Follow by Email

Friday, September 30, 2005

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

The following is a cut & paste that i believe does a very good job of explaining the Mass. There are quotes from the Book of Daniel regarding the CONTINUAL SACRIFICE at the end of time - which is the Mass, and there is also the quote from the book of Malachi, which makes the prophecy of a time when a PEREFECT OBLATION will be offered to God from the sun going up to its going down in every place, even by gentiles - which of course, to any honest person - can only be fulfilled by the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. We can get more into these quotes later, I am sure - ;).

But for now - here is the cut & paste.

(disclaimer - i know nothing of the author, i found this on the net, i read it and it seemed to me to be an excellent explanation of the Mass - to at least begin any conversation on the Mass)


The Holy Sacrifice of the MassBloody or Unbloody? The Purpose and Nature of Christ's Sacrifice


There is probably no doctrine in the Catholic Faith that has been misunderstood more by Protestants than that of the Holy Mass. The Mass is the central act of Catholic worship: Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary is perpetuated because the priest offers it anew to the Father. It is not a new sacrifice, but the exact same one that Jesus offered on the Cross 2,000 years ago, the difference being that in the Mass it is--in a sense--unbloody. Jesus does not die or suffer again at each Mass, but is simply re-presented, re-offered to the Father.

In short, the only difference between the Sacrifice of the Cross and that of the Mass is that the mode of offering is different. On the Cross, the mode of offering was bloody; in the Mass, the mode of offering is unbloody. This is the only difference. Since Christ's Sacrifice is present both on Calvary and at every single Mass, it is the same Sacrifice, and what is said of one must be said of the other. Therefore, since Christ's Sacrifice on Calvary was propitiatory--i.e. sin-atoning--, so is the Sacrifice of Holy Mass. The Council of Trent teaches very explicitly: "Appeased by this sacrifice [of the Mass], the Lord grants the grace and gift of penitence and pardons . . . crimes and sins" (Session XXII, Chapter II).

By giving us the Mass, our Lord has ensured a way to apply the graces merited on His Holy Cross to us today, to all of His faithful in any and every age. As James Cardinal Gibbons noted, "In the Sacrifice of the Mass I apply to myself the merits of the sacrifice of the cross, from which the Mass derives all its efficacy" [The Faith of Our Fathers, p.258]. The Mass carries the Cross throughout the centuries until Christ returns. Each and every day (except Good Friday), the Church celebrates Mass to make present what Christ has wrought, to dispense and unlock again the infinite graces which He earned for us so that God's wrath for us on account of our sins might be appeased. Since Christ's Sacrifice is infinite and all-pleasing to God, there is potential forgiveness of any sin, no matter how grave, if our souls are properly disposed and we are truly penitent.

Protestants will try to tell you that Christ underwent our punishment--He did not! If that were so, then Christ would have had to be sent to hell for all eternity, for this is what we truly deserve (see Rev. 20:13-14). Christ suffered for us, no question, but He did so in order to earn for us God's forgiveness, not so that we wouldn't have to suffer or be punished temporarily. In other words, Jesus helped us avoid hell not by undergoing the punishment Himself, but by offering Himself to God in order to appease God's wrath and prevent His justice from being executed (see Isa. 53:10-12; Heb. 2:17). Just as lambs and goats were slain in the Old Testament in order to appease the wrath of God, so Christ was slain and slaughtered to appease God's wrath, but with Christ it was once and for all.

However, we are talking here about possible, or potential, forgiveness, not necessarily actual forgiveness. The Church does not teach that because of what Christ did for us, all sins will be forgiven in the sense that all people will be saved in the end; rather, the truth is that all sins can be forgiven because of Christ's ultimate act of love. What does the "can" depend on? It depends on us, our willingness to repent, receive forgiveness, and obey Christ (see Hebrews 3:12-15; Rom. 11:21-23). So that the graces of Calvary can be applied to all believers, and not just to those who were around the Cross that first Good Friday, our Lord instituted the Holy Mass. Now all who attend Mass can benefit from Christ's wonderful Sacrifice and receive His Body and Blood.

Protestants don't avail themselves of that privilege. All they can do is pray, sing, read the Bible, and hear a sermon. No wonder, then, that all focus during their service is on the preacher, the "pastor," who is expected to give them a moving sermon. Protestants seem to believe that they have to "feel good" at their worship service. (I'm thinking especially of Evangelicals and Pentecostals here. Since all they can focus on is the Bible, the music, and the pastor's sermon, it follows that if there is no emotional reaction on their part, they figure that something is wrong. This is evident by the preacher's tone, which is usually extremely emotional and theatrical. The desired outcome is that there be some sort of deeply felt reaction on the part of the listener--either intense joy or sorrow or shame or just simple but enthusiastic agreement that shouts "Amen!" from the back of the auditorium [no wonder, then, that some denominations don't pray the Our Father, against Jesus's specific command in Matthew 6:9]. The more touched one is, the more one has worshipped God, the Protestant axiom seems to be. After all, how often have we heard that a Catholic became Protestant or that a Protestant has now switched to a different church or denomination because he "didn't get fed"! But the true believer goes to church in order to worship God, not to feel moved. Not Me, but Thee.

The standard for worship is certainly set by God Himself. In Hebrews 12:28, St. Paul says: "Let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe" [RSV]. Gee, read that again. He doesn't say, "any worship, with shouts of joy and clapping of hands." He says it must be done in reverence and awe. Also, Paul emphasizes that the worship ought to be acceptable. This means that some worship is not acceptable. How to decide? Whom to trust on the matter? You can choose between the Protestant notion of "each believer decide for himself" (whence Paul's admonition in Heb. 12:28 would make no sense at all) and the Catholic notion of "listen to the Apostles and their successors," for they speak for Christ (see Lk. 10:16; 2 Cor. 5:20).
Here's the Catholic position, then. Since we're all imperfect, sinful, and totally dependent on Christ, we ourselves, no matter how much we might try, could possibly worship God in a pleasing fashion. Think about it. God is infinite. He deserves infinite honor, glory, and worship. No creature could possibly give Him His due, since all creatures are, by definition, finite. The ceremonial laws of the Old Testament were great, but by no means sufficient. God wanted to be worshipped by man in a particular fashion. Though the lambs and goats could never really take away sins (see Heb. 10:4,11), this is how God wanted man to make atonement for his sins under the Old Covenant. But now we're under a New Covenant, which is everlasting and a perfection of the Old. Through Christ, God is worshiped infinitely and perfectly. The Sacrifice of the Cross gives God His due! Hence, it follows that if we want to worship God in an acceptable fashion, as Paul commands us, we must somehow unite ourselves to that Sacrifice of Christ.

How? Through the Mass, which is the same Sacrifice made available to us here and now! No wonder the Church requires the faithful to go to Mass weekly! It is through Holy Communion (a visible sign conferring grace) that the believer unites himself with the Lord. No relying on fuzzy feelings, mustering a sense of faith, dramatic sermons, or "worship music." No, here we have something much more profound, something absolutely inimitable: a visible union between Christ and the believer. No shouting, dancing, or clapping can possibly trump that.

The Church teaches that the "chief fruit of the Eucharist is an intrinsic union of the recipient with Christ" (Ludwig Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 394). Jesus affirmed this most eloquently: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (Jn. 6:57). Through Christ's Sacrifice, God is given infinite worship, and hence he who unites himself to that Sacrifice can worship God in an acceptable way, in the way He wants to be worshiped. "The sacrifice of the Mass . . . is always pleasing to God" (Ott, p. 413). That this is true is obvious since the true priest and victim of the Mass is Christ, who, on the Cross, was both priest and victim (see Heb. 7:26).

Now, all of this will raise some Protestant eyebrows. We often hear the argument that since the Mass is not a bloody but an unbloody Sacrifice, it cannot take away sins and therefore can't be the same as that of the Cross; after all, we read in Hebrews 9:22: "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." Thus, many Protestants conclude and triumphantly exclaim: "Look, your very own Bible condemns your Mass! It cannot take away sins if it's not bloody!!" Gee, what happened here? Have Catholics overlooked this passage for 2,000 years? Are Protestants the first to have discovered Hebrews 9:22?

