The Race is Run

Indulgences Part X : The Holy Warriors

...continued from Indulgences Part IX : The Holy Crusade

Long before the Crusades, however, indulgences were being offered to all those holy warriors who fought and died for the "church of God" and for the preservation of the "Christian" religion.

In his Indulgence for Fighting the Heathen,* addressed to his bishops within the Kingdom of the Franks, Pope John VIII promised "eternal life" to those who died fighting "pagans and unbelievers."

John VIII to the bishops in the realm of Louis II [the Stammerer].

"You have modestly expressed a desire to know whether those who have recently died in war, fighting in defence of the church of God and for the preservation of the Christian religion and of the state, or those who may in the future fall in the same cause, may obtain indulgence for their sins.

"We confidently reply that those who, out of love to the Christian religion, shall die in battle fighting bravely against pagans or unbelievers, shall receive eternal life. For the Lord has said through his prophet: "In whatever hour a sinner shall be converted, I will remember his sins no longer."

"By the intercession of St. Peter, who has the power of binding and loosing in heaven and on the earth, we absolve, as far as is permissible, all such and commend them by our prayers to the Lord."

As I said in Indulgences Part IX : The Holy Crusade,  if the man Jesus of Nazareth were to appear one day, ponder his response upon learning of the evils without number which have been perpetrated in his name. It is an interesting, and sobering, exercise.

*In Migne, Patrologia Latina, 126: 816 trans. Oliver J. Thatcher, and Edgar Holmes McNeal, eds., A Source Book for Medieval History, (New York: Scribners, 1905), 512

Indulgences Part IX : The Holy Crusade

...continued from Indulgences Part VIII : The Holy Rosary

Owing to the recent and numerous Papal Primacy pronouncements of Benedict XVI we began a brief series on Apostolic Succession. Now that we have established that the Roman Catholic Church's claims to Apostolic Succession and Papal Primacy are outrageous lies designed to dupe the gullible, we can return to our interrupted series of posts on Indulgences.

A Roman Catholic Encyclopaedia article tells us that in 1095, amidst on-going battles between the forces supporting either the Pope or the Anti-Pope, Pope Urban II convoked a council at Clermont-Ferrand, in Auvergne.

"...It was attended by fourteen archbishops, 250 bishops, and 400 abbots; moreover a great number of knights and men of all conditions came and encamped on the plain of Chantoin

"...On 27 November, the pope himself addressed the assembled multitudes, exhorting them to go forth and rescue the Holy Sepulchre. Amid wonderful enthusiasm and cries of "God wills it!" all rushed towards the pontiff to pledge themselves by vow to depart for the Holy Land and receive the cross of red material to be worn on the shoulder."

Referring to the same event, another Catholic Encyclopaedia article tells us that:

"Thousands of nobles and knights had met together for the council. It was decided that an army of horse and foot should march to rescue Jerusalem and the Churches of Asia from the Saracens.

"A plenary indulgence was granted to all who should undertake the journey pro sola devotione...

"...Coming forth from the church the pope addressed the immense multitude. He used his wonderful gifts of eloquence to the utmost, depicting the captivity of the Sacred City where Christ had suffered and died...

"...Let them turn their weapons dripping with the blood of their brothers against the enemy of the Christian Faith. Let them--oppressors of orphans and widows, murderers and violaters of churches, robbers of the property of others, vultures drawn by the scent of battle--let them hasten, if they love their souls, under their captain Christ to the rescue of Sion."

So the Pope used his "wonderful gifts of eloquence" and the offer of a plenary indulgence to turn the swords of this band of bloodthirsty murderers towards the East, towards Jerusalem, safe in the knowledge that no matter the atrocity, no matter the evil, as long as it was done in the name of "Christ" their salvation was assured.

If the man Jesus of Nazareth were to appear one day, ponder his response upon learning of the evils without number which have been perpetrated in his name. It is an interesting, and sobering, exercise.

