Monday, January 25, 2016

There is no "Palestine."

to all you supporters of "Palestine."
you and your parents and grandparents have been lied to. you are not on occupied Palestinian land, you are on occupied JORDANIAN land. there was never a Palestine after the Roman conquest except as a geographic designator. it was JORDANIAN land, before that BRITISH MANDATE land before that OTTOMAN EMPIRE land, before that BYZANTINE EMPIRE land before that ROMAN UNDIVIDED EMPIRE land before that ISRAELITE land briefly conquered by GREEKS of ANATOLIAN connection, before that ISRAELITE semi autonomous under PERSIA, before that PERSIAN land before that BABYLONIAN land before that ISRAELITE land before that various Canaanite city states who were into such perversion, idolatry, human sacrifice etc. God decided to let their evil become full so He would destroy them, and at that point gave it to ABRAHAM and his descendants collected on this after being in Egypt.

There was never any "Palestinian people" or "Palestinian land," it is made up lies peddled by Nazi Germany partnered with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem looking to further their geopolitical games against Russia and Britain, which had gone on for 200 years prior.
And if you are Christians in the "Palestinian cause" you are helping people gain control who will turn on you and persecute you.

Thursday, January 14, 2016

Should PETA be allowed to define what is humane?

sent to my email

Does PETA have the right to determine what’s “humane”          considering their views on animals?      by Adele Douglass
I don’t think you can stand in the way of progress for farm animals, euthanize more dogs and cats than other animal shelters, and still call yourself a “humane” organization.
The PETA animal shelter in Norfolk, Va., euthanizes dogs and cats in far greater numbers than does other animal shelters in Virginia.
According to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, PETA has euthanized more than 33,514 animals since 1998 at its Norfolk shelter. In 2014, the group euthanized 2,454 of the 3,369 cats, dogs and other animals there. Most were “surrenders” – pets turned into shelters by their previous owners. Only 23 dogs and 16 cats were adopted.
By contrast, the Lynchburg Humane Society (LHS), also in Virginia, took in about the same number of animals as PETA in 2014, but saved 94 percent of its homeless pets. Other animal shelters in the state found homes for more than 90 percent of their animals, and without the $51,933,001 that PETA raised in contributions and merchandising in 2014.
Tabitha Frizzell Hanes, of the Richmond SPCA, once wrote on the shelter’s blog, “Over the past decade, as save rates at private shelters across Virginia have risen and euthanasia rates have fallen, the PETA facility euthanizes the animals it takes in at a rate of about 90 percent. It is out of step with the progress being made for our state’s homeless animals for a private shelter to operate not with the purpose of finding animals adoptive homes, but almost entirely to take their lives.”
Meanwhile, the elimination of pets rather than finding the animals new homes appears to be something PETA embraces. PETA President Ingrid Newkirk once admitted, I would go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself … I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day. The animals…got the gift of euthanasia, and to them it was the best gift they’ve ever had. How dare you pretend to help animals and turn your back on those who want an exit from an uncaring world!”
According to an article published in the Huffington Post in 2015, a former PETA employee, Heather Harper-Troje, the wife of a U.S. diplomat, alleged that Newkirk authorized her and other employees to steal and kill pets, then falsify records in order to cover their tracks. Harper-Troje said, “If we felt an animal was in immediate danger we would steal them . . . It was what she told us to do — it was standard operating procedure . . . If you adopt out dogs you steal then you leave a trail, in theory. If they just go poof, there is no trail.”
America has been hoodwinked to think that PETA wants to help animals, when in fact it wants to eliminate pet ownership and sever all our ties with the animal kingdom.
PETA’s Web site and print material states: 
“Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.”
“Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles — from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it.”
“The cat, like the dog, must disappear…We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist.”
“As John Bryant has written in his book ‘Fettered Kingdoms,’ they [pets] are like slaves, even if well-kept slaves.”
“In a perfect world, all other than human animals would be free of human interference, and dogs and cats would be part of the ecological scheme.”
[Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild…they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch T.V.”
“The bottom line is that people don’t have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats. If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind.”
That will not likely sit well with the estimated 70 million to 80 million dogs and 74 million to 96 million cats living with people in the United States. [Source: American Pet Product Association]
As the executive director for Humane Farm Animal Care (HFAC), I have spent 35 years working on animal protection issues. After seeing laying hens crammed in cages and pigs confined to gestation crates, I launched HFAC in 2003 to improve the lives of farm animals raised for food.
However, HFAC’s mission is not to turn everyone into vegans. With 95 percent of the U.S. eating meat, HFAC offers a realistic approach to helping farm animals with standards of care written by the world’s top animal welfare scientists. These standards ensure farm animals cage-free, allowed to exhibit natural behaviors, receive humane care throughout their lives, and includes humane slaughter guidelines. The standards also require the animals’ diets are free from hormones, antibiotics, and animal by-products. HFAC uses third-party independent inspectors to perform audits for the Certified Humane Raised and Handled® program, which has grown from 143,000 farm animals in 2003 to more than 103 million farm animals today in four countries.
All too often animal rights groups such as PETA sabotage farm animal welfare progress. Although they may appear to attack factory farming, they go after animal welfare groups such as ours that are trying to improve the lives of farm animals. They would rather see farm animals suffer to promote their agenda than support compassionate standards and systemic change to the farm animal system. That’s the height of hypocrisy to me.  They would rather go after companies and farmers who have actually worked very hard to raise the animals the right way.
A growing number of farmers, producers, grocery stores, and retailers who want to improve the lives of farm animals, are under constant pressure by PETA to halt this progress because PETA believes factory farming will result in more vegetarians and vegans. Recently, fast-food retailer, Tasty Burger succumbed to PETA’s pressure to drop HFAC’s Certified Humane Raised and Handled® label from its menu because as PETA puts it, “the only truly humane meal is a vegan meal.” PETA also went after Whole Foods, asking that firm to remove “humane,” “humanely-raised,” and “raised with care” from its marketing materials.
Humane Society of the United States President Wayne Pacelle quickly came to Whole Foods’ defense, saying, “This is why I am troubled that PETA has chosen to sue Whole Foods in an apparent attempt to undermine or call into question the value of the GAP program.  This is counterproductive, especially in a marketplace where there are dozens of other chains nearly exclusively selling factory farm animal products. Not one of them has done as much as Whole Foods has to promote more plant-based eating and to advance farm animal welfare and fight factory farming in very practical terms.”
PETA’s Newkirk was once quoted as saying, “Businesses are terrified. They have no idea what I’m going to do next.”
People who choose to be vegans and vegetarians will not be persuaded to eat meat because of
HFAC’s standards. Putting pressure on businesses that want to make a difference for farm animals and keeping the status quo of factory farming alive only increases animal suffering. Any progress for animals is seen as a loss by PETA because it wants animals gone from our lives. That’s PETA’s warped strategy – a strategy that causes farm animals to continue to suffer in factory farms because that better supports their agenda.
The fact that this group continues to portray itself as the humane stewards of animals is duplicitous. I don’t think you can call yourself “humane” while you’re standing in the way of the humane treatment of farm animals and euthanizing dogs and cats at a 99 percent rate at your shelter. They’re not interested in creating a humane world, only a world where our relationship with animals is broken. Does this sound like an organization working on “humane” changes for animals?

