Testament good God and an Old Testament violent bad God. This attitude, although sola-scripturists say they reject, yet once you dialogue with them, you will find out a similar duality and a similar ‘double-mindedness’ in much of what they say. Today these by large isolate the New Testament when it comes to the wars with pagans and heretics. They act as if Christ needed to repeat the Old Testament in the New. They isolate the two as if the Old is rendered worthless. This is why many require verses exclusively from the New Testament to prove a point to today’s sola-scripturists.

Dualism is why today’s sola-scripturist sees that an age of grace would mean that God prohibits wars. It is as if God changed His mind and so they condemn what the church did to the Cathars which was exactly what Joshua, Moses and Judas Maccabees did to combat rampant heresy, syncretism and paganism that went out of hand and gone violent where it only ended by war campaigns.

The God of the Old Testament changing His mind about punishing heresy goes against the theology that God does not change. God is the same today, yesterday and forever. This is why when one examines the theology of the fathers, they had no problem with Christian militarism or military expeditions to wipe out violent heretics. These saw the church continuing God’s ways, that heresy, gone rampant and unchecked and allowed to fester by violence would destroy the whole batch. So unless it is met with complete annihilation, just as Moses, Joshua, David and Judas Maccabees did before them, it will end up destroying the whole structure of society.

Even historian Charles Lea had to admit: “Had Catharism become predominant, its influence would infallibly have proved fatal” (History of the Inquisition, I, 117).

But here is my Jesus-style question to all these sola-scripturists who love the Cathars: if the Cathars were so great, why do the liberals, evolutionists, Nazis, ecologists, environmentalists, satanists, agnostics, vegans (all anti-meat eating animal-rights activists) including the ‘scripture aloneist’ crowds are united in their veneration of the Cathars, while they condemn Catholic veneration of St. Mary?

Something is utterly wrong with this picture.

Nazis are usually vegan prohibiting meat. In fact Paul prophetically warned of the Cathars and the Manicheans prohibition on marriage and meat:

Now the Spirit speaketh 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, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Yet the scripture-aloneists use this very verse to accuse “priests for remaining celibate” and “Catholic fasting” as fulfillment.

Have these forgot: the sacrament of marriage is a Catholic sacrament, not Protestant. Have these forgot, it was the Catholic Church that annihilated the vegans?

And what was Bogomil belief whom these defend: rejection of the Trinity, rejection of the Old Testament, rejection of the church hierarchy, rejection of sacraments, and the rejection of meat.

The rejection of church hierarchy is the language of all liberals, communists, agnostics, homosexuals, satanists, cultists including the pro-birth control sola-scripturists…

The Cathars and Albigenses, just like the sola-scripturists, they had no doctrinal objection to contraception but also believed in euthanasia and assisted suicide through starvation. They believed that all non-procreative sex was better than any procreative sex and that sexual intercourse between man and wife was more culpable than homosexual sex. And since the God of the Old Testament was the devil he committed homicide when he burned up Sodom and Gomorrah. It was easy-go on the sodomites just as we see happening today.

To them Christ Who was born in the visible and terrestrial Bethlehem, crucified in Jerusalem, was evil and that Mary Magdalene was his concubine; and that she was the woman taken in adultery while the good Christ, never ate or drank or took upon him true flesh since he was only in this world spiritually in the body of Paul.

But they have much in common with sola-scripturists saying that almost all the Church of Rome was a den of thieves; and that it was the harlot of which we read in the Apocalypse. This is where extreme Protestants got the idea from.

So the scripture aloneists would argue “why throw out the baby with the bathwater”. They in fact agree with the Cathars on many issues. They, so far annulled the sacraments of the Church. They publicly taught that the water of holy Baptism was just the same as river water. That the Host of the Most Holy Body of Christ did not differ from common bread. Confirmation and Confession, they considered as altogether vain and frivolous. They preached that Holy Matrimony was meretricious, and that none could be saved in it, if they should beget children since salvation did not need to show the fruit of good works.

Like the Manicheans, the Cathars ate no meat, despised the ecclesiastical hierarchy, rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, and practiced chastity and poverty.

So you might think “chastity,” why not? Didn’t Paul talk about saints dedicating their lives to Christ instead of a spouse?

This is the utter hypocrisy one finds today where the youth (especially women) resent marriage while at the same time these condemn priests for celibacy.

And after all, Cathars valued the Scriptures and based their theology on their own interpretations instead of the Vatican’s. They were, in fact, opposed to procreative sex because it brought other souls into what they viewed as a world of sin.

France and Italy between the 11th and 13th centuries had been infected with this dualist Catharism while spreading much violence and the church after decades of attempting to debate with it had to finally deal with it responding to Cathar violence just as the U.S. responded to Mormon violence. While the Cathars (like the Muslim apologists) rejected oath taking and violence in principle; they (just like the Mormons in U.S. history) conveniently hired mercenaries to do violence on their behalf.

Nice Mormons my foot. The Mormon Nauvoo Legion militia men at regimental muster, 1865. Imagine a cult starting civil unrest in your country. What would you do? Pass bouquets of roses to them in hope they love you?

No you fool. These are separatists who wanted to create their own state carving out swaths of lands within the United States for a Mormon-Nation

So at the time of all these insurrections, who should then be this ‘authority’ on matters of theology, morality and church guidance; the Catholic Church (authorities like Policarp, Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome — who knew the apostles personally) or the Cathars and their supporters who got their doctrines from Mani?

And just how many of these ‘saints’ did the Catholic Church kill? Protestants differ giving numbers in the millions. MacArthur refers to what he called “protestant historian” Dowling who gave the final tally:

From the birth of Popery in 600, to the present time, it is estimated by careful and credible historians, that more than FIFTY MILLION of the human family have been slaughtered for the crime of heresy by popish persecutors, an average of more than forty thousand religious murders for every year of the existence of Popery. (Dowling, Book 8, Ch. 1, pp. 542, 543)

Except that “John Dowling” was a Baptist “pastor Dowling” and not a “historian”. He held his pastorates in New York, Philadelphia. How could such a blooper enter many books without notice? A Baptist pastor Dowling wrote “The History of Romanism” and no one noticed the man was no historian?

Would any historian support such nonsense? No. Not one.

But MacArthur insists that there is a “Protestant Historian John Dowling”.

This is no historian. MacArthur’s statement was completely fraudulent.

In fact, there are no historians (zip not one) who would put there names on any of these books which circulated for centuries. People who read books by their favorite ‘authority’ do not know they are being lied to. Pastors write tons of books, and since there is no head authority, accountability is nil, and people who do not know history ‘trust and obey’ non-authority while they claim that they obey ‘only’ the Bible.

Except no one can find a single ‘credible historian’ who has ever given such outlandish estimates (50 million) and no historian would ever put their stamps on such books.

Yet these books do not disappear or die out. They always revive with modern covers. The only difference between the old writers and the modern ones is that the the old wrote with more skill saying the same slanders, while the modern simply wrote less words with more gloss to their book covers.

So how do these writers operate when discussing the so-called atrocities committed by Catholics?

This is how: imagine someone machine-gunning “U.S. military forces were directly responsible for about 10 to 15 million deaths during the Korean and Vietnam Wars” then it spilt over where “Vietnamese military and civilian deaths ranged from 1.5 million to 3.8 million” and then comes the results: “The overall conclusion reached is that the United States most likely has been responsible since WWII for the deaths of between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts scattered over the world.”

And then I would refer to the “list of wars by death toll” which reveals that during World War II we had “58,309,519” casualties of war and “34,016,173” deaths during the conquest of the Americas and then I tally all the way to “100,000–500,000 – Ugandan Bush War (1981–1986)”

And then I count how many Europeans they killed during the 1811 German Coast Uprising, World War I, World War II (1941–1945). And then I add in the white on white wars during the American Civil War and the Utah War with Mormons.

And then I conclude that America drank the blood of millions of saints.

But I still did not get my fill of casualties of war to blame it all on the Americans, and so I go on with pointing how many ‘innocent’ native Indians, Africans, English and Muslims who were killed by Americans. Than I even add in white-on-white killed during the American Revolutionary War.

So I start with the head-scalping pagan red Indians and so I count the Tecumseh’s War, War of 1812, Creek War, Chickamunga War, Northwest Indian War,  Black Hawk War, Apache Wars, Utah War, Navajo Wars, First and Second Cortina War, Paiute War, Texas-Indian wars, Shays’ Rebellion, Whiskey Rebellion, Quasi-War, Dakota War of 1862, Colorado War, Arikara War, Winnebago War,  Snake War, Powder River War, Red Cloud’s War, Comanche Campaign, Modoc War, Red River War, Great Sioux War of 1876, Buffalo Hunters’ War, Bannock War, Cheyenne War, Sheepeater Indian War, Victorio’s War, White River War, Pine Ridge Campaign, Yaqui Wars, Moro Rebellion, Crazy Snake Rebellion, Bluff War and the last one the Posey War of 1923.

America was involved in many wars.

And lest I forget to throw in some Asians and Samoans. Americans after all participated in the Second Samoan Civil War, the Boxer Rebellion in China, the Shimonoseki War with Japan and the Formosa Expedition in Paiwan with the indigenous people of Taiwan and the United States expedition to Korea and the Korean War between 1950–1953. So lets add these.

And lest I forget the majors, the Vietnam War (1965–1973) and end it with the Communist insurgency in Thailand (1965–1983). This is just the orientals.

And then I count how many Catholics Americans killed during the Mexican–American War, Las Cuevas War, Garza Revolution, Rio de Janeiro Affair (Brazilians), Spanish–American War, Philippine–American War, Border War during the Mexican Revolution, Occupation of Nicaragua, the Occupation of the Dominican Republic, Bay of Pigs Invasion (1961) in Cuba, the Simba Rebellion (1964), Dominican Civil War (1965–1966), Invasion of Grenada (1983) and the Invasion of Panama (1989–1990).

And God forbid I forget counting the Orthodox Christians Americans killed during the Russian Civil War and Greek pirates in the Aegean Sea during the Anti-Piracy Operations, the Bosnian War (1994–1995), and the Kosovo War (1998–1999).

And to be frank America had no business in these last ones (the Bosnian and the Kosovo War) where president Clinton was involved.

And how about we throw in some black folks lest we get accused of racism. So we count all the casualties of the Negro Rebellion (1912) which was Part of the Banana Wars and then the Occupation of Haiti, the Sugar Intervention, the First Seminole War, First Sumatran expedition, Second Seminole War, Intervention in the Somali Civil War (1992–1995) and the Intervention in Haiti (1994–1995).

And God forbid we get accused of Isamophobia! So we also add in to our tally Muslims killed by Americans during the First Barbary War and of course lets not forget the Second Barbary War, Lebanon Crisis (1958), Multinational Force in Lebanon (1982-1984), Bombing of Libya (1986), Tanker War (1987–1988) with Iran, the First Gulf War (1990–1991), War in Afghanistan (2001–2014), Second Gulf War (Iraq War 2003–2011), War in North-West Pakistan (2004–present), Libyan Civil War (2011), War on ISIL/ISIS (Operation Inherent Resolve, 2014–present), War in Afghanistan (2015–present).

Would that be a just method to evaluate America’s evils?

There is not a single sane scripture-aloneist who would agree with me on how I just evaluated history. No! Not one.

Why? Because this is how liberals argue. Such a tally removed the most crucial elements in evaluating good versus evil: intent, justice, the war on evil, the moral arguments … and a litany of detail on why each war was fought.

In addition, few want to read a tome-like chronology of suffering or an encyclopedia of atrocities committed by their own kind and almost all of them primarily focus on Vietnam or World War II.

But only when it comes to the Catholics, things are treated much differently by Bible-aloneists since attacking and hating Catholics is the only accepted prejudice.

But when one compares this faulty reasoned ‘American war crimes’ to the rest of the world’s history, such analogy is further destroyed and debunked. Take the first genocides that come up are the most famous; Turkey’s Armenian Genocide, the genocides of Nazi-Germany when it controlled Europe, Japan’s Nanking, Nazi-occupied Soviet Territories, Ukrainian genocide, Cambodian genocide, the Darfur and the Rwandan Genocide. Did America have anything resembling these? Never.

But don’t stop there. Lets not forget that when atheism’s Mao Zedong aimed to rapidly transform the country from an agrarian economy into a communist society through rapid industrialization and collectivization. The campaign caused the Great Chinese Famine resulting in 18 to 45 million deaths.

That last one, many would argue was a grand screw-up and communists call it a simple ‘blooper’.

But the one that tops them all as far as death toll, some claim is that when Native Americans succumbed to diseases carried by European settlers. Some phony estimates indicate that some 80–90% died in Native American populations during smallpox epidemics. It is said that clothing and blankets known to be infected were given to the native peoples in a attempt to eliminate them. Some accuse that the colonists knew of the weakness the peoples had to disease and some estimates claim it to be up to 100,000,000 people in the largest genocide the world has ever seen.

And so now by such simple analogy, these pin-point America, as the worst leading offender when it comes to genocide.

And not to forget we already had calculated another 100 million in our previous tally (Indians, Samoans, Blacks, Whites, orientals, Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims) and the numbers are staggering, a whopping 200,000,000.

This beats the hell out of anything the Catholic Church has ever done in two millennia that is accomplished in two centuries of American history.

But here lays the dilemma with such an outlandish accusation; there is no smoking-gun proof that the white man attempted to spread disease during the American Revolutionary War or any of these wars with the native Americans. What we have is a plenitude of circumstantial evidence. Americans suspected the British were trying to infect their army with smallpox which was prevented. In most cases the evidence against the British is strong, if circumstantial but to claim that George Washington and the White House ordered the extermination of all Indians by disease is completely false.

But can anyone name me a single scripture-aloneist who would make such outlandish claims as I just did here about the U.S.?

Therefore, the issue is not that such writers are dumb, no, they are blatantly evil and like rabid dogs they give such analogies.

My faulty analogy is exactly the type of accusations that are constantly being hurled against Pope Innocent III and even against Pope Pius XII by the so-called scripture-aloneists. What ‘scripture alone’ truly means is to promote a history void of history.

These ignore that slander is a mortal sin even if it is against the Catholic Church. These, like the worst types of liberals, vehemently defend their position claiming that the Catholic Church annihilated 50-100 million ‘Bible believing Christians’ acting as if the Vatican is a giant battleship with canons protruding on top with secret guillotines and death camps hidden in its basements.

Yet no historian will agree with such outlandish numbers and accusations. Dowling himself even admits that “no computation” was done, that the only way to know is that “till the earth shall disclose her blood”.

In other words, there was no tally done. Yet an enormous number was provided despite that even the Protestant World Christian Encyclopedia says that Roman Catholics killed 4.9 million Christians. Of course, such source is referring to the dualist Manichaeans, Arians, Cathars, Priscillianists, Paulicians, Bogomiles, Albigenses, Lollards and the pre-reformation separatist Waldensians and Hussites claiming that all these are the best example of ‘Bible believing Christians’.

Eliminate these and you have nothing. This comes extremely short of how many Catholics, Orthodox and Mormons America killed during their wars which (whether right or wrong) dwarf anything the Catholic Church did. The “millions” figure is not supported by any historian of worth.

It is difficult to manipulate history without notice. This is why such authors including all their followers resort to theologians become self-proclaimed historians.

In fact, you can track any of the following names with their countless publications on so-called Catholic atrocities to only find out that the main sources for such false information were not credible:

Peter De Rosa (aka Neil Boyd) was not a historian but an X-priest novel writer and Professor of Metaphysics. John Wesley was not a historian but a theologian. Alexander Hislop was not a historian but a Pastor of East Free Church of Arbroath in Scotland. Schmucker was not a historian but a Professor of Theology. William Craig Brownlee was not a historian but a reverend and an American clergyman and professor of languages. Joseph Martin McCabe was not a historian but an x-Catholic priest. Charles Buck was not a historian but a reverend and author of Theological Dictionary. Vergerius was not a historian but a religious ‘reformer’. Thomas Armitage was not a historian but a Protestant theologian. George Bourne was not a historian but a pastor. Cushing B. Hassell was not a historian but a free writer. Dr. M. Geddes was not a historian but a Chaplain. John B. Wilder was not a historian but another ‘free writer’. Taylor Bunch was not a historian but a Prophecy author. Nathaniel Crouch (pseud. Robert Burton) was not a historian but an another of these ‘free writer’. Henry Southwell was not a historian but a reverend. John Wylie was a not a historian but minister of the Free Church of Scotland. J. M. Carroll was not a historian but a Southern Baptist minister. Avro Manhattan was not a historian but a British writer. Charles Chiniquy was not a historian, but a Canadian x-Catholic priest who was twice suspended from his priestly ministry (for moral turpitude). R. W. Thompson, was not a historian but a politician. John William Bowden was not a historian but theologian. Walter j. Veith is not a historian or a “world acclaimed international lecturer” but a zoologist. Frances L. Carroll, was not a historian but simply a housewife.

I could go on and on and on with every author who writes about Catholic genocide claims. Check them out for yourself.

Such is the type of references used by evangelical authors when they need to exaggerate historic accounts.

This is why they are against authority while they call for ‘scripture alone’.

With no accountability by a higher order, evangelical authors can do as they wish under the first amendment. But as long as man is man, true science and ripe scholarship, and sound reasoning, can be only the heritage of the few.

But while it is difficult to manipulate history without notice, what should be more alarming is that history was manipulated by Protestants without notice by Protestants. Why?

This is a monumental fraud that is rarely discussed or is even debated between the two sides. Why? No protestant wants to touch their holy ‘theologians’ exposed on how these became ‘historians’.

The reason that no Protestant touches the subject of ‘historic fabrications’ in a debate with Catholics is for three main reasons:

First, they know that they will lose the debate because when it comes to history, Catholics have the upper ground.

Secondly, Sola-scripturists do not construct their theology for the sake of theology but to simply attack Catholicism.

Thirdly, slandering and hating Catholics is the only accepted prejudice.

James White wanted to debate us once wrote “I will be happy to debate Walid in defense of Sola Scriptura, on the Papacy etc …”

But when our reply was to strictly debate the falsification of history, the man knew he was outwitted and he immediately retreated. He knew he would lose. It is the subject they would never touch because these know that Sola-scriptura when examined in light of history becomes bunk.

What will they do when we will bring up pages 31-32 in These Three Angels by Jeff Wehr (another none historian) in a cross-examinationon? This one even inflates the numbers from 50 million to 100 million:

For professing faith contrary to the teachings of the Church of Rome, history records the martyrdom of more than one hundred million people. A million Waldenses and Albigenses perished during a crusade proclaimed by Pope Innocent III in 1208; beginning from the establishment of the Jesuits in 1540 to 1580, nine hundred thousand were destroyed; one hundred and fifty thousand perished by the Inquisition in 30 years; within the space of thirty-eight years after the edict of Charles V against Protestants, fifty thousand persons were hanged, beheaded, or burned alive for heresy; eighteen thousand more perished during the administration of the Duke of Alva in five and a half years.—Brief Bible Readings for Busy People , No. 8.

The source Brief Bible Readings for Busy People used by Wehr, as it turned out, was from an insignificant booklet titled A Brief Bible Studies for Busy People (page 16), which was written by one named Frances L. Carroll.

Carroll wasn’t even a historian but a housewife.

You heard it right.

It even gets worse, she was a housewife doing Jehovah’s Witness witnessing from door to door serving with her husband as full-time volunteer traveling ministers (see link here).

Well hello there. We are your neighborhood historians. Did you know the Catholic Church murdered 200 billion people and that there are only 144,000 saints alive on earth?

Carroll, the housewife, simply plagiarized Dowling’s quote and simply inserted her own “one hundred million”.

Now lets compare what real historians say. After all America decided to uproot the Mormons who became a menace when Joseph Smith swore by the “Quran” and “the Sword” to annihilate his enemies and his own countrymen. America had enough of it and uprooted the buggers.

Edward Peters probably one of the foremost expert historians on the subject revealed; the Manichaeans whom the protestants defend were vegans who madly believed that even a fig contained the divine, that it wept when it was plucked, and that after it was eaten one would belch out “particles of God.” They were not allowed to eat eggs, to drink milk, to clear a field of thorns, nor did they eat any animal meat because they believed, like the Hindus, that other souls passed into cattle. They also did not kill animals to avoid offending “the princes of darkness who are bound in the celestials.” (St. Aug. Confessions, 3.18; Concerning Heresies; The sermon of Cosmas the Priest against Bogomilism, in Edward Peters, Heresy and Authority, ch. i, pp. 36-7, ch. iii, p. 114) They partook in openly pagan activity, worshipped the moon, the sun, and the stars, even went so far as to pray to demons. (St. John of Damascus, On Heresies, 66)

Life itself was considered by the original founder, Mani to be an abomination from which all of humanity should seek to be free. Couples within the cult were told never to conceive offspring, and forbade the propagation of offspring, since this would bring more life into the world. So immense was their hatred for life, that they said that to bring food to a starving human being who was not a Manichaean was to murder the food itself. (St. Aug. Confessions, 3.18; Concerning Heresies, ch. 46, in Edward Peters, Heresy and Authority, ch. i, p. 37)

They were a cruel bunch, and saw themselves as superior, paralleling the self-exalting spirit of Islam. Like Muhammad, Mani intermixed his heresy with pagan traits; his followers prayed toward the sun in the daytime and toward the moon in the evening. (Augustine, Concerning Heresies, ch. 46, in Edward Peters, Heresy and Authority, ch. i, p. 38)

The antihuman doctrine of Mani spread to Armenia where its subscribers called themselves Paulicians. (See Skylitzes, Byzantine History, 5.8) The Paulician sect then made its way to the Balkans where it influenced a man in Bulgaria named Bogomil, who would start his own cult in his country. The Bogomils fabricated their own gospel called “The Bogomile Book of John,” in which Jesus tells John that God the Father, pitying the devil, gave power to Satan to create the world, and even to create human beings.