The Empty Tomb

When commenting on the restoration of the Valerii Mausoleum, one of the most important monuments of the Roman necropolis located under the Vatican Basilica, Cardinal Angelo Comastri, archpriest of St. Peter's Basilica, stated here that:

"We must make everyone understand that the basilica was not built here because of a whim, but because it has a history underneath that has been preserved, protected with extreme scruple, and it is the history of the Apostle Peter.

"Peter came to Rome...Here he met with martyrdom during Nero's persecution. Then he was taken by Christians, because Roman law allowed the recovery of bodies of the condemned to give them burial.

"Peter was brought to the point where at present the papal altar is erected. He was buried there and we can say that for 2,000 years, that site is the justification of the presence of the Bishop of Rome next to the tomb of Peter, that is, of the Pope."

Cardinal Comastri may say so, but we say that it is an outrageous lie, repeated so skilfully for so long, that it has become fact in the minds of those upon whom the Roman Catholic Church has preyed these many centuries.

"We can almost touch with our hand the tomb where the first Christians of Rome placed the body of the Apostle Peter," the Cardinal said, "One can see, extremely clearly, around the place of Peter's burial, a whole series of testimonies of devotion to the apostle in that precise point, for example, the most famous inscription in Greek: "Petros eni" (Here is Peter)."

The facts are that, beyond what is recorded in the New Testament, the Roman Catholic Church knows nothing whatever about Peter. If any bones indeed lie under the Basilica, they are not those of Peter the apostle.

Consider the mutually exclusive terms in this statement from the Catholic Encyclopaedia article St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles:

"It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course in martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman Capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter."

An authoritative Roman Catholic textbook, A Popular History of the Catholic Church by the acclaimed Church historian Msgr. Philip Hughes, has this to say on the subject of Peter's residence in Rome:

"...The precise date at which the Roman Church was founded we do not know, nor the date at which St. Peter first went to Rome. But it is universally the TRADITION of this primitive Christianity that St. Peter ruled the Roman Church and that at Rome he gave his life for Christ in the persecution of Nero." (p14)

Hughes goes on:

"...About the origins of Christianity in Rome we KNOW NOTHING. It is already a flourishing church in 56 AD when St. Paul refers to it. Three years later he arrived in Rome himself, a prisoner, for the hearing of his appeal to Caesar." (p17)

"...St. Peter first appeared there APPARENTLY some three years later, about the time St. Paul, acquitted, had left the city." (p18)

According to Hughes then, Peter's arrival in Rome took place no earlier than 62 AD although the Catholic Encyclopaedia's Official Pope List boldly states that Peter's "bishopric" extended from 32AD to 67AD.

Contrast also Hughes' use of the words "tradition" and "apparently" with the unequivocal assertions of the Roman Catholic Encyclopaedia:

"...the historical foundation of the claims of the Bishops of Rome...among the best ascertained facts in history."

We say that the claim of Peter's bones resting in Rome is an outrageous and deliberate lie which, fortunately, is also outrageously simple to demolish, as we have seen in our Apostolic Succession series. Which begs the question...why is this lie almost universally accepted without reservation?

The Hindu Mary

I stated in More Marian Madness that

"by redirecting thought towards Mary as the proposed 'Spiritual Mother' of all humanity, Rome is attempting to draw Islam within her skirts."

Now we discover that the proposed fifth Marian dogma also targets Hinduism.

In a recent interview, Cardinal Vithayathil, one of the five cardinals who sent a letter in January inviting prelates worldwide to join them in petitioning Benedict  XVI to declare a fifth Marian dogma, which they said would "proclaim the full Christian truth about Mary," stated that:

"An antidote to the challenges facing the Church and society today is the glorification of Mary through the proclamation of a fifth Marian dogma..."