Friday, January 1, 2016

Church Fathers on the Scriptures from a post on facebook

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386 A.D.):
“No doctrine concerning the divine and saving mysteries of the faith, however trivial, may be taught without the backing of the holy Scriptures. We must not let ourselves be drawn aside by mere persuasion and cleverness of speech. Do not even give absolute belief to me, the one who tells you these things, unless you receive proof from the divine Scriptures of what I teach. For the faith that brings us salvation acquires its force, not from fallible reasonings, but from what can be proved out of the holy Scriptures.”
“For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17)
“This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture-proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.” (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Oxford: Parker, 1845, The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.17).
Saint Gregory of Nyssa (335-395 A.D.):
“We treat the Holy Bible as the test of every dogma and rule, excepting [should read "accepting"] only such things that agree with the meaning of scripture.”
“We make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings…And to those who are expert only in the technical methods of proof a mere demonstration suffices to convince; but as for ourselves, we were agreed that there is something more trustworthy than any of these artificial conclusions, namely, that which the teachings of Holy Scripture point to: and so I deem that it is necessary to inquire, in addition to what has been said, whether this inspired teaching harmonizes with it all. And who, she replied, could deny that truth is to be found only in that upon which the seal of Scriptural testimony is set?” - (On the Soul and the Resurrection)
Saint Irenaeus of Lyon (circa 115-175 A.D.):
“They [heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures…We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith….It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and to demonstrate the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these heretics rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to ‘the perfect’ apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon to the Church, but if they should fall away, the direst calamity….proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves.” (Against Heresies, 1:8:1, 3:1:1, 3:3:1, 3:12:9)
Saint Bede the Venerable (672-735 A.D.):
"Holy Scripture is above all other books, not only by its authority, because it is divine, or by its utility, because it leads to eternal life, but also by its antiquity and by its literary form."
Saint John Chrysostom of Constantinople (347–407 A.D.):
"Now if we are willing to examine the Scriptures in this way, carefully and systematically, we shall be able to obtain our salvation. If we unceasingly are preoccupied with them, we shall learn both correctness of doctrine and an upright way of life. (Homily 53 On John)
"This is the cause of all evils, the not knowing the Scriptures. We go into battle without arms, and how are we to come off safe?" (Homily IX On Colossians)
“That which the Scriptures state, ‘the Lord himself has said’, and so, even if someone were to rise from the dead or an angel were to come down from heaven, they would not deserve more credence than the Scriptures.”
"The Holy Scriptures were not given to us that we should enclose them in books, but that we should engrave them upon our hearts."
Saint Innocent of Alaska (August 26, 1797 - March 31, 1879 A.D.):
"First of all, a Christian must thoroughly study the foundations of the Christian faith. To that end, you must read and reread the Holy Scriptures on a regular basis, especially the books of the New Testament. You must not only learn their contents but also develop an interest in their origin, who wrote them and when, how they were preserved and have been handed down to us, and why they are called Divine and Sacred. You must study the Holy Books with simplicity of heart, without prejudice or excessive inquisitiveness, not trying to discover hidden mysteries but trying to learn that which leads us to self-improvement. Certainly all that is necessary for us to know for our salvation is revealed quite clearly and in detail in the Scriptures."
Hippolytus of Rome (170-235 A.D.):
“Some others are secretly introducing another doctrine, who have become disciples of one Noetus, who was a native of Smyrna, and lived not very long ago. This person was greatly puffed up and inflated with pride, being inspired by the conceit of a strange spirit. He alleged that Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born, and suffered, and died….But the case stands not thus; for the Scriptures do not set forth the matter in this manner….the Scriptures themselves confute their senselessness, and attest the truth…The Scriptures speak what is right; but Noetus is of a different mind from them. Yet, though Noetus does not understand the truth, the Scriptures are not at once to be repudiated….The proper way, therefore, to deal with the question is first of all to refute the interpretation put upon these passages [of scripture] by these men, and then to explain their real meaning….For whenever they wish to attempt anything underhand, they mutilate the Scriptures. But let him quote the passage as a whole, and he will discover the reason kept in view in writing it….if they choose to maintain that their dogma is ratified by this passage [of scripture], as if He owned Himself to be the Father, let them know that it is decidedly against them, and that they are confuted by this very word….Many other passages [of scripture], or rather all of them, attest the truth. A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three. But if he desires to learn how it is shown still that there is one God, let him know that His power is one….What, then, will this Noetus, who knows nothing of the truth, dare to say to these things? And now, as Noetus has been confuted, let us turn to the exhibition of the truth itself, that we may establish the truth, against which all these mighty heresies have arisen without being able to state anything to the purpose. There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us took; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them.” (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 1-4, 7-9)
Saint Ambrose of Milan (340-4 April, 397 A.D.):
“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?” (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)
“The Arians, then, say that Christ is unlike the Father; we deny it. Nay, indeed, we shrink in dread from the word. Nevertheless I would not that your sacred Majesty should trust to argument and our disputation. Let us enquire of the Scriptures, of apostles, of prophets, of Christ. In a word, let us enquire of the Father…So, indeed, following the guidance of the Scriptures, our fathers [at the Council of Nicaea] declared, holding, moreover, that impious doctrines should be included in the record of their decrees, in order that the unbelief of Arius should discover itself, and not, as it were, mask itself with dye or face-paint.” (Exposition of the Christian Faith, 1:6:43, 1:18:119)
Saint Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D.):
“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.” – Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 7:16)
Saint Cyprian of Carthage (circa 200–September 14, 258 A.D.):
“Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down. Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles? For that those things which are written must be done, God witnesses and admonishes, saying to Joshua the son of Nun: ‘The book of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate in it day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein.’ Also the Lord, sending His apostles, commands that the nations should be baptized, and taught to observe all things which He commanded. If, therefore, it is either prescribed in the Gospel, or contained in the epistles or Acts of the Apostles, that those who come from any heresy should not be baptized, but only hands laid upon them to repentance, let this divine and holy tradition be observed.” (Letter 73:2)
Saint Dionysius the Great of Alexandria (circa 200 A.D.-November 17, 265 A.D.):
“Nor did we evade objections, but we endeavored as far as possible to hold to and confirm the things which lay before us, and if the reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others; but on the contrary, conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures.” (cited in Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius, 7:24)
Saint Basil the Great of Caesarea (circa. 329-January 1, 379 A.D.):
Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right (Letter CCLXXXIII, ANCF, p. 312).
Saint Hilary of Poitiers (circa 300-368 A.D.):
“Their treason involves us in the difficult and dangerous position of having to make a definite pronouncement, beyond the statements of Scripture, upon this grave and abstruse matter….We must proclaim, exactly as we shall find them in the words of Scripture, the majesty and functions of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and so debar the heretics from robbing these Names of their connotation of Divine character, and compel them by means of these very Names to confine their use of terms to their proper meaning….I would not have you flatter the Son with praises of your own invention; it is well with you if you be satisfied with the written word.” (On the Trinity, 2:5, 3:23)
Saint Jerome (347-30 September, 420 A.D.):
“When, then, anything in my little work seems to you harsh, have regard not to my words, but to the Scripture, whence they are taken.” (Letter, 48:20)
“I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books [Scriptures], to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else.” (Letter, 53:10)
“When Paula comes to be a little older and to increase like her Spouse in wisdom and stature and in favour with God and man, let her go with her parents to the temple of her true Father but let her not come out of the temple with them. Let them seek her upon the world’s highway amid the crowds and the throng of their kinsfolk, and let them find her nowhere but in the shrine of the Scriptures” (Letter, 107:7)
Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.):
“And now, if I say this to you, although I have repeated it many times, I know that it is not absurd so to do. For it is a ridiculous thing to see the sun, and the moon, and the other stars, continually keeping the same course, and bringing round the different seasons; and to see the computer who may be asked how many are twice two, because he has frequently said that they are four, not ceasing to say again that they are four; and equally so other things, which are confidently admitted, to be continually mentioned and admitted in like manner; yet that he who founds his discourse on the prophetic Scriptures should leave them and abstain from constantly referring to the same Scriptures, because it is thought he can bring forth something better than Scripture. The passage, then, by which I proved that God reveals that there are both angels and hosts in heaven is this: ‘Praise the Lord from the heavens: praise Him in the highest. Praise Him, all His angels: praise Him, all His hosts.’” (Dialogue with Trypho, 85)
Theodoret of Cyrus (393-457 A.D.):
“I shall yield to Scripture alone.” (Dialogues, 1)
Elder Cleopa of Romania (10 April 1912 - 2 December 1998):
"Holy Scripture contains within it unanswerable passages or, as Saint Gregory of Nyssa puts it, 'strong bones'. Some would like to break these bones of Scripture with their wisdom teeth as of yet still only suitable for sucking milk. However, such a thing they would never be able to manage. All who have desired to plunge into the depths of Scripture have drowned in the fathomless ocean that is the wisdom of God. Such was the portion shared by Origen, Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Sabellius, Dioscorus, Eutyches and all the other chiefs of the ancient heresies who have been swallowed up in the unfathomable sea of Holy Scripture. The profundity and depth of Scripture was not the cause of their fall and drowning, but rather they themselves were the cause, due to their own insufficiencies, of being drowned in the depths of the mysteries of the Scriptures.
"Holy Scripture is like a fountain or an endless spring, of the wisdom of God in which we must be steeped and partake in accordance with our level of wisdom and spiritual maturity. Just as we take water from the well with a bucket, empty it into our pitcher and then into our glass in order to quench our bodys thirst, so must we also do with our spiritual thirst when we are urged to drink of the deepest ocean of wisdom, the Holy Scriptures. Thus, spiritually speaking, if we draw more water from the well of Scripture than is drinkable (out of desire for the purity of our intellect (νούς) and heart), due to our pride and inquisitiveness we will be destroyed in our attempt to grasp the incomprehensible with our limited human faculties. If, for example, we were to see a child from the first grade trying to learn and to teach others that which is taught at the university, how much laughter and amusement would it provoke in us! The same and worse happens to those who desire to scrutinize and unravel the incomprehensible mysteries of the Scriptures with an intellect inexperienced and unenlightened by the Holy Spirit."