Bogomilism went underground, it continued to grow like bacteria multiplying in static murky water in the summer heat. Like the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, whenever the Bogomils met someone who they desired to deceive, they flooded the man with all sorts of politeness to undermine his vigilance. As the heretics of America do today, the Bogomils also did not hesitate to call themselves Christian. A certain priest named Cosmas preached a warning on this deceptive polite fiction:

The heretics in appearance are lamb-like, gentle, modest and quiet, and their pallor is to show their hypocritical fastings. …The people, on seeing their great humility think that they are orthodox, and able to show them the path of salvation; they approach and ask them how to save their souls. Like a wolf that wants to seize a lamb, they pretend at first to sigh; they speak with humility, preach, and act as if they were themselves in heaven. Whenever they meet any ignorant and uneducated man, they preach to him the tares of their teachings, blaspheming the traditions and orders of the Holy Church. (The sermon of Cosmas the Priest against Bogomilism, in Edward Peters, Heresy and Authority, ch. iii, pp. 109, 114, ellipses)

But under all of that feigned kindness, was a roaring devil filled with foaming hatred against Christ. They denied the Trinity, called John the Baptist “the forerunner of Antichrist,” and harassed Christians with words such as these: “How can we bow to the cross? Is it not the tree on which the Jews crucified the Son of God? The cross is detestable to God. …Christ neither gave sight to the blind, nor healed the lame, nor raised the dead, but these are the only legends and delusions which the uneducated evangelists understood wrongly.”

They rejected any honoring of Mary, hated all church icons, and declared with the utmost sacrilege: “We reject David and the prophets. We admit only the gospel; we do not cary out our lives according to the law of Moses, but according to the law given through the apostles.” (The sermon of Cosmas the Priest against Bogomilism, in Edward Peters, Heresy and Authority, ch. iii, pp. 110, 112, 115, 116, ellipses mine)

In accordance to the teachings of Mani, whenever a Bogomil would see an infant they would turn away, spit, and cover their faces, since they believed that babies were “little devils.” (The sermon of Cosmas the Priest against Bogomilism, in Edward Peters, Heresy and Authority, ch. iii, p. 114)

They hated the rich and the tsar of Bulgaria, yet they did not hesitate to take the property of their followers; for that is what heresy desires: power and to replace the Church.

By the twelfth century the cult made its way to the richest and most central part of Catholic Europe: Central France, where its followers would adopt the Manichaean title of Cathars, from the Greek word “pure.” (Augustine makes mention of a sect within the Manichaeans called “Catharists” in his Concerning Heresies, ch. 46, in Edward Peters, Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, in p. 35)

It entered southern France when two heretics named Peter of Bruys and Henry entered the land and began to preach Catharism. The natives were so angered by their errors that they seized Peter and burnt him alive. But still the preaching of this heresy continued, and the community was allowed to grow in numbers without any significant intervention on the part of the Church to stop its growth.

Like Mani and the Bogomils, the Cathars forged their own bible called “The Catharist Bible.” In this damned book, it says that Jesus was not the eternal Son of God, but only one spirit out of innumerable other spirits in Heaven, Who chose to become the Father’s son after deciding to endure suffering. It also says that John the Baptist was a devil who baptized Jesus:

Then, seeing this, the holy Father said: “So then there is not one of you who desires to be My Son?” Then one of the spirits standing by, who was called Jesus, rose up and said: “I myself am willing to be the Son of the Father and to complete all things which are written in that book.” …After baptism by the great demon John, the devil carried Jesus hanging on his neck. (Catharist Bible, 4-6, ellipses mine)

And just like the Quran, it then goes on to say that Christ never died, but that only His death was an illusion to the Jews. It reads that “it seemed to the Jews that the Son of God was dead and that after death they had placed him in a sepulchre, nevertheless he was not truly dead, nor was he buried, though he seemed to be so.” (Catharist Bible, 18)

As the Manichaeans before them, they believed in the existence of two creators, one good and the other evil. The God of the Old Testament, they believed, was the devil and a “liar”, they also called him a “murderer” because of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the flood, and the slaughter of the Egyptians through the Red Sea. They called the Law of Moses “evil” because of its intolerance toward depravities and heresies, and they considered Joshua, David, and Moses, as advancers of the evil god, or the devil. Cathars held the deity of the New Testament as the good God, and for this reason they rejected the Old Testament, and their bible would only be a copy of the New Testament. (Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay, 1.10-12; 2.28, 52, brackets mine; Belloc, The Great Heresies, The Albigensian, pp. 72, 76-7; The sermon of Cosmas the Priest against Bogomilism)

And for those who may say that these accusations have no merit because they are from Catholic documents, here are the words from an actual Cathar book:

Our opponents [i.e., the Catholics] say that according to Genesis the Lord is the creator of the visible things of this world … But I say that the creator of the visible things of this world is not the true God. And I prove this from the evil of his words and deeds, and the changeableness of his words and deeds as described in the Old Testament. (In Edward Peters, Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, ch. iii, document 22, B, p. 135)

These blasphemous haters of truth deemed John the Baptist as one of the chief devils; they hated Christ and called Him “evil”, and libelously said that Mary Magdalene was His concubine (with this they agree with Mormonism), and that the true Christ was the one who appeared to St. Paul, since He came in the spirit and not the flesh in His visitation.

Marriage was evil, and like the Muslims and Mormons, wine was forbidden. Like the Mormons, they most sacrilegiously said that God had two wives and even begat children with them. And also like the Mormons, they believed that Jesus was the brother of Lucifer. Similar to the teachings of Muhammad, they also denied the Incarnation. All of these beliefs led the Cathars into some very dangerous activities, such as magic and even open devil worship. (See Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay, 1.10-12; 2.28, 52, brackets mine; Belloc, The Great Heresies, The Albigensian, pp. 72, 76-7; The sermon of Cosmas the Priest against Bogomilism; A Standoff at Lombers, 1165; Ranier Sacconi: A Thirteenth-Century Inquisitor on Catharism. These last three references are in Edward Peters, Heresy and Authority, ch. iii, pp. 109, 111, 112, 114, 117, 132)

A sect of the Cathars, called Publicans, were said to worship a demon named Luzabel who they believed “presides over all the material creation, and all things on earth are done by his will.”

They also made “execrable sacrifices” to this devil. (Ralph of Coggeshall, The Heretics of Rheims, in Alan Charles Kors and Edward Peters, Witchcraft in Europe, part 2, p. 81. That the Publicans were Cathars, see Edward Peters, Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, ch. iii, p. 104)

It is no wonder, then, that Cosmas, when preaching on the Bogomil Cathars, says: “And they worship the devil to such an extent that they call him the creator of the divine words and ascribe the divine glory to him.” They also believed that “everything exists by the will of the devil”. (The sermon of Cosmas the Priest against Bogomilism, in Edward Peters, Heresy and Authority, ch. iii, p. 113)

One Cathar named Guillelme Carreria was plowing his fields and the plower’s yoke was displaced, and upon this he said: “Devil, put back that yoke in its proper place!” (The Inquisitorial Register of Jacques Fournier, Invocation of the devil: testimony of Arnaud Laufre, in Edward Peters, Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, ch. ix, p. 264)

Concurring with many of today’s Evangelical Christians, and with the Latter Day Saints, they also believed that the Roman Catholic Church was the Harlot of Babylon of Revelation. They were so entrenched in this belief, that they affirmed that Christ assumed a bodily presence merely to incite us to fight against the Church of Rome, and to ask us to join the Cathar church.

In a debate between the Catholic Abbot of les Vaux-de-Cernay and a certain Cathar named Theodoric, the heretic was so trumped and unable to answer his opponent’s arguments, that he said: “The harlot [of Babylon] has kept me long enough, she shall keep me no longer.” (See Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay, 1.10-12; 2.28, 52, brackets mine; Belloc, The Great Heresies, The Albigensian, pp. 72, 76-7; Englebert, St. Francis of Assisi, ch. v, p. 61)

Yet Protestants vehemently defend the Cathars as true Bible believing Christians.

As might as these declare the Native Americans as Bible believing Christians as well. Yet they don’t. Why? It is because they killed them and not the Catholics.

While we agree with Americans when Andrew Jackson was implementing a form of inquisition when he signed the Indian Removal Act of 1830, in which all Indians who did not fully assimilate to American society were to be removed west of the Mississippi.

The Creeks and the Chickasaws complied while eight million Cherokees were forced to journey two thousand miles from Georgia to what is today Oklahoma. Twenty percent of them died of starvation, or from rain, sleet, and snow. (See Winston Groom, Patriotic Fire, ch. iv, p. 55, note; ch. xviii, p. 255, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2006)

We should not be ashamed of such history. Americans were suffering from attacks by the Indians and the Mormons similar to those which the Moors afflicted upon the Spaniards and the Cathars afflicted in France during the Cathar wars. I will not ignore that in 1813, just sixteen years prior to the signing of the Act, the Creek Indians executed a gory raid on Fort Mims in Alabama where they butchered two hundred soldiers, massacred two hundred and fifty old men, women and children by fire and tomahawk, and murdered another one hundred friendly Indians. (See William Burdick, Political and Historical Register, vol. i, p. 191; A Copy of a letter from Captain Kennedy Brigadier-General Claiborne, dated Mount Vernon, September 26th, 1813, in T.H. Palmer, The Historical Register, vol. ii, p. 332)

I will not ignore the words of an eyewitness to this horror, which state that “blood and brains bespattered the whole earth. The children were seized by the legs, and killed by batting their heads against the stockading. The women were scalped and those who were pregnant were opened, while they were alive, and the embryo infants let out of the womb.” (In Winston Groom, Patriotic Fire, ch. iii, pp. 46-47)

Did America, after such an atrocity, strive for a policy of toleration? Did America throw the event under the rug to preserve relations with the Indians? No–America conducted a stern inquisition on the Creeks and commissioned the then Major General Andrew Jackson to crush the threat. When he arrived at a Creek Indian village suspected of having violent intentions toward America, he burnt it to the ground, and if anybody resisted, he ordered them to be seized and executed. (In Winston Groom, Patriotic Fire, ch. iii, pp. 47; ch. iv, p. 48)

Andrew Jackson, America's greatest president

President Andrew Jackson

But again, I will not condemn Jackson for taking this measure due to the violence and savage raids of the Indians, just as I will not chastise the Spaniards for their expulsion of the Moors for their continuous terror attacks. The infamous Davy Crocket fought under Jackson and when describing the killing of the Creeks, he writes that “we shot them like dogs”. When a Creek squaw, who was guarding a hut hiding many Indians including several dozen warriors, killed an American lieutenant, Jackson’s men shot her down and then burned the entire hut, killing one hundred and eighty Indians. (Winston Groom, Patriotic Fire, ch. iv, p. 49)

Sixteen years later, after the Creek War, Jackson passed and advocated the Indian Removal Act which, in a way, could be compared to the sentiments of the Spanish inquisitors. The Inquisition in Spain was done for the establishment of Christian supremacy, in that it wanted the people to integrate into Spanish culture and become Christian, and in comparison, Jackson himself said that one of the purposes of the Indian Removal Act was to have the Indians who refused to assimilate into American society to convert to Christianity. In his own words on the Act:

It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community. …He [the Indian] is unwilling to submit to the laws of the States and mingle with their population. To save him from this alternative, or perhaps utter annihilation, the General Government kindly offers him a new home, and proposes to pay the whole expense of his removal and settlement. (Transcript of President Andrew Jackson’s Message to Congress ‘On Indian Removal’ (1830), found in

I have heard so many times how Ronald Reagan was America’s greatest president. While Reagan is superior to anything we have now, I would contend that Andrew Jackson was America’s greatest president. In 1978, when some righteous conservatives were trying to pass The Briggs Initiative, a measure that would have fired any teacher in California public schools who was homosexual or supported homosexuality, Reagan went against it, writing in one editorial

Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual’s sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child’s teachers do not really influence this (Reagan, (1978-11-01). “Editorial: Two Ill-advised California Trends”. Los Angeles Herald-Examiner. p. A19)

When the dangers of homosexuality were arising, Reagan did not combat it head on. Jackson, on the other hand, fought the evils of the pagan Native Indians, who slaughter Americans, head on. This is the righteous way of fighting evil: not to compromise with it, but to destroy it. This is true freedom: to have the liberty to resist and destroy all evil.

No one can deny that the expulsion of the Indians made a more peaceful society for the Americans, and that this security still exists today: no one worries anymore about Indians raiding one’s town. This freedom from the capricious hand armed with the tomahawk could only be attributed to the expulsion of the Indians–and as harsh as it sounds, this is only the honest truth that most are too afraid to confront: American civilization would have been impossible to build if Christian Europeans never settled on the land in the first place. Is it Christian supremacy over Indian religion and culture? Yes, it would be dishonest to deny this, but since when were we ever obligated to lament over this very fact? Those who point the finger and look down upon any part of Western history which illustrates Christian supremacy should realize that there is no nation on earth which does not have supremacy.

Anyone who next time tells you that the Catholic Church committed genocide have them refute our essay here.

Therefore, all these ‘scripture aloneists’ should start re-educating themselves beginning with doing the sign of the cross, repenting and taking communion.


  • concerned american

    Thank you Walid. As I think back to what I was taught as a Protestant, what I have heard in Sunday School classes, what I have read in the “suggested” books to read and so on, your writings match perfectly with those teachings.

    Now that I am reading books by the early church Fathers and learning the true church history, just reading one paragraph of the heresy I used to spend time and money on makes me sick. I mean the lies make me sick.

    Your material helps me to have the knowledge to speak out to my protestant family. My brother and his wife once asked me to dinner when I told them that I am no longer attending ANY protestant church. I think they wanted to maybe “fix” me. Haha.

    However, I had already be shoebatized with the truth. 🙂 So thank you. You are an encouragement to those of us who have come out of the lies and deception into the light. Reading your articles is a time of refreshing.

    • Unlike rabbits where they have eyes on the sides of their head, God fixed our eyes on the front of our faces so that we look forward Concerned American.

      • concerned american

        Huh, the followers of Martin Luther keep breeding without any or should I say true direction. Though they think they have eyes on the front of their faces.

        • The way they are breeding Concerned Americans we have nothing to worry about. Richard Dalessandro above just had a baby CATHOLIC girl.

          Did you hear me? A CATHOLIC BABY.

          • Kamau41

            Praise be to God!!

        • Julie

          I read that his widow and 6 children were not supported after he died.

      • Julie

        I went to a pro life dinner at my former parish where they have alot of home schooling families.

        I saw one family…the boys have grown and may be 7 children got out of the van, and then the Asian Catholic wife ran up to hold hands with her white husband….

        White Catholic families are having many children….they are very well educated and the colleges and universities.

        And there is a Catholic mother of 14 children who created an institute for women religious. She cannot join…but single women are.

        Our children will care for others….

    • Vinny Zee

      Cardinal John Henry Newman, in his study and ultimately his conversion to Catholicism famously stated, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

      • concerned american

        Yes Vinny. It was the writings of Irenaeus that totally convinced me that the true church is the Church of Rome through Apostolic Succession. History presented by the early fathers.

        • Julie

          Irenaeus pretty much covered them all by 200 AD…proves nothing new under the sun, including the 1800 American cults who consider themselves the anointed ones.

  • Appreciate all the history, including exposing the heretical teachings of cults that continues to find its way into the world today. Reading the Fathers of the Early Church helped to shed further light on how the Scriptures were understood and interpreted. I have read that if the figures provided by theologians, not historians, were to be true, that would have wiped out Europe and there would have been nobody left for the Catholic Church to persecute.

    Falsification of history is still called a lie. By believing a lie, they have suffered delusions as 2nd Thessalonians predicted that accompanies the coming of the Antichrist.

    • If Walid has a problem with “Bible-alone”, I have a problem with those who use “New Testaments Alone” or even worse, “The Gospels Alone” and avoid verses from Psalms that justifies the use of military force to put down evil.

      Such as “I will praise the LORD who has trained my hands for war,” or “Do I not hate those who hate You, O LORD?”

      Or even better, they also will say, “Jesus Alone will destroy the Antichrist,” while forgetting several Old Testaments prophecies remains unfulfilled where God spoke of bringing the “most terrible of nations” to destroy the Antichrist. Even they will not dare be caught reading Wisdom of Solomon because he predicted that God will arms all of creations to battle against the force of wickedness on that Glorious Day.

      Therefore, I would much rather listen to the Fathers of the Church, whom the Catholic Church determined were fulfilling the stringent requirements of being declared saints than those sophists who wade in the comment section and make fools of themselves.

      • “If Walid has a problem with “Bible-alone”, I have a problem with those who use “New Testaments Alone” or even worse, “The Gospels Alone …”

        It all goes back to that one word “alone”.

        “Worship Allah alone” in the Quran.

        Heck even Adam, God did not want him to be “alone”.

        And God was not “alone” He had the Son and the Holy Spirit: Three in One.

        • Taurnil Oronar

          Ok, please forgive me for sometimes I see or think in ways I am not sure is most, holy(?), please pardon the race analogy.

          Walid, your last sentence jarred the thought; the trifecta that is God. No matter the race He wins and does so placing first (God), second His Son Jesus Christ) and third (The Holy Spirit).

          • “No matter the race …”

            All I know Taurnil is that the Second, the Son was racially from my neck of the woods: Bethlehem.

            Nana nana na na 😉

          • Taurnil Oronar

            Some are more blessed than others.

          • Tom_mcewen

            Think of the word Holy as what it actually means. It means whole, balanced, centered, connect to all and all connected to you, but alone. Be a monk, in silence, be anchored in stillness and patience, be Holy.

        • Amen.

        • mspip

          some just use or study new testaments. there is a whole lot more…

      • concerned american

        Or even better, they also will say, “Jesus Alone will destroy the Antichrist,” while forgetting several Old Testaments prophecies remains unfulfilled where God spoke of bringing the “most terrible of nations” to destroy the Antichrist.

        Exactly Trevor. And while there are those who ignore unfulfilled prophecies, there are also many who see NO need to study prophecy and think questionably about those who do. I know these people exist because I know them personally.

        • That is one of the biggest problems I have seen in how some Christians present their argument by using exclusiveness. Example: Ezekiel spoke of the gathering of birds to feast on the armies of Antichrist and we find mirror parallel in Revelation where Christ is seen calling all the birds to feast on the armies. That is just one example where we find parallel passages.

      • Eric

        Trevor, you’re right on. In my family, I’m known as both the history guy and the bible scholar, although I am nowhere near the wisdom others possess. But I am learning.

        Also, what Walid has written about extensively in regards to America’s history above regarding the Native American atrocities is accurate. I always hated how these modern revisionists say that w “killed all Indians”, while forgetting that part of the reason the Declaration of Independence was writing was because Americans were being attacked by the tribes, yet the british government did NOTHING about it.

        Furthermore, it is of personal insult to me as well, considering my ancestors were among the first to come to America, primarily on the Mayflower, with the ship’s captain being one of my ancestors. The partriach of my paternal line, Johan Valentin Flugel came over to America from Germany in 1740, at aged 22, and using his wealth, built a church for the new German-American community in Maryland. The youngest of his four sons, Valentine Sr., my next ancestor, went on to colonize PA, including missionary efforts.

        And you want to talk about Native Americans? My great-great-great grandfather, Charles Benjamin Parker, led an expedition through the Appalachians, guiding a couple thousand settlers. Along the way, they ran across the Blackfoot people. Did they butcher them? No. Rather, the travelers traded with the Indians, with Charles likely leading the negotiations. It’s also very likely many of the tribesmen and women were converted to Christianity in the process. As a sign of enteral peace between the settlers and the Blackfoot Tribe of the area, Charles married the Chief’s daughter. They eventually had nine children after they moved to Massachusetts. This bloodline would turn into my father’s maternal side.

        Therefore, hearing such nonsense and falsified history of both American and Church history makes my blood boil. People are too intent on just following what so-called experts say, without digging and doing the research themselves, and finding the truth in the process.

        • When I read Andrew Jackson’s rationale for relocating the Indians to Oklahoma, I was struck by how charitable he was being when he could have simply advocated a wholesale slaughter of the Indians, so the reasonable conclusion is that rather than slaughter an entire tribe of Indians, he sought to simply relocate them, all expense would be assumed by the government in order to protect the settlers and the Indians at the same time.

          The key point, as Walid pointed out, is to determine the intent behind the use of war.

          • Eric

            Right, Trevor. We often hear about the “Trail of Tears”–Jackson’s relocations of the Indians–yet often people fail to realize why. Americans never wanted wholesale slaughter of the Native tribes. And, truth be told, it never was that way. Jackson clearly WANTED the Natives to assimilate. But guess what? The Indians rebelled, and brought it upon themselves.