During the interview, Cardinal Vithayathil, major archbishop of the Syro-Malabar Archdiocese of Ernakulam-Angamaly,and President of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of India, was asked why he thought the time was right for the declaration of the fifth Marian dogma:

"Mary has through private revelations like those at Lourdes, Fatima, etc., made known that in the sad situations of the world today God wishes as an antidote the glorification of his mother through the recitation of the holy rosary, devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, etc.

"The fifth Marian dogma would certainly improve the world situation through the prayers of Mary to her divine Son. Many believe that the danger of Marxist Communism was averted by the apparitions of Mary at Lourdes, Fatima, etc., and the consequent increase in devotion to Mary.

"The greatest threat that the Catholic Church faces today is consumerist relativism that has greatly affected the Western Church and even the Churches in Asia. I believe that it can be overcome by honoring Our Lady with the proposed dogma."

The Cardinal was then asked if he thought the Marian declaration would hurt the Church's  ecumenical campaign:

"Not only will the solemn definition never hurt the ecumenical movement, but it will positively enhance it. I feel that it is God’s will that we should honor Our Lady in a special way at this juncture of world history...

"Almighty God is the Lord of history and he can always overcome the effects of disunity caused by human weakness. The Hindu communities in India are extremely open to the concept of 'Mother...'

Cardinal Vithayathil went on to say that a solemn definition of Mary's spiritual motherhood in her roles as co-redemptrix, mediatrix of all graces and advocate would:

"bring more peace built on justice in the world. It will give a new spurt to evangelization. It will bring about greater devotion to Mary and confidence in her intercessory power."

So, the end-game for the Roman Catholic Church is to lift up their Queen of Heaven to such heights that she will seamlessly merge with all the other "mother goddess" incarnations of paganism so that all the world will come to rest in her shade - and by extension to trust in her most devoted worshipper.

Behold, the Handmaid of the Lord

...continued from The 500 virgins

Pope Benedict is fond of referring to Mary, the mother of Jesus, as the one who said "yes" to God.

"And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her." (Luke 1:38)

In this passage from the gospel of Luke, Mary declares herself to be a servant of God.

It is insupportable that God would send a messenger to ask permission of a servant.

We are left with no alternative but to accept that Mary had received some sort of instruction.  As a servant of God she had no option but to carry out that instruction. With apparently everything to lose and nothing to gain, we can see by reference to the time scale provided, that Mary faithfully carried out her instruction before going to visit Elizabeth.

Many may think that the nature of the instruction possibly offends good taste.

What, then, is the opinion on the instructions given by God to the prophet Ezekiel in Chapter 4 of that book?

Almighty God requires obedience from his creatures, whether such obedience meets with man's approval, or whether it does not!

The 500 Virgins

...continued from More Marian Madness

The ancient Hellenist and Latin world extolled virgins and the idea of consecrated virginity. We see a non-Israelite contempt, even disgust, for woman's God-given role as mother in the writings of certain church fathers, culminating in the unscriptural doctrines of orthodox Christianity. Today we are more aware of human psychological processes and even a modest acquaintance with some of these revered writings is likely to provoke feelings of an opposite but equal disgust.

Cloaked as they may be in pious platitudes and mystical mumblings, the Marian dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church had their wellspring in this ancient revulsion for woman's role and the natural processes of childbirth.

Recently, Pope Benedict greeted 500 consecrated virgins in Rome:

"The call to consecrated virginity has roots in the beginnings of evangelical life, and the Virgin Mary was its first fulfillment, affirmed Benedict XVI. The Pope stated this today when he greeted 500 consecrated virgins today who have gathered in Rome for an international congress..."

It is to be hoped that the "500 consecrated virgins" were totally deficient in the history department because the Pope was certainly being dishonest - consecrated "Vestal Virgins" existed in the very same city, Rome, long before Mary the mother of Jesus was even born.