Actually, the Church wrote the Bible, the Church compiled the Bible, and the Church interprets the Bible. It would be foolish to believe either that the Church was not aware of this passage, or that she teaches something contrary to Holy Scripture. So let's recapitulate: we've already seen that the Church insists that the Sacrifice of our Lord is one. It is unique and was done once and for all: "We have been consecrated through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb. 10:10). The Church teaches that the Sacrifice of the Mass is identical to that of the Cross; it is not a different one; in fact, it could not be because this would imply that Christ's Sacrifice is defective, whereas both the Bible and the Church clearly teach the opposite: "Where there is forgiveness of [sins through Christ], there is no longer any offering for sin" (Heb. 10:18); "The satisfaction which Jesus Christ has in an admirable manner made to God the Father for our sins is full and complete" [Catechism of the Council of Trent, Article IV, p. 60 (Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1982)].

Mass and Cross being the one Sacrifice of Christ, then, we must ask ourselves: What is the nature of that Sacrifice? Is it bloody or unbloody? Clearly, Christ's Sacrifice was bloody! After all, He shed His most precious Blood on our behalf (see Rom. 3:25, Eph. 1:7, etc.). In its essence, then, Christ's Sacrifice is bloody. What is different at Mass is the mode or manner of offering. It is to this sense that the Catholic refers when he says that the Mass is un-bloody. But in the Mass, bread and wine transubstantiate into the Body and Blood of Christ. So obviously, in that sense, the Mass is a bloody Sacrifice. It does (and must) contain the true Body and Blood of Christ, otherwise it could hardly be identical to the Sacrifice on Calvary. However, whereas on Calvary, Christ died and shed His Blood in a unique way, in the Mass our Lord merely mystically renews His death and Body-and-Blood-Sacrifice in a sacramental way, not under the appearance of His Body and Blood, as on the Cross, but under the appearance of bread and wine; hence the manner of offering at the Mass is unbloody. It is bloody in the sense that it contains the Body and Blood of Christ, but unbloody in the sense that it is offered under the appearance of bread and wine in a sacramental fashion.

Christ does not suffer again nor die again in the Mass; however, He does renew His already completed suffering and death on the Cross. Protestant Eric Svendsen wonders just what this means: "It is difficult to know just what the real difference is between a re-presenting of Christ's sacrifice and a re-sacrificing of him" [Svendsen, Evangelical Answers (Atlanta, GA: New Testament Restoration Foundation, 1997), p. 237]. Let's help Mr. Svendsen out here: a sacrificial action is clearly characterized by the killing of the victim. For there to be a new or another sacrifice, there would have to be a new killing. At Mass, no killing takes place, so it cannot be a re-sacrificing of Christ. What, then, does it mean to re-present or mystically renew the Sacrifice of Calvary? It means that we once again take the already sacrificed Christ, hold Him up to the Father, and say, "Father, look upon the Lamb that was slain for our sake. Through this holy and perfect Sacrifice, pardon our sins, and turn your wrath away from us; be appeased by the pleasing odor of this unblemished Lamb." In order to do this, obviously, Christ must be made present again -- which is why the priest transubstantiates the bread and wine into Christ's Body and Blood. [But notice what happens there: the bread and wine are consecrated separately; that is the mystical separation of the Body of Christ from the Blood of Christ. The separation of body and blood signifies death. But this is just representative death because the whole Christ (Body, Blood, soul, and divinity) is present under each form, bread and wine. Hence, on the metaphysical level, Christ's death is not repeated--it is merely reenacted in a representative way. This is confirmed by Frs. Rumble and Carty: "The victim [at Mass] is Christ under the appearances of bread and wine representatively separated. This does not interfere with the value of Calvary, for Christ's real death occurred there, and without it this representative function would be useless" (Radio Replies [Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1979], Vol. I, p.180; italics added).]

This may all seem rather overwhelming due to the complicated theological matter. But let us remember that, being earthly creatures, we are always confined to a limited view of the truth and to expressing what we know about this truth in merely human and finite words. We must always keep in mind that we're dealing with mystery here--a mystery that cannot be completely understood from this side of Heaven.

The Sacrifice of the Mass has been prophesied in the Scriptures, most notably in Malachi 1:11: "From the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts" (italics added). How privileged are we who receive the sacramental Body and Blood of our Savior; it is as though we were at the Cross 2,000 years ago! "Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need" (Heb. 4:16).

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Exorcism of Emily Rose

I went to see this film last night - and must say - i thought it was an excellent movie and very original. The film is losely based on a true story that occured in Germany in the late 1960's and early 1970's. How accurate it actually is to the actualy events is hard to asertain, there are lots of different stories out there about the real Emily Rose. Anneliese Michel is her real name and the basic events of the film appear to be accurate from most accounts. We will probably never know the whole truth of this event because it occured right in the middle of the vatican II changes and this film does a rather good job of accurately portraying the attitude of the novus ordo bogus catholic church in what actually happened. We know that her exorcism was approved by the dioceses, and we also know that for an exorcism to be approved, there is some incredibly hard evidence that must be put forth. After the real conviction of the two priests and the parents of Anneliese Michel, the diocese claimed that she was not really possessed! Typical novus ordo satanism to make the church look bad.

Anyhow - the film has an excellent message at the end (whether this message is accurate to the true events, I have not been able to determine).

I would highly recommend this film. I am not sure about kids under say (12) - my 14 and 15 year old had trouble sleeping, but both agreed it was an excellent movie.

btw - THIS IS NOTHING like that satanic film: "The exorcist" - the devil does not win in this film!

If you have seen it - let me know what you thought.

Saturday, September 24, 2005

Blogs - a waste of time?

I am almost certain that these blogs are a waste of time. I would be willing to bet that not a single person has ever come to the truth as a result of these blogs.

As my last post discussed - heretics do not have life in them - they are living corpses. They do not eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and therefore they do not partake of Him and hence do not have life at all. They are walking dead. They reject the grace of God at every turn.

Should we then be amazed that these walking corpses cannot comprehend even the most blatently obvious truths that God has given us? Should we be astounded that no matter how much evidence is presented, they still reject it? Should we be shocked that they only quote and beleive the Apostolic and Church Fathers when what they say appears to work in their favor? Should we be surprized that they ignore the fact that Scripture teaches that it is not the sole rule of faith, or that we are not saved by faith only? THESE PEOPLE ARE DEAD and don't even know it.

Can we teach a dead man anything? Can a dead man understand anything? Can a dead man respond to anything?

II Thessalonians 2: 10-11:

" And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish: because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth but have consented to iniquity. "

THEY RECEIVE NOT THE LOVE OF TRUTH - in other words they do not accept the Grace of God to love the truth - therfore God sends them the operation of error so that they believe lies!

That is the real sad part - because these people reject the grace of God, they actually believe the lies they spew!

Notice how not a single one of these heretics responded to the post on the Body of Christ! Their proud heads will not face truth so they ignore it so that they can continue to believe lies!

I just don't know if this is even worth the time and trouble - the walking dead will need a miracle to wake them up - and it sure ain't gonna be from a blog!

Thursday, September 22, 2005


In this thread, I intend to focus on one of the most important teachings of Jesus Christ - in fact - it is so important - that Jesus said we cannot have life in us, unless we hold this doctrine (eat His Flesh)!

Lets begin by looking at some of the pertinent Biblical passages:

Mt 26:26 - Show Context
"And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples and said: Take ye and eat. This IS my body."

Mr 14:22 - Show Context
"And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke and gave to them and said: Take ye. This IS my body."

Lu 22:19 - Show Context
"And taking bread, he gave thanks and brake and gave to them, saying: This IS my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me."

Note: In each of these Gospel accounts - Jesus says: "This IS my body" - He never says this is symbolic of My Body - He says THIS IS MY BODY.