Facing Islam

"...No one on the Caliphate curve is moderate. Some on the Caliphate curve are just more patient. They put up billboards, create hashtags and try to ban any criticism of their ideology as Islamophobic. But that’s just Caliphatism with a human face. And that makes them a much more dangerous enemy.

ISIS is in some ways our least dangerous enemy. We haven’t defeated ISIS, because we haven’t even tried. Instead Obama fights a war in which 75 percent of strikes on ISIS are blocked and leaflets are dropped 45 minutes before a strike on oil tankers warning ISIS to flee. If we were to fight ISIS by the same rules as our wars in the last century, the Islamic State would have been crushed long ago.

A insta-Caliphate like ISIS isn’t hard to beat. The global networks of Al Qaeda employing more conventional terror tactics are a trickier force because they are embedded within the stream of Muslim migration. And the Muslim Brotherhood is the trickiest of them all because it is so deeply embedded within Muslim populations in the West that it represents and controls those populations. 

What ISIS accomplishes by brute force, the Muslim Brotherhood does by setting up networks of front groups. Both ISIS and the Brotherhood control large Muslim populations. ISIS conquers populations in failed states. The Muslim Brotherhood however exercises control over populations in the cities of the West. We could bomb Raqqa, but can we bomb Dearborn, Jersey City or Irvine?

This is where the Caliphate curve truly reaches its most terrifying potential.

The original Islamic expansionism was so devastating not because it managed to seize control over the hinterlands of Arabia, but because it conquered and subjugated civilized cities such as Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Athens and Delhi. ISIS envisions repeating these conquests and more, but if it succeeds it will not be because of its military strategy, but because it targets have been colonized.

We can destroy ISIS tomorrow, but we will still be in an extended war with a hundred other groups who all have a vision for restoring the Caliphate. This war will never end until we crush their supremacist agenda by demonstrating that we will never again allow such a horror to exist on this earth. As long as Muslim groups hold out hope for a restoration of the Caliphate this war, in its various forms, will go on...."

Adam Weishaupt was neither Jewish nor Jesuit.

"the shadowy group known as the Illuminati was founded by a Jewish organizer named Adam Weishaupt, whose father was a Rabbi in Bavaria."

This is false. his father was "Johann Georg Weishaupt (24 April 1716 – 20 September 1753) was a professor of law at the University of Ingolstadt.

"Johann Georg Weishaupt, born in Brilon in the Prussian government district of Arnsberg in Westphalia.[1] He studied law in the University of Würzburg under Johann Adam von Ickstatt (1702–1776).... became a professor of law at the University of Ingolstadt in 1746. Weishaupt also moved from Würzburg to the University of Ingolstadt.[3] Ickstatt had him appointed professor of imperial institutions and criminal law by decree of 14 October 1746.[1] ...
Weishaupt died suddenly while on holiday on 20 September 1753 in Heiligenthal near Würzburg. ... Johann Adam von Ickstatt, also a professor of law at the University of Ingolstadt and Adam's godfather, took over Adam Weishaupt's upbringing.[1]" no indication he was Jewish but "he was a major proponent of the Enlightenment in Bavaria. He died in Waldsassen. He was a godfather to Adam Weishaupt." probably a bad influence of the gentile sort.

Weishaupt was NOT A JESUIT EITHER. The event that set him in motion, was that the chair he had his eye on was designated to always be had by a Jesuit, which he was not. Thwarted pride and ambition. This I got from one of the early books from the 1800s exposing the Illuminati.

A defense of such Roman Catholic doctrines as are the same as Eastern Orthodox

This is from Constance Cumbey's blog, in answer to ongoing harassment of another poster who is Roman Catholic. (aka RC.) There is more added here than was there for reasons of not hogging her blog.

RayB's question where RC doctrines are in Scripture. your other list dating some
doctrines is wrong. All or most have a history before that. Got it from some sources who know nothing of church history beyond the Reformation, right? And you also made reference to early church errors before Constantine, what would those be?
The Body and Blood of Christ being real perhaps?



"how about convincing me that Roman Catholic doctrine & dogma is based on God's Word?
For example, please provide the "convincing" Scriptural proof for the following:"


presbyters elders word morphed into "priest"
but by AD 130 I guess the usual term for the leader of the elders was "president of the
assembly," presbytidos I think is the word. This is what St. Justin Martyr c. AD 150
calls the one who makes the Eucharistic prayers after which the bread and wine become
while St. Irenaeus says the same from Europe, so the teaching of the Church on this matter
is uniform. More on this later.
all the verses relating to the elders, some specialized in one thing some another to judge
by the reference to those who labor in teaching. THE PRIEST IS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BISHOP

THAT ALL THINGS HOUILD BE DONE IN ORDER is a general principle which would result in hierarchy and someone leading the meetings.


ABSENT and highly questionable. Great push from north Africa in
this direction, resulting in a reluctant agreement of this per bishops, and Tertullian "father
of Latin Christianity" was north African as was St. Augustine. the north Africans tended to
radical extremes, north Africa spawed Donatism and other heresies. Tertullian himself fell
in with the Montanists, probably due to their extreme asceticism, and denounced the Scythic
and northwards of them women who rode horseback astride as immodest. Tertullian is not a
Church Father because he died in heresy, but nonetheless had remarkable influence.
I Timothy 3:2-13

Last Supper and Paul's remarks about partaking without perceiving the Body of The Lord, I Cor. 11:29. THIS POINTS TO A SENTIENT REALITY IN THE BREAD AND WINE THAT CAN

"sacrifice of the Mass" is a bad phrasing. "the unbloody sacrifice" is better, because bread and wine not the body and blood of Christ are sacrificed, and God returns these to the priest and laity (which means the people in Greek) as the Body and Blood of Christ. PAUL ALSO SAYS WE HAVE AN ALTAR THAT THOSE WHO SERVE AT THE JEWISH ALTAR CANNOT PARTAKE OF. so the idea of the unbloody sacrifice being done on an ALTAR is Apostolic. sacrifices are made on an altar, an altar implies offerings to God, and the believer also is altar giving sacrifices or offerings of praise and thanksgiving and prayers for others to God. But this latter is NOT the only meaning. "AN ALTAR," in that context in Hebrews, points to a physical ritual altar. Hebrews 13:10


ABSENT and baseless, something that will have to be dumped if RC is to rejoin Orthodoxy. Unnecessary, since God needed only to block original sin transfer in the womb, or cleanse only her womb, or render her immaculate just before conception. If Jesus needed His mother to be without original sin in order to have a prelapsarian human nature, then she needed her mother to be immaculately conceived also, gets ridiculous when you think about it. Some early fathers refer to her as "all
immaculate," but this was about her personal life. By God's grace she did not manifest the sin nature, but still had this. There is a crackpot theory out there, that a person's spirit is inherited traducian style from the father only, and original sin runs patrilineally, not passed through the mother. RC officially rejected traducianism in favor of special creation of each soul and spirit, but traducianism is the basis for the claim of Melchizedec being superior to Aaron and the levitical priesthood in Hebrews. Hebrews 7:9 and context, which in this case is the whole chapter and preceding chapter.