            Likewise with the early settlers, there was no way they could have known that such illnesses would have spread that rapidly. Furthermore, the settlers wanting nothing more than a peaceful co-existance. But, it was actually the Indians who often terrorized the early pilgrims, not the other way around.

            The funny thing is, whenever it some how comes up that I have native ancestry, people always assume it was due to violence, as if my great-great-great grandmother was kiddnaped against her will by the evil white people. No. In fact, willing intermarriage between whites and indians were rather common in the early to mid 1800’s. In my own family’s case, it was partly politics and diplomacy.

            Again, I hate revisionism. Absolutely hate it.

          • My wife recently learned of Indian ancestry. The story goes that her great-great grandfather was married to a chief’s daughter (I have seen the picture of her) because as a trapper by trade, he owned and operated a ferry, and helped the chief’s family to cross a river. Being poor, the chief couldn’t make any kind of payment, and gave his daughter to the trapper and they ended up marrying.

            The funny thing is … the Indians were absolute savage toward each other. When the settlers came, they found some tribes willing to engage in trade and commerce, and many went on to covert to Christianity. It’s the stubborn, resistant Indians and the rebellion they partook in that dominates the history books.

            When I read up on how Catholics, who arrived to America long before the Puritans, saw an opportunity to evangelize the Indians, they were eager to embrace the hardship and many paid for it dearly. America has quite a few saints from that period.

          • Eric

            Trevor, your wife’s family story sounds very similar to the story in my family. Except that the marriage between my great-great-great grandparents had more to do with keeping peace and trading. Charles was born in 1802, and sometime during the 1830’s, he led a large group of people through the Alpalations, like I said. Charles was an explorer, and ship captain, I believe.

            I don’t have any pictures of them, but I do have photos of one of their sons (they had nine children), my great-great grandfather, Luther Shuttex Parker, born Feb. 2nd, 1844, who fought in the Civil War, Union side. He survived the entire war–enlisted at age 18–and spent ten months in a Confederate Prison Camp toward the end of the war.

            Luther married in 1867, and had eight children. My paternal grandmother was his granddaughter. Luther lived a long life, living into his late 80’s.

            Interestingly enough, I look like Luther quite a bit; I have his forehead, eyes–minus the color; his were blue while mine are brown–and eyebrows. I also have his hair, too, the only difference being hair color. Although Luther was quite fair in complexion–blue eyes, light-brown hair, and light skin–he certainly looked Indian in the face. Also of note, he had a bushy beard, like I often sport.

            Family history has always been a passion of mine. I’m regarded as the Family Historian. Luther’s life story was so compelling to me that it’s the subject of my current novel project, based partly on his life, and staring him as the protagonist. Luckily, it’s almost done–two more chapters–and hopefully, it’ll be published soon, and you’ll be able to get your hands on it!

          • Julie

            What fascinating family history!

          • Eric

            It is, Julie. And I’m very proud of it. 🙂

          • Стефан Евгений
          • Eric

            That’s really cool, Steve!

            I have always been fascinated by genealogy. In fact, I just learned that I am distantly related to my beloved Piano teacher through a distant Scottish ancestor from the 1600’s. It’s a small world!

            My mom’s side is much easier to figure out. Her maternal grandparents came over from Sicily in about 1908, and her Paternal grandfather was from Scotland, with her paternal grandmother being half-scottish and half something else. We don’t know.

            Out of the two sides, my father’s is more of of a tangled web, going back at least to the 1600’s. On, I have a about 234 ancestors logged, I think.

          • Julie

            Northwest Indians enslaved other Indians. So did the Aztecs in Mexico.
            The Northwest Indians lived in plenitude and laughed off the missionaries, little interest in spiritual matters.

            As I read awhile back, authentic Christianity doesn’t work well in affluence.

          • I was reading how Catholics and Orthodox experienced persecution by the Indians and produced a few saints of that period.

          • Julie

            I don’t know much about the Orthodox here. I am in the region of the country that has still existent testimony of the missionary work of Fr Blanchet and he catechizing using their totem pole.

          • Georgeorwell

            The Aztecs did far worse. They enacted taxes on native tribes. These taxes were paid in the form of gold, women, children and young men. The women were made slaves and the children were eaten and the young men were sacrificed then eaten. It is said the preferred the flavor of young children so they would some times just eat them outright.

            As for the so called “native” Americans–there were several migrations to the Americas over thousands of years from not only Asia but now it is believed Europe as there was once an Atlantic land bridge. There were several extinction events among the Indians long before Europeans arrived. This was caused by various factors such as war, disease and famine. The idea of the India as peace loving at one with nature is hog wash. They exterminated entire species from the Americas such as the horse, camel, and elephant. They practiced jump hunting were they would run thousands of bison off of a cliff and then only slaughter a few of them leaving thousands to rot unused. They of course were also godless devil worshiping heathens that God ordained must be converted. It is a good thing our ancestors were not as weak and blind as we are.

          • Julie

            There is always the other side of the story, isn’t there.

            And then there were the Flatheads of Montana who were ostracized by other Native Indians, and yet were open to the Holy Spirit who waited for the ‘Black Robes’.

          • Julie LaBrecque

            Trevor, you might be surprised to learn that the Osage Indians converted almost enmasse – the parish Church in Pawhuska, OK, which was funded greatly by the Osage, is the only Church in the world ( or so we were told) to have stain glass windows with depictions of persons other than Biblical persons or Saints – they received a special dispensation from Rome to do so!!! The windows located in the transept depict the Osage receiving instructions/converting at the hands of the Jesuits – parishioners there can point at the window and state ‘that is my great grandfather’ – how amazing is that? FYI – the Osage tribe is the richest tribe in Oklahoma due to their plentiful oil and gas royalties – they are located in the North-Central part of the state. FYI – Pawhuska is the home of the famous Pioneer Woman (Ree Drummond) of TV cooking show/cookbook fame.

          • Very cool!

          • filomena seiffert

            BROUGHT IT UPON THEMSELVES. So many unrepentant people. Natives should not have to assimilate the invaders culture against their will. For what I know the Indians did not mistreat the invaders, they were too innocent for the realization they would be expelled and killed for their land. This a assertion like the ones that think Japan deserved to be nuked. Please, ask Jesus if He would like you to kill natives and others to take their resources.

          • Julie LaBrecque

            ‘For what I know the Indians did not mistreat the invaders, they were too innocent for the realization they would…’. Let me state something here – you are totally ignorant of the facts. The Indians mercilessly slaughtered the missionaries – learn the facts before spouting your mouth off.

          • I guess she has never heard how Aztecs would hunt other Indian tribes and slaughter them to please their bloodthirsty god. She evidently never heard of how they tried to murder the Spanish who discovered them.

            She never heard of how an Indian went to England and learned how to speak English and saved his tribe and the settlers from slaughtering each to annihilation.

            She would take a dump on all the Catholic missionaries who lost their lives evangelizing the Indians as America began to expand westward and produced a few saints of that period.

          • Georgeorwell

            Yep. A good read is Bernal Díaz del Castillo’s account called “The True History of the Conquest of Mexico”. He was a soldier in Cortez’s army and he will open your eyes to the truth of what happened, the real reason they were there (it wasn’t gold), and the brutality of the “noble savages” we call Indians.

          • Mel Gibson’s movie probably was close to true history of the brutality of the Aztecs before the arrival of the Spanish.

          • Georgeorwell

            It was dead on with Castillo’s account.

          • Recommend Dr. Jared Diamond’s documentary on “Steel, Gun, and Germ,” which he proposes why the Europeans were successful in conquering the Americas. He’s a controversial scientist for his simplistic view.

            I had actually listened to him when he came to Roanoke College. Fascinating man.

          • filomena seiffert

            Before Indians rebelled against them the invaders they were well received here and in the whole continent. You do get angry with truth. In Saint Augustine, Florida, the Indians watched the first mass celebrated on land, I visited the site many times. Same happened in Brasil and all other lands on the continent. Do not call others ignorant when yourself can not be honest.

          • filomena seiffert

            I rather not keep this useless discussion. Only God knows the real truth.

          • Georgeorwell

            You are a spewing fountain of agitprop. Christ ordained that they be converted from their heathenism so they would not continue to burn in hell, generation after generation.

            The interaction was far more complicated than you pretend and the Indians were extremely brutal not only to the settlers but to each other.

            Their assimilation and conversion was ordained by God. Or do you reject the mass conversion of Mexicans natives after the apparition of our Lady of Guadalupe? Do you feel it would be better to be sacrificed and eaten by an Aztec than drive the white mans car, wear his close and worship Christ the King?

          • filomena seiffert

            I thin the best way was to respect them and exchange cultures. As for atrocities we can not blame them, if the civilized could do, why not them? Did you hear they attacked whites when they first arrived? not one. The “civilized” did the same to them as they are doing on the middle east today, murdered them, took their gold destroy their houses. Why don’t you put yourself in their place, meditated how you would feel if a powerful army raided your home, killed your parents, your children, raped your wife and dowghter

          • filomena seiffert

            oops, daughter.

          • Georgeorwell

            Actually you are wrong. The Accounts of the contact with the natives in the Yucatan and Mexico show that the Spanish were attacked without provocation even upon first contact. The attacks stopped when the Natives were subdued by the superior might of the Spanish. So your made up history is again agitprop. I do find it amusing as you stick your thumb in the eye of America you ignore the roll of your little back water sewer in the slave trade. You also ignore its current state as one of the most crime ridden countries in the world with one of the highest murder rates per capita. We wont get into the HIV infection rate. So I suggest you check the beam in your own social justice eye before you spew your Marxists drivel about the US.

          • filomena seiffert

            The only sewer I can see is in your mouth. I never ignored the evil or defended evil of any one, not my country not yours which is preparing to bomb Syria again. I suppose they are saying Syria is about to drop chemicals on the people because USA or proxies have already supplied the terrorists with it. I am sick of everyone defending evil. One defense I have for my beautiful country; we get along with every nation on this planet and respect every one of them. Like USA we have many immigrants but we do not discriminated them, we respect them. Let say something else, Brasil declared the slaves freedom before USA and they were aloud to go to the same schools, use any places in the buses. It was never segregated in any shape or form.

          • Georgeorwell

            Again you make up history. The US banned the slave trade (not ownership) in 1808. How did slaves continue to come to America then–simple through Brazil which did not ban the trade until 1851. I hear its a very dangerous for street children when the death squads roll in to “clean up the streets”. Brazil has also been involved in 35 wars and military actions since 1822 with its last one against FARC in 1991 plus peace keeping and occupying operations(you would call these wars of aggression if the US was involved) and various revolts. It is also the capital of sodomy and transgenderism in the Americas.

            Facts suck don’t they.

          • Woody

            You are well researched; people who believe falsities are a victim of their own uneducation.

          • Georgeorwell

            I hear the favela is nice this time of year—for the crack dealers. These ivory tower Marxists south American types are the archetype of the hypocrite. It is their stupidity that has led to one failed government after another and endless poverty. They have also infected the Church with paganism and Marxism. Its a shame too because some countries like Chili have proven what is possible when the corruption is remove.

        • mspip

          many of us have native american ancestors. some may not even know about it. have enjoyed a picture of mine and also my husband had an indian grandmother. so our children have 2 doses of it…

          • Eric

            We luckily have pictures too, msip. Oddly enough, I seemed to inherit a lot of the Native DNA for some reason. . .I look quite a bit like them, and it was very surprising. I’m going to be taking one of those Ancestry DNA tests soon. . .should be exciting. 🙂

          • Jeff Benton

            Hey Superman… Hope I caught ya in time… Dont do it… Do Not Do That…
            Unless you can anonymously do it, and you can’t, dont do it…

            Find out how they do the tests, and set up a lab and do it yourself if you must…
            But dont freely give others, Whom you know not, samples of your DNA on a whim…
            Sure, if you or your family has a REAL need for Health or L.E. reasons, give the doctors or investigators a sample… Go right ahead…
            But dont hand companies who would be a prime target for eugenicists to infiltrate either now or later, your DNA…
            Just dont…

            I’m out… Peace…

          • Eric

            Jeff, thanks for the concern.

            As it stands, I’m already a target for Eugenicists since I have multiple disabilities. The fact is, all one would have to do is look at my medical records to find that out. As both a Christian and a person with disabilities, I’m already a target. That’s a fact.

          • Julie

            Well….my mother’s side is the aristocrat side…their ancestors were English and Scotch Irish (Protestant) and came here in the 1600’s. My mother’s ancestry has two relatives who fought in the American Revolution….I could be a DAR if I wanted….but no.

            And — and they entered through Virginia, to Tennesee, to Kentucky…and finally Missouri…and my great great whatever uncle was the first head of the territory of Missouri…and the greatest slave owner.

            My brother is an active Catholic. He sent the Mormons his dna…and he found out he has some African in him, about 3%….so we all figured it out….has some Russian as well….

            I look the most Irish in the family….I could be 3% Afro American….or maybe not.

          • mspip

            mormons have a lot of genealogy. there was a second or third cousin that is or was one of them. don’t know if he is alive now or not. family history can give some surprises alright.

          • Julie

            Yes….I just wonder now if I should. My brother has black somewhat wavy hair. My sister has light tints to her light brown hair. If you saw us together as children, you would think I came off the boat from Ireland and was told growing up…’You look so Irish’….but I have the very dark hair …. or did and blue eyes and actually in Ireland many have the more tawny or red color hair.

          • mspip

            that might be interesting. family history can be fascinating. in 1958-1959 many years ago i worked in chicago in office near the chicago river. there were 2 or 3 irish girls working there, they had dark hair and great complexions. at times it was difficult to understand just what they were saying.

          • Julie

            They, the Irish, even call them, ‘Black Irish’, but it is from the Spaniards who came to Ireland.

            It wouldn’t bother me at all if I had some Afro blood in me.

        • “I’m known as both the history guy and the bible scholar”

          And not to forget, you are also SUPERMAN.

          • Eric

            I will not forget who I am Sir. Never will. 🙂

            God Bless.


        • CTyank

          Fascinating, Superman!

          • Eric

            Thank you, CTank. 🙂

      • Ukchristian

        And I would like to draw your attention to Psalm 19, verses 7 to 11!

        I used to sing this in my Baptist youth group (boo, hiss!) I suspect before you were born!

        Praise God for his infallible word.

    • A list of saints produced by America.

  • Jami

    Mind boggling history Sir.thumbs up

    • Thank you sister Guadalupe 😉 love that photo. My favorite.

  • Tom_mcewen

    Today is not only the feast day of Sacred Heart of Jesus, but also the day of two Roman martyrs John and Paul died in 362AD, I went to look them up since it was an unusual year and on Google I found martyrs were all Protestants so named Christians not at Catholic in the lot. Not even Peter was a Catholic, but his praise was of the order of “For a fat girl, you don’t sweat much.” Not even the date of his death was correct. Christ didn’t as I recall the requirement that the old testament be thrown out and even as Protestantism does by the left hand by the right they keep the 10% law. All scripture is profitable….., When the old testament is negated by the Protestants reading the New Testament gospel from day one in their academies. Think of the Koran verses. The followers of the way, Paul in acts (six verses?) then given authority in the 19th century (not a term in the fathers) Not from 397AD by the pagan imperial church. On the subject of this article, Demographics of 100, 168 million murdered are ignored, history is made up, the original Christians were murdered and hunted to Extinction, leaving only a remnant. You build on a foundation of lies you get a house of 48062 rooms filled with lies and confusion of what God actually wants of you. Go back to history and historical research and build again. Newman did, sorry but the Bible is not the early foundation, and the truth in the mirror is just you hidden away in darkness.

  • Vinny Zee

    “The Standard account of the Spanish Inquisition is mostly a pack of lies, invented and spread by English and Dutch propagandist in the sixteenth century during their wars with Spain and repeated ever after by the malicious or misled historians eager to sustain an image of Spain as a nation of fanatical bigots.” Rodney Stark, Bearning False Witness (a Protestant and Historian).

    I would suggest Mr. Stark’s book to anyone who wants to hear a historian set the record straight. Yes, Mr. Stark is a protestant and also a historian. Because of his love for history and the truth, he felt compelled to set the record straight on the multitude of lies about the Catholic church and how that ultimately distorts so many other aspects of history.

    For those of you who want to read a full account of an examination of Sola Scriptura, might I suggest, “Not by Scripture Alone” by Robert Sungenis. It is a complete treatment of the presentation of Sola Scriptura and why it does not add up to the commands of scripture and what we are taught. For the sola scripturaist please note 1 Timothy 3:15, where Paul expressly states the church is the PILLAR and FOUNDATION of the truth.

    • Ukchristian

      Vinny, have you listened to what R Sungenis has to say about the Apocalypse? I turned it off, its on YouTube by the way. Sorry, I don’t want to be negative. D

      • Vinny Zee

        I have. I think he does a fantastic job on many points. Better than most protestants I’ve heard on the subject in the previous 20+ years. Who can take guys like Tim LaHaye or Hal Lindsey seriously? If you look at Sungenis’ 7 divisions of Revelation, they help provide one of the best suggestions for interpretation. Its hard to get people to understand the book is not one chronological reading of the beginning to end. Further, many evangelicals have completely butchered the understanding about the 7 churches, particularly that we are now in the “Laodicean church” age. I never felt that was accurate at all. However, it was so hard to engage people beyond thinking about that and the rapture as well. I know there are certainly differences of opinion and I’m okay with that. I do not think Sungenis’ view on the Apocalypse should be discounted and so easily discarded. He wrote 700+ pages on that. Perhaps one should read that before completely disregarding his view.

        • Ukchristian

          I’m sorry to offend, it’s what he said about the number of the beast that caused me to shut off. I am saying in an awkward way that I believe that what Walid has to say on the matter makes far far more sense and it would appear that he is not aware of Mr Shoebat! Tim and Hal are just names to me so cannot comment on their validity. It’s unfortunate to say that the church of Laodicea pretty much sums up our Church, I realise that all are not the same.

          • Tim and Hal are out to lunch. I shared a pulpit with Tim Lahay if that is who you are talking about. The man was out to lunch. Have you read his last book? Its about sex. Its VERY disgusting.

          • Tom_mcewen

            I was impressed with the uneasiness with which they handled Mary, in the left behind series. They had her the last person resurrected with three crowns then they didn’t know what to do so she wandered into the crowd around the throne and just disappeared. They just didn’t know to do with her or what exactly her relationship was to Jesus. Very touchy and very dangerous if you guessed wrong. Poor guys.

          • Ukchristian

            In short, no.

            I stopped listening to a chap called Robert Sungenis who was talking about the Apocalypse, I wasn’t finding it helpful. I was alerting Vinny who is being really helpful to me. He was singing his praises on a book he has written and I in my clumsy way was saying that I did not find him helpful. Off topic I guess, apologies. I am only aware of Tim L because you have mentioned him before. God bless you.

          • Vinny Zee

            I don’t think what Walid and Sungenis are saying is different at all. Walid goes further to give a more concrete definition of who we can look for to be the anti-Christ and what system will be the number of the beast. However, if you look at what they both have to say, I would say Sungenis is up at about 30,000 feet giving an broader over view and Walid is boots on the ground and they are in the same arena. Here are a few excerpts from what Sungenis has to say about the matter:

            “In Ap 13:16, John says that the Second Beast “causes all…to be marked on the right hand or the forehead.” This “mark” is placed on each person so that no one can escape the lure of the first Beast. The “mark” is the Satanic counterpart to the “seal” that God puts on the foreheads of the saints (Ap 7:4; 9:4; 14:1). Each camp, whether divine and satanic, puts an emblem on its members. To use the military analogy, each institution places its own name, rank and serial number on its members. As St. Paul says in 2Tm 2:19: “But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let every one who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.” St. Peter puts it this way in 1Pt 1:4: “and to an inheritance which is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you.” In the same way, St. Paul writes that the devil knows his own. In 2Co 4:3-4 he writes: “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God.”

            Notice Sungenis draws the distinction between God’s camp and Satan’s camp. Walid is trying to give everyone a clearer understanding of what system will most likely fit this camp. They are not in disagreement at all! Sungenis also says:

            “John chooses the symbolism of a “mark” on the right hand or forehead since his purpose is to point out the ostensible characteristics of those who are not Christian. A “mark” allows one to recognize immediately the identity of the individual. Here, however, there is an important word of caution. John is not saying that we should be looking for a literal mark on the forehead or right hand of the world’s people. Rather, the “mark” of the Beast is anything someone says, performs, writes, wears or frequents that gives a visible sign of their anti-Christian persuasion. Practically speaking, it requires only a short time in the presence of a non-Christian to access the allegiance of his heart and mind. Listening to the way an individual talks, how he conducts himself, how he spends his leisure time, the people he keeps as friends, what he reads, what he listens to, how he treats people, how he regards the Lord’s day, etc., all indicate whether he has the mark of God or the mark of the Beast. As John says in 1Jn 2:16: “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of the world.” As Christians, we need to be aware of these “marks.”