Now many protestants will use the argument that Jesus said that He was the "door" and the "vine" too - hence should we take Him literally in those cases. This is sophism at its best - and this false argument can be easily shown to be the lie that it is.

consider the following discourse of Jesus:

John 6: 30-71

"30 They said therefore to him: What sign therefore dost thou shew that we may see and may believe thee? What dost thou work? 31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 32 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven and giveth life to the world. 34 They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread. 35 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life. He that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you that you also have seen me, and you believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me: and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out. 38 Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him that sent me. 39 Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day. 40 And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son and believeth in him may have life everlasting. And I will raise him up in the last day. 41 The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 42 And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he: I came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him. And I will raise him up in the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father and hath learned cometh forth me. 46 Not that any man hath seen the Father: but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Amen, amen, I say unto you: He that believeth in me hath everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert: and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven: that if any man eat of it, he may not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. (6-52) If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. 52 (6-53) The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 (6-54) Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 54 (6-55) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 55 (6-56) For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 56 (6-57) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. 57 (6-58) As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 58 (6-59) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. 59 (6-60) These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum. 60 (6-61) Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it? 61 (6-62) But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 62 (6-63) If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 (6-64) It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 (6-65) But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe and who he was that would betray him. 65 (6-66) And he said: Therefore did I say to you that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. 66 (6-67) After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him. 67 (6-68) Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? 68 (6-69) And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. 69 (6-70) And we have believed and have known that thou art the Christ, the Son of God. 70 (6-71) Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve? And one of you is a devil. 71 (6-72) Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve."

This passage is so clear it is incredible that anyone, even the most ardent heretic would ever claim that Jesus was speaking symbolically. Even the arch-heretic Martin Luther realized that this was not the case.

Luther .."insisted, those who contort the little word "is" into "signifies" did so frivolously and unsupported by the Scriptures." Luther the Reformer - James M. Kittelson page 197 - published by Lutheran Brotherhood

But, for the sake of argument, lets examine these passages in light of the rest of Scripture - after all - these "bible alone" people always tell us that the Bible interprets itself. Lets see how the Apostles understood Jesus when He said: "This IS my body":

1Co 10:16 - Show Context
"The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?"

1 Corinthians 11:23-34
"23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, 24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. 26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. "

Now here we have a clear cut case wherein St. Paul not only confirms that Jesus was not speaking symbolically, but that anyone who eatith and drinketh unworthily brings judement on himself for NOT BELIEVING THAT IT WAS AND IS THE BODY OF THE LORD!

It is quite clear from Scripture as even the arch-heretic Martin Luther admits - that the Catholic understanding of Scripture in this matter is CORRECT!

Lets now look at how the early Church fathers understood Jesus:

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again." (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans).

"The food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh are nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus." (Justin Martyr, First Apology).

"That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ." (Augustine, Sermons, 227).

“For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Saviour was make incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh are nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66, [A.D. 151]).

There really is absolutely no sound argument against this truth - only sophisms.

Consider this little quote from: Luther the Reformer - James Kittelson - published by Lutheran Brotherhood:

"In August of 1524 Luther and Carlstadt met at THE BLACK BEAR TAVERN in Jena to discuss their differences over the pace and necessity of dramatic changes in worship practices. After a heated exchange, Luther tossed Carlstadt a coin and challenged him to a literary duel. Carlstadt took the challenge and began to publish against the time he reached Zurich, he had published 13 treatises on the difficulties with Luther. The meaning of the Words of Institution figured prominently on their pages."

It is really hard to believe that anyone would follow the teachings of such men - men who met in taverns to discuss the most sublime and holy doctrines of Jesus Christ - and then gamble on who wins the "literary duel". AMAZING!

There is a legend that says that a Lutheran and a Calvinist were in an eating establishment arguing about what Jesus meant when He said: "This is My Body" - The Calvinist said: "What our Lord really meant when He said: "This is my Body" was that it signifies his body, it is like his body, a symbol of his body." The Lutheran said: "No, No, No, what Jesus meant was that when you eat it it becomes my body. When you believe and consume it, at the moment you consume it it becomes my body." The story goes, that there was a Catholic artist in the restaurant eating who overheard these two men arguing. He took out a piece of paper and on the upper right he drew a picture of Luther's face, in the upper left he drew Calvin's face, and on the bottom half he drew the face of Jesus. Under Calvin's face he wrote: "This signifies my body", under Luther's face, he wrote: "This becomes my body when you eat it", and under Jesus' face, he wrote: "This is my body". He then showed this drawing to the two men who were arguing, and asked them: "WHO DO YOU THINK IS TELLING THE TRUTH?"



Wednesday, September 21, 2005

The occult & our world leaders!

Witchcraft and nail clippings: the weird world of Cherie Blair?

By Cahal Milmo

Published: 20 September 2005

Even by the standards of the alternative therapies said to be used by Cherie Blair, submitting her husband's toenail clippings to a health guru's pendulum is taking her alleged New Age obsession to a higher level.
Mrs Blair, a human rights lawyer, has long been the subject of claims about her fondness for weird and wonderful treatments, ranging from a Mayan rebirthing ceremony to eating strawberry leaves to cure swollen ankles.
But a book published yesterday about the Blairs has taken tales of odd practices inside the prime ministerial household to new extremes.
Such was the eyebrow-raising nature of the claims made in Tony And Cherie, A Special Relationship that Downing Street issued a forthright denial.
The book, written by Paul Scott, a journalist, uses alleged conversations with members of the couple's entourage to paint a picture of Mrs Blair as ambitious and intelligent but in the thrall of a series of bizarre practices. Among the techniques said to be employed by Mrs Blair was to take jars containing hair and nail clippings belonging to herself and her husband to Jack Temple, a retired market gardener turned health guru.
Temple, who died in 2004, is claimed to have "dowsed" the jars by waving a pendulum over them to detect "poisons and blockages" that could affect the Blairs.
Quoting a number of unnamed "Blair court insiders", the book claims: "Temple told Cherie that his pendulum could tell her when it was a good time or bad time to make major decisions."
The author, who also makes lurid claims about the Blairs' sex life, said he had written the book because of the way the couple had sought to portray themselves in the public eye.
Scott, who has written for the Daily Mail, said: "The Blairs have sold themselves as a ... sort of celebrity couple. It is important that in the face of this carefully-constructed image we know what goes on behind the scenes."
The couple's relationship with Carole Caplin, the former glamour model turned lifestyle adviser, is also revisited in the book, which claims that Ms Caplin personally bathed Mrs Blair as part of her service.
Scott also claims that Mrs Blair has been locked in a feud with the Princess Royal since they first met in the wake of Labour's election victory in 1997.
The Prime Minister's wife is alleged to have said: "Do call me Cherie", to which the Princess is said to have replied: "Actually, let's not go that way; let's stick to Mrs Blair."
When they met again a few years later, the Princess is claimed to have turned her back on Mrs Blair, prompting her to remark: "That bitch completely blanked me."
Downing Street has reversed its usual policy of silence on the Blairs' private life to rubbish the claims. A spokeswoman said: "This is a mixture of recycled gossip and pure fantasy; in particular the remarks about Mrs Blair and the Royal Family, which are totally untrue."
Even by the standards of the alternative therapies said to be used by Cherie Blair, submitting her husband's toenail clippings to a health guru's pendulum is taking her alleged New Age obsession to a higher level.
Mrs Blair, a human rights lawyer, has long been the subject of claims about her fondness for weird and wonderful treatments, ranging from a Mayan rebirthing ceremony to eating strawberry leaves to cure swollen ankles.
But a book published yesterday about the Blairs has taken tales of odd practices inside the prime ministerial household to new extremes.
Such was the eyebrow-raising nature of the claims made in Tony And Cherie, A Special Relationship that Downing Street issued a forthright denial.
The book, written by Paul Scott, a journalist, uses alleged conversations with members of the couple's entourage to paint a picture of Mrs Blair as ambitious and intelligent but in the thrall of a series of bizarre practices. Among the techniques said to be employed by Mrs Blair was to take jars containing hair and nail clippings belonging to herself and her husband to Jack Temple, a retired market gardener turned health guru.
Temple, who died in 2004, is claimed to have "dowsed" the jars by waving a pendulum over them to detect "poisons and blockages" that could affect the Blairs.
Quoting a number of unnamed "Blair court insiders", the book claims: "Temple told Cherie that his pendulum could tell her when it was a good time or bad time to make major decisions."
The author, who also makes lurid claims about the Blairs' sex life, said he had written the book because of the way the couple had sought to portray themselves in the public eye.
Scott, who has written for the Daily Mail, said: "The Blairs have sold themselves as a ... sort of celebrity couple. It is important that in the face of this carefully-constructed image we know what goes on behind the scenes."
The couple's relationship with Carole Caplin, the former glamour model turned lifestyle adviser, is also revisited in the book, which claims that Ms Caplin personally bathed Mrs Blair as part of her service.
Scott also claims that Mrs Blair has been locked in a feud with the Princess Royal since they first met in the wake of Labour's election victory in 1997.
The Prime Minister's wife is alleged to have said: "Do call me Cherie", to which the Princess is said to have replied: "Actually, let's not go that way; let's stick to Mrs Blair."
When they met again a few years later, the Princess is claimed to have turned her back on Mrs Blair, prompting her to remark: "That bitch completely blanked me."
Downing Street has reversed its usual policy of silence on the Blairs' private life to rubbish the claims. A spokeswoman said: "This is a mixture of recycled gossip and pure fantasy; in particular the remarks about Mrs Blair and the Royal Family, which are totally untrue."