EO never did this, but influenced by RC due to jesuits training our priests in the past when we were lacking educational facilities, such notions crept in among us. This "creationism" of the soul is another thing RC should dump. The soul material, for lack of a better word, transmits as does the physical material, half a physical germ cell and with it half of soul material, which being fluid is more malleable and shapable for good or ill than the physical. The idea of special creation of each spirit, seems to draw on Origenism, while making it not happen before conception but at conception. There used to be disputes in the west as to when the child was ensouled or you could argue enspirited.


ABSENT, BUT TRUE OR FALSE COULD NOT BE IN SCRIPTURE BECAUSE SHE DIED AFTER SCRIPTURE WAS FINISHED.the belief existed back to the 400s or 500s AD when a church being built in her honor asked church leaders of the city where she died for a relic but there was none, because after her death Jesus Christ came and resurrected her and took her to heaven. AND THIS HAD BEEN KEPT A SECRET AMONG THEM, FROM THAT TIME, BECAUSE SHE HAD ORDERED THOSE PRESENT TO NOT TELL ANYONE OF THIS, LEST IT DISTRACT ATTENTION FROM HER SON TO HER. That makes it credible to me, because this is consistent with the little we know of her from Scripture. AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROTESTANT CONCERNS SO PROTESTANT READERS SHOULD TAKE NOTE. The focus her developed later in reaction to gnostics who denied Christ's full humanity and declared His physical body an illusion, because this was to emphasize the reality of Christ's INCARNATION. I think she would dislike some things now.

absent, but the Hebrew royal categorization practice was that the queen was not the wife of the king but the mother of the king.


began as prayers to God in the presence of relicsand tombs of martyrs figuring one was closer to God when closer to His martyrs, and came to include requests to them to pray for us. A lot of Marian visions are highly dubious, and any visionaries
who had "locutions" should be ignored as hysterical or worse and that's probably most of them. This sort of thing is back of a lot of later RC doctrinal and practice development. There is not much teaching on the possibility of deception by demons or by the flesh given to the laity while Orthodoxy has this kind of warning published and taught by spiritual fathers to non monastics who visited for
advice and so forth. God being oniscient and Mary and the saints having a close relationship with Him, He can let them know that someone wants their prayers for them.




ABSENT and damn near simony. This would of course be regarding special masses for the dead or some purpose, assuming it is still done now. EO under financial pressure
to support the Ecumenical Patriarch who was under financial pressure from the Turkish ruler developed a system of paying for everything, which remained to this day except among the Greeks who are usually better supported. at least in America. thus you pay in some jurisdictions to get your house blessed, moleben special prayer ceremonies in the church for the dead usually, and baptisms.


logical development over years adapting to circumstances. James 5:16


purgatory is one of those things RC will have to admit they are wrong about and throw out before they can be admitted back into Orthodoxy, the shared communion is rare, extreme circumstances, almost non existent. "reunion" of the RC with Orthodox can only be on the basis of submission again to the original church. THERE IS NO NOTION OF CHRIST'S WORK BEING UNFINISHED. THE CONCERN IS ABOUT UNCONFESSED OR

PURGATORY IS A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE PHENOMENON OF TOLLHOUSES, itself reworked to have questionable elements in it in a questionable vision or dream, but the fear that demons could like a tollhouse keeper lurk and rush on you and grab you, because of sins burdening you down, and prevent for a while your getting up to heaven, goes back to early prayers. It is a logical concept when one thinks of the issue of sins alienating you from God. If you haven't grossed out the angels they will defend you. Near death experiences have included such monsters grabbing at you or right in hell with a cry to Jesus or in one case a mental certainty that Christ walking by could rescue the person being enough to save the person, the man in white seen either Christ or an angel only looked at him at that thought and he was back in his body. Usually these situations are disrupted by rescusitation
efforts. some were in hell and begged not to be let die, others were in heaven and wanted to stay there. the ones with horrific experiences when asked later often had suppressed them, and only remembered the initial peaceful feeling state during separation from the body.
THE VERSES CITED BY RC TO SUPPORT PURGATORY READ IN CONTEXT ARE MORE ABOUT THE LAST JUDGEMENT PAUL SAYS WE ALL WILL STAND BEFORE THE JUDGEMENT SEAT OF CHRIST, AND HE SAID THAT TO CHRISTIANS, 2Cor 15:10 that doesn't mean a foretaste of the situation won't exist among the dead, as Jesus showed regarding the rich man and Lazarus, the only parable that named a name.
Protestants are too slipshod. a verse here, a verse there, and a fragmented picture is built.


ABSENT and baseless as a logical development. EO did this a few times thanks to RC influence.


absent, but a logical development of the idea of praying constantly. However the content can be argued with. We pray using a knotted cord, to keep count of prayers.


Onisephorus 2 Timothy 1:16-18; 4:19 which uses the concept of asking for him to be shown mercy "on that day" i.e., day of judgement, that the maccabees used. Prayers for the dead were part of Jewish practice so would have naturally continued in the early Church. Paul twice refers to Onesiphorus' household without mentioning him as among them, then refers to him and prays that The Lord have mercy on him on that day because he had helped Paul a lot. Onesiphorus is always talked about past tense when at all so he is dead, and combined with that prayer for him shows he was dead. JESUS SAID WITH GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE, MATT. 19:26 and the context is the repentance and salvation and eternal life of those who in this life it is harder to get into the Kingdom of God than getting a camel through the eye of a needle. Logically the same could be applied to an equally difficult salvation situation. Jesus said He has the keys of Hades and Death, Rev. 1:18, hades of course is not torment hell, but INCLUDES it being the realm of the dead in general. IPeter 3:18-20; 4:6 someone argued mere announcement kerygma not invitation euangelion was used, but BOTH words are used.


Elisha's bones brought a dead man back to life, and do you think recipients of those cloths blessed by having been worn by Peter would have tossed them away? Even his shadow was thought would cure if it fell on someone, and you could call someone's shadow a relic of the person. 2Kings 13:21, Acts 19:12, Acts 15:15 a shadow could be called a relic of someone, however ephemeral;


ABSENT the only infallibility was held to be the Scriptures, appealed to by
the Creed to support the doctrine of the REsurrection of Christ, and the dogmatic pronouncements of the Ecumenical Councils. NOT NECESSARILY THE CANONS THAT WERE PRESENTED SEPARATE AND AFTER THE DOGMATIC DECLARATIONS, AT LEAST ONCE ONE OF THESE WAS CHANGED BY A LATER COUNCIL.


absent but true or false would not be in Scripture this occurred after Acts ends with Paul still alive in Rome. By this logic, the Apostles evaporated at this point. Or, you could argue none of them died because their deaths are not recorded in the
Bible. Church historians in the next few centuries drew on written accounts now lost. Think nothing happened after Acts ended? Peter didn't get to Rome until after Paul though or Paul wouldn't have said he wanted to give them a blessing that they be established, the faith was brought there by converts who converted others, they had no bishop. Whether Peter was the first bishop or only appointed the first bishop is not clear, but by one account he appointed the bishop AS bishop just before he died, so when he died he was not himself bishop any more. PETER'S LETTERS ARE FROM "BABYLON" WHICH RESEARCHERS SAY WAS A TERM USED ABOUT ROME AMONG THE JEWS. Peter was Jewish. and by that time Babylon was a ruin. (yes it was destroyed, not by Cyrus the Great but later by others over time.)