"The Order of Virgins represents a particular form of consecrated life which flowered anew in the Church after Vatican Council II," the Pontiff explained. "However, it has ancient roots that go back to the beginnings of evangelical life when, in an unprecedented novelty, the hearts of certain women began to open to a desire for consecrated virginity: in other words, the desire to give one's entire being to God, which had had its first extraordinary fulfillment in the Virgin of Nazareth and her 'yes.'"

The "Virgin of Nazareth and her 'yes'" to come...

More Marian Madness

In Memoriam: E.P. Wixted 17 May 2001.

The world is about to witness another eruption from the seemingly bottomless pit of Marian madness.

Not content with the four existing Marian dogmas, the Roman Catholic Church is about to proclaim a fifth.

Now, it will be binding on all Catholics to accept that Mary is Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of all the graces, Advocate for the People of God, and the Spiritual Mother of all humanity.

However there will be a method to the madness: history testifies that behind all the surface nonsense, there lies a strategic and carefully orchestrated plan of action, the object of which will only become apparent in hindsight.

The Catholic Church, having neatly disposed of the remnants of the Reformation, is now in the process of making the term 'Catholic' synonomous with that of 'Christian.' Soon, there will exist only one 'Christian' voice recognised in world forums, and it will be that belonging to the Pope.

So, what is the real reason for all this hocus-pocus?

Of course there is the 'replacement theology' factor condemned throughout the Bible - the lifting up of  the pagan goddess figure, whether Isis, Diana, Virtus, Cybele, Rhea, or Mary, to replace veneration of the one true God of Israel - but aside from this spiritual dimension, the answer will be found, as it always is, in the Vatican's material and very earthly will-to-power.

The doctrine of the Trinity and the various divinity teachings form the great spiritual gulf between Catholicism and Islam. This seemingly impossible divide may  be bridged by shoving Jesus into the background and instead focussing on his mother, and on the one doctrine that both religions have in common - the 'Virgin Birth.'

By redirecting thought towards Mary as the proposed 'Spiritual Mother' of all humanity, Rome is attempting to draw Islam within her skirts. As Cardinal Toppo said here:

"A presentation of Mary as co-redemptrix would be especially appreciated in dialogue with Muslims, for the simple reason that Mary is already well known to them from the Quran itself. Muslims revere Mary as the "greatest of women," sinless and ever virgin. She is a woman of great dignity and her role and significance is acknowledged in the Quran, in the Hadith and in the piety of daily Muslim life.

"One can say, without hesitation, that Mary has been, is and remains a true role model for both Muslims and Christians. She is a wonderful help in our interreligious dialogue. The correct presentation of Mary Co-redemptrix provides a smooth path to the discovery of Catholic truth and encourages all sincere persons to cooperate with the initiatives of the loving and attractive God whose mercy is from age to age."

Stay tuned for more...

Pious Pius Frauds

...continued from How long, O Lord?

The Roman Catholic Encyclopaedia refers mainly to three sources for its knowledge of the early Popes:

• The Pope “list” which originated with Hegesippus about 165 AD;
• An occasional letter from an ecclesiastic (usually Greek), naming, in most cases quite incidentally, the  head of the church in Rome;
• The events of secular history.

These three elements, when added together, are moulded into a “life” of each Pope. The lack of real information is justified on the grounds that the Roman church of the early years was disorganised; yet Rome argues conversely, that in the same period she produced no scholars because she was busily engaged in organising herself.

The Catholic Encyclopaedia's Official Pope List

St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (76-88)
St. Clement 1 (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St Alexander 1 (105-115)
St Sixtus 1 (115-125)
St Telesphorus (125-136)
St Hyginas (136-140)
St Pius 1 (140-155)
St Anicetus (155-166)
St Soter (166-175)
St Eleutherius (175-189)
St Victor 1 (189-199)
St Zephyrinus (199-217)
St Callistus 1 (217-222)

Of this list of "Popes," and the conveniently orderly succession of dates ascribed to their "bishoprics," only three real persons emerge from the silence of history.