British Special Forces Caught Carrying Out Staged Terror In Iraq?


Tuesday, September 20, 2005


The enemies of the Holy mother Church, often attack the onn true church on the practice praying to Mary and the Saints. They shout the claim that this ancient practice is " Un-biblical and was not held by the early Christians ". A quick reference through scripture and the historical writings of the early Christians more than vindicates Catholics of these false charges.First is important for us to define the term PRAYER: the act of asking for a favor with earnestness. A petition (Webster's living encyclopedic dictionary of the English language) .

Even in the old Testament we read biblical proof for this practice.Thus in Psalm 103, we pray, "Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20-21). And in Psalm 148 we pray, "Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!" (Ps. 148:1-2)

The new Testament also bears the truth on the subject we know that those in heaven (angels, and saints) have the power to intercede with God on our behalf "See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven." (Matt. 18:10). Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In Revelation, John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). Thus the saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth. Angels do the same thing: "[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God" (Rev. 8:3-4).

Unlike what many Protestants would like to believe, the Catholic biblical practice of asking saints and angels to pray for us. does not eliminate Christ's position as the only Mediator between man and God. (1 Tim. 2:5), the Church has always taught that Christ alone holds this special position. but this in no way means we cannot or should not ask our fellow Christians to pray with us and for us (1 Tim. 2:1-4), including those Christians in heaven, who have already had their sanctification completed, for "[t]he prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" (Jas. 5:16). We see that asking God's friends in heaven (the saints and angels) to intercede with Christ (God) through their prayers on our behalf is not only biblical, but proper.

Now, we have already biblically shown above that
Those in heaven (the angels and Saints including Mary Christ's mother)can and do hear us.
Those in heaven (the angels and Saints including Mary Christ's mother)can and to present our prayers before the throne of Christ (God)

We shall now look at why this ability is such a great gift. In the Bible we read of the most powerful example of Christ's mother Mary going to her son and interceding on the behalf of the wedding couple at Cana. We also see two important facts first instead of going straight to Christ with their problem the wedding couple goes to his mother to ask for help. Second Mary then proceeds with his petition for help to her son. Third Christ loved his mother so much he could not/would not refuse her request even though granting this request would start him (Christ) on his path to his death on the cross."And the wine failing, the mother (Mary) of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine. And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come. His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye. Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three measures apiece. Jesus saith to them: Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And Jesus saith to them: Draw out now, and carry to the chief steward of the feast. And they carried it. And when the chief steward had tasted the water made wine, and knew not whence it was, but the waiters knew who had drawn the water; the chief steward calleth the bridegroom, And saith to him: Every man at first setteth forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse. But thou hast kept the good wine until now. This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee; and manifested his glory, and his disciples believed in him. "(John.2:3-11)Because, this the request of his mother Mary Christ preformed is FIRST This incredible love Christ shows for his mother is the best example of why this ability to go to Mary and the Saints with our petitions for them to lay at the foot of the throne of Christ. A beautiful and wonderful privilege !!!

The early Christians who received their faith directly from the apostles understood this biblical teaching and practice it Their writings show this..We find early Christian writings on this biblical fact dating all the way back to the first century (A.D. 80) there were still some of the original 12 Apostles alive at this time, revelations was not written until 100 A.D. and they (The Apostles) DID NOT contest this biblical belief that the early Christians taught.(SURELY if this was against Christ teachings they would have warned as against it in their writings). Allow me to cite a few of these early church fathers to show that indeed the early Christians did in fact pray to the saints of and angels and heaven asking their intercession and help in obtaining favors from Christ (God).

"[The Shepherd said:] 'But those who are weak and slothful in prayer, hesitate to ask anything from the Lord; but the Lord is full of compassion, and gives without fail to all who ask Him. But you, [Hermas,] having been strengthened by the holy angel [you saw], and having obtained from Him such intercession, and not being slothful, why do not you ask of the Lord understanding, and receive it from Him?'" (The Shepherd 3:5:4 [A.D. 80]).

"Hail, Mary!" (inscription at the Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth [A.D. 200]).

+++Clement of Alexandria
"In this way is he [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer]" (Miscellanies 7:12 [A.D. 208]).

"But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels . . . as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep" (Prayer 11 [A.D. 233]).

+++Cyprian of Carthage
"Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides [of death] always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence the first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father's mercy" (Letters 56[60]:5 [A.D. 253]).

"Atticus, sleep in peace, secure in your safety, and pray anxiously for our sins" (funerary inscription near St. Sabina's in Rome [A.D. 300]).

"Pray for your parents, Matronata Matrona. She lived one year, fifty-two days" (funerary inscription near St. Sabina's in Rome [A.D. 300])

"Hail to you for ever, Virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto thee do I again return. Thou are the beginning of our feast; you are its middle and end; the pearl of great price that belongs unto the kingdom; the fat of every victim, the living altar of the Bread of Life [Jesus]. Hail, you treasure of the love of God. Hail, you fount of the Son's love for man. . . . You gleamed, sweet gift-bestowing mother, of the light of the sun; you gleamed with the insupportable fires of a most fervent charity, bringing forth in the end that which was conceived of thee . . . making manifest the mystery hidden and unspeakable, the invisible Son of the Father--the Prince of Peace, who in a marvelous manner showed himself as less than all littleness" (Oration on Simeon and Anna 14 [A.D. 305]).

"Therefore, we pray thee, the most excellent among women, who glories in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in thee, and who in hymns august celebrate the memory, which will ever live, and never fade away" (Oration on Simeon and Anna 14 [A.D. 305]).

"And you also, O honored and venerable Simeon, you earliest host of our holy religion, and teacher of the resurrection of the faithful, do be our patron and advocate with that Savior God, whom you were deemed worthy to receive into your arms. We, together with thee, sing our praises to Christ, who has the power of life and death, saying, Thou art the true Light, proceeding from the true Light; the true God, begotten of the true God" (Oration on Simeon and Anna 14 [A.D. 305]).

"Mother of God, [listen to] my petitions; do not disregard us in adversity, but rescue us from danger" (Rylands Papyrus 3 [A.D. 350]).

+++Cyril of Jerusalem
"Then [during the Eucharistic prayer] we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition . . . " (Catechetical Lectures 23:9 [A.D. 350]).

+++Hilary of Poitiers
"To those who wish to stand [in God's grace], neither the guardianship of saints nor the defenses of angels are wanting" (Commentary on the Psalms 124:5:6 [A.D. 365]).

+++Ephraim the Syrian
"Remember me, you heirs of God, you brethren of Christ; supplicate the Savior earnestly for me, that I may be freed through Christ from him that fights against me day by day" (The Fear at the End of Life [A.D. 370]).