            Is this not everything Walid has been writing about for years? Those who have been trying to say it is the Pope, it is the Catholic Church and Walid has been trying to get people to focus on the fallen but still lingering (and rebuilding) Ottoman empire. Hasn’t Walid for years been writing about the Kabala, Saudi Arabia, the Shi’ites and Sunnis, etc? Sungenis is up at 30,000 feet giving the overview. Walid is boots on the ground mapping out the reality. To me, they are coherent and one in the same in what they have focused on. I could go on in drawing the parallels and agreement between the two, but I will stop here.

            See friend, this is what happens when two Catholics, guided by the magisterium and faithful to all the church has taught look at the apocalypse. Even from different angles they can see the same thing. I have more to say on this, but thank you for your comments and blessings be upon you.

          • Believe me at times I revisit parts of scripture I want to write about a different flavor than the previous flavor using the same verses yet both flavors complete and is how the ice-cream even tastes better. He gives the vanilla I add in the chocolate and the swirl makes a great combination yet each flavor is distinct.

            Boy. I am in a mood for some ice-cream.

            Maaaaria Maaaarrrria. Is there any ice-cream?

            Maria: its not good for you honey.

            Walid: Common honey its Sunday. I am entitled for a Banana Sunday Special on a Sunday. Don’t forget the chocolate fudge.

          • Vinny Zee

            I’m always in the mood for a banana split. I certainly didn’t want to be speaking for you. It is just how I saw the congruity between your work and Sungenis’ as it relates to the Apocalypse.

          • Ukchristian

            Vinny thank you for putting so much effort into your reply. I simply listened to an interview with Ryan. It’s 56.27 long on YouTube. Around the 25 to 30 minute mark he talks about the ac and says “I have no idea where the Antichrist comes from”. On that basis I shut off, sorry. It’s as simple as that. I don’t wish to appear to be judgemental and reading his text may prove to be complimentary to Mr WS. I just didn’t wanted to be exposed to anymore confusion. I’m just trying to digest what is being said on this site and it’s eternal consequences. If Mr RS is blessed with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit why is he not aware of the OT prophecies that match up with the new? There really is no need to answer. Blessings to you too!

    • Julie

      Yes read it as well and promote it.

    • ace

      Yeah, I like Stark’s book, but I did find an error, wrote to him, and he graciously replied and agreed. Still consider it excellent in many respects.

      • Vinny Zee

        I’d be interested to hear what the error was if you’d care to share on an open forum. If not, I understand.

        • ace

          First off, let me say that I really like Stark and now I want to read more, he’s very interesting and readable, I learn a lot from him, and he’s very quotable and does a good job sourcing his stuff.

          I think the omission had to do with Stark saying something like we really don’t know when Christ was born, which is not exactly true. While the dating of December 25th is not entirely reliable, a serious attempt was made to set the date based on when Zachariah received the announcement of the conception of John the Baptist. Zachariah (Zachary), as high priest, entered the Temple on the Day of Atonement, and received the announcement of John’s conception in September. Then, six months later, the Blessed Virgin Mary received the Annunciation. Christ was therefore conceived in March, and born accordingly in December. The early Church did not at first celebrate Christmas, but when it finally did, it consciously attempted to set the date correctly. So, it’s a myth that Christmas was set based on the pagan feast of the sun, Natalis Invicti, or the pagan feast of Saturnalia. The Church Fathers were divided about Christmas coinciding with or falling proximate to the date of a pagan festival. Some found it a happy coincidence, while others decried it. Read more here:

  • Oh man, I wish you could have heard our priest-in-charge’s sermon this morning. It was fastastic! He was telling us that we are living in a time the world is losing its “uneasy tolerance” of the Church and her moral dogmas. He cited the Middle East Christians persecution and warned us we would be experiencing it sooner than later.

    If interested, I can link to his sermon through the website.

    • concerned american

      I would like the link Trevor. Thanks.

      • Took a snapshot since I had a paper copy of the sermon. Two pages.

        Page 1 –

        Page 2 –

        • concerned american

          From the sermon: “As hostility toward Christianity increases, Christians will suffer more than name calling. And as we do, the Church must be ready to support those who are persecuted, just as the first generation of Christians did.”

          The separating of the sheep from the goats. An attack on the King’s officers is an attack on the King himself. Great sermon.

          • His sermons is always heavy duty. He doesn’t mince words. It’s a refreshing departure from the pre-trib rapture fantasy and instead prepares us for what’s coming down the pike.

    • CTyank

      I would also.

    • Richard Dalessandro

      Well Iv missed mass today unfortunately. we are in the hospital and have been waiting for our daughter to be born. They will have to induce but all is going well. I think my daughter just hears me talking And her mom about how ugly the world iis getting and just has decided to hold out in her safe space,lol.
      Eating lunch while the wife is finally sleeping before they induce and loving the fact that I’m pissing off people that are Cathars.
      Got to go, pray my daughter and wife,thanks. Caroline and crystal

      • Congratulations! And I wish you all the best with your new child. Being a parent is awesome, especially being a Christian parent in this world.

        • Richard Dalessandro

          Thank you Trevor she was born alittle past 6pm. Now she is asleep. God really did bless us today.

          • Julie LaBrecque

            May all the blessings of heaven be with your precious baby.

          • Richard Dalessandro

            Thank you Julie

          • Congratulations!

      • Darren Neufeldt

        Congratulations on your new child, may your child always bring you joy and peace of heart.

        • Richard Dalessandro

          Thank you Darren she’s brought alot of joy today. And alot of peace.




        • Richard Dalessandro

          Thanks Walid. Yes can’t wait to get her christened.
          The doctor that delivered her came back later with her first Bible and signed it to her. The wife and the doula we hired to help her get through doing the birth naturally ,which was even harder since the doctor had to induce were both shocked he brought a Bible. The doula said she never seen a doctor do that the wife was thankful but shocked. I knew why though and looked towards my overnight bag with the rosary on top of it. It is a beautiful one with white beads that really stood out. Now I’m about to open up the bottle of Frankincense and myrrh oil now that the wife and child are asleep.

          • concerned american

            Amen Richard. The joy of new life.

          • Richard Dalessandro

            Thanks concerned

          • Marie Halligan

            Belated congratulations on the birth of your daughter! Babies are channels of God’s love I reckon,they love you so open-heartedly! I hope mum and baby are thriving? God bless!

      • Kamau41

        Congratulations, Richard. May God’s abundant blessings be upon your new child. Our prayers are certainly with you and your family.

        • Richard Dalessandro

          Thank you Kamau and to everyone that prayed for my family today. Thank you brothers and sisters.

    • Woody

      The problems of today are all spelled out by Our Lady of Good Success — 1606?? Then she said, this appearance will be forgotten until the 20th Century–quite accurate.

  • Shane Bass


  • Julie

    I got sick just gleaning this article….sorry couldn’t complete reading it. But I pray for those in bondage to come to this site and read this article.

    These are the false teachers. Only God knows who resides in the pool of fire with the False Prophet. They do not follow the commandments. They ignore the one, ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor’. They thrive on people’s ignorance and fill them with fear….when today’s Gospel tells us not to be afraid. They block people’s intelligence preventing them from seeking truth and the history of our faith.

    It is like there was no true religion until America 1800 years later.

    ‘Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History’, Rodney Stark, a non -Catholic.

    • Gee wiz thanks Julie.

      • Julie

        Sorry….it made me sick what they say….in the name of Christ.

      • Julie

        I was thinking of taking alka seltzer.

  • Julie

    So true. And I read years ago that the devil would enter into the sanctuary of the Church.

    This is in part why I try to lead people to read our catechism to find out what we truly believe…even if it is just the Prologue it says alot.

  • MidNightRider2001 .

    Blaming religion for the deaths of Native Americans sounds nice to the ears of the Christian haters, but it’s false. It’s laughable.

  • AnthonyM

    Good article.
    I found it to be true, especially the point mentioned “Secondly, Sola-scripturists do not construct their theology for the sake of theology but to simply attack Catholicism.” Unfortunately, that is not sound theology.

    It was very interesting to read the history of the Manichaeans, Bogomiles, etc. One heretical group is the inspiration for the next group.

    • Michelle Therese

      Protest-ants: in protest against the Catholic Church.

      Hence the name, “Protestant”

  • Tom_mcewen

    Was the two gold angels commanded by God to Moses on the ark, idols or icons?
    Was the golden calf an idols or an icons?
    Was the bronze snake on a pole a idol or an icon?
    Is the shroud of Turin, an idol or an icon?
    Was the journey of Moses painted on first century synagogue walls an idol or an icon?
    The difference is an act of two parts. The gold angels was a graven image, but was Not worshipped.
    The golden calf was a graven image, but was worshipped.
    The bronze snake was a graven image, but not worshipped, later the king ordered it destroyed because it was worshipped. The object was the same but the second part changed into worship.
    The images of Moses on the synagogue walls were images Not worshipped.
    “The fault, Dear Brutus not in our Stars, but in ourselves.” The sin of the second commandment is not in the object, but in ourselves. That is where you should look.

  • Tom_mcewen

    Strange, G-d is a tradition.

  • Tom_mcewen

    They mean the same thing.

  • DantesRivers

    “I have heard so many times how Ronald Reagan was America’s greatest president. While Reagan is superior to anything we have now,……….”

    Yes I am a Reagan fan but it is true. No will to fight homosexuality. He also was for easier divorce. These are not what I think of when I say I am a fan. The choice of Presidents always become a choice between the lesser of two evils on the social issues
    Moral issues always get put on the back burner.

    The downward moral slide of the USA population has been relentless in my lifetime.
    Removal of prayer from schools in the early 60’s, Row vs Wade 1973, Deliberate single
    motherhood (non accidental) in the 90’s, “shaking up” instead of marriage, It all continues. Never a true repentance in the population. From Andy of Mayberry to Sodom and Gomorrah in one lifetime.

  • racarrera

    Protestantism is based on sheer ignorance of history. If you want to fix the church, you stay and advocate tirelessly. Otherwise, you’re schismatic at best, heretical at worst.

    • Julie

      I think it is also based on their personal opinion or whimsy….book oriented…have friends who change but I will say they seek more traditional Christianity in terms of following the 10 commandments and traditional marriage.

      • racarrera

        I’d second that.

    • Ratliff

      There he is…

      • racarrera

        Took the bait, brother.

    • Michelle Therese

      This is what makes me so angry with the SSPX! Instead of holding the line and fighting here in the trenches, they ran off tail-between-the-legs and hide in their own comfort zone while the Church BURNS from the inside out. And then have the nerve to wag the finger at those of us who remain in the trenches to fight these battles!

      • racarrera

        You nailed it perfectly. We have “True” or “genuine” Orthodox churches who simply aren’t.

    • “Otherwise, you’re schismatic at best, heretical at worst.”

      So…which do I fall in being a soon to be confirmed Anglican Catholic?

      • racarrera

        Schismatic means still within the fold.

        You’re perfectly safe because we can sit at the adult table and work things out.

        • Whew, that’s a huge relief!

          • racarrera

            You know better!

          • Still a huge relief!

      • David W

        Trevor, how do you feel about the Episcopalian church in the US? Are Anglicans more conservative? I am genuinely worried as the sodomite invaders are wreaking havoc and evil… one Orthodox lesbian scismatic recently left for the EC…

        • The Episcopal Church is why there is Anglican Catholic. We spilt from them in 1977 because of what was happening. Yes, there’s conservative Anglicans- Anglican Catholic and GAFCON.

    • Georgeorwell

      I think the problem too is that the internet brings out the worst of them. The Seventh Day Adventists are particularly active on the net trolling Catholic sites. Then you have the various youtube “preachers” endlessly yapping about the end of the world, the Church is the whore ect. In reality 99% of the protestants I meet out in the world are very nice and have nothing negative to say and have no bad will toward Catholics.

      • racarrera

        Agreed. We have attracted a lot of good-hearted Protestants who have no problems with Orthodox or Catholics, but who have not quite understood the history of the Church. That’s no crime in and of itself.

  • filomena seiffert

    Walid, you made my head spin. I did not know America was involved in so many wars. Was there any day in the life of this nation it was not killing somebody? if this is the case I think satan set his kingdom in America then. To be honest I am scared.

    • Filo,

      I wrote the whole essay for you believe it or not. I watched your arguments going back and forth bickering about America and them bickering about you …

      I wrote it to clear and show the TRUTH.

      • CTyank

        I believe it.

        • I should have written the Sunday Special for CTyank instead.

          Tell me CTyank. What would you like me to write about?

          • CTyank

            I’ll need to consider that for a while. I want to make the most of the opportunity!

          • CTyank

            I was talking with Andrew a couple of days ago and the Great Schism came up and reminded me that that was a topic I’d like to read about. I think that would be educational for many of us whose grasp of history is not as firm as we’d like. I also like American history from your perspective. I appreciated what you wrote in this article about it.

      • filomena seiffert

        Thank you, it is worse then I thought and it is scaring to see people justify it, people that think they are Catholics. How many put God first? The world is not our eternal destination, to love country and politicians above God is such a waist of life. I know some got angry with me for so little, just telling the truth which was not so extended as you got it. I feel blessed to be from a country live at peace with all other nations and is not looking to arm itself to the teeth, however there is lots of wrongs: sodomy, theft, corruption, immorality, demonic activity in the form of spirit communication and at this time, crime out of control. I can see we were innocent compared with many other nations. Maybe you should visit Brasil teach the people about the sects they are following now. In a not distant past we were 978% Catholics but the reincarnation falsehood and Protestantism with its many ugly faces went door to door and convinced the simple people that THE Catholic Church is pagan and all the other adjectives they use to demonize the Church and like wolves, devour the sheep. Thank you again and may God continue to bless you and family more and more until the final victory

      • filomena seiffert

        I thank you so much. It is a great honor have you writing a essay because of me.

  • Kamau41

    Another bombshell Sunday Special. So much to obsorbed in this study. What you stated here is perfectly said:
    “Therefore, everyone who says that you ‘must obey scripture’ is biblically sound, while everyone who has ever said that ‘you must obey scriptures ‘alone‘, by itself, and by applying their own foreign and personal interpretations, is not sound.” So true indeed!! The exposure of John MacArthur’s defense, along with his followers of heretics, was quite revealing….Furthermore, you have accurately and carefully layed out the case as to why scripture ‘alone’ has never worked and basically entirely defeats itsel. It is an absolute undeniable fact that this concept was never taught in early Tradition, Sacred Scripture or throughout Church History until the Protestant revolt came along. To add further weight to this outstanding study, Ken Hensley, a Catholic Apologist, also wrote an excellent three part series as to why ‘Sola Scriptura’ doesn’t work. See links below:

    We should be reminded of the beautiful words of St. John Chrysotom:

    • I see you are ready 41.

      There should be no more rowing for you after these last two hard working years.

      Now you must go up on the deck and train with the rest of the gladiators with sword shield and all.

      Gladiator, I salute you.

      • Kamau41

        Thank you Sir. I’m going right up to the deck to train.

        Blessings to you for helping me to suit up and be well prepared for the coming battle.

  • DeusLoVult

    Very good, sir. Having studied the Indian Wars in great depth, I have found nearly all claims of US wrongdoing to be bogus. Idiot liberal ‘historians’ would have you believe that we engaged in deliberate, indiscriminate slaughter upon locating an Indian village. This is far from the case. The Battle of the Washita is a prime example.The ill-educated and intentionally manipulative point to civilian casualties as evidence of wanton killing by US troops. However, this claim is directly in conflict with known facts. It’s true that 12 women and 6 children lay among the slain, a portion of them, deliberately. But this deed was perpetrated by a dozen Osage Indian Scouts, who, as Ben Clark records, “shot down the women and mutilated their bodies, cutting of their arms, legs, and breasts with knives.” Having been informed of this action, Custer directed a scout to intervene and halt the murderous proceedings, instead taking them captive. Several others were indeed dispatched by US troops. However, let it not escape us that age and gender also, is no infallible measure whereby to judge the danger they pose in such a chaotic environment. Custer himself later recounted, “Before engaging in the fight, orders had been given to prevent the killing of any but the fighting strength of the village; but in a struggle of this character it is impossible at all times to discriminate, particularly when, in a hand-to-hand conflict, such as the one the troops were engaged in, the squaws are as dangerous adversaries as warriors, while Indian boys between ten and fifteen years of age were found as expert and determined in the use of the pistol and the bow and arrow as the older warriors.” I do not say this to glorify Custer, (who was quite a flawed character) but he was not the callous Indian killer that he is invariably portrayed as in the present day. And neither were George Crook, Philip Sheridan, or Nelson Miles, for that matter.

    That is simply one of many lies regurgitated about American conduct in the Indian Wars. Our punitive campaigns were far less bloody than most Indian raids, whose savagery was almost unparalleled.

    • Well put Deus. Theo used to read all sorts of books for us about the Native Americans and what they used to do. But it makes a great comparison to show how many Americans who slander the Catholic Church must then slander themselves even though their fathers were innocent. Why then blame the Catholic fathers?

      • DeusLoVult

        Sir, I do believe the sad truth is that many Americans have deeply ingrained prejudices, such that they remain obdurate even when presented with a cogent dissertation like this. As you are acutely aware of, it is an arduous task to persuade someone from a prejudice of this nature. But not impossible. It took me two years of reading your works and arguing incessantly with Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants here before I decided to make my journey to the Catholic Faith. And I couldn’t be happier with my decision. 🙂

      • Julie

        Reading the relationship of the Catholic French with American Indians is different than the English in early America.

  • Corrected. Thank you alex.

  • What figures?

  • If you look at the comment to “concerned american” you will see the sermon in the link.

  • Ahhhh, got it. God instituted ATober to institute ALL religion.

  • Just search “icons” and “Shoebat”. I have written a lot about idols and icons Dogs.

  • CTyank

    Thank you for this very readable and clear correction of the revisionist history that we have been taught ad nauseam. Refreshing as a swim in the clear, cold Atlantic on a steamy, oppressive August afternoon.

  • filomena seiffert

    Unfortunately USA was never a Christian nation, it citizens persecuted the Catholics for the most part of the life of this nation. Even jobs were difficult for Catholics as it was required to one declare ones religion when applying for a job. I new a old man who was son of Italian immigrants who lived at the Italian Neigborhood. He told they were so discriminated that growing up he always walked with his head down.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    I sauntered through this last night just prior to falling asleep – I have been pondering it since. How is it that protestants can be so blind/deaf/dumb to not see/know that 40,000 denominations, all with different beliefs, customs, etc, is the elephant in the room? Bishop Fulton Sheen said it all when he said that the Church that Christ built will have to withstand every assault that Jesus withstood, every accusation alleged, etc, and thusly, this is how one could find His Church. I must say, each and everyone who has ever written or spoken slander against the Catholic Church is not ONE IOTA different than the authors of the Babylonian Talmud and all those who perpetuate its diabolical slandering of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Holy Mother. May God have mercy on them all.

  • ace

    Great write-up Walid! Thank you!

    Just to show the hypocrisy of those who followed Dowling, “Dowling was born on the sea-coast of Sussex, England, in May, 1807… His parents were devout members of the Established Church [that would be the Church of England/Anglican Communion]. He was converted at sixteen, and accounting his infant baptism of no avail, he sought baptism by immersion at the hands of Rev. Joseph Ivimey…”

    So, the fool didn’t accept infant baptism, yet the Episcopalians, the Lutherans, the Dutch Reformed, the Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, and Methodists, all gave favorable reviews to his History of Romanism, all of which are denominations which practice infant baptism. (Reviews touted in Dowling’s supplement to his slanderous book on Romanism entitled “The Life and Reign of Pope Pius the Ninth”.) Indeed, as Dowling markets his book, “A Book for every Protestant”; no matter if they disagree with each other, they are united against Catholics.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    So, your tradition is in the making. Have you ever considered that you aren’t to interpret the Bible outside the confines of the Church that canonized the Bible?

  • Tom_mcewen

    It is impossible to read the Bible without tradition, do you interpret the Bible, trust the English or the Greek, is the Bible the foundation of Christianity and complete, or do you need an external authority. Do you use the apostolic fathers, do have history that frames your interpretation. Every judgement you make of Jesus, the Bible is informed by tradition. Even your trust that the Bible is holy and given by God or man in relationship with God is tradition.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Then tell us, who did?? Then tell us: WHO collected, scrutinized, deliberated, scrutinized and deliberated some more, until THEY decided what books were ‘The’ Bible?? Amazing how many people make themselves a Pope, all the while, denying that THE Pope IS THE Pope. FYI – a bunch of people organized religion around 1517 AD, and it just keeps splitting and splitting And splitting – hey – didn’t Jesus Christ say that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand?

  • ace

    Well, there have been rumors that the 3rd Secret of Fatima has something to do with the Bogomils. It’s not been something that I have been able to track down. So, for the sake of argument and because maybe someone knows something more, I’m going to just free-associate. The Bogomils were heavy in Bulgaria, many converted to Islam under the Ottomans, and the Bogomils were rumored to be Sodomites. They were anti-sex because matter was evil, but if one could not refrain from sex, they [were rumored to or actually] preferred engaging in non-procreative sex, hence buggery. Buggery originally meant the heresy of Bulgarus [Latin], before it’s current usage and the Bogomils were considered heretics by both Catholics and Orthodox…

    • David W

      Ace, great information. So how is it that Chicago’s Bulgarians (Masonic) flee the brutal Communist regime, only to support and vote for radical Socialists? I know liberalism is a mental disorder but….