PETER DID NOT FOUND THE ROMAN CONGREGATION. Romans 15:20 is cited by some that Paul didn't found them but Peter must have because Paul says he worked to preach where others hadn't so he wouldn't build on another man's foundation. BUT THE CONTEXT IS, his travels hither and yon, and verse 20 "FOR WHICH CAUSE ALSO I HAVE BEEN MUCH HINDERED FROM COMING TO YOU." So he had not stayed out of Rome because he wanted to avoid building on another man's foundation, but had been too busy not building

Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Roman congregation, they founded themselves! They believed on Jesus because of the words of believers who came to Rome. But they had no bishop or Apostolic Succession as yet, but were Christians because they believed in Jesus Christ as King and God Incarnate and His atoning death and His Resurrection. SOMEONE CLAIMED RC WAS FOUNDED BY SIMON MAGUS, MUST BE ANOTHER HISLOPPIAN. HISLOP IN HIS SLOPPY WAY, FALLING ALL OVER HIMSELF TO PROVE PETER WAS NEVER IN ROME, ESTABLISHED A TWO YEAR WINDOW WHEN HE COULD HAVE BEEN THERE BUT DISMISSED IT, AND SAID A SIMON PETER WAS IN ROME GUESS WHAT,THAT WAS PETER'S NAME! Simon magus was not the same person. Obviously.

to which can be added, MAINTENANCE OF SALVATION BY GOOD WORKS - what else are you going to make
of the Last Judgement scene? and Paul's statement that you are in Christ and Christ in you unless you
are reprobate? the Greek word is some kind of muddle about something you don't or aren't speaking of
one could read it "unless you are unspeakable?" MATT. 7:21; MATT. 18:23-35; MATT. 22:11-13 the guest
without the wedding garment of righteousness, someone who is an easy believer and feels free to sin
and even ignore Christ or deny Him once they've been "saved" by the sinner's prayer I suppose?

MATT. 24: 45-51; MATT. 25:31-46


definitely present in warnings surrounding those once saved always saved perseverence verses out of context, in context they are saying you will not lose your salvation if you hang onto it and persevere in it and repent if you fall into sin and keep persevering against sin. REVIEW THE BIBLE VERSES IN THE PREVIOUS SECTION. also I Cor. 13:5; I JOHN 16, 17 ALSO SHOWS DEGREES OF SIN, "ALL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS IS SIN: AND THERE IS A SIN NOT UNTO DEATH." REV. CHAPTERS TWO AND THREE LETTERS TO CHURCHES WARNING OF JUDGEMENT OF VARYING DEGREES, SEE ALSO WARNING
"Priesthood: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the “lay people,” whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9)."

one verse out of context and ignoring origin pointed to. EXODUS 19:6 A nation of priests God called Israel, yet they had priests and non priests, but as a nation were priests before God to the rest of the world. All could offer to God THROUGH the priest, and all could offer praise and prayer.

Paul's instructions clearly make such a distinction, and the priesthood of all believers verse draws on the SAME idea presented in the Torah, yet distinctions and a separate priesthood over this nation of priests existed then. We are not lacking priesthood but rather a new priesthood that of Melchizedec is in play, with Jesus as permanent High Priest. if there is a high priest there are lesser priests. The laity are priests who give the offering of praise, worship, prayer, light candles in church and can burn incense at home, contribution to the church maintenance and support of the poor. Can do baptism if a priest is lacking.

Paul's instructions show the bishop and deacon especially are to be models. episkopos means OVERSEER that is a rank above the overseen, is it not?

"Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you." Heb. 13:17
RayB said...
"I am very familiar with Woodrow's work and reject it."
So you read his book or just the review? Are you acquainted with that list of practices
shared by pagans and Israel, none of them condemned and some mandated by God?
"How anyone can be dedicated enough to his "work" to the point of writing a book
and then turn around and write another book to debunk his first "work" is beyond me."
Apparently you identify more with "dedication" and following ones own heart
than dedication to truth. Woodrow was not dedicated to his heart, but to truth, and
finding he had supported a lie, proceeded to correct the lie instead of clinging
to this false love. However, he retained issues with RC on some points.
Everything known about ancient mesopotamian false religion shows it was very
different from RC except few vague similarities. Maybe you should
objective archaeological sources. similarity is not identity. Hislop identifies
various false gods and heroes as one and the same despite wild differences, on
the basis of one or two similarities.
As for Queen of Heaven, the queen in Israelite practice was not the king's wife
but his mother. Hence Mary being queen of heaven.
"Furthermore, it does not matter what Woodrow or anyone else for that matter thinks
of Hislop's book. The book itself stands on its own merits."
Which are slipshod. The issue is not what someone THINKS about the book, but what
sources Hislop uses actually say, which are not entirely what he says they say.
Sounds like your attitude is "Hislop said it, I believe it that's that."
""The truth remains the truth even when no one believes it. A lie remains a lie even
when everyone believes it."" This is true, and you should therefore double check
what you believe lest you find you have acquired a few lies. Woodrow checked Hislop's
 sources and the Bible and found Hislop was wrong.

What Hislop dug up would also refute the Incarnation and virgin birth and The Trinity,
Hislop wouldn't go this far, so he said the presence of things like this in paganism
were a vague memory of truth known in the past. THE SAME CAN BE SAID OF EVERYTHING HISLOP COMPLAINS ABOUT.
St. Ignatius supports the real presence, c. Ad 35-50 to c. AD 98-110, AND HE WAS
" The idea of a physical presence was vaguely held by some, such as Ambrose, but it
was not until 831 A.D. that Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine Monk, published a
treatise openly advocating the doctrine. Even then, for almost another four centuries,
theological was was waged over this teaching by bishops and people alike, until at
the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D.,"
Actually, no. The doctrine is to be found in Irenaeus, who makes the distinction in
addressing accusations of cannibalism, between actual human flesh (like what is
carved off a body) and the transformed bread which is flesh also, but not in the
obvious same way, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, from Europe and the Middle East
respectively, say it is Christ's flesh (and blood). c. AD 180 and 150, so the teachings
of the Church on this was the same. Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp who was taught by
the Apostle John.
So the real presence of Christ's literal Body and Blood in the Eucharistic bread and
wine is legitimate APOSTOLIC TEACHING. The accusations of cannibalism by Romans during at least one or more of the persecutions shows the doctrine was universal before Constantine.

the controversy arose because someone who did not doubt Christ's presence in the
Eucharistic wafter or host, but who thought it was somehow different than His historic
flesh feared this notion would imply Christ was re crucified every Mass. In other
words, he did not reject that Christ's flesh (I guess he meant His resurrection flesh
with more miraculous properties than the pre resurrection body, but still that same
body?) was in the bread. It was a question of how much so I guess. stirring this pot
was the scientific focus.
"The first Eucharistic controversy emerged from the Abbey at Corbie, headed by the
Benedictine abbot Paschasius Radbertus (+ 859), who is honoured as a saint by the
Church. In his writings De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, he taught a complete identity
between the historical body of Christ, born of Mary, and the Eucharistic body of
Christ, because that is the only body that can give salvation and that can be the
Head of the Body of the redeemed which is the Church. However, this real body of
Christ is present in the Eucharist in signs: it is eaten mystically and not in away
that is perceptible to the senses. But the realism is strong in the thinking of
Paschasius. When he explains how the body of the risen Christ could be present
within a host, and even in so many hosts, he postulates a miraculous multiplication
of the flesh of Christ analogous to the multiplication of the loaves as reported in
the Gospels. He seems to say that the bread is replaced by the flesh of Christ;
even though the appearance is that of bread, serving as a figura of the body of
Christ. This is possible for him because of the work of the Holy Spirit, same way
as His work of uniting the divine to human flesh in the incarnation.
The position of Paschasius seemed novel and exaggerated to Rabanus Maurus (+ 856),
though he had no doubt about the real presence of Christ in the consecrated bread and
wine. But he questioned the simple identification of what was eaten in the Eucharist
with historical body of Christ. He thought that this would suggest that Jesus Christ
actually died each time the Eucharist was celebrated. Those who did not agree with
Paschasius distinguished between the historical body of Christ, the ecclesial body of
Christ and the Eucharistic body of Christ. These three were special and distinct, so
one cannot be talked about the way one talked the other."
"The absolute folly of such a conclusion is proved by this one observation: He was
literally still there before, during, and after they had partaken of the bread and
the cup! He was not changed into some liquid and bread - His flesh was still on His
bones, and His blood still in His veins. He had not vanished away to reappear in the
form of a piece of bread or a cup of wine!"
Do you really think that He Who could enter a locked room could not teleport some of
His body and blood into the bread and wine, and that He Who could multiply fish and
bread could not multiply some of His body and blood? Never crosses the writer's mind. (Radbertus having this idea is new to me, I had come to this conclusion years ago.) "Do this in remembrance of Me." is about the entire ceremony not that the bread is not still bread and nothing more. context, people context!