+++Ephraim the Syrian
"You victorious martyrs who endured torments gladly for the sake of the God and Savior, you who have boldness of speech toward the Lord himself, you saints, intercede for us who are timid and sinful men, full of sloth, that the grace of Christ may come upon us, and enlighten the hearts of all of us that so we may love him" (Commentary on Mark [A.D. 370]).

+++The Liturgy of St. Basil
"By the command of your only-begotten Son we communicate with the memory of your saints . . . by whose prayers and supplications have mercy upon us all, and deliver us for the sake of your holy name" (Liturgy of St. Basil [A.D. 373]).

"Aschandius, my father, dearly beloved of my heart, with my sweet mother and my brethren, remember your Pectorius in the peace of the Fish [Christ]" (Epitaph of Pectorius [A.D. 375]).

+++Gregory Nazianz
"May you [Cyprian] look down from above propitiously upon us, and guide our word and life; and shepherd this sacred flock . . . gladden the Holy Trinity, before which you stand" (Orations 17[24] [A.D. 380]).

+++Gregory Nazianz
"Yes, I am well assured that [my father's] intercession is of more avail now than was his instruction in former days, since he is closer to God, now that he has shaken off his bodily fetters, and freed his mind from the clay that obscured it, and holds conversation naked with the nakedness of the prime and purest mind . . . " (ibid., 18:4).

+++Gregory of Nyssa
"[Ephraim], you who are standing at the divine altar [in heaven] . . . bear us all in remembrance, petitioning for us the remission of sins, and the fruition of an everlasting kingdom" (Sermon on Ephraim the Syrian [A.D. 380]).

+++John Chrysostom
"He that wears the purple [i.e. a royal man] . . . stands begging of the saints to be his patrons with God, and he that wears a diadem begs the tent-maker [Paul] and the fisherman [Peter] as patrons, even though they be dead" (Homilies on 2 Corinthians 26 [A.D. 392]).

+++John Chrysostom
"When you perceive that God is chastening you, fly not to his enemies . . . but to his friends, the martyrs, the saints, and those who were pleasing to him, and who have great power [in God]" (Orations 8:6 [A.D. 396]).

+++Ambrose of Milan
"May Peter, who wept so efficaciously for himself, weep for us and turn towards us Christ's benign countenance" (The Six Days Work 5:25:90 [A.D. 393]).

"You say in your book that while we live we are able to pray for each other, but afterwards when we have died, the prayer of no person for another can be heard . . . But if the apostles and martyrs while still in the body can pray for others, at a time when they ought still be solicitous about themselves, how much more will they do so after their crowns, victories, and triumphs?" (Against Vigilantius 6 [A.D. 406]).

"A Christian people celebrates together in religious solemnity the memorials of the martyrs, both to encourage their being imitated and so that it can share in their merits and be aided by their prayers" (Against Faustus the Manichean [A.D. 400]).

"There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for the dead who are remembered. For it is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended" (Sermons 159:1 [A.D. 411]).

"At the Lord's table we do not commemorate martyrs in the same way that we do others who rest in peace so as to pray for them, but rather that they may pray for us that we may follow in their footsteps" (Homilies on John 84 [A.D. 416]).

"Neither are the souls of the pious dead separated from the Church which even now is the kingdom of Christ. Otherwise there would be no remembrance of them at the altar of God in the communication of the Body of Christ" (The City of God 20:9:2 [A.D. 419]).

"Gregory of Nazianz presided over those who maintain the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity, and assembled them together in a little dwelling, which had been altered into the form of a house of prayer, by those who held the same opinions and had a like form of worship. It subsequently became one of the most conspicuous in the city, and is so now, not only for the beauty and number of its structures, but also for the advantages accruing to it from the visible manifestations of God. For the power of God was there manifested, and was helpful both in waking visions and in dreams, often for the relief of many diseases and for those afflicted by some sudden transmutation in their affairs. The power was accredited to Mary, the Mother of God, the holy virgin, for she does manifest herself in this way" (Church History 7:5 [A.D. 444]).

+++Pope Leo I
"Let us rejoice, then, dearly beloved, with spiritual joy, and make our boast over the happy end of this illustrious man in the Lord [the martyr Laurentius] . . . By his prayer and intercession we trust at all times to be assisted . .." (Sermons 85:4 [A.D. 450]).

Sunday, September 18, 2005

Doctor says FEMA ordered him to stop treating hurricane victims

By LAURIE SMITH ANDERSON Advocate staff writer

In the midst of administering chest compressions to a dying woman several days after Hurricane Katrina struck, Dr. Mark N. Perlmutter was ordered to stop by a federal official because he wasn't registered with the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
"I begged him to let me continue," said Perlmutter, who left his home and practice as an orthopedic surgeon in Pennsylvania to come to Louisiana and volunteer to care for hurricane victims. "People were dying, and I was the only doctor on the tarmac (at the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport) where scores of nonresponsive patients lay on stretchers. Two patients died in front of me.

"I showed him (the U.S. Coast Guard official in charge) my medical credentials. I had tried to get through to FEMA for 12 hours the day before and finally gave up. I asked him to let me stay until I was replaced by another doctor, but he refused. He said he was afraid of being sued. I informed him about the Good Samaritan laws and asked him if he was willing to let people die so the government wouldn't be sued, but he would not back down. I had to leave."
FEMA issued a formal response to Perlmutter's story, acknowledging that the agency does not use voluntary physicians.

"We have a cadre of physicians of our own," FEMA spokesman Kim Pease said Thursday. "They are the National Disaster Medical Team. ... The voluntary doctor was not a credentialed FEMA physician and, thus, was subject to law enforcement rules in a disaster area."
A Coast Guard spokesman said he was looking into the incident but was not able to confirm it.
Perlmutter, Dr. Clark Gerhart and medical student Alison Torrens flew into Baton Rouge on a private jet loaned by a Pennsylvania businessman several days after Katrina hit. They brought medicine and supplies with them. They stayed the first night in Baton Rouge and persuaded an Army Blackhawk helicopter pilot to fly them into New Orleans the next day.

"I was going to make it happen," the orthopedic surgeon said. "I was at Ground Zero too, and I had to lie to get in there."

At the triage area in the New Orleans airport, Perlmutter was successful in getting FEMA to accept the insulin and morphine he had brought. "The pharmacist told us they were completely out of insulin and our donation would save numerous lives. Still, I felt we were the most-valuable resource, and we were sent away."

Gerhart said the scene they confronted at the airport was one of "hundreds of people lying on the ground, many soaked in their own urine and feces, some coding (dying) before our eyes." FEMA workers initially seemed glad for help and asked Gerhart to work inside the terminal and Perlmutter to work out on the tarmac. They were told only a single obstetrician had been on call at the site for the past 24 hours.

Then, the Coast Guard official informed the group that he could not credential them or guarantee tort coverage and that they should return to Baton Rouge. "That shocked me, that those would be his concerns in a time of emergency," Gerhart said.

Transported back to Baton Rouge, Perlmutter's frustrated group went to state health officials who finally got them certified -- a simple process that took only a few seconds.
"I found numerous other doctors in Baton Rouge waiting to be assigned and others who were sent away, and there was no shortage of need," he said.

Perlmutter spent some time at the Department of Health and Hospital's operational center at Jimmy Swaggart Ministries before moving to the makeshift "Kmart Hospital" doctors established at an abandoned store to care for patients. After organizing an orthopedics room and setting up ventilators there, Perlmutter went back to the Swaggart Center and then to the LSU Pete Maravich Assembly Center's field hospital to care for patients being flown in from the New Orleans area.

"We saw elderly patients who had been off their medicine for days, diabetics without insulin going into shock, uncontrolled hypertension, patients with psychosis and other mental disorders, lots of diarrhea, dehydration and things you would expect. I slept on a patient cot there every night until I came home."

Gerhart said he felt the experience overall was successful and rewarding, although frustrating at times. "You don't expect catastrophes to be well organized. A lot of people, both private citizens and government officials, were working very hard."
Perlmutter did not return home empty-handed. He brought a family of four evacuees back with him and is still working with Baton Rouge volunteer Hollis Barry to facilitate the relocation of additional hurricane victims to Pennsylvania.