  • Michelle Therese

    God told us not to bear false witness against our neighbor.

    These anti-Catholics spewing all of their slander and libel and lies, they will have a lot to answer for when they stand before Christ.

    They will think, “I am so very holy. I’ve loved Christ and avoided sin and I took that fancy Sinner’s Prayer…” and then all of a sudden their filthy lies will be marched before their astonished eyes…

  • “Ultimately, Christ as the Eternal Judge will have His way and He will have His say, and you will be held accountable to Him for what you have done.”

    You can read this line while you look at the mirror to give yourself your own lecture. But in the meanwhile, you are not Christ. Just some bald old guy who calls himself vah4bm typing on a comment box a short lecture without any detail.

    Whats Vah 4 Bm? Is that Vah for a Bum?

    • Стефан Евгений

      If he said that to a Russian, he’d be picking up his teeth off the floor.

  • I’d rather listen to the Catholic Church instead of you.

  • Some people are NEVER satisfied.

  • Georgeorwell

    Protestants only exist as an anti-church, hence the name “protestant”. If the Catholic Church vanished tomorrow so would the various protestant sects as they would have nothing to resist. The thing that I find disturbing is that the phony anti-catholic agitprop of the 18th and 19th century has been so completely sucked up, not only by society as a whole, but by Catholics who believe it as true history. Some so called “Orthodox” also repeat and perpetuate the lies of people like Ellen White et al, with out even knowing it, as do some “catholic” sedevacantists. The collective brain washing has been incredibly effective. In fact, it has been so effective I would call it preternatural in its ability to speak to what people believe must be true.

  • filomena seiffert

    Hello everybody, does anyone wants to know my genealogy? here is: great great great great great grad father was Pedro de Alcantara Joao Carlos Leopoldo Salvador Bibiano Francisco Xavier de Paula Leocadio Miguel Gabriel Rafael Gonzaga de Braganca e Bourbon. He took the name Dom Pedro II, imperador do Brasil and heir of the crown of Portugal. ha ha ha. My blood is red though I do develop various bluish bruises. Is it a sign of royalty?

  • Georgeorwell

    I get you point but the Popes never executed anyone. The ecclesiastical courts(the model of all modern English Common Law courts) would hand down a sentence of death and then the prisoner had to be turned over to the secular authorities for execution. If I am wrong I would like to see proof. The nice thing is the Church kept meticulous records of heresy trials so there are no secrets.

  • Georgeorwell

    What “truth” is that pray tell? Please enlighten us with your “truth” (one of 43000 and counting heretic truths), I am waiting.

  • Even if I go through every easily refuted line of crap you wrote, it will not help. But glad to have you air out your frustrations. We were of service after all.

    • Man, I can’t even read through the drivel. He a happy meal short of a picnic.

    • Woody

      Yes, as I started to read this I said to myself “This is so dumb.” So I had to go back up and see who wrote it-then I understood!

      What is an RCC? Ignatius of Antioch renamed Jesus Church from “The Way” to the “Catholic” Church-his letter is extant so show me the “R” in it! More self-abuse!

  • Tom_mcewen

    Yes, Christ told the apostles Not you. Did Luther have the helper when he interprets the Bible to say that Jesus committed adultery with three women one the woman at the well, two the woman caught in Adultery and last Mary Magdalene. This idea that Protestantism has that every believer has the helper at his shoulder is garbage. Is the third person of the Trinity a clown to come at your call. Christ breathed on them and say what? When exactly did Jesus breath on you. The gift of a spiritual gift has physical signs, flames dancing on the head, the sound of the wind, you have flames of fire to prove your helper? Last tell how the Bible came about, who testified to the unsigned authors? Why were the 27 books selected and not the Shepherd of Hermes? How do you know it is the word of God? Taking someone’s word, whose word and why? I have met only one person with the Holy spirit, it is not a parlor trick and it was 250 km northwest of Moscow. Prove to me you have the Holy Spirit, Luther sure didn’t, Zwingli Calvin didn’t. The church does, not me and not my neighbor. There are 48062 different churches of a different Holy Spirit interpretation of one verse. Mush.

  • Balance is, indeed, key. I have noticed the Shoebat, in their many discourses, strive to maintain balance.

  • Woody

    600+ ? What happened to the first 19 Popes beginning with PETER who were Martyred? All are in history!

  • The question is: Whom do you pray to for Salvation?

    “This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:11-12)

    My understanding is that according to the Roman Catholic Church, Mary is revered as co-Mediatrix and can be prayed to for putting in a “good word” to Jesus on behalf of the praying sinner. Is this true? Is Mary revered as Co-Mediatrix?

    article excerpt:

    “Some Catholics view Mary as a co-redemptrix or a mediatrix who plays a key role in the salvation of mankind. (The suffix -trix is a feminine word ending in Latin, so a redemptrix is a female redeemer, and a mediatrix is a female mediator.) Within Catholicism, there is a drive to define a new Marian dogma in which Catholics, as a matter of faith, would be obliged to accept these three doctrines: (1) Mary participates in redemption with Jesus Christ, (2) grace is granted by Jesus only through the intercession of Mary, and (3) all prayers from the faithful must flow through Mary, who brings them to the attention of her Son. This movement would, in practice, redefine the Trinity as a kind of Quartet.”

    • This has been addressed frequently on this site. If you didn’t get it then, you won’t get it now, nor tomorrow because you are prejudiced.

      The Sunday Special is about the continuing slandering of the Catholic Church and as well as America. Did you address these? No.

      Instead you want to talk about your pet peeve with the Catholic Church.

      • Trevor, what you call my “pet peeve” is a real theological disagreement that has been expressed throughout the years about the RCC’s veneration of Mary and exalting her to Co-Redemptrix/Co-Mediatrix when there is nothing in first-century Messianic Judaism that gave her any co-deity position with the Risen Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
        Now, my real “pet peeve” with the teachings of the RCC is where Catechism 841 states that Catholics and Muslims ” together, adore the same God.” Is that what you agree with and is that what you believe to be true? No hard feelings, here, Trevor, just asking your theological belief in whether you are trusting the specific RCC’s ruling, as also stated by Pope John Paul II. Do you worship Allah? After all, the RCC claims Allah is the same deity that Catholics believe in. Thanks

        • To find theological belief, look into Catholic sources, Eastern Orthodox sources, Coptic sources and find what they have to say about the Blessed Virgin.

          • Trevor, Catholic sources are only going to promote Catholic belief and dogma. Would they say otherwise?
            To find Truth, read the first-century writings of Messianic Judaism which, by the way, includes the Gospel letters from the New Testament and writings of the Apostle Paul who had a Divine Intervention that converted him from Orthodox Judaism to the New Covenant teachings and acceptance of Jesus being the Son of God, Risen Savior, Mediator and High Priest between God and mankind. There is NOTHING in the writings of the New Testament that indicate Mary would become exalted as the RCC teaches. It wasn’t until the ruling of Constantine that Mary was given the exalted position as were the Apostles who were named as “Saints” and given “patron” watch over parishioners. The basis for this was Rome’s replacement for prior pagan worship and this made an easy transition for Romans to trade one pagan saint for a new patron saint – retaining the same reverence and adoration for each one. This is the main reason why the Vatican is so opposed to Sola-Scriptura. You would learn that Christ alone is your High Priest and Mediator and the only one who can forgive your sins and mine, once and for all. Thanks

          • SEE?!

            You will NOT investigate primary source because you are scared what they will show. As such, there is no use for me to waste my time showing you your errors.

          • And, Trevor, you still did not answer my question to you: Do you believe that Allah is the same “God” that you and all other Catholics adore? The Vatican states that this is so. Is that what you believe?
            By the way, Messianic Judaism, the very first believers in Jesus (Yeshua Ha Mashiach) NEVER taught that Mary was to be exalted in any way other than being respected and called “Blessed” for being chosen by God to give birth to the Christ Child, Redeemer of mankind and Jewish Messiah who came to atone for your sins and mine and who is alive right now, seated at the right hand of Glory and will return to establish God’s Millennial reign on earth from Jerusalem. Thanks

          • Before I will answer your pathetic question, research what the Early Church Fathers taught about Mary before making dumb assertions I have heard a hundred time over.

          • Woody

            Yes, see my research above…Trevor is correct. The Vatican is “an area in Rome” and cannot “speak.”

          • The Gospel teachings warn how that already, during that first-century era, false teachers and heresies had crept into the church to teach a different Gospel other than what the Apostles taught about Jesus (Yeshua Ha Mashiach) and the relationship between God and mankind. This is why many other denominations follow their own “early church fathers” and are led astray while believing what their “church fathers” taught.
            Remember, it wasn’t until 1950 that the official ruling was made by the Vatican that claimed Mary “ascended” to Heaven, same as Jesus.
            Now, please answer my “pathetic question”. The Vatican claims in Catechism 841 that Catholics and Muslims all adore the “Same God”. Do you agree with the Vatican on this? Thanks

          • Woody

            You know so little about Catholicism. An action does not happend “when it is PROCLAIMED.” I happens at the time it happens not when someone says — The Eastern Church also from Apostolic times agrees that Mary Was “assumed” into Heaven–not “ascended by her own power like Jesus did (He God; Mary is not) Mary’s Assumption is also known mostly by the Eastern Church as the “Dormition” (falling asleep and taken at that time) Already answered pathetic question above and not all in Catechism is “Dogma.”

          • Once again, you will not investigate Early sources. Without the Church Fathers, we would not have the doctrine of Trinity, defense of Christ’s divinity, defense of His crucifixion, defense of the Holy Spirit, defense of salvation, etc. Without the Catholic Church, we would have no Bible as it was they, in the 4th century, who formally placed all the books of the Bible as one unified volume, and rejected many Gnostic books by burning them.

            Therefore, the Sunday Special written by Walid proves his point, that is the slandering of the Catholic Church is the only accepted prejudice because that is what you have done.

          • You must be afraid to disagree with Catechism 841 and the claim by Pope John Paul II – the claim that Catholics and Muslims worship the “same God”.
            This is not slander if this is the true position that the RCC holds.
            As far as the “veneration of Mary” there is NO teaching in Messianic Judaism (the very first followers of Christ) that Mary was to be exalted to the position that the Romans gave to her. That is not slander but a challenge to theological teachings that differ between Messianic Judaism and Roman Catholicism. Claiming slander is only playing the “victim card” when the real victim is the Truth that Jesus taught when He stated “I Am The Way,The Truth and The Life; No Man Cometh Unto The Father Except By Me.” (John 14:6) That means there is no other substitute or co-redeemer involved in the Salvation process.
            That is NOT slander, Trevor, it is the TRUTH. Thanks

          • I told you to investigate what the Early Church Fathers taught about Mary and you blatantly refused because YOU ARE IN A DAMN CULT!

          • Sorry, Trevor. There is no need to read what other “church fathers” wrote when they literally contradict the Messianic Judaism teachings contained specifically in the New Testament writings. Your argument is the same as what Mormon’s claim about their “church fathers” who taught a different gospel and a different Jesus than the ONE of the New Testament writings which were written by Messianic Jews who knew Jesus (Yeshua Ha Mashiach) personally; walked with Him, talked with Him and documented His teachings alone.

          • Georgeorwell

            What different Gospel is taught fake Jew.

          • Different Gospel?
            That a priest can forgive your sins; that Mary is a Co-Redemptrix/Co-Mediatrix; that Mary ascended to Heaven as Jesus did; that the RCC is the ONLY true church and that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth. For starters.
            As far as “fake Jew” Messianic Judaism is the fulfillment of God’s New Covenant between Him and the Jewish people. Yes, many Orthodox disbelieved and partnered with Rome to have Him Crucified. But, this was all in God’s Plan of Salvation. It had to be that way and that is why Jesus prayed, “Father, Forgive them for they know not what they do.”
            Messianic Judaism is the first faith belief in Jesus (Yeshua) as being the Son of the Living God and Jewish Messiah. Gentile believers are grafted into the faith through accepting Christ as personal Lord and Savior and becoming “Born Again” as Christ said one must be.

          • Georgeorwell

            Those things you claim are false are solely based on your personal or should I say, the opinion of your pastor, shaman, witch doctor ect.. They are not error free are they? Do you pretend to be infallible in interpreting scripture? We, through 2000 years of apostolic tradition see it differently. Now why do you think you are right?

          • Georgeorwell – There Is Only One Truth. Messianic Judaism does not accept the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church nor the Rome’s Papal office as being Christ’s Vicar on earth. Plain and simple. Truth is what is found in the New Testament teachings. All other “extra-Biblical” teachings and interpretations are prone to error and come up with a different Gospel and a different “Jesus” than the ONE of the first-century New Testament writings.

          • Georgeorwell

            Well 43000 protestant cults prove that the bible alone does not always rightly interpret itself. Show me where messianic Judaism as an established movement exist in scripture. Point me to the ancient writings of those who call themselves messianic Jews. Show me where it says the early followers of Christ were ethnically Jews.

          • Acts, Chapter 4:
            And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them,

            2 Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.

            3 And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the next day: for it was now eventide.

            4 Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.

            5 And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes,

            6 And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.

            7 And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?

            ACTS, Chapter 2: (Jews gathering from various nations on day of Pentecost)

            5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

            6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

            7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

            8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

            9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

            10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

            11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

          • Georgeorwell

            NO proof they were all Jews in fact look at number 10 “Jews and proselytes are added as an additional group therefor they were not all Jews otherwise why does it say this? The only reason we know that all of the 12 apostles were Jews is tradition as scripture does not say they were. You reject tradition so you have no direct biblical proof they were all Jews, and as from your cites above they clearly were not. You have created a new interpretation alien to the text.

          • The 12 Tribes of Israel appear to be represented by the 12 Apostles chosen by Jesus. Also, in the end times prophecy, there will be 144,000 Jews proclaiming the Gospel Message of Jesus (Yeshua) to the world.

            Revelation, Chapter 7:
            4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

            5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.

            6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nephthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.

            7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.

            8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.

            9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

            10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb

          • Georgeorwell

            Bullshit fake Jew!

          • Georgeorwell: Your derogatory comment is quite telling of your anti-Semitic and vulgar thoughts. You must make other Catholics proud of how you represent your faith.

            Additionally, you must not own a Bible or , if you do, you have never really taken time to be alone with God and read the New Testament teachings for your own edification. There, you will find the reference to God’s New Covenant with Israel (the Old one is no longer in effect since the Advent of Jesus (Yeshua Ha Mashiach).

            “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:” (Jeremiah 31:31)

            “By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.” (Hebrews 7:22)

            “For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:” (Hebrews 8:8)

            “And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant,.”
            (Hebrews 12:24)
            Also, get a Bible and read Revelations Chapter 7 to see that there will be 144,000 Jews proclaiming the Gospel Message of Jesus (Yeshua Ha Mashiach) at the end of days.

          • Georgeorwell

            All knowing fake Jew who has judged my soul, the soul of every Catholic, believes he can tell me what we believe, to whom we pray, my internal intent when I pray, and can see into my home to tell me that I do not own a bible. What a judgemental authoritarian you are. You are a hypocrite who is the perfect combination of arrogance, pride and stupidity. You are the archetype of what Shoebat is talking about in his article. You demand we all conform to you and your cults contorted view of scripture as if it is infallible, yet you would criticize a Catholic for believing in the infallibility of the magisterium claiming “no man is infallible” yet that is exactly what you claim to be by your actions. Then you place your boot on our necks and pronounce anathema upon us all and demand not only an account of our beliefs but capitulation to your worthless opinion and your heretical cult. You claim one can’t trust authority only scripture yet you set yourself up as an authority to be obeyed–hypocrite. You attack the Virgin and call my Church a whore and accuse my brothers of being unbelievers. You deny Christ and demand I do the same with your Judaizing dual covenant now proclaiming the elect are geopolitical 21st century so called Jews and you expect me to be nice? You expect a small piece of incense to your idolatry do you. NO! To the, death NO! You want charity when you show none–no! I resist you to your face. After failing to realized how utterly you have failed to carry the day you resort to the lazy tactic of calling me antisemitic. How pathetic. Fake jew following a fake religion created by anathematized Christ denying Judaizers.

          • There, now do you feel better?

          • Grace Ziem

            Can’t you discuss things without name-calling? John 13:35
            By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

          • Georgeorwell

            No because they do not show any charity when they come to a Catholic site and start with their vitriolic attacks on my Sacred Religion. Sucks to have heretical views challenged with force doesn’t it? After all his type are used to Catholics that just roll over and taking his assaults. If you don’t have the stomach for the fight don’t start one.

          • Grace Ziem

            I wasn’t starting a fight; I was asking why you used an anti-Jewish term when our Savior came as a Jew and our God has a covenant with the Jewish people (described in Revelation again).

          • Woody

            You are correct Trevor–he is so afraid of Truth that he ignores the very people who walked and talked with jESUS AND/or his disciples –who better to know what the Master taught; he verse picks also, but ignores Jesus most famous “Know the Truth and the Truth shall set you FREE.” Satan is happy with his errors.

          • Um, it’s more like – Satan is happy with the errors of the RCC – the anti–popes, murders within the Vatican, anti-Semitism, pedophile priests whose sins are covered up by the parish, then they are moved to another parish to do the same things, and the hush money paid to victims, and the collusion going on with Islam and Catholicism claiming that Islam believes in the same “God” as Catholics, and the reported hidden secrets of nuns being impregnated by priests, aborted baby fetuses reportedly found in shallow graves around convents in Mexico and elsewhere…and the list goes on.

          • Woody

            He doesn’t even believe in the early Chrisitian Catacombs where the early Christians worshipped and their Maryrs were buried (they are the “seed” of Jesus’s Church.

          • His entire argument is moot. His claim the “Messanic Judaism” is original is laughable considering they showed up in the 1960s. Therefore it is fruitless to argue with a historical ignormanous.

          • Georgeorwell

            Its a judaising cult for the 20th century. Notice he believes the Jews are saved by a dual covenant even when they reject Christ? Were is the biblical proof for that blasphemy, Christ denying heresy? Bible alone my butt.

          • Ya know, the more one read how the Early Church Fathers understood the Bible, the more the charges against the Catholic Church falls apart. Without their sound defense of many orthodoxy teachings such as then Trinity or defense of Christ’s divinity, the more they make Protestants look foolish when they try to use Scriptures Alone when the Fathers have already addressed those centuries ago.

            As you say, judazing cult.

          • Georgeorwell

            The concept of co-redemptrix comes from the fact that Mary, by an act of her free will, agreed to be the mother of God. By being the ark of the new covenant she cooperated in the redemption of Christ making her co-redemptrix. I will also point out this is not a dogma of the Church. It also does not make Mary equal to God but without her Jesus would not have been born.

          • Woody

            Have anyone lay down a picture of Mary on a table in front of him or her and a picture of Jesus next to it; see if you can have one without the other (Salvation)
            Also, the first miracle – the Wedding Feast at Cana–the bride and groom went to Mary (not to Jesus Who was there), and she took their message to Jesus (intercession) and with just four words He CAME OUT EARLY into His public Life and performed His First Miracle – Mary “They have no wine.”
            And how many other souls were saved EARLY that would not have been saved?

          • Georgeorwell

            Yep that is the biblical proof for Mary as an intercessor and that Jesus obeys her request. Its right in front of their faces and they deny it.

          • Furthermore, as St. Irenaeus beautifully stated in his voluminous Against Heresies, Mary became the New Eve- because like the First Eve being herself a virgin and a spouse of Adam, became deceived by the fallen angel and through deception, the First Eve caused mankind to fall – she through obedience to the words of the angel became the Mother of the Church.

            As St. Paul pointed out how Adam caused mankind to go to death even though mankind were still in his lions, St. Ireneaus would say that in Eve’s ovaries were mankind, so it required two to balance and make things right again. This is why Christ is called the Last Adam, according to St. Paul, and hence, Mary is the Last Eve, according to St. Ireneaus. Without Mary’s obedience, there would have been no redemption of mankind, and that is a huge point Ramirez and others of his ilk misses.

            Jesus could have simply shown up, but instead, He chose to come down from heaven, conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the Blessed Virgin in order for God the Father to condemn sins through the flesh of Christ. It is why Jesus in the Last Supper, which we celebrate in every Mass through the breaking of bread and drinking of wine, said of the Bread, “Take and eat, for this is My body broken for you,” and likewise, taking the cup, He said, “Take and drink, for this is the Blood of the New Covenant shed for you.” He told the apostles to do this often in remembrance of Him, and Acts 2:42 will confirm that they “continued in the apostles’ doctrine, breaking of bread and fellowship,” which is proof that the Catholic Mass has been celebrated since Pentecost!

            Furthermore, it is why Jesus said, “You must be born again,” because it was a radical change from how the Jews understood salvation. It is why the Eucharist is part of the salvation process because it is, again, a radical change. It is why baptism is part of the salvation process because it is radical. The end of the animal sacrificial system began to take place with the proclamation of God to the prophet Malachi and confirmed by St. Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews (written specifically for Hebrew Christians) and why St. Paul in recalling how the Jews originally were called a nation at Mount Sinai, declared instead that Christians has come to Mount Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God, and how does one approach Mount Zion except through the Mass?