the comparison "Jesus did not say TOUTO GIGNETAI ("this has become" or "is turned
into"), but TOUTO ESTI ("this is," i.e., "signifies," "represents" or "stands for")."
is weak, because Strong's Concordance says regarding este, "are, belong, call,
come, consist Third person singular present indicative of eimi; he (she or it) is;
also (with neuter plural) they are -- are, be(-long), call, X can(-not), come,
consisteth, X dure for a while, + follow, X have, (that) is (to say), make, meaneth,
X must needs, + profit, + remaineth, + wrestle." note that CONSISTETH option.

"That's why the bread and wine must become physically Jesus' body and blood, so that
they can be once again offered for sin: "The Holy Eucharist is the perpetual
continuation of this act of sacrifice and surrender of our Lord. When the Lord's
Supper is celebrated, Christ again presents Himself in His act of total surrender
to the Father in death."  THIS IS AN ERROR.
This is the CONTINUATION of the same act NOT A REPEAT of it. However it is not
His Body and Blood that is offered to God on the altar, it is the BREAD AND WINE that
are offered, "thine own of thine own," which God then transforms and gives back to us
as Christ's Body and Blood. Some confusion may exist in RC doctrine even, certainly
among some priests, and the idea has cropped up in an Orthodox priest online, but there
has been RC influence on Orthodoxy off and on especially after the Ottoman empire on
the one hand and poverty on the other had Orthodox priest trainees going to RC seminaries,
or Orthodox seminaries being taught by RC Jesuits.
That some pagans thought their offerings turned into the flesh of their false gods,
doesn't matter. The issue is WHICH claimant to deity is involved in this action not
that there is a similarity of action. By this logic, offering prayers to God is pagan
because pagans offered prayers to their false gods!
"But here, in the words of a Roman Catholic priest, is the "true meaning" of the words
"it is finished!" "These words do not declare that His sacrifice was finished, but that
He had finished His former, normal, earthly life and was now fixed in the state of a
victim...He then began His everlasting career as the perpetual sacrifice of the new law."
(15) Hence, according to Rome, Jesus must be forever "perpetually"dying for sin.
Have you ever wondered why in every Catholic Church they still have Jesus up on the
cross? Every crucifix with Jesus portrayed as nailed to it, tells the whole Catholic
story - Jesus is still dying for the sins of the world! But that's a lie! We need only
look to the Scriptures to see the truth."
I AGREE THIS IS A FALSE PICTURE. It is not the only picture presented by RC writers,
and at least one Orthodox priest made the same error. The sacrifice is perpetual in that it stands forever. it can be plugged into so to speak and is a constant wellspring of new life. It is Jesus' death on the Cross (followed by His Resurrection) that is the key event and Paul says he doesn't want to know any among the Corinthians except Christ and Him crucified. That is the focus. BUT CHRIST IS NOT SACRIFICED IN THE MASS, BREAD AND WINE ARE SACRIFICED "THE UNBLOODY SACRIFICE" AND RETURNED TO US AS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST.
The Crucifix highlights the physical reality of the incarnation of God, since without
that there can be no suffering or death by God, only an illusion of it, and since the
crucifix is a product of the faithful whose faith originates in the empty tomb, implies
the resurrection because without that no one would be making crucifixes! Christ is not
perpetually dying for sin. This is a kind of two dimensional thinking. The Crucifix
emphasizes Christ's Atoning death, which broke the power of sin and crippled the devil.
"The Bible makes no distinction between mortal and venial sins. There is in fact, no such
thing as a venial sin. ALL SIN IS MORTAL! "
yes, but....Jesus described degrees of punishment, said Sodom and Gomorrha would have it
better in the Last Judgement because they WOULD have repented if given the opportunities
that another city had and did not repent. outer darkness, being eaten by worms, and
eternal fire are distinct things He mentioned. Then there is flogging of His servants
without casting them out entirely, more lashes for those who knew better and less for
those who didn't know better. And the servant who calculates he can get away with abusiveness
and drunkenness and beating his fellow servants, because Christ delays His coming back, will
get thrown out with the unbelievers. Paul lists sins for which the believers should
ostracize another believer, and lists sin development in Romans with a definite bad to worse
These latter punishments that don't include throwing the person out of the kingdom into
the category of unbeliever, are the sort of thing RC cites to support purgatory, which is
a later invention. Early on prayers depict a concern that the dead may become prey of demons
because of their sins, and prayers for the dead were because of this not purgatory but
rather that they be delivered from hell if dragged there.
An error both RC and EO have fallen into, is to think that there is no point praying for
unbelievers or those in hell, but since one can't know if an RC or EO member is in hell
or purgatory (or trapped at a tollhouse), one should pray anyway, but not for unbelievers.
This is not early Church doctrine, as shown by the example of St. Perpetua, who prayed
for her dead brother she believed was in hell. St. Gregory Nazianzen also prayed for a
dead pagan emperor. (or was it St. Gregory of Nyssa? I forget.)
"A priest does not have to ask God to forgive your sins. The priest himself has the power to
do so in Christ's name. Your sins are forgiven by the priest the same as if you knelt before
Jesus Christ and told them to Christ Himself."
The Orthodox absolution format is a bit different, except where it is borrowing heavily
from RC. It is more like witnessing the confession, asking God for your pardon and giving
you instruction at times. However, Christ gave the power of absolving sin to His Apostles,
which is assumed to have been passed on to their successors the bishops they appointed,
though these are not counted themselves as Apostles.
However, Jesus did grant this power to Peter, to the rest of the Apostles, and even under
some circumstances at least to a congregation. Matt. 16:19; Matt. 18:18; John 20:22, 23
remission of sins power is the binding and loosing thing. Grammatical problems with Peter being the rock instead of Jesus have been hashed over elsewhere. Paul says the church is founded on the Apostles as foundation stones, with Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone, so in declaring Peter a rock Jesus was declaring he would be A foundation stone, he being the first to recognize Jesus' divinity, and the rest did later so they also were foundation stones.
Binding and loosing is primarily about withholding or granting absolution of sin, since the keys to a place let you into the place or let you let someone else in.

Jesus granted this power to Peter, to the rest of the Apostles, and even under
some circumstances at least to a congregation. Matt. 16:19; Matt. 18:18; John 20:22, 23

remission of sins power is the binding and loosing thing. This is apparently nuanced and Jesus nowhere claims to have relinquished the keys, merely handed out copies so to speak. Rev. 3:7
 [this part was added at the end of the posts on cumbey's blog.]
"We search in vain in the Bible for any word supporting the doctrine of "auricular confession." "
and supposedly not in first 1,000 years, I assume he is wrong, because the NT speaks of
confessing your sins to one another, and in early times confession was not private, neither
was penance, some could be standing outside the church for a number of years asking those
going in to pray for them. That's pretty auricular. Private confession kept secret developed
in Ireland among the monks in a counselling context, and was taken up elsewhere. the matter
doesn't seem to be dealt with in the Seven Ecumenical councils' canons. Church disputes existed over whether murder or adultery could be forgiven enough to get you back in communion.
"Dr. Zachello tells of his experience as a priest in the confessional before leaving the Roman
Church, in these words: "Where my doubts were really troubling me was inside the confessional box. People coming to me, kneeling down in front of me, confessing their sins to me. And I, with the sign of the cross, was promising that I had the power to forgive their sins. I, a sinner, a man, was taking God's place. It was God's laws they were breaking, not mine. To
God, therefore, they must make confession; and to God alone they must pray for forgiveness." "
his doubts or even his personal sins have no bearing on this, and in confessing to the priest
one is confessing to God through the priest or in the presence of the priest.