He also returned with a sense of outrage. "I have been trying to call Sen. Arlen Specter (of Pennsylvania) to let him know of our experience.
"I have been going to Ecuador and Mexico (on medical missions) for 14 years. I was at ground zero. I've seen hundreds of people die. This was different because we knew the hurricane was coming. FEMA showed up late and then rejected help for the sake of organization. They put form before function, and people died."

Both FEMA and the Coast Guard operate under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which has been widely criticized for its disjointed, slow response to the devastation caused by Katrina. Federal officials are urging medical personnel who want to volunteer to help with disaster relief to contact the Medical Reserve Corps or the American Red Cross for registration, training and organization.

Friday, September 16, 2005

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Response to Derek:

Derek - i must appologize - i thought that the thread on the Star of David was dead - and have not checked it for some time.

I printed up your comments and will address them here in a new thread - to keep them new and fresh.

I will address each point that you have made, but i will not go round and round on this - like I did with Jason.

Point One:

You deny that Jesus founded the Holy Roman Catholic Church - your evidence is something about the Romans killing Him - which means nothing - the Jews denied God many, many times, killed His prophets, etc.. in the Old Testament - yet He was still their God and they were still His people.

You then go on to say that the word "Catholic" is not in the Bible. So what? - the Word Trinity is not in the Bible either? Catholic means UNIVERSAL - which means that His Church is universal, that it will accept all peoples of any race, nation, sex, age, etc... The name "Catholic was given in the late first or early 2nd century because sooooo many heretical groups were claiming to be followers of Christ.

Your incredibly ignorant point claiming that the Church existed before confession, praying to saints, hail Mary's, no meat on fridays, etc... is absurd on many levels.

a. Confesion - (The Sacrament of Penance was founded by Jesus Christ Himself) -
John 20:23: "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whos sins you shall retain, they are retained. " You see - After Jesus rose from the dead - He breathed on His Apostles and said to them the above words -
The Apostles and their successors (and they had successors, since the
Church was to last till the end of time, see Acts, even Judas had a successor).
Were given the power and command to forgive sins or retain them.

b. Praying to Saints - Scripture commands that we pray for one another - asking
the Saints to pray for us is obedience to Scripture - i will get more into this
later in the post.

c. The Hail Mary - read your Bible - our Redemption began with the words: Hail
Mary! Almost the entire Angelic Salutation (Hail Mary) is found in Scripture:

Luke 1:28
"And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."

Luke 1:42:
"And she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed art thou among women
and blessed is the fruit thy womb."

Consider now the words of the Anglic Salutation: "Hail Mary, full of Grace, the
Lord is with thee, Blessed are thou among women and blessed is the fruit of
thy womb Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at
the hour of our death. Amen."

d: No meat on fridays is not a Dogma or Doctrine - it is a Discipline, in which the
Church, in rememberence of the Passion and Death of our Lord and Savior on
a Friday - requires that we give up this little thing of meat on Fridays. Boy -
what an evil thing to do!

The Roman Catholic Church is the only Church that can trace itself to Jesus Christ Himself - if you don't believe this - just read the writings of the Apostolic Fathers - the first Christains after the Apostles - they believed EXACTLY as Catholic do today - read How Ignatius speaks of Holy Orders and Bishops, read how Clement defends the Papacy, read how they all speak of the necessity of good works to attain salvation, etc... Read Eusebius' History of the Church - the first and earliest history of the Church written around 280ad - He speaks of infant baptism, he speaks of an ancient statue of Jesus at the home of the Blessed Mother and the pilgrims who to to the home of Mary since the time of Christ, etc...

Regarding the Gallileo - case that issue is to complex for this post, but i will say this - the Church was right and Gallileo was wrong and the appology of an anti-pope heretic with the alias of John Paul II changes nothing!

Regarding infallibity - the Church does not teach that any human being is infallible in his personal life - what the Church teaches is that Christ promised to be with His Church till the end of time, and commanded His Church to teach ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER HE COMMANDED, hence - we know and believe that the Church is protected by the Holy Ghost when her popes speak Ex-Cathedra and in the universal teachings of her Ecumenical Dogmatic Councils, which is the Magisterium. Any pope can be damned - even popes who spoke infallibly - it has nothing to do with men - it has to do with God!

The arrogance of protestants is absurd in this regard, - they think that it is impossible or that God would not grant infalliblity for ONE MAN - the Pope, but that rather, God would grant it to each and every man that reads the Bible. YOU , DEREK, must obviously think yourself infallible in interpreting Scripture - if not - you would not argue about it - YOU think your interps are correct and the Church's are wrong - so in essense - you claim infalliblity but deny it to the Church!

Oh, and regarding your comment about protestants not calling themselves protestants - one must consider what Protestant means:

a PROTEST - ANT - (protestant) - is one who protetests the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, yet claims to be a christian. Here is the official definition - cut and paste - from

PROTESTANT: A member of a Western Christian church whose faith and practice are founded on the principles of the Reformation, especially in the acceptance of the Bible as the sole source of revelation, in justification by faith alone, and in the universal priesthood of all the believers.

So no matter what they call themselves - if they are "Christian" and not Catholic - they are protestant, (with the possible exception, according to some definitions, of the eastern Orthodox churches).

Point Two:

Jesus founded His Church on the rock of Peter and his successors. All one need do is read the Gospel and Acts to see that this is true, it is impossible to deny this. Not only does Scripture prove this, but so does the ancient history of the Church, we find the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, (Successors of Peter) described in the Epistle of Clement from the 1st Century - loooooong before Constantine.

P0int Three:

Protestants do not worship a Jesus that gave us His Flesh to eat, your question of whether or not protestants break bread and drink grape juice is irrelevant. Jesus, regarding the Bread which He had just blessed (consecrated) said: "THIS IS MY BODY." - He did not say: "This is signifies my body." - or "This becomes my body when you consume it" - or anything else - He said: "This IS My Body." St. Paul also makes it quite clear when he asks:

I Cor. 10:16
"The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?"

Protestants must answer NO it is not! For they do not believe it is!

Point Four:

Praying to the dead. Now Derek - you know full well that the sin of Saul was to go to a fortune teller, a "diviner" to speak to Samuel. This is not an accurate account of a Catholic asking a LIVING Saint to pray for them. Then you go on to ask why, if the Holy Spirit intercedes for us, would we ask the Saints - well - tell me - Derek - why, if the Holy Spirit intercedes for us - would we ask a living person on earth to pray for us? Do not confuse the words "intercede and mediate" - they are different. Again - since you did mix the words - by asking of there is only one mediator between man and God, and that man is Jesus Christ - you had better not ever pray for anyone, and had better not ask anyone to pray for you! Then you dare to quote Jesus saying to pray like this...and the Lord's Prayer - well - then - you had better not pray to God with any words other than the words of the Lord's Prayer!

You quote Scripture like the Talmudic Scribes. Scripture commands that we pray for one another:

Matthew 5:44
"But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and PRAY FOR THEM that persecute and calumniate you:"

Luke 6:28 - "Bless them that curse you and pray for them that calumniate you."

- Hmmmm - Jesus here commands us to INTERCEDE for our enemies!

I Thessalonians 5:25: "Brethren, pray for us. " - hmm the Apostle Paul is asking people to INTERCEDE FOR HIM!

James 5:16: "Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much."

hmm - the Prayer of a Just Man availeth much - who could be more Just than those who have died in Christ, than those who are in Heaven with God?

Point Five:

You ask if those who confess with their mouth that Jesus is Lord will be saved - i answer with the Word of God:

Matthew 7: 21-23:

"21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity."

Every heretic will hear these words - BEWARE - lest you hear these words on the terrible day of Judgement!

Point Six:

You asked if the Church saves or Jesus saves - well the answer is that the Church is the Body of Christ - it is - in a Mystical sense - Christ - they are one and the same.

Jesus uses the Church as the means of salvation - we cannot know Christ outside of His Church, we cannot love that which we do not know, therefore we cannot love Christ outside of His Church, and we cannot serve that which we do not love or know - and hence we cannot serve Christ outside of His Church!