            With Jesus’ death at the Cross, God, through a legal ordinance, canceled the animal sacrifices and in its place, there is the Eucharist, a thanksgiving feast which we offer to God as a form of peace offering that is to recall the Law of Drink and Grain Offering from the Book of Numbers (which was required to be offered alongside animal sacrifices).

            The beautiful thing about the Mass is that we are utilizing our five senses plus one, that is our faith, and believing that we are in the presence of heaven itself with angels, with firstborn enrolled in heaven, with saints made perfect, to God, to Jesus, and to the blood that spoke of better things than the sacrifice of Abel. If the heavenly Jerusalem is the city of the living God, therefore, those who are enrolled and saints made perfect are there, they are alive!

            As St. Paul said, “To be absent in the body is be with the Lord,” therefore, they are alive. Did not our Lord say, “Have you not read in the Scriptures [that would be the Old Testament] that God said, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?’ Therefore, God is the God of the living and not of the dead?”

            Thus, the Catholic Church, the eastern Orthodox, the Coptics, and Anglicans (who hasn’t swallowed the blue pill) all understands this. The cults don’t and they follow one mantra – SCRIPTURES ALONE – without consulting the Church Fathers. Shame.

          • Woody

            Not a position of the CC; you have yet to post “a true position.” Ypu are also a “verse picker” on the Bible; the Bible which we Catholics wrote needs to be read in Toto; not pick the verses we like and ignore the ones we don’t
            “Unless you eat of my Flesh and drink of My Blood you shall have NO life within you.” Thank you, Jesus

          • The RCC takes that “Literally” rather than the Symbolic meaning of which Christ intended it to be understood as.
            Cannibalism, anyone?

          • Julie

            I am reviewing the posts here.

            Remember when Christ first told His followers they would eat His flesh and blood and then they went away?

            He didn’t go after them and said, ‘Come back, I am only speaking symbolically!’

            He didn’t.

            His Flesh and Blood makes up for the forbidden fruit of the tree Adam and Eve had eaten.

            You are cherry picking.

          • Julie

            You are not reading all the doctrines coming up to 841…you are reading it out of context.

            All we can agree with Islam is the belief in One God…that came from Mohammed observing the Jewish religion..he copied it.

          • Georgeorwell

            Why must Catholics answer to you for their belief’s heretic? Tell me why we must be made to stand up and account to your ignorant, bad willed heresy?

          • Woody

            So true-I was trying to be kind just sending him back to school would not help either!

          • The second he posed the question about CCC 841, I knew he went full Pharisaical. That’s how they tried to trap Jesus and Jesus would have none of it. Noticed how he locked onto the words, “Catholic sources,” and refused to even consider “Eastern Orthodox sources,” or “Coptic sources” because he knew instinctively those sources would have blown his argument apart. That’s why he kept trying to badger with the stupid question.

            His MO is to always, always lie low and wait for an opportune time to ask innocuous seeming question about the Blessed Virgin, the Mother of God and the Mother of the Church, knowing full and well that he will get Catholics to defend the Blessed Mother while ignoring everything that Walid has written which was about the slandering of the Catholic Church.

          • Georgeorwell

            PJPII did not create this view it was first defined in the Vatican II document on the constitution of the Church. It has been widely criticized by traditional Catholics to be contrary to the deposit of the faith. It is also a statement from the ordinary magisterium and does not carry the stamp of infallibility so it does not have to be believed. That said the theology is that the Muslims do not worship God as a Trinity nor do they recognize his as such, but like the modern Jew they do worship him in an incomplete way. Therefore, he is the same God but not understood as such by Muslims and Jews. This does not thereby deny his nature as a Trinity.

          • The Islamic “Allah” claims that he ordered the angels to bow down to Adam; gave men permission to beat their wives for being unruly, promised righteous Muslim men eternal pleasure in paradise filled with voluptuous wide-eyed virgins, said that Christians were wrong to believe that Jesus was the Son of God and ordered his followers (Muslims) and the entire world to accept Muhammad as the last and final prophet and to subject Jews and Christians to second-class status and convert the entire world to Islam.

            You wrote ” Therefore, he is the same God…”
            Georgeorwell – Is that what you believe as well?

          • Georgeorwell

            And Jews say Christ is boiling in excrement in hell. The mosaic law requires a person who commits adultery, breaks the sabbath of cuts his hear, to be stoned to death. Yet you believe they worship God do you not? You see both Jews and Muslims deny the True God.

            And I never said I agreed that Muslims worship the same God. Your attempt to spin my response proves your bad will.

          • Yes, Orthodox Jews and Muslims deny the Deity of Christ. However, the difference is that Yahweh is STILL the God of the Jews while Allah is NOT. Yahweh holds Israel’s Orthodox Jews under Judgment for not accepting Jesus (Yeshua) as their Messiah and the Lamb of God who was sacrificed to atone for the sins of mankind. While Muslims are free to slaughter animals for sacrifice, Orthodox Jews are ritually not able to do so because they need to have the Third Temple built and a High Priest do the sacrifice for them. Orthodox live under the Old Testament laws of Moses while Messianic Judaism accepts the New Covenant that God made between Him and mankind through the Atonement and teachings of the New Testament Jesus Christ.
            By the way, what is it with you guys that you have to resort to animosity and name-calling when you encounter someone who disagrees with your indoctrination and beliefs?

          • Georgeorwell

            Wow I do not even need to read very far to get to your Heresy which contradicts your theology. Show me in scripture where it says that Y—-h is still the God of the Jews who reject his son. Scripture says to reject Christ is to reject the father. Or do you think that the Jews have a dual covenant that does not require a savior and allows for the out right rejection of Christ?

          • When Jesus prayed, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do” He was specifically asking for a reprieve and to still give Orthodox Jews the opportunity to accept Him as their Messiah. Eventually many did and many still do to this day. God specifically stated that He was going to make a New Covenant between Him and Israel that was not like the prior Covenant that He had made with their fathers (Mosaic Laws).

            The New Covenant Jeremiah 31:31-34

            31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
            So, YES, Yahweh is STILL the God of the Jews and the nation of Israel.

          • Georgeorwell

            Nope the new covenant was that which was made by Christ Jesus. There is no biblical proof for a dual covenant which allows for some other path to salvation except through Christ. The speculation is that the Jews will convert at the end of time but that is not in scripture either it is tradition. There is no biblical proof that Christ forgave the Jews who reject him to today. “I am the way the truth and the life, no one gets to the Father but through me”. That is it. Any other interpretation is a false gospel.

          • A bit anti-Semitic, are you? Salvation is open to ANYONE through the Atoning Blood of Christ; Jews and Gentiles. On the other hand, ANYONE (Jew or Gentile) who rejects the Truth of John 3:16-17, willingly rejects the opportunity that God gave them to be saved.
            The NEW COVENANT is open to All Mankind (Jew and Gentile)

            John, Chapter 11

            49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,

            50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

            51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;


            2 Peter 3:9
            The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

            Galatians Chapter 3:
            27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

            28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

            Colossians Chapter 3:
            11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

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

          • Georgeorwell

            Thank you for proving my point and refuting your own.

          • Grace Ziem

            They have low tolerance for differences of belief even within/among followers of Christ. I wonder if loyalty to church can become as important (or more) to some as commitment to Christ; I pray not.

          • Woody

            Jesus Church is Jesus Body! He left enough Sacraments to save us all.

          • Thank you for your comment, Grace. Yes, what you speculate is very much the possibility. The reactions are similar to being an extremely loyal fan of a sports team; people can turn brutal, hateful and downright violent against supporters of all other teams that they see as rivals. Any challenge provokes them to anger. So, yes, they are more committed to their “church” rather than being committed to Christ and obeying specifically what He has commanded for His followers:

            “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” (John 13:34-35)

            ” These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.” (John 15:11-12)

            “Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
            Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.” (1 John 4:11-13)
            There are many more in the New Testament teachings.

          • Grace Ziem

            Hebrews 6:10 “For God is not unjust. He will not forget how hard you have worked for him and how you have shown your love to him by caring for other believers, as you still do.”

          • Thank you, Grace.
            God’s Word is always Encouraging in times of despair; Comforting in times of sorrow; Calming in times of anxieties; Reassuring in times of uncertainties; Always with us in times of loneliness; Forgiving when we call upon Him in repentance; and Peaceful when we are at peace with Him.

            One of my favorite verses:
            “These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33)

          • Grace Ziem

            I would be very interested in your thoughts on my pastor’s teaching on Revelation; at Insightful dialogue gets rather lean at times. We need a Bible-based approach with much wisdom, and absent mindless aspersions.

          • Hi Grace – I will certainly plan on reviewing the teaching and check back with you. Also, invite you to take a look at my research about Islam whenever you have a chance at it has my email for contacting, if you wish. Thanks, Grace, and may God bless and always watch over you and yours.

          • Woody

            See a shrink; your prejudice is showing; no Catholic prays to Allah; now you are looking dumb!

          • LOL – Yet Catechism 841 states that the God worshipped by Catholics and Muslims is the same one.

          • Julie

            There is no marriage in heaven, no sex orgies.

          • Woody

            Odd how you have partial truth and then heretical error together, Your first century on false teachers and heresies is spot-on and why Ignatius of Antioch renamed Jesus Church from “The Way” to the “Catholic” Church (Universal)–the people getting confused on which was the True Church of Jesus (Iggy’s letters are extant) 107 AD on his way to be eaten by lions.

          • There is quite a difference between the Universal Body of Born Again (Spirit-filled) Believers and the Roman Catholic Church.
            That is why Faith in Christ is what makes a person a Child of God on the Universal coverage and not belonging to any one specific denomination and being obligated to belong to a specific church. The True Church is made up of ALL Believers – worldwide, that is UNIVERSAL.

          • Julie

            Go back to CCC101 and then read up to 840 and see the difference.

            You are cherry picking.

          • Woody

            There is only ONE God, “I AM WHO AM.” No Catholic would adore Allah, and I have know over 50,000 in my life none of whom prayed to Allah. If this is the God Muslims pray to and there is only ONE then they are confused since the actions of their God does not fit our Biblical God, also, known as Yahweh.

          • Agreed, Woody, however, it is stated in Catechism 841 and proclaimed by John Paul II that Muslims “adore the same God” as Catholics. You say Muslims are confused, however, should not the teachings of Catechism 841 be voided to avoid confusion and the RCC take a position that Pope John Paul II was WRONG in saying that the Christian God and the god that Muslims worship are one and the same?

          • Woody

            John Paul II meant that if one says He or She is praying to “God ” AND there is only ONE God –they have to be the same–ONE IS ONE.” Many Popes are wrong at various times throughout the 266 Popes since Peter; again it is not Catholic teaching that ALL that a Pope says is true; again, you need to take a course in Catholic teaching, not make up what you THINK is Catholic teaching.

          • Julie

            He refuses to read all the 840 prior doctrines as well as the Prologues.

            He is just like the Mormons who dwell on CCC460…we become as gods while doing the same, ignoring the entire prior doctrines as well as the footnotes pertaining to the Eucharist.

            He is not demonstrating truth but obsessive, self righteous thinking based on personal text rather than drawing on the fullness of faith in Christ.

          • You think this guy is bad, take a look at Theo Poot. He refuses to plug the name “Alberto Rivera” on google to find out his criminal record. He does not want to know that all these years he invested in a criminal. Yet he still invests in the man.

            You have to come to the point that instead of taking the horse to the water, you’re better off taking directing him to a cliff where your only hope they break a leg, repent, and wait for their owner to walk by and shoot them to put them out of their miseries. At least they get to go to paradise.

          • I have been reading your conservation with him. Prejudice is the hardest thing to overcome.

          • Woody

            Yes, it is – the devil’s greatest deception is to convince people that he DOES NOT EXIST. -Bishop Sheen 1950 Life is Worth Living.

          • Yeah I have heard that saying many time.

          • Brenda

            “He does not want to know that all these years he invested in a criminal.”.. Oh there is a ton of that going on in this society, I see thousands of people following this guy that is a con artist buying into absolutely anything he says, And then I know someone personally that gave a total stranger over $800.00 whom she never met in person and to this day cannot admit she was conned. They will make up some reason in their heads why they don’t think the person was really a con after all. I am telling you if the people that drank the Jim Jones kool-aid came back to life they’d probably deny that he really was all that bad for them. I have noticed with anything political especially once someone get’s hooked they are almost like in some personal relationship with them in their heads becasue they way they will defend that person so hard even if they don’t know anything about them in any personal way at all.That person can bluntly talk like a used cheap car salesman and they cannot SEE it when they are that hooked, No wonder were in so much danger.

          • Woody

            Not True! The Catacombs are filled with Mary’s exaltation among the early Church:
            Hearts of Jesus and Mary- Dr. Mark Miravalle

            Mary in the Early Church
            by Dr. Mark Miravalle

            As in Scripture, so too in the infant Church we see the attention of the faithful rightfully focused first and foremost on Jesus Christ. The divine primacy of Jesus Christ (with its appropriate worship of adoration) had to be clearly established before any subordinate corresponding devotion to his Mother could be properly exercised. Nonetheless, the beginnings of acknowledgement and devotion to the Mother of Jesus is present from apostolic times in the living Tradition of the early Church.

            The first historic indications of the existing veneration of Mary carried on from the Apostolic Church is manifested in the Roman catacombs. As early as the end of the first century to the first half of the second century, Mary is depicted in frescos in the Roman catacombs both with and without her divine Son. Mary is depicted as a model of virginity with her Son; at the Annunciation; at the adoration of the Magi; and as the orans, the “praying one,” the woman of prayer. (1)

            A very significant fresco found in the catacombs of St. Agnes depicts Mary situated between St. Peter and St. Paul with her arms outstretched to both. This fresco reflects, in the language of Christian frescoes, the earliest symbol of Mary as “Mother of the Church.” Whenever St. Peter and St. Paul are shown together, it is symbolic of the one Church of Christ, a Church of authority and evangelization, a Church for both Jew and Gentile. Mary’s prominent position between Sts. Peter and Paul illustrates the recognition by the Apostolic Church of the maternal centrality of the Savior’s Mother in his young Church.

            It is also clear from the number of representations of the Blessed Virgin and their locations in the catacombs that the Mother of Jesus was also recognized for her maternal intercession of protection and defense. Her image was present on tombs, as well as on the large central vaults of the catacombs. Clearly, the early Christians dwelling in the catacombs prayed to Mary as intercessor to her Son for special protection and for motherly assistance. As early as the first century to the first half of the second century, Mary’s role as Spiritual Mother was recognized and her protective intercession was invoked. (2)

            The early Church Fathers, (also by the middle of the second century), articulated the primary theological role of the Blessed Virgin as the “New Eve.” What was the basic understanding of Mary as the “New Eve” in the early Church? Eve, the original “mother of the living,” had played an instrumental, though secondary role, in the sin of Adam which resulted in the tragic fall of humanity from God’s grace. However, Mary, as the new Mother of the living, played an instrumental, though secondary, role to Jesus, the New Adam, in redeeming and restoring the life of grace to the human family.

            Let us examine a few citations from the early Church Fathers that manifest this growing understanding of Mary’s spiritual and maternal role as the “New Eve,” who as the “new Mother of the living,” participates with Christ in restoring grace to the human family.

            St. Justin Martyr (d.165), the early Church’s first great apologist, describes Mary as the “obedient virgin” through whom humanity receives its Savior, in contrast to Eve, the “disobedient virgin,” who brings death and disobedience to the human race:

            (The Son of God) became man through the Virgin that the disobedience caused by the serpent might be destroyed in the same way in which it had originated. For Eve, while a virgin incorrupt, conceived the word which proceeded from the serpent, and brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary was filled with faith and joy when the Angel Gabriel told her the glad tidings…. And through her was he born…. (3)

            St. Irenaeus of Lyon (d.202), great defender of Christian orthodoxy and arguably the first true Mariologist, establishes Mary as the New Eve who participates with Jesus Christ in the work of salvation, becoming through her obedience the “cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race”:

            Just as Eve, wife of Adam, yet still a virgin, became by her disobedience the cause of death for herself and the whole human race, so Mary, too, espoused yet a Virgin, became by her obedience the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race…. And so it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by Mary’s obedience. For what the virgin Eve bound fast by her refusal to believe, this the Virgin Mary unbound by her belief. (4)

            The teaching of St. Irenaeus makes evident the Early Church’s faith and understanding that Mary freely and uniquely cooperates with and under Jesus, the New Adam, in the salvation of the human race. This early patristic understanding of Mary’s unique cooperation appropriately develops into the later and more specified theology of Marian Coredemption.

            St. Ambrose (d.397) continues to develop the New Eve understanding, referring to Mary as the “Mother of Salvation”:

            It was through a man and woman that flesh was cast from Paradise; it was through a virgin that flesh was linked to God….Eve is called mother of the human race, but Mary Mother of salvation. (5)

          • Great article Woody.

          • Woody

            Thanks but one infested with “prejudice” does not want the truth–they are comfortable in their own erros which pleases Satan–he wants them all out of Jesus Church as found in Scripture and Tradition.

          • Quote: “The first historic indications of the existing veneration of Mary carried on from the Apostolic Church is manifested in the Roman catacombs.”
            Hmmm…found in “Roman catacombs” but NEVER really found in the first-century Messianic Gospels and writings of Paul.

          • Georgeorwell

            Why would they Mary had not been taken to heaven when these books were written. You don’t pray for the intercession of a person who is not yet in heaven. Tradition, something your made up pseudo knockoff counterfeit version of Judaism, says Mary died around the year 100, after the last scripture was written.

            Now identify for whom you speak.

          • Julie

            I put a note into him today….

          • Woody

            St Joseph’s death is not recorded in Scripture which, using you logic means “he is still alive today.” Return to school, and then visit the Catacombs to see for yourself.

          • Julie

            The Book of Hebrews took the Church 200 years to verify they were truly from Paul.

            You should take the same zeal in finding out the truth of faith rather than operating on your obsessive thinking that has no context.

            Mary’s sole mission in life was to bring forth the Savior and Redeemer of the world. Without Mary, Christ would not have His humanity taken from humanity.

            Mary is full of grace. We are not.

            And she continues full of grace in heaven, and continues to share with Christ, note the prefix ‘co’ in her intercession prayers for the conversion of mankind.

            Thus the title, ‘Co Redemptrix’…which we all know does not mean she is no co Savior and Redeemer….again you are getting into obsessive thinking, adversarial and not able to see what is truly meant here.

          • Woody

            Protestants need to learn English first; they think “Adoration” is the same as “Veneration.” They always say you should not pray to Mary yet all of my Protestant friends have always turned to their Protestant friends and say “Pray for me” – those that are a lot less than Mary who caused Jesus to come out EARLY in His public life, thus saving many souls of those whe were to come – He said, “Woman my time has not yet come, yet He came out early – with her 4 simple words “They have no wine.” That’s all it took.

          • Julie

            So true.

            I really think for them it is about venting…it is an outlet and I always wonder how much time to spend with such positions.

          • Woody

            Yes, we get the same refuted comments over and over because they will not take the time to read the early Church Fathers who were there centuries before we made the Bible (NT) at the Church Council in the 300s.

          • Julie

            They are always the first to say we follow man’s traditions.

          • Julie

            They are blind.

          • Kamau41

            Hey Trevor, Mike is a long timer here and the veil has been over his eyes at least as long as I have been on this site. No matter what resources or information we give him, he remains so blind and refuses to see. Don’t waste time with him.

          • Woody

            Good advice; did know he would not be changed but sometimes we have wise men also reading along who will accept Truth (as Jesus said)

          • Kamau41

            True indeed. Long time no see brother, Woody.

          • Woody

            Yah, I move around; you are looking good!

          • He’s been blacklisted after my last comment to him. He is always attacking the Blessed Virgin. That’s his MO.

        • Woody

          What is a RCC?

        • Grace Ziem

          Hopefully they don’t agree, since Allah is an imaginary being (hateful, not loving, and of course, there is not a second “god”). I am a little surprised no one would disagree with the pope to clarify this, since he is a human. (All humans make mistakes, none have total wisdom). Of course we view scripture as infallible, seeing faults of a pope is disquieting to some. To disagree with Catholic teaching here can require great courage.

          • Woody

            No courage–“I will be with you until the End of Days.” AND “In the End My Immaculate Heart will conquer.”

          • Hi Grace. Muhammad’s encounter with a “spirit being” in a dark cave is how the teaching of Islam began. After 9/11 my research of Islam resulted in a short, easy-to-read comparison between Islamic teachings and Judeo-Christian teachings.
            It is very obvious that Allah is NOT Yahweh.

        • Woody

          Without Mary all of us would not have a Savior and be in hell!

          • Correcto Mundo. So we agree that Jesus (Yeshua Ha Mashiach) is THE SAVIOR – and that there is NO other name under Heaven which one can call upon for Salvation.

            “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)
            There is NO Co-Redemptrix/Co-Mediatrix in the mix.

          • Julie

            Again…get a book on Latin and Greek roots.

            Co means with.

            Mary’s sole purpose in life was to bring forth the Savior and Redeemer in the world for us, she continues praying for us…and as such, full of grace, shares in the Lord’s mission…but it doesn’t mean she is the Lord.

            You need to back off.

            Seriously hope by now, you can think more clearly.