Being Orthodox I share several points with RC Susanna, so I will be defending a
lot of them. I was once protestant and once believed a lot RayB and others do
though I didn't entirely buy Hislop but bought a lot of it. Reading the Bible
straight through in a few months on three occasions and reading the second
century church fathers and studying the church history (which most protestants
barely touch beyond the Reformation with some falsehoods about Constantine
thrown in which are highly illogical, how would these who resisted persecution
accept such deviation as supposedly came from Constantine), I came to the
conclusion that the Orthodox is the original trunk and the rest split from that.
It was a slow process but I essentially catechized myself (by the grace of God)
into Orthodoxy. I was formally recieved into Orthodoxy April 15, AD 2008 taking
the name of a saint Justina who fought off the spells and demons sent at her.
For validation of miracle working relics I suggest you go look up Elisha's bones
bringing a dead man back to life. Biblical precedent.
to which can be added, MAINTENANCE OF SALVATION BY GOOD WORKS - what else are you going to make of the Last Judgement scene? and Paul's statement that you are in Christ and Christ in you unless you are reprobate? the Greek word is some kind of muddle about something you don't or aren't speaking of one could read it "unless you are unspeakable?"
possible break of relationship with Christ and loss of salvation - definitely present in warnings
surrounding those once saved always saved perseverence verses out of context, in context they are saying you will not lose your salvation if you hang onto it and persevere in it and repent if you fall into sin and keep persevering against sin.
"Priesthood: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the “lay people,” whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9)."
one verse out of context and ignoring origin pointed to. Paul's instructions clearly make such a
distinction, and the priesthood of all believers verse draws on the SAME idea presented in the Torah, yet distinctions and a separate priesthood over this nation of priests existed then. We are not lacking priesthood but rather a new priesthood that of Melchizedec is in play, with Jesus as permanent High Priest. if there is a high priest there are lesser priests. The laity are priests who give the offering of praise, worship, prayer, light candles in church and can burn incense at home, contribution
to the church maintenance and support of the poor. Can do baptism if a priest is lacking.
Liturgical style of worship - Revelation displays it in heaven, and again, a logical continuation
from the Temple and Synagogue service, Hebrews doesn't say we have no priesthood just a different one.
Mary is not co redemptrix except in some RC minds who are pushing for this to be dogma but it isn't.
perpetual virginity is indicated by her response to the angel, and by Joseph's early disappearance
from the Gospels, as if he was indeed, as the legend tells, a very old man when he married her in a
nominal marriage. Usually a girl told she will give birth to a great man would say "oh goody, my
future marriage will bear fruit" instead Mary the Theotokos asks how this can happen since she
does not know a man, which would imply she expected this situation to continue forever.

Why doesn't the pope (or other bishops for that matter) do miracles like the Apostles, if they are
the successor(s) of the apostle(s)? it is erroneous (in RC and EO) to view the bishops as successors
of the Apostles in the sense that they are Apostles. Rather, they are successors in overseeing the
churches founded by the Apostles, who funtioned like bishops till they could appoint bishops,
 and as population grew the several churches in a city.
sola scriptura isn't in the Scriptures, which do indeed point to some information given outside of that
but the information would in no way contradict or add to what is in Scripture in a way that would
validate gnostic or amoral or other heretical belief and practice. PROTESTANTS DO NOT PRACTICE SOLA
"Historically, the Church used sacred Tradition outside of Scripture as its criterion for the canon."
WAS LEGITIMATE CANON. The later council after Nicea merely affirmed this canon, cleared up disputes
about some epistles and Revelation.
"to the Law and to the Testimony, if they speak not according to these things it is because there is no
light in them." Everything starts with the Torah and its standards for judging prophets, and builds from
there. "the Testimony" is probably the prophets, so to judge anything you have to look at two things:
is it in the Bible (as either ordered, or not condemned as distinct from tolerated with a limit on it).
is it deducable from what is in the Bible, does it have a history that shows development from something
Susanna or her anonymous defender said,
"Later, it was members of that same Church who, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, recorded in
the New Testament some of the sayings and parables of Jesus, the mysteries of his life, his commands,
and some of what had been revealed to the Apostles by the Spirit."
MEMBERS?!!! it was the Apostles themselves, the foundation stones of the Church of which Christ is
the chief cornerstone. The Tradition of the Church includes the early writings patristics and prior does
it not? Irenaeus c. AD 180 didn't say hearers of the Apostles cobbled their statements together.
Irenaeus said that the Churches founded by Apostles received from them what was legitimate Scripture
and that the Apostles wrote the Gospels. Irenaeus cited almost all the present NT canon as authoritative
throughout his writings. HOW MUCH LATER? A GENERATION OR TWO? this talk plays into the hands of pagans
and atheists and liberals, who consider the Bible to be unreliable precisely because they take this
view of it.

As for oral only traditions, sorry prots they exist, but sorry Susanna, they are a real short list of
PRACTICES NOT DOCTRINES, St. Basil the Great gives the list, prayer facing east, triple immersion baptism,
the sign of the Cross, the eucharistic prayers made by the priest, a few other things. practices which
reflect or teach doctrines, but are not themselves doctrines.
Given the history of origin and controversy over things like papal supremacy and immaculate conception
and papal infallibility, these do not date to earliest times. "immaculate" when used in early days was
referring to her overall life not to the issue of original sin.
The catechism I think is wrong regarding original sin being a mere lack of grace. The fact that the
eating of something was involved, and that sin preceded it, in the form of believing the devil's lies,
and in the form of reaching out and touching and picking the fruit, and in bringing it towards the mouth,
all sins that were less but leading up to the especially forbidden thing, and that partook of sins of
spirit like ambition, believing a lie, pride, yet were still undoable, could be forgiven without expulsion,
shows some degree of sin even in that graced state existed.
But the fruit was EATEN, what you eat or part of it, becomes part of you. the picture then of original
sin as (in its inherited form) a warp that predisposes to personal sin, is a little better. Of course as
St. Augustine says, evil is not so much a force in itself as a negation, a lack, but he is overreacting
to his manichaean background. A person sunk in negation of good can certainly be said to be on track with
nothingness, yet is a distinct presence and force of action in the world (think corrupt politician or
street gangster).
Obviously baptism doesn't remove this entirely, or we would never have to baptize the children of baptized
adults themselves baptized as infants or at least before the conception of the infants. It is more a
crippling of the sin nature, but the temptations exist that when fallen into sort of rebuild this sin
nature. There is also a washing of the STAIN which is like, something has a mold infection, the stains of
it are removed, the mold traces themselves still there in a reduced condition and it may regrow. Also once
we sin personally we are sort of being accessories after the fact to Adam's sin.