I hope that i have addresses all of your issues.

Monday, September 12, 2005

What protestantism is really about:

I thought i had a pretty good idea what protestantism was all about, what they believed and didn't believe, etc...

Well, I was wrong.

Saturday night we were invited to my friend's home for dinner. He is a Lutheran Pastor in the Missouri Synod. We very much enjoy the company of him, his wife and children. I count him among my friends.

Well after dinner and watching some hunting videos (we are both avid bowhunters), we were sitting on the porch discussing religion a bit, you see, i noticed a book at his house about Luther and a man named Erasmus, and a debate that they had.

I asked him about it, and as it turns out - this debate was about free will. I was a bit surprized to learn that Luther, and in essense, virtually all protestants totally and completely deny free will!

Now, I was aware of the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone that protestants held and hold and that it, in reality contained an implicit denial of free will, but i was not aware that engulfed in this doctrine was an explicit denial of free will.

As it turns out, Lutherans, and virtually all protestants, believe that our will is so corrupted by original sin, that it is no longer free. This shocked me, because if one really considers the ramifications of such a doctrine, one would be forced to conclude some pretty horrible things about our Loving God.

I began to point out one such ramification to my friend. I asked him the quetion: "If it is true that we have no free will at all, what of the damned?" He says that they are damned because they rejected God. I said, but wait a minute, you just said that we have no free will, to reject God is an act of the will. He said that our will can only do evil. "Ok, I said, how is one saved?" - He said God calls us to salvation and transforms us. Again, i responed, "Ok, but don't we make an act of the will to accept this calling." - He said: "No - God makes us accept it, because He called us." - - I went on and said: "So, if I am understanding you correctly, if we are saved, it is because God desired to save us, and we had no part in it at all, no act of the will on our part - totally 100% God. And if God calls us, we are saved, no matter what sins we commit, no matter what" - He said: "Yes". I said : "Ok, then the damned must not have been called by God." - To my surprize, he said: "Yes".

Now, i hope i am making this easy to read and understand, but if one follows this doctrine to its logical and only possible conclusion - one would discover that this means that God has created certain people with absolutely no hope of salvation. That He created people for the sole purpose of eternal damnation!

What kind of God would do this?

Another shocking, but necessary conclusion of such a doctrine is that sin is irreleveant to our salvation! Luther said as much, ----

You see, He convinced himself that man, as a consequence of original, was totally depraved, destitute of free will, that all works, even though directed towards the good, were nothing more than an outgrowth of his corrupted will, and in the judgments of God in reality mortal sins. Man can be saved by faith alone. Our faith in Christ makes His merits our possession, envelops us in the garb of righteousness, which our guilt and sinfulness hide, and supplies in abundance every defect of human righteousness.

"Be a sinner and sin on bravely, but have stronger faith and rejoice in Christ, who is the victor of sin, death, and the world. Do not for a moment imagine that this life is the abiding place of justice: sin must be committed. To you it ought to be sufficient that you acknowledge the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world, the sin cannot tear you away from him, even though you commit adultery a hundred times a day and commit as many murders" (Enders, "Briefwechsel", III, 208).

Perhaps this is why the doctrine of the Protestants is so attractive to so many people, they can sin and sin bravely!

What a shame! I feel sooooo sorry for my friend and his family, and all protestants, that they have deluded themselves into thinking that we are nothing more than mere animals that are saved by an "instinct". I mean, think about it, if we have no free will, we have no real ability to reason, and hence act on pure instinct. After all, what is instinct, but a desire that is placed in animals by God for their survival because animals, have no free will, and hence no ability to reason. The bird does not make its nest because it has the will to do it, it is because God gave it an instinct to do it.

I am certain that my logic in the above few statements is probably not entirely philosophically correct, but i think you get the point.

It is such a shame, i really wonder what they think of Jesus when He said things like:

"Knock and it shall be opened to you, Ask and you shall receive...." - etc...

These are acts of the will.

To deny Free Will - would in reality negate the whole purpose of this life - if we have no free will - why are we here?

If we are saved completely and totally by God, and we have no part in it at all - then why didn't God just create us in Heaven or Hell - after all - we have no part in where we will ultimately spend eternity?

If you are a protestant reading this - PLEASE pray about this and THINK ABOUT IT!

If you are a true Catholic - PLEASE pray for these poor people!

Saturday, September 10, 2005


Check out this link:

Boy isn't that cop one tough man - i mean - hey he can take down a sickly old woman in one try!

These Nazi bastards!

Pay close attention to New Orleans - all freedoms and liberties are GONE!

The rest of the nation is next. Because if they can make a case to remove you from your home to a concentration camp, take your guns and property, and herd you like cattle into one of their FEMA camps - in the name of protecting you or "security" - believe me, it will not stop in New Orleans!

These are supposdley free american adults - being FORCED out of thier homes, being force to give up their guns, being force into FEMA concentration camps, etc...

It seems to me that the only way this government can handle any problem is at the end of a gun!

This is all part of the set up for the reign of the anti-christ!

WAKE UP! - Be prepared - I fear that the time is fast approaching!

Friday, September 09, 2005

Who are the real nazi racists?

Who are the real Nazi Racists?

The follwing is a direct quote from an aricle that appeared in Haaretz Daily - an Israeli Daily Newspaper and news service.

here is the exact quote:

"The question is whether the ultra-Orthodox public in Israel, including its leaders and its spokesmen, is prepared to rid itself entirely of the view that non-Jews are not really human beings."

You see - Judaism in its purest form "ultra-orthodox" as they call it, TEACHES THAT WE GENTILES ARE NOT EVEN HUMAN BEINGS!

And these people have the nerve to call anyone who criticizes Judaism or the illegal and immoral state of Israel - RACISTS or "anti-semites"!

UNREAL! They are the same hypocrites whom Jesus called a "brood of vipers", "sons of satan", etc...

here is a link to the printable version of the article:

read it - it is amazing!

wake up people!

Thursday, September 08, 2005

Why a follower of Judaism cannot be trusted!

Why a follower of Judaism cannot be trusted!

Kol Nidre

The Bible, even the Old Testament CLEARLY teaches that we should not lie to one another or swear by name falsely:

Leviticus 19: 11,12, etc..

"And you shall not swear by name falsely...neither lie one to another...Iam the Lord."

One of the handiest devices provided by the Talmudic "Sages" to offset Moses' laws against swearing falsely, is found in the Talmud Book of Nedarim (Vows), and is put into practice yearly in EVERY SYNAGOGUE accross the world as the "Kol Nidre" (all vows). You can even find this on most calanders the Kol Nidre is the opening prayers of Yom Killur - which this year is October 13, 2005!

The text of the Kol Nidre may be found in the Jewish Encyclopedia. Three times the Cantor, to a depressing tune, pompously intones the words:

"All vows, obligations, oaths...whether called "konam", "konas", or by any other name, which we may vow or swear, or pledge, or whereby we may be bound, from this Day of Atonement until the next, (whos happy coming we await), we do repent. May they be deemed absolved, forgien, annulled, and void and made of no effect.....The vows shall not be reckoned vows, the obligations shall not be obligatory, nor the oaths be oaths."

The confirming reply of hte congregation is typical of balsphemous Judaistic misuse of the Bible. Three times a verse from Numbers is chanted. It actually concerns the duty of a congregation which has violated the Laws of God, in ignornace, to repent, and states:

"And if shall be forgiven, all the congregation of Israel, and the stranger that sojourneth among them, seeing all the people were in ignorance." - Numbers 15:26

Here is a typical Talumudic situation: KNOWINGLY, in advance, every shred of truth is to be cast away, with religious support! A Scriptural verse of no relevance whatsoever is used as justification!

With the Jewish Kol Nidre, not only is there ne repentance involved, as in the Bible itself, but forthright, blatent disavowal and annulment of solumn oaths an entire year in advance!

In the Talmud, Book of Nedarim the text is also found, the Talmud Mishna also mentions it - and it is also stated the the Kol Nidre is not to be made public!