St Clement 1 is known only incidentally through putting his name to the one genuine letter from Rome to Corinth circa 100 AD that we have already analysed. Thereafter, only Victor 1 and Callistus 1 emerge from historical darkness.

St Victor I (189-199 AD) claimed authority over the bishops of Asia Minor, ordering them to observe Easter according to Roman custom. His claim to be the “Bishop of Bishops” was emphatically rejected by the other churches and the Greek speaking Bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus, courteously warned him that he had gone too far.

St Callistus 1 (217 - 222) is the first concrete figure of Roman ecclesiastical history. Hippolytus, the most important Roman theologian of the first three centuries, devotes many pages to a scathing account of the conditions of the church and of the character and career of Pope Callistus. Callistus was Pope when the first public meeting place of the Roman church was opened in 222 AD and he, though officially a saint and martyr, died in an odour, not of sanctity, but of knavery.

No prelate, priest or church in the East ever entertained any Roman claim to pre-dominance, and it was rejected by every bishop in the West until the barbarians wrecked the empire and Rome alone could maintain a bishop of any importance.

The facts of history are that, before circa 170 AD, there is no mention of Peter being in Rome or any admission that the head of the Christian community in Rome was the successor of Peter.

* Many scholars have pointed out that it would not have been possible to appoint anyone as the "Bishop" of Rome before circa 100 AD as such a hierarchical structure did not yet exist. A full discussion can be found in the Catholic Encyclopaedia article "Bishop" which begins with the words: "The historical origin of the episcopate is much controverted: very diverse hypotheses have been proposed to explain the texts of the inspired writings and of the Apostolic Fathers relating to the primitive ecclesiastical hierarchy..."

How long, O Lord, how long...?

How Long, O Lord?

...continued from Apostolic Succession : Clement's Letter V

"How long, O Lord...?" How long before the claims of the Roman Catholic Church are subjected to evidentiary inquiry free from clouds of incense and sanctity? How long will the world stomach their cynical manipulation of the sick and needy? How long before their delusions of grandeur, authoritarian practices, and spiritual totalitarianism are exposed? How long will that spiritual cloak of piety, peace, ecumenism and universal brotherhood, mask their very temporal and millennial aspirations to universal power and sovereignty? How long...?

A timely illustration of the almost universal acceptance of Roman Catholic Church claims to papal primacy and apostolic succession for the Bishop of Rome was demonstrated to perfection by the mass media covering the Pope's visit to the USA. Their gullibility was only exceeded by their displays of fawning servility. The following remarks by Basilian Father Thomas Rosica, CEO of the Salt and Light Catholic Media Foundation and Television Network, were accepted and echoed unquestioningly by the mainstream media:

"An ancient Latin expression, first used by St. Ambrose in the fourth century, came to my mind last week during several moments of the historic papal visit to the United States: “Ubi Petrus ibi ecclesia,” which is translated, “Wherever Peter is, there is the Church.

"Peter was in America last week, on the South Lawn of the White House, and at the Catholic University of America. Peter’s great smile and obvious serenity ignited a nation, a Church and a continent with hope in the midst of cynicism and despair, and while many would like to hasten death for a Church that is alive and young, Peter’s words addressed to representatives of more than 190 member nations of the United Nations spoke of human rights, dignity, dialogue and peace to a world at war in so many places. Peter’s eloquent silence, prayer and gestures at ground zero brought healing and peace to victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on a nation.

"The New Testament’s Acts of the Apostles tells us “that they even carried the sick out into the streets and laid them on cots and pallets, so that when Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on any one of them. Also the people from the cities in the vicinity of Jerusalem were coming together, bringing people who were sick or afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all being healed."

"Benedict XVI came to America last week to bring healing and hope. His words and simple gestures were desperately needed in a nation torn apart by terrorism and wars, and in a Church split by many divisions. Only time, reflection and prayer will reveal if the healing of U.S. Catholics, begun last week, will bear fruit for the Church in America.