" RayB said...
Time-line of the ever-evolving "traditions" of the Catholic church:
Pre-Roman Catholic False teachings
200 AD"
What would those be? I thought the break point was Constantine who supposedly paganized the Church?
you are getting in your spirit regarding this, if this is what you are referring to, is not from
The Holy Spirit but just the flesh, programmed with anti real presence doctrine, reacting to seeing
it. Supposedly it can't be true, therefore if it appears in the beginning of the second century
it is a case of early apostasy.
How do you judge these "false teachings" except by The Word and how do you know that your interpretation
is from The Holy Spirit and not a case of you walking in the imagination of your heart which we are
warned against in Deuteronomy? (If you mean gnostic "new testament aprocrypha" heretical materials, these
were never part of The Church. the closest thing to this would be the Shepherd of Hermas which contains
wrong materials and is altogether too wordy, and though popular with many Christians eventually was put
on the rejected list.)
  the problem with both EO and RC is that they tend to go according to words of early Fathers and councils,
but fail to quote these sources for "tradition" extensively and in context. They merely state the results.
If they did quotes extensively and in context, the intense reliance of the Fathers on Scripture would be
obvious. Though these were written before chapter and verse, reference is made to "the prophet" or a
particular Gospel or Epistle. the collection at makes it easier by showing the book chapter and
verse recited or referred to, in a sidebar.
So the real issue is NOT do you find such and such as it has evolved now in the Bible, but do you find
a basis for it in the Bible? and yes, most of it though not all, you do. (papacy and clerical celibacy
are not among these.) The failure of RC and to some extent EO, is that they present the tradition
to you but do not show the Scriptural basis for it (EO is better on this in one catechism.)
"Assumption of the body of the Virgin Mary into heaven shortly after her death. (Pope Pius XII)
1954 AD"
several things in the dates of origin list are NOT dates of origin but dates of especial promulgation
by the pope.
that was when it was declared necessary to believe. the legend goes back to the 5th century when it went
public, after being held as local history in one city's church leadership.
The story I read (can't recall where) is that a church was being built in Jerusalem to the Theotokos'
honor, and a delegation was sent to the church of the city where she died (Ephesus maybe) asking a relic.
A relic is usually a body part or bone. It can be an article of clothing. The former was obviously
requested, because her sash and one or two other items are preserved, but as for a personal relic,
none was available. Why? Jesus had come back after she died and resurrected her and in her final
address to her friends before going up alive again into heaven with Him, she told them to TELL NO ONE
This latter concern makes it totally believable to me, because it is consistent with what is known
of her in the Gospels. Also it should make protestants sit up and take notice, because it goes
against the later hyper development of focus on her. In Orthodoxy it rarely gets that extreme in RC
it is over the top more and more. So after this information was passed to the requestors, it went
The focus on Mary and calling her Mother of God was to highlight the fact that Jesus was ALWAYS God,
that what came out of her womb was not a special man merely human who became God later, or received
the Christ spirit as some NEw Agers and earlier gnostics might say, or acquired God the Second Person
of The Holy Trinity as some sort of partner, BUT THAT FROM CONCEPTION ON THROUGH BIRTH TO NOW AND
FOREVER JESUS IS BOTH FULLY MAN AND FULLY GOD. That what came out of her womb was the God man (God
become man, not a man god or a man become god.)
Nestorius divided the natures too much, confused person with nature (as do the opposite error the
monophysites or miaphysites which is monophysite lite, and view the natures as joined at the level
of nature instead of at the level of person) and argued for a kind of almost double person in Christ.
Mother of God never meant that she provided Christ's divinity only that she provided Christ's humanity,
and that He was divine from conception on, King and God at His birth, not human only at birth and
divine later. Fatima - Analyzing some statements
serious problems. first off, he sees catholicity as about language when it is about doctrine.
the problem he encountered anyone could have encountered if from another language at any time.
Indeed, a visitor from say China or India or even Greek speaking to a Latin only and Latin
derived common tongue would be at the same loss as he was in an Orthodox church.
secondly he makes too much of respect the Orthodox had for Rome, and though many writers bishops
etc. fawned on Rome and talked about Peter, NOT ONE WORD OF THIS IS IN THE HOLY CANONS OF THE
not Jesus not Peter THE FATHERS gave preeminence to Rome because it was the first city of the
empire so should be the first city of the church, and likewise Constantinople not Alexandria
should be the second city of the church because it was the second city of the empire. period.
chalcedon canon 28, Rome wouldn't sign off on that canon because they supported Alexandria's
protest at being demoted, but it passed anyway because Rome was outvoted, what does that tell
you? the East always counted it as legitimate. In the next council Rome had caved in because
Constantinople was reiterated as second city of the Church, without comment or argument.
Councils of importance that are referred to as authoritative on some matters were held later,
just not pan orthodox or ecumenical. Blachernae-constantinople for one, Jerusalem that
answered the Calvinist heresies on the other in 16 something.
"I am not against Catholics, but I am against any church or person who tries to put their tradition OVER the word of God.
I will just quote Jesus speaking to the Jewish religious leaders of his day:
"Neglecting the commandments of God, you hold to the traditions of men". "
what is the context? Jesus denounced two games, counting an oath by the Temple as nothing but an oath
by the gold of the temple as valid, but which is greater, He said? the gold or the Temple that makes
the gold holy? the second game was that someone would tell his father he would not support him
because all he had to spare was corban, dedicated to the Temple, therefore he could not give it to
him, and this was allowed though it was a way of avoiding honoring his father (which shows that
physical support of life not necessarily obedience is what honoring was about).
the real issue is, does a tradition either retain something that is set aside in Christ (like
religious based not medically based circumcision, or forbidden of eating pork and other mosaically
unclean foods ever, as distinct from fasting on certain days or during lent which means less
food and vegetarian only, or keeping Mosaic holy days? exactly such traditions of men have
become acceptable among some evangelicals, yet this judaizing Paul warned endangered your
standing with Christ.
or does a tradition resemble and logically grow out of something that is not set aside? for
instance, there is prohibition on tattooing in Orthodoxy and many evangelicals recognize this also,
I don't know what RC says now, because one was not to make markings on the body, stated separately
from cutting the flesh for the dead (feed vampires?) and the Hebrew wording indicates the ink
would be going into the skin, not painted on. The issue is seen as defiling the body God designed
by additions to it of either a pagan or a frivolous nature.
or does a tradition in fact expressly follow something in the New Testament? most of the
things denounced by anti RC people DO FOLLOW THINGS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT when you read it all
and in context.
or does a tradition resemble something OT or NT with a change to make it keep accomplishing the
stated intent in a context where the original way of doing it would not do this? And is the
stated goal something still binding as moral law or not?
Not messing with your neighbor's property boundary line would come under the heading of not
stealing, so is valid.
Not selling property but only giving a 99 or lesser year lease and it has to go back to original
owning family after that except in a city, would not be valid, nor would anything designed to
keep tribes identity and property separate, or to keep them going, because all that was part
of using existing customs to faciliate later the identification of the Messiah. He being come
already none of that matters.
Year of Jubillee and seventh year release of all debt, and prohibition on interest in loans
would be a GOOD IDEA. there is no indication this was continued in the early church or the canons
of the bishops trained by bishops trained by bishops in the early church. So it is not mandatory,
but the concept behind it that debt not be a means of slavery, should be looked into and
preserved or restored. (interest on loans to facilitate vanities like a yacht might be okay,
but a fishing boat to start a business, no, but to expand a business maybe. )
auricular confession is a great blow against one's pride, because one has submitted oneself to
another human, and has let someone know something you wanted kept secret and is embarassing.
pride being the big danger sin, along with lust, and humility the great virtue along with faith
and charity, it is obvious that this tradition, an outgrowth of confess your sins to one
another, and an action against pride and for humility, is valid. especially when you note the
binding and loosing which relates primarily to forgiveness of sins, which Jesus gave the Apostles
and which was likely passed on to their successor understudies the bishops who would delegate
to the priests.

ADDED : the epistle to the Romans is proof that protestants, those who truly love and try to obey Jesus even though a bit confused, ditto RC members likewise, are not entirely outside the category of Church defined as those attached to Christ. note Luke 9:49,50 and implications of this paragraph from the above post:

Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Roman congregation, they founded themselves! They believed on Jesus because of the words of believers who came to Rome. But they had no bishop or Apostolic Succession as yet, but were Christians because they believed in Jesus Christ as King and God Incarnate and His atoning death and His Resurrection. SOMEONE CLAIMED RC WAS FOUNDED BY SIMON MAGUS, MUST BE ANOTHER HISLOPPIAN. HISLOP IN HIS SLOPPY WAY, FALLING ALL OVER HIMSELF TO PROVE PETER WAS NEVER IN ROME, ESTABLISHED A TWO YEAR WINDOW WHEN HE COULD HAVE BEEN THERE BUT DISMISSED IT, AND SAID A SIMON PETER WAS IN ROME GUESS WHAT,THAT WAS PETER'S NAME! Simon magus was not the same person. Obviously.