          • Woody

            Wrong again-already showed that Mary brought her Son out EARLy and thus she saved many souls that would not have been saved had He kept to his original schedule and she continues today Her sole job is to bring souls to her Son Jesus, and her many appearances on earth show them thus.

          • The job is not Mary’s, according to my Bible; the job of bringing and calling souls to Jesus is that of the Holy Spirit of God. This is the very active presence of the Holy Spirit at this present time, ever since being sent to convict the world of sin.

            John 14:16
            And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

            John 14:26
            But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

            John 15:26
            But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

            John 16:7
            Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

            Luke 11:13
            If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

            1 John 2:26-28
            These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
            And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.

          • Woody

            No one denies the work of the Holy Spirit; it is the job of all of us to being Souls to Jesus, especially His Ma since He has never refused her anything and would not being the “Good Son.’ “Honor they father and thy mother.!” (verse pluckers skip logic, by igoring other verses like “They have no wine.”
            Almost immediately 130 gallons of water went to wine.

  • “Many of us forget the Roman Catholic Church was initiated by a Roman Emperor, Constantine”

    Absolutely false. Do some research first and then get back to me before I blow this statement to pieces.

    “which incorporated a number of Pagan Festivals ”

    Another absolutely false statement. Do your research from reliable sources instead of reading crappy blogs.

  • When people share their booklet version of salvation instead of dealing with the context of the article or the subject matter it makes them sound like a record.

    While I do not mind what you wrote it is not dealing with the issue at hand my friend.

    • Woody

      Are you and I still on for a beer at the Angelic Tavern just inside the Pearly Gates?

  • “I followed a series on an excellent public English Broadcast”

    What a poor response. You have zero excuse.

    You said that ‘Constantine founded the Catholic Church”.


    You DIDN’T.

    The idea that Constantine founded the Catholic Church was first originated by anti-Christian writers, such as Franz Cumont.

    Cumont introduced this theory from an anti-Christian perspective. He wrote that Christianity took from its opponents their own weapons, and used them; the better elements of paganism were transferred to the new religion. [1]

    With this said, we can agree that the beliefs which try to prove that Constantine configured his own church and mixed it with paganism, was originally produced by haters of the Faith, and has succeeded in causing further division in the Church, with Christians who hate Constantine going against those Christians who they perceive as subscribing to beliefs founded by Constantine. Such contention is founded on false history.

    To refute the notion that Constantine invented a new church and to show that the Church did not change after – or was supplanted by – Constantine, I will almost always use primary source accounts such as Eusebius, Tertullian, St. Ambrose, St. Irenaeus, Firmicus, St. Justin Martyr, and St. Augustine.

    This is important because it shows that once we look to the original sources of the Church, and not anti-Christian writers or information from the internet, what we find is not Constantine repressing Christians, but heretics who would be rejected by both learned Protestant and Catholic scholars.

    One of the most frequent accusations is that Constantine founded, or at least helped establish, an official church of the empire, and then began slaughtering Bible-believing Christians who refused to conform, and forced them into an “underground” church.

    The evidence presented for this persecution of these obscure believers is an edict of Constantine in which certain sects are listed as being heretical and banned from preaching or assembling religious meetings, it states:

    Understand now, by this present statute, ye Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulians, ye who are called Cataphrygians, and all ye who devise and support heresies by means of your private assemblies, with what a tissue of falsehood and vanity, with what destructive and venomous errors, your doctrines are inseparably interwoven, so that through you the healthy soul is stricken with disease, and the living becomes the prey of everlasting death. Ye haters and enemies of truth and life, in league with destruction! All your counsels are opposed to the truth, but familiar with deeds of baseness, fit subjects for the fabulous follies of the stage. …We have directed, accordingly, that you be deprived of all the houses in which you are accustomed to hold your assemblies, and our care in this respect extends as far as to forbid the holding of your superstitious and senseless meetings, not in public merely, but in any private house or place whatsoever. Let those of you, therefore, who are desirous of embracing the true and pure religion, take the far better course of entering the Catholic Church, and uniting with it in holy fellowship, whereby you will be enabled to arrive at the knowledge of the truth.[2]

    Now, I know that such fierce and overly zealous words may set alarms off in your heads. These poor believers are banned from preaching their theologies, and not only that, they are being coerced into joining the Catholic Church which, as many believe, is the Harlot of Babylon.

    I will describe each of the sects listed in the edict, and what we will realize is that these sects were completely foreign to any Christian denomination (Protestant or Catholic) and more akin to heretical groups such as Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims, and other cults which we would deem false and dangerous.

    The five sects condemned by Constantine cannot be considered as original Christians, simply for the reason that all of them broke away from the Catholic Church many years before Constantine was ever emperor, and did not exist prior to Constantine, or the Catholic Church.

    1. The Valentinians. These were founded by one Valentinus, and his doctrine was blatantly heretical. He denied that Christ came in the flesh, [3] (St. Ambrose, Of the Christian Faith, 2.5) coinciding directly with the heresy condemned by St. John when he wrote:

    Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. (2 John 1:7)

    St. John
    St. John
    They believed that the Father was both male and female, and that he impregnated a type of goddess named Silence, and through this intercourse, she gave birth to an “aeon” named Only-Begotten who then emitted Christ and the Holy Spirit. [4]

    This bizarre belief is reminiscent of Mormonism, which teaches that the Father had literal sex with the Virgin Mary in order to beget Christ. For example, Mormon leader Orson Pratt, once said:

    But God having created all men and women, had the most perfect right to do with His own creation, according to His holy will and pleasure: He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband

    Mormon heretic Orson Pratt
    Mormon heretic Orson Pratt
    The Valentinians were so blasphemous that they believed Christ was in a conjugal relationship with the Holy Spirit.[5] The Valentinians were condemned by St. Polycarp. It is true that he was a Catholic, but he pursued heretics, and not only that, he was a student of St. John himself, a fact which cannot go ignored. Irenaeus, a student of St. Polycarp, wrote of St. Polycarp’s relation with the Apostles:

    And Polycarp, a man who had been instructed by the apostles, and had familiar intercourse with many that had seen Christ, and had also been appointed bishop by the apostles in Asia, in the church at Smyrna. …He always taught what he had learned from the apostles, what the church had handed down, and what is the only true doctrine.[6]

    St. Polycarp
    St. Polycarp
    How could the Valentinians be true Christians if they were teaching such false doctrine and were condemned by a man who had been directly appointed by the Apostles themselves? Either the Apostles lacked discernment when choosing a bishop, or Polycarp was orthodox and the Valentinians were indeed heretical.

    This further shows the historical rape which many modern day Christians have done to Church history when condemning Constantine as a repressor of Christians, when he in fact was striving to protect the Church against these very wolves.

    2. The Marcionites. These heretics, which are rejected by both Catholic and Protestant scholars, were founded by one Marcion, a native of Pontus, who taught that there was a god greater than the God of the Old Testament, and that, as Islam teaches, God was not the Father of Christ.[7]

    They affirmed that the God of the Old Testament was evil and corrupt, while the god who Marcion invented, was good.[8] One of their other beliefs was that Christ did not actually fulfill the Law, but abolished it as the work of evil, and that the prophets were all sinister writers and not of God.[9]

    The Marcionites were as well condemned by Polycarp, the student of St. John, and when Marcion said to Polycarp, “Acknowledge us,” the saint wittingly responded: “I acknowledge the first-born of Satan.”[10]

    3. The Novatians. These were founded by Novatian, a bishop of Rome, over half a century before Constantine’s conversion in 312 AD, and his emperorship in 306 AD.

    They were a controlling and legalistic cult, whose main tenet was that Christ could not forgive Christians who, under pain of death, acknowledged the gods of the Roman state, a belief rejected and condemned by the Catholic Church in the third century, and which would be indefinitely condemned by any Protestant or Evangelical church.[11]

    He was in fact condemned by a pope, Pope Cornelius, which disproves the common accusation that Constantine was the first pope and the founder of the Catholic Church, and substantiates that the office of pontificate existed prior to the first Christian emperor. Two other popes who reigned in the Church right before Constantine were Pope Gaius and Pope Marcellinus, who were martyred by the pagans.

    Pope Cornelius
    Pope Cornelius
    Novatus was not only a schismatic, but had to be treated by exorcists on account of demonic possession which lasted for some time. Can a man of Christ’s Way be overtaken by demons, as Muhammad and Joseph Smith were?

    He was a violent madman, who robbed money from the Church, taking even charity funds from orphans and widows, allowed his father to starve to death and did not care to even bury him, and murdered his own son by kicking his pregnant wife in the belly. St. Cyprian described his vicious and evil behavior as such:

    Orphans despoiled by him, widows defrauded, moneys moreover of the Church withheld, exact from him those penalties which we behold inflicted in his madness. His father also died of hunger in the street, and afterwards even in death was not buried by him. The womb of his wife was smitten by a blow of his heel; and in the miscarriage that soon followed, the offspring was brought forth, the fruit of a father’s murder. And now does he dare to condemn the hands of those who sacrifice, when he himself is more guilty in his feet, by which the son, who was about to be born, was slain?[12]

    St. Cyprian
    St. Cyprian
    While he refused to accept the lapsed Christians, he himself was terrified of persecution, to the point that when asked to assist the Christians being oppressed by the emperor Decius, he imprisoned himself in fear and even denied that he was a presbyter, affirming that he was “an admirer of a different philosophy.”[13]

    When he gave the communion bread to his followers, he did not bless them in anyway, but forced them to promise not to betray him, telling them: “Swear to me, by the body and blood of our Saviour, Jesus Christ, that you will never desert me, not turn to Cornelius [the Pope].” Instead of the receiver saying “Amen” when accepting the bread, he was compelled to say: “I will no longer return to Cornelius.”[14]

    Could you imagine Holy Communion being done like this in your church? It was not done to remember Christ but to compete with the Catholic Church and gain power over it. Again, this was before Constantine, and it was a cult which broke away from the Church, and did not exist before it. It had no Apostolic succession, but was merely a schism which abused and forced its followers to be loyal to Novatus.

    They broke the precept taught by St. Paul…

    …that there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. (I Corinthians 12:25)

    With this said, I must say, for the sake of truth, that while Novatus was wicked, many of his followers, the Novatians, were pious and holy Christians, upholding the orthodox tenets of Christianity, and despite Constantine’s decree, they had many churches built in the empire.

    St. Paul
    St. Paul
    4. The Paulians. Their name did not, as some may think, come from St. Paul, but a deceiver named Paul of Samosata who, like Muhammad, taught that Christ was not the Son of God,[15] and that He was not divine, but a mere man.[16]

    Constantine repressed this sect, but again, they were heretical and they broke away from the Church, and never had a pre-existing church.

    5. The Cataphrygians. These are more usually known as Montanists, from their second century Phrygian founder Montanus, He founded his cult similarly to how Joseph Smith founded the LDS, or how Muhammad founded Islam, through a demonic vision.

    It was said that he was taken away by an evil spirit which compelled him to go into a violent frenzy in which he uttered all sorts of blasphemies. He attracted two women to join his movement, who has well would enter into hysterical and ecstatic states of ecstasy. They were like Muslim Sufis. They soon founded a cult of wild charismatics who broke away from the Church and believed that they were the true prophets foretold by God.[17]

    As the Mormons and the Muslims replaced Jerusalem with Salt Lake City and Mecca, the Montantists declared that the two Phrygian cities, Pepuza and Tymium, were a Jerusalem. (Euseb. Eccles. Hist. 5.18) If the Catholic Church rejected Jerusalem and the Holy Land, as many have said, why would they then condemn this heresy? The Montanists even had a prophet who, like Muhammad, dyed his hair and put on mascara,[18] which reminds us of a lot of a lot of people in the modern day church.

    This sums up the five heresies which Constantine’s edict suppresses. They were not Christian and thus the allegations that Constantine persecuted the original church, founded the Catholic Church and was the first pope, are false.

    Those who use these heresies as examples for the original church, are now compelled to either accepts these cults or admit that the established Church in the time of Constantine was the same one before Constantine and that there was no underground church.

    Moreover, the fact that Constantine repressed these groups shows that he had a knowledge on the Scripture, and possessed enough discernment to realize that they were dangerous to the Faith.


    Mithra on the left
    Mithra on the left
    Furthermore, the usual assertion that Constantine introduced Mithraism, or an ancient Persian cult, and Roman paganism, into the Church, is again fallacious.

    Mithraism involved the worship of a bull fighter named Mithra, and of fire, and had nothing to do with Christianity. In fact, the cult was repeatedly condemned by Christian authorities before and after the time of Constantine, because the Church never changed its position in regards to the false religion.

    For example, the Christian writer Firmicus, who lived during and after the time of Constantine, heavily denounced Mithraism as such:

    The male they worship as a cattle rustler, and his cult they relate to the potency of fire, as his prophet handed down the lore to us, saying: … ‘Initiate of cattle-rusting, companion by handclasp of an illustrious father’. Him they call Mithra, and his cult they carry on in hidden caves, so that they may be forever plunged in the gloomy squalor of darkness and thus shun the grace of light resplendent and serene. O true consecration of a divinity! O repulsive inventions of a barbaric code![19]

    Firmicus was not going against the Church when he wrote this. He never anathematized as a dissenting heretic. Firmicus was simply agreeing with the Church’s teaching on Mithraism, which was affirmed and taught centuries before Constantine was ever emperor. There was no new church to go against, when combating Mithraism.

    Another frequent claim by anti-Christian writers (and sadly Christians who believe their lies) is that the idea of Holy Communion originated from Mithraism (the Mitraists used bread and water in their rituals, which is radically different to Christianity and is what Mormons actually do) and that the Catholic Church took this ritual for their Communion.

    Justin Martyr, writing in between 151 and 155 AD [20] (around 277 years before Constantine’s conversion), not only chastised and condemned Mithraism, but concluded that its bread and water ritual was a demonic plagiarism of Holy Communion:

    For we do not receive these things as common bread nor common drink; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior having been incarnate by God’s logos took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food eucharistized through the word of prayer that is from Him, from which our blood and flesh are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who became incarnate. For the Apostles in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, thus handed down what was commanded them: that Jesus took bread and having given thanks said: “Do this for my memorial, this is my body”; and likewise He took the chalice and having given thanks said: “This is my blood”‘ and gave it to them alone. Which also the wicked demons have imitated in the mysteries of Mithra and handed down to be done; for that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain words said over them in the secret rites of initiation, you either know or can learn. [21]

    St. Justin Martyr
    St. Justin Martyr
    The fact that Holy Communion was observed, and Mithraism was condemned, before and after Constantine, shows a consistent tradition being maintained and protected, and not a new church being created after 312 AD.


    Constantine hated paganism and its violent and homosexual practices with such fury that he passed laws to repress them, and to exterminate the pagan priests of Egypt. Eusebius, one of our major primary writers on Constantine, recounts that:

    Consistently with this zeal he [Constantine] issued successive laws and ordinances, forbidding any to offer sacrifice to idols, to consult diviners, to erect images, or to pollute the cities with the sanguinary combats of gladiators. And inasmuch as the Egyptians, especially those of Alexandria, had been accustomed to honor their river through a priesthood composed of effeminate men, a further law was passed commanding the extermination of these as a corrupt and vicious class of persons, that no one might thenceforward be found tainted with the like impurity.[22]

    We could reasonably compare these laws to those of Moses, which prescribe the death penalty for paganism and homosexuality. These laws were definitely influenced by Biblical laws, for, according to Eusebius, he would “devote himself to the perusal of the inspired writings.” [23]

    Not only that, but Constantine built Constantinople to be a city without the blemish of heathenism and idolatry, without the worship of devils and pagan temples. In the words of St. Augustine, it was to be a city “without any temple or image of the demons.” [23A]

    St. Augustine
    St. Augustine

    A frequent accusation is that Constantine outlawed the Bible from being read privately. The truth is that he respected the Bible to the point that he ordered fifty Bibles to be copied for the churches. This was a very laborious project, because in those days there was no printing machines or internet, books had to be copied down by hand, it was costly and time consuming.

    Most people in that age would not have been able to afford purchasing a Bible, and Constantine was charitable enough to give Bibles to churches so that the Scriptures could be read to the congregants.

    Constantine issued this order to the bishop Eusebius for this to be done, writing:

    Do you, therefore, receive with all readiness my determination on this behalf. I have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to order fifty copies of the sacred scriptures (the provisions and use of which you know to be most needful for the instruction of the Church) to be written on prepared parchment in a legible manner, and in a commodious and portable form, by transcribers thoroughly practiced in their art.[24]

    After Constantine defeated one of the greatest persecutors of the Church, the pagan emperor Maxentius, the Roman senate erected an arch in honor of the victory, and unlike former emperors, it did not give any praise to Jupiter, Apollo, or Mars.[25]

    Before 312 AD, the year of Constantine’s conversion, Roman coins were minted with pagan symbolism, but after 312, the coins are seen with Christian imagery.[26] All of these indications lead to the conclusion that there was indeed a significant change in the empire after Constantine’s conversion.

    There was a pagan influence that remained in the empire but there wasn’t a new Church established, made with both Christian and pagan beliefs and rituals. The Church was the same as it was prior to Constantine; the only difference was that it was allowed to exist without pagan, government despotism.

    Because of Constantine, the great persecutors of the church, such as Maxentius, Gallerius, and Licinius were vanquished; Christianity was allowed to thrive. Because of Constantine’s liberation of the Church, Christianity spread as it did, and became the dominant Faith in the world, but of course this is not the case today.

    History has been lacerated and defiled and the Church, in antiquity, was a beacon of light destroying the forces of evil and heresy, unlike today, where it has became a circus.

    The Church is here to destroy the works of the devil. Let us do so in light of what the early Christians did, not defiling their history but repeating it.

    Get the latest book, For God or For Tyranny




    [1] Cumont, The Oriental Religions, intro, p. xi
    [2] Constantine’s Edict Against The Heretics, in Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 3.53, Christian Roman Empire, vol. 8
    [3] St. Ambrose, Of the Christian Faith, 2.5
    [4] St. Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, 1.1-2
    [5] St. Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, 1.2
    [6] St. Irenaeus in Euseb. Eccles. Hist. 4.14
    [7] Euseb. Eccles. Hist. 4.11
    [8] Tertullian, Against Marcion, 1.2
    [9] St. Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, 1.27
    [10] Euseb. Eccles. Hist. 4.14
    [11] Euseb. Eccles. Hist. 6.43
    [12] St. Cyprian, epistle 48, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis.
    [13] Euseb. Eccles. Hist. 6.43
    [14] Euseb. Eccles. Hist. 6.43, trans. C.F. Cruse, brackets mine
    [15] St. Ambrose, Of the Christian Faith, 5.8.104
    [16] Euseb. Eccles. Hist. 2.27
    [17] Euseb. Eccles. Hist. 5.16*
    [18] Euseb. Eccles. Hist. 5.18
    [19] Firmicus, The Error of the Pagan Religions, 5.2, trans. Clarence A. Forbes, ellipses mine
    [20] Leslie William Barnard, intro to Justin Martyr’s Apologies, Ancient Christian Writers
    [21] St. Justin Martyr, I Apology, 66, trans. Leslie William Barnard
    [22] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 4.21, brackets mine
    [23] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 1.32
    [23A] City of God, 5.25, trans. Marcus Dods
    [24) Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 4.32
    [25) Peter J. Leihart, Defending Constantine, ch. 4, p. 75, 2010
    [26) Peter J. Leihart, Defending Constantine, ch. 4, p. 77, 2010

    • CTyank

      Thanks for this, Walid. Another treasure chest buried in the comment section.

  • Georgeorwell

    Thank you for sharing your irrelevant personal opinion.