"One thing is certain, however: Last week the shadow of Peter fell on millions of people in America and far beyond. And many received hope and experienced healing from our many diseases. And one more thing happened last week: Joseph Ratzinger came into his own.

"Though elected and installed as Pope three years ago, I think his Papacy really began in the minds and hearts of North Americans last week when “Peter was among us.” (Zenit.org)

As stated in Apostolic Succession : The Petrine Hoax, there are two authorities that reveal the true situation regarding Peter and Rome during the first century.

We have looked at the first authority, evidence from the New Testament, and discovered that the New Testament presents a clear division of Ministries, with Peter, as the apostle to the "circumcised," travelling Eastwards, away from Rome, and Paul, as the apostle to the Gentiles, travelling Westwards, towards Rome.

We have also looked at the second authority, the letter written from the congregation at Rome to the congregation at Corinth circa 96 AD by the hand of Clemens Romanus, and discovered that the two distinct claims made by the Roman Catholic Church on the basis of Clement's letter - that Peter resided and died in Rome and that Clement as Bishop of Rome exercised primacy over other churches - are utterly spurious.

All we know is that Peter died. As for where, when or how, there is simply no evidence whatsoever. The tradition that Peter founded the Roman church was unknown in Rome in 100 CE. A century later, however, the tradition was firmly established.

There is no doubt that the Roman church has derived immense propaganda benefits from its situation in a city that gave its name to an empire. But Rome was the capital of the Empire only until 330 CE, when the new capital was set up at Constantinople in the East.  It was not until the sixth century CE that the Emperor, Justinian, nominated the bishop of Rome as having ecclesiastical pre-eminence.

"How long O Lord...how long...?"

Apostolic Succession : Clement's Letter V

...continued from Apostolic Sucession : Clement's Letter IV

In our last post, we discovered that the claims asserted by Roman Catholic authorities on the basis of Chapter 5 are entirely without foundation. The only other place where Peter and Paul are mentioned is Chapter 47:

"Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle. What wrote he first unto you in the beginning of the Gospel? Of a truth he charged you in the Spirit concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos, because that even then ye had made parties. Yet that making of parties brought less sin upon you; for ye were partisans of Apostles that were highly reputed, and of a man approved in their sight. But now mark ye, who they are that have perverted you and diminished the glory of your renowned love for the brotherhood. It is shameful, dearly beloved, yes, utterly shameful and unworthy of your conduct in Christ, that it should be reported that the very steadfast and ancient Church of the Corinthians, for the sake of one or two persons, maketh sedition against its presbyters. And this report hath reached not only us, but them also which differ from us, so that ye even heap blasphemies on the Name of the Lord by reason of your folly, and moreover create peril for yourselves."

Only a determinedly preconceived motive could possibly extract from Chapters 5 or 47 of Clement's letter one jot of proof for Peter's residence and death in Rome or a tittle of evidence that the supremacy of the Roman Church over Corinth was therein asserted.

Pay special attention to the previous quote from the CE article Pope which is here repeated:

"Thus, at the very commencement of church history, before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such a fact admits of one explanation alone. It is that in the days when the Apostolic teaching was yet fresh in men's minds the universal Church recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head."

As I stated in Clement's Letter, Parts II, and III, while the apostle John is still alive, the Roman Catholic authorities would have us believe that Clement, whom the Roman Catholic church claims is the third/fourth Pope after Peter, was asserting his universal authority over the church of Corinth from Rome.

Again, reflect a little on this...and again, smile if you must!

It can only be repeated: but for the letter which bears his name, the world would know nothing of Clement. If one cares to consult the Roman Catholic Encyclopaedia and its list of the first ten popes, one might be surprised by the lack of information. They are little more than fanciful constructions.

The TWO distinct claims made by the Roman Catholic Church on the basis of Clement's letter - that Peter resided and died in Rome and that Clement as Bishop of Rome exercised primacy over other churches - are also nothing more than fanciful constructions.

Stay tuned...