But... in the 19th century in Germany, it was made public at a trial, where a Jew lied under oath, the Rabbis quicly scrambled for a defence of this evil Kol Nidre, and they claimed then that it only applied to religous vows not vows of a public nature. This was a LIE and still is a LIE!

Wednesday, September 07, 2005



Visit this link and watch the entire video clip - listen carefully to what FEMA did and what or government did!

The video clip is of Jefferson Parish President Aaron Broussard on Meet the Press.

the following comentary is from



FEMA Deliberately Sabotaging Hurricane Relief EffortsMultiple parishes revolt, use armed guards to defend against feds

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones September 6 2005

Numerous credible sources have come forward with examples of how the Federal Emergency Management Agency is deliberately sabotaging Hurricane Katrina relief efforts in New Orleans. This represents a ruthless attempt on the part of FEMA to impose a federal takeover of the area for their own benefit amid a tragedy that has already claimed anything up to 10,000 lives.
The mainstream media has picked up on this story but is whitewashing it as just another 'failure' of the federal government in dealing with the crisis.

In reality the actions are part of a coordinated campaign to deepen the scope of the disaster in order to force through bumper funding increases for FEMA.

Jefferson Parish President Aaron Broussard (pictured below) appeared on Meet the Press Sunday and broke down in tears as he described FEMA's criminal activities.
"We have been abandoned by our own country. Hurricane Katrina will go down in history as one of the worst storms ever to hit an American coast, but the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina will go down as one of the worst abandonments of Americans on American soil ever in U.S. history."
We had Wal-Mart deliver three trucks of water, trailer trucks of water. FEMA turned them back. They said we didn't need them. This was a week ago. FEMA--we had 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel on a Coast Guard vessel docked in my parish. The Coast Guard said, "Come get the fuel right away." When we got there with our trucks, they got a word. "FEMA says don't give you the fuel." Yesterday--yesterday--FEMA comes in and cuts all of our emergency communication lines. They cut them without notice. Our sheriff, Harry Lee, goes back in, he reconnects the line.

He posts armed guards on our line and says, "No one is getting near these lines."
Why would FEMA, an organization supposedly tasked with helping in a time of crisis, deliberately cut police communication lines? This is a blatant example of sabotage and a sick push to make the disaster worse. In carrying out these actions, FEMA are no better than the animals who shot at rescue workers and helicopters.
Watch the video of the Meet the Press interview.

The mission of FEMA has never in reality been to bring people food and water and help in times of crisis. Alex Jones has attended numerous FEMA drills where the whole point of the exercise is to round people up, break up families and institute a brutal police state crackdown.
FEMA need to create a chaotic atmosphere in New Orleans so they can legitimize what they are doing.

We now have multiple reports of police being ordered to guard key infrastructures in order to defend them from FEMA federal agents. Sheriffs in numerous different counties are guarding highways to keep FEMA out. FEMA is being treated as the enemy because they are sabotaging key facilities in an effort to intentionally worsen the already desperate scenes of horror in New Orleans.

FEMA is sabotaging lines of communication so their activities cannot be exposed to the wider relief authorities and the media.
Commenting on the sabotage by FEMA of communication lines, Washington insider Wayne Madsen states,
"Jamming radio and other communications such as television signals is part of a Pentagon tactic called "information blockade" or "technology blockade." The tactic is one of a number of such operations that are part of the doctrine of "information warfare" and is one of the psychological operations (PSYOPS) methods used by the US Special Operations Command."
Radio host Carol Baker who has been tracking the FEMA sabotage stated that Plaquemines Parish Sheriff Jeff Hingle had his deputies patrol the county line under orders not to let FEMA in.

As is discussed in the Meet the Press interview, Jefferson Parish Sheriff Harry Lee also has armed guards patrolling the county line in order to prevent the FEMA sabotage.
FEMA has a number of executive orders that outline the total federal takeover of any US city.
For a full synopsis of FEMA's executive orders in light of the hurricane, click here.
FEMA is clearly using this human catastrophe as a means of executing its decade long plans and providing the pretext for future takeover scenarios of all major American cities.
Amongst a litany of government inaction and outright dereliction, this is the most alarming evidence to emerge yet that clearly indicates an agenda for the federal government to profit and expand its power from exploiting the aftermath of the hurricane.

We will continue to track this story as it develops


Tuesday, September 06, 2005

Razinger - a valid and legit Pope?

Ratzinger - a valid Pope?

Is Ratzinger a valid Pope? This is a very important question to not only Catholics, but the entire world.

Lets consider some of the Church teachings about what would make a Pope, not a pope, so to speak. What would make the election of a Pope invalid, and what would make a sitting Pope loose his office?

Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV,
"Cum ex Apostolatus Officio"
15th February 1559(Roman Bullarium Vol. IV. Sec. I, pp. 354-357)

"...6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;...those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.7. Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]:- that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories:(i) the clergy, secular and religious;(ii) the laity;"

Well, it is quite clear that if ever a heretic were elected Pope such an election would be NULL AND VOID by the very fact, and without any formal declaration.

Lets see if Ratzinger was a heretic before he was elected to the Papacy - here are just a few of his blatent heresies:

Ratzinger denies the Real Presence...
“Eucharistic devotion such as is noted in the silent visit by the devout in church must not be thought of as a conversation with God. This would assume that God was present there locally and in a confined way. To justify such an assertion shows a lack of understanding of the Christological mysteries of the very concept of God. This is repugnant to the serious thinking of the man who knows about the omnipresence of God. To go to church on the ground that one can visit God who is present there is a senseless act which modern man rightfully rejects.”Source: Die Sacramentale Begrundung Christliche Existenz by Joseph Ratzinger

Ratzinger does not condemn laxness in Catholics or believe in the necessity of attending Mass...
“I have nothing against people who, though they never enter a church during the year, go to Christmas Mass, or go on the occasion of some other celebration, because this is also a way of coming close to the light. Therefore, there must be different forms of involvement and participation.”Source:Zenit News interview, Oct. 1, 2001

Ratzinger rejects the notion that non-Catholics should be converted...
“The new text describes the relationship between the Church and non-Catholic Christians without speaking of ‘membership.’ By shedding this terminological armor, the text acquired a much wider scope… The Catholic has to recognize that his own Church is not yet prepared to accept the phenomenon of multiplicity in unity; he must orient himself toward this reality… Meantime the Catholic Church has no right to absorb other Churches.”Source: Joseph Ratzinger, Theological Highlights of Vatican II, New York: Paulist Press, 1966, pp. 61, 68

Ratzinger holds that the Jews can validly continue to await the coming of the Messiah...
In late 2001, the Pontifical Biblical Commission released a book entitled The Jewish People and the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible. This book argues that the Jews’ wait for the Coming of the Messiah is justified and validated by the Old Testament. Ratzinger wrote the preface for the book. So, in doing so, Ratzinger denies that that Jesus Christ is Messiah.

The above should be clear enough varifiable evidence that Ratzinger was a heretic before he was elected to the Papacy.

Lets also examine the fact that even if one was not a heretic before his election - if he became a heretic - he would loose his office - IPSO-FACTO - without any declaration.

A Heretic Cannot Be the Pope

St. Antoninus (1459): "In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." (Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)

St. Robert Bellarmine (1610), Doctor of the Church: "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."

St. Alphonsus Liguori (1787), Doctor of the Church: "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (Oeuvres Compl├Ętes. 9:232)

St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church: "Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church..." (The Catholic Controversy, TAN Books, pp. 305-306)

Canon 188.4 (1917 Code of Canon Law) teaches that : if a cleric (pope, bishop, etc.) becomes a heretic, he loses his office without any declaration by operation of law.

As can be seen above, a heretic who claims to be the Pope actually cannot be; he cannot hold the office of the Papacy and he cannot sit in the Chair of St. Peter, since he is outside the Catholic Church. Such a person would not be a Pope but an Antipope posing as the Pope. There have been more that 40 false Popes (i.e., Antipopes) in Catholic history.

There is much, MUCH more evidence and proof of what the above states - just not enough time and space here to go into it all - so i just touched on the most obvious.