  • Woody

    You missed a few hundred years of Popes: (Even Wiki gets it right!)
    The first 19 Popes beginning with Peter were Martyred for Christ:

    Pontificate Name English – Regnal (Latin) Personal name Place of birth Notes
    30 – 64/67 St. Peter
    PETRUS Simon Peter, Simeon Kephas, Simon The Rock Bethsaida, Galilea Disciple of Jesus from whom he received the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, according to Matthew 16:18-19 . Executed by crucifixion upside-down; feast day (Feast of Saints Peter and Paul) 29 June, (Chair of Saint Peter) 22 February. Recognized as the first Bishop of Rome (Pope) appointed by Christ, by the Catholic Church. Also revered as saint in Eastern Christianity, with a feast day of 29 June.
    64/67(?) – 76/79(?) St. Linus
    LINUS Linus Tuscia (Central Tuscany) Feast day 23 September. Also revered as a saint in Eastern Christianity, with a feast day of 7 June.
    76/79(?) – 88 St. Anacletus (Cletus) ANACLETUS Anacletus Probably Greece Martyred; feast day 26 April. Once erroneously split into Cletus and Anacletus
    88/92 – 97 St. Clement I CLEMENS Clement Rome Feast day 23 November. Also revered as a saint in Eastern Christianity, with a feast day of 25 November.
    97/99 – 105/107 St. Evaristus (Aristus) EVARISTUS Aristus Bethlehem, Judea Feast day 26 October

    Second Century

    Pontificate Name English – Regnal (Latin) Personal name Place of birth Notes
    105/107 – 115/116 St. Alexander I ALEXANDER Alexander Rome Also revered as a saint in Eastern Christianity, with a feast day of 16 March.
    115/116 – 125 St. Sixtus I XYSTUS Rome or Greece Also revered as a saint in Eastern Christianity, with a feast day of 10 August.
    125 – 136/138 St. Telesphorus TELESPHORUS Greece
    136/138 – 140/142 St. Hyginus HYGINUS Greece Traditionally martyred; feast day 11 January
    140/142 – 155 St. Pius I PIUS Aquileia, Friuli, Italy Martyred by sword; feast day 11 July
    155 – 166 St. Anicetus ANICETUS Emesa, Syria Traditionally martyred; feast day 17 April
    c.166 – 174/175 St. Soter SOTERIUS Fondi, Latium, Italy Traditionally martyred; feast day 22 April
    174/175 – 189 St. Eleuterus ELEUTHERIUS Nicopoli, Epyrus Traditionally martyred; feast day 6 May
    189 – 198/199 St. Victor I VICTOR Northern Africa
    199 – 217 St. Zephyrinus (Zephyrin) ZEPHYRINUS Rome

    Third Century

    Pontificate Name English – Regnal (Latin) Personal name Place of birth Notes
    c.217 – 222/223 St. Callixtus I CALLISTUS Spain Martyred; feast day 14 October
    222/223 – 230 St. Urban I URBANUS Rome Also revered as a saint in Eastern Christianity, with a feast day of 25 May.
    21 July 230 – 28 September 235 (5 years) St. Pontian PONTIANUS Rome First pope with firm dates of office
    21 November 235 – 3 January 236 (44 days) St. Anterus ANTERUS Greece Also revered as a saint in Eastern Christianity, with a feast day of 5 August.
    10 January 236 – 20 January 250 (14 years) St. Fabian FABIANUS Rome Feast day 20 January. Also revered as a saint in Eastern Christianity, with a feast day of 5 August.
    6/11 March 251 – June 253 (2 years) St. Cornelius CORNELIUS Died a martyr, through extreme hardship; feast day 16 September
    25 June 253 – 5 March 254 (256 days) St. Lucius I LUCIUS Rome Feast day 4 March
    12 May 254 – 2 August 257 (3 years) St. Stephen I STEPHANUS Rome Martyred by beheading; feast day 2 August. Also revered as a saint in Eastern Christianity, with the same feast day.
    30/31 August 257 – 6 August 258 (340/341 days) St. Sixtus II XYSTUS Secundus &nsp; Greece Martyred by beheading. Also revered as a saint in Eastern Christianity, with a feast day of 10 August.
    22 July 259 – 26 December 268 (9 years) St. Dionysius DIONYSIUS Greece Feast day 26 December
    5 January 269 – 30 December 274 (5 years) St. Felix I FELIX Rome
    4 January 275 – 7 December 283 (8 years) St. Eutychian EUTYCHIANUS
    17 December 283 – 22 April 296 (12 years) St. Caius CAIUS Martyred (according to legend) Feast day 22 April. Also revered as a saint in Eastern Christianity, with a feast day of 11 August.
    30 June 296 – 1 April 304 (7 years) St. Marcellinus MARCELLINUS Feast day 26 April. Also revered as a saint in Eastern Christianity, with a feast day of 7 June.

    Fourth Century

    Pontificate Name English – Regnal (Latin) Personal name Place of birth Notes
    308 – 309 St. Marcellus I MARCELLUS
    c.309 – c.310 St. Eusebius EUSEBIUS
    2 July 311 – 10 January 314 (2 years) St. Miltiades (Melchiades) MILTIADES Africa First pope after the end of the persecution of Christians through the Edict of Milan (313 AD) issued by Constantine the Great
    31 January 314 – 31 December 335 (21 years) St. Sylvester I SILVESTER Sant’Angelo a Scala, Avellino Feast day 31 December. Also revered as a saint in Eastern Christianity, with a feast day of 2 January. First Council of Nicaea, 325.
    18 January 336 – 7 October 336 (263 days) St. Mark MARCUS Rome Feast day 7 October
    6 February 337 – 12 April 352 (15 years) St. Julius I IULIUS &nbs; Rome
    17 May 352 – 24 September 366 (14 years) Liberius LIBERIUS &nsp; Earliest Pope not yet canonized by the Roman Church. Revered as a saint in Eastern Christianity, with a feast day of 27 August.
    1 October 366 – 11 December 384 (18 years) St. Damasus I DAMASUS Idanha-a-Velha, Portugal Patron of Jerome, commissioned the Vulgate translation of the Bible. Council of Rome, 382. Convinced Emperor Gratian (366) to confer the ancient, pagan title of Pontifex Maximus upon the Bishop of Rome.
    11 December 384 – 26 November 399 (14 years) St. Siricius Papa SIRICIUS &nsp; First Bishop of Rome to employ the title “Papa” (“Pope”)
    27 November 399 – 19 December 401 (2 years St. Anastasius I Papa ANASTASIUS

    Fifth Century

    Pontificate Name English – Regnal (Latin) Personal name Place of birth Notes
    22 December 401 – 12 March 417 (15 years) St. Innocent I Papa INNOCENTIUS Visigoth Sack of Rome (410) under Alaric
    18 March 417 – 26 December 418 (1 year) St. Zosimus Papa ZOSIMUS
    28/29 December 418 – 4 September 422 (3 years) St. Boniface I Papa BONIFACIUS
    10 September 422 – 27 July 432 (9 years) St. Celestine I Papa COELESTINUS Rome, Western Roman Empire Also revered as a saint in Eastern Christianity, with a feast day of 8 April.
    31 July 432 – March/August 440 (8 years) St. Sixtus III Papa XYSTUS Tertius
    29 September 440 – 10 November 461 (21 years) St. Leo I (Leo the Great) Papa LEO MAGNUS Rome Convinced Attila the Hun to turn back his invasion of Italy. Feast day 10 November. Also revered as a saint in Eastern Christianity, with a feast day of 18 February.

  • Woody

    Even Wiki knows the truth on Catholicism:

    List of popes who died violently – Wikipedia

  • Tom_mcewen

    How is the 27 books selected and why did it take until 397AD after three councils Rome Hippo and Cartagena. Couldn’t the holy Spirit just told them earlier in firm and with clear direction. You proved nothing. If you have the Holy spirit and your neighbor and your pastor must share the same honest truth. There cannot be a difference between the understanding that Christ gave, that Peter gave that Paul gave and James and the Holy Spirit you claim. Because there is a liar in the mix it is either your interpretation or the Holy Spirit is the liar. So who is lying, you or the Holy Spirit? I deal in empirical evidence and the empirical evidence is that you don’t have the Holy Spirit, nor does your faith leaders, nor Luther, Zwingli Calvin, or a single post apostolic leader from 1517AD. If I am wrong give me empirical proof that they share one truth one understanding of scripture. Proof please. P S you proved nothing.

  • Woody

    Why would we except the Lord which means we reject our Savior?

  • Woody

    Constantine wasn’t even Catholic–he converted on his death bed; but his mom was Catholic and found the True Cross when she visited the Holy Land.

  • Georgeorwell

    Seventh day Adventist troll. You do know you follow false prophetess Ellen White don’t you? All of your “beliefs” about the Church came from her. And you must also know, expert of all things Catholic, that Constantine is a Saint in the Eastern Church. You “vote” for Eastern Orthodox without realizing you are following the same dogma, despite what they claim, as the Catholic Church. Now that said, point to the sources, not revisionism from “scholars”, but from the actual sources before AD 300 stating that the early Church believed differently than today. Show me the writings from these mythical repressed early Christians showing what they believed.

    • Woody

      She has already been refuted by not only Wikipedia but by any high school text on Western Civilization but she is not smart enough to realize it; if she could us a computer she could also Google all the info which refutes her also.

  • This…is…awesome post here.

    “To suffer for Christ is a grace and a gift.”

    Truer words hath not been spoken.

  • Patently false.

    “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Chapter VIII, The Epistle of Ignatius (30 -107 AD) to the Smyrnaeans.

    • Woody

      Right on–Iggy, the 3rd Bishop of Antioch; Peter was the First Bishop of Antioch before he took the SEE to Rome.

      • Whenever I have a chance, I love reading the Fathers of the first centuries. They were wise beyond years and their wisdom is our treasures.

  • susan

    “Confess your sins to God almighty the Only Father not man”

    How come the bible says something different?

  • Uh, it’s an image hosting site. So what did you think of the sermon?

  • concerned american

    Daledor, there is one thing you have not done, of this I’m sure. You have not asked God to show you the truth with a “sincere” heart. AND with a willing heart to accept the truth He reveals WHERE EVER it may fall. This is a hard thing.

    I used to regurgitate the same teachings you do now when I was a Protestant for 25 years. If you will be honest with yourself and TRULY seek and accept the truth as GOD reveals it to you, you will not regret it. What do you have to lose?

    If you are right, you’ve lost nothing. If you are wrong and find the truth, you’ve lost nothing. But, if you are wrong and have not asked, you will lose EVERY THING.

    And one more thing. Remember, God is not fast food. Protestants like fast food. Allow God to show you on His time table not yours.

  • Georgeorwell

    There is just no truth in you on this forum is there? Here is the objective proof for you since you refuse to acknowledge it:

  • Wrong reference. That was in the Book of Acts. The disciples of John the Baptist didn’t know there was the Holy Spirit, and St. Paul laid hands on them so they may receive the Holy Spirit.

    That is how the Catholic Church have done since the beginning as found in the Book of Acts and continues today.

    Second, whether you want to admit it or not, it was the Catholic Church in a major council near the end of the 4th Century who determined what books to place in the canon of the Scriptures, not the 16th century Protestant reformers. Thanks to the Catholic Church, we have the Bible, 73 books, not 66, and then there’s a library worth of Church Fathers whose exposition of the Scriptures gave us the theology we have today. It was the Catholic who formally defined the Trinity. It was the the Catholic who defended the divinity of Christ against heretics, like Arius, and condemned his works. It was the Catholic who suffered under Constantine for their refusal to embrace Arianism which Constantine preferred.

    The Holy Spirit guided the Church through the formation centuries and continues today in spite of falling away that’s taking place in the upper hierarchy of the Church.

    As an Anglican, I am indebted to the Catholic for the Bible and many doctrine I hold dear. I am also indebted to the Orthodox for their stubborn resistance to any innovation to doctrines.

  • Стефан Евгений
    • CTyank

      I just began to read this. It looks like a keeper.

    • CTyank

      Yes, those are some deep truths. Is this saying that God is incapable of hate and wrath though? I understand the author when he says that death is not Gods punishment for sin but rather the straight result of it. I would think that the destruction of Sodom was an act of punishment. But then the thoughts on salvation written in the article seem more true than what is commonly taught in most churches.

      • Стефан Евгений

        The Orthodox way of thinking is quite different from the western mindset.
        Here is an example… Christ ascended the cross to do battle with death and the evil one. he was not a helpless victim. Insted of INRI Orthodox cross has The King of Glory on them CT.

        • CTyank

          Yes, I just read on wiki how icons depict spiritual reality rather than physical. I had read about that earlier as well. I’m looking for an apostolic succession church but only just beginning. There is so much to learn and consider, but I like the idea of God not being legalistic and punitive about sin but rather loving us so completely that he hates the idea of cutting themselves off from Him and therefore dieing as a natural consequence. (Do I have that right?)

          • Стефан Евгений


  • Travis McGhee

    All I have to say Walid is Brilliant!!! Bravo!

  • DantesRivers

    Dantes “cheat sheet” for the coming holidays with your protestant friends.

    In order for the bible to be true all generations must call her blessed.

    Luke 1:48 DRA Mary says:
    “Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.”
    Observe the history of the Catholic/Orthodox and you will find this prophesy being fullfilled in EVERY generation. Observe your average protestant church and it would be difficult in any generation even with a Micron microscope to find the fulfillment of this verse. In fact protestants protest her being honored.

    The fasting of the Orthodox and Catholic is prophesy being fulfilled.

    Matthew 9:15 DRA

    And Jesus said to them: Can the children of the bridegroom mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then they shall fast.
    Only in the Orthodox/Catholic tradition can you find this prophesy being fulfilled. A very few protestants may fast but the Orthodox/Catholics are known to fast.

    The church (not the Bible) is the pillar and ground of the truth.
    I Timothy 3:15
    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.

    Praying for the dead. “It is not in the bible” Oh yes it is!
    2 Maccabees 12:46 DRA
    It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.
    Maccabees has been part of the church Bible cannon for over 1500 years.

    Apostolic Succession.
    Mathew 28:18-20 DRA
    And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
    19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
    20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

    In the Catholic/orthodox church can you find an obvious continuous 2000 year link. Protestants have a visible link only to the Reformation.

    Did God hide the light?
    Matthew 5:16 DRA
    So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

    Orthodox/Catholic worship prophesied.
    Incense,Eucharist, daily,morning noon evening Mass/Liturgy among the gentiles.
    Malachi 1:11 KJV

    For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.

  • Woody

    Following Jesus to be sincere is “That ALL may be ONE.” (No one worships the Pope or man–Catholic Church teaches ONLY God may be worshipped (adoration) versus a high respect for someone (veneration)

  • Tom_mcewen

    I read the Protestant viewpoint and then the responses from the Catholics. I saw zero results, just rejection of every argument put forth from history, the Apostolic fathers, the Bible, nothing changed. It struck me that Catholics are trying to save the RMS Protestantism from sinking by using a butter knife to fill 500 years of collision damage. Protestantism is 500 years old, it is a truth where the Lutheran Church has died in Germany, Sweden leading all the passengers facing Extinction in their native land. The Church of England 1534AD is a ship wreck hard down by the head and a failing memory in the land of it’s birthplace, a people who cut the vine and are facing Extinction. All Protestantism is dying, it is a spot of dye which has spread to invisibility. If you think what is happening in Western Europe is not a religious shipwreck go in ten years. The Catholic Church is strong and will survive, not so Protestants. I am called to pray for them, but I wouldn’t they are vicious slanders of false witness. All heresy dies it is now their turn. The Catholic Church is wounded, but will heal with God’s grace, Protestantism God is disinterested in them and their wound will kill them. Napoleon was right and he knew he was doomed by his murder on Pope Pius VI and his imprisonment of Pope Pius VII. When Napoleon’s family was pariahs after his fall the Pope who Napoleon beat gave them shelter at Rome. Bye Protestantism.

    • Julie

      I don’t think Germany ever fully converted to the Catholic faith.

  • So the issues of “Scripture Alone” can only be learned and discovered through “debate alone”?

  • Kamau41

    The fact and reality is Bradley that “sola scriptura” totally refutes itself. You absolutely won’t find it taught anywhere in the Sacred Scriptures or in Church Tradition. Read carefully article below:

  • Julie

    You don’t know history.

    We can end up following puffs of air.

    the Sacramental Life of the Church requires living sacraments to administer…the Priesthood.

    It is in the Epistles….you are by passing.

  • Julie

    This is 20th century Protestant revisionism…and it indicates the lack of any sense of history.

    Any person with any sense of history knows such position does not have any substance.

    Please find another congregation that is based on historical truth and not prejudice.

  • Julie

    Prove it with history…..but you can’t but just the same ol’…that comes out of America that has lost its historical roots.

    Atleast Europeans are not pulled into such. They have some sense of their roots.

  • Julie

    False premise…this position comes out of 1800’s restorationist tracts in America.

    God did not establish His Church, disappear for 1800 years and then inspire anti Catholics in America…

    Better check out the history of anti Catholicism in America first.

    Abraham Lincoln said our country believes all people were created equal except the Negroes, foreigners and Catholics.

  • Julie

    The Universal Church, so named by St. Ignatius of Antioch on his way to martyrdom in 104 AD….was comprised of the patriarchs of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and Rome.

    The Roman secular headquarters were moved to Western Asia Minor to escape the barbarian invasions. The worst persecutions of Christians happened there under Emperor Diocletian. Constantine was inspired to put the Chi Ro on the shields of his soldiers and they won, making Christianity legal and Sunday a day of rest.

    The new seat of Constantinople was thus established.

    Because of how the Eastern Orthodox Christians were restored, they developed more imperialistically with their nationalist connections to their secular government whereas SS Peter and Paul established the Church of Rome solely for the Church….especially in consideration they did so at the very center of the ‘evil empire’.

    Russia converted around 1000 AD….drawing on the clergy who fled the Turks.

  • Julie

    The Catholic French have a very different history with the indigenous people as well as the Catholic missionaries in Mexico…Holy Cross University in the 1500’s had Indian professors and women and girls were given a right to an education hundreds of years before North American Anglo women.

  • Julie

    Study Exodus….the Church, the form of worship is its fulfillment…not bible fellowship groups. They draw one to Christ but are outside the Church.

    So much loss….you can go to heaven with sincere faith…but it is like holding on to a piece of driftwood….as a former protestant professor told someone on Catholic radio awhile back.

  • Woody

    Protestant church founded by a man and 1517 years too late to be the Church Jesus founded; the Orthodox was under the Catholic Church until 1056? when a schism developed; even today they are still close to Catholic beliefs.

  • Julie

    Vatican II was simply meant to be a minor council to assist the Church in communicating the faith to the modern world and to allow indigenous people the use of their own language to worship.

    This has brought about great conversions in Africa to the Catholic faith.

    And it doesn’t mean that African Catholics stop at their cultural level.

    There are African cardinals who are leading the way to liturgical renewal that is more universal and the means sublime.

    Yes, in the end Christ will triumph.

    We all hunger for a more beautiful and worthy liturgy in adoring our Lord.

  • Woody

    It never was called the “Roman” Catholic Church until the 16th century; the letter of St Ignatius in 107 ad IS Extant; (he renamed Jesus Church from the “Way” at this time because people were getting confused by “HERESY” – GO read it yourself, and show me the term “Roman” in his words.

  • Julie

    You don’t know the Bible.

    You just condemned God’s works in the Exodus…Who defined how He wanted to be worshipped…not man.

    The liturgy is the fulfillment of worship of the ancient temple.

    You are looking at the bible through the interpretations of American men going back to the 1800’s.

  • Julie

    Salvation History did not end with the Bible…otherwise there would be no witness to Christ’s death and resurrection.

    What followers is the life of the Church and its believers. As stated in the Gospels, the apostles exhorted to ‘write it down’.

    You are not drawing on anything that happened after the death of the last apostle. You are not drawing on the immense history of the Church, its leaders, saints, its practices.

    As the apostles stated…we follow the Lord as they taught and gave us the traditions….that completely bind us together as one…not just in Word but in the Flesh…

  • Julie

    Who is boasting???

    You are completely bypassing the point: that Christ established One Church, One Baptism and One Body…there is nothing in Scripture that states Sola Scriptura.

    You are a descendant of Luther, no witness to the life of Christ.

    And what do you mean by WORKS? What are you talking about?

    We follow the full gospel, we deny ourselves every day, pick up the Cross and follow Him, not a prosperity bible, make the bible say what we want it to say that only ends in ignorance and prejudice and misinterpretation…thus yours is based on WORKS.

    Look at Christ’s words at the Last Judgment…it has nothing to do with interpreting the bible according to whimsy.

    We are to do penance for our sins, to make up for the wrong we have done…not sin and keep on sinning.

  • Julie

    Likewise, tell God He is wrong to have images and statues of cherubs next to the Mercy Seat…and to have His priests set aside and wear priestly vestments.

    Sorry….we have the One True God physically present among us and we want Him to be adored and placed in His church what is due Him.

    As it was stated looking at Christ on the Cross, He raises all up to Himself.

    Christ restores all of creation back to the Heavenly Father.

    You have no concept of Christ’s Humanity.

  • Julie

    BTW, what sect do you belong? Yours are always going about attacking Catholics but you never come forward to invite people into your place of belief.

    You should change domicile and go to a Catholic parish that will teach you the truth of Scripture, of Christ…and yourself.


  • Julie

    No…you can in no way take one piece of Sacred Scripture and deny Vatican II, especially without studying it.

    I worked in SE Africa and having liturgy in their African dialect, as well as the priest asking questions during the homily to make sure the people were understanding Christ’s message, greatly helped them.

    Later the country fell to Marxism — Mozambique, and these people remained faithful to the Lord.

    Vatican II was meant to be a modest council to use more means in spreading the Word of God.

    What happened were those forces within the Council and American bishops in various dioceses bringing in modernism and the loss of the sense of penance and self denial and the teaching of hell…teaching consequences.

    The Communists infiltrated American and Canadian seminaries. I gave a talk recently at my parish and it was pooh poohed as rumors and mine is a liberal parish….still there in an ever increasing Orthodox one, thank God — because of our new bishop.

    Mine diocese was considered the most controversial one in the entire world under John Paul II….and the first thing our new bishop did was shut down our seminary, and then the priests being divided over time — who would stay with John Paul II and who would stay with the bishop.

    All this was not defined in Vatican II.

  • Julie

    When I go to Mass, I have worked very hard during the week, am pretty sleepy, and work very hard in spite of myself to pay attention to the Word of God, the homily and then to offer myself and all my prayers for my loved ones in the world, and unite myself with the Lord at Holy Communion.

  • Woody

    Mcewen is correct; when someone even a non-saint prays for a person to be saved, many times God answers our prayers. Mary is never “adorated” and always “venerated” so you need to lean English.