Saturday, January 12, 2008

Did the Catholic Church Keep the Bible out of the Hands of the Common People?


Link to Original

It is not uncommon to hear "It was the Protestants reformers who made the Bible widely accessible to everyone and first brought the Bible to the people in their own language, so that it could be finely understood by everyone" of course this statement is not a true pretrial of history. Luther himself noted "it was an effect of God power, that the Papacy should have remained, in the first place, sacred baptism; secondly, the text of the Holy Gospels which it was custom to read from the pulpit in the vernacular tongue of every nation..." (De Missa privata, ed by Jensen, VI, Pg 92)

Latin and Greek manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments were diligently copied by medieval monks. Each monastery had its writing room or scriptorium, where the monks patiently and carefully copied the Scriptures by had. Manuscripts were produced on a large scale by having one monk read for many copyists. Some Bibles or required the work of many Monks such as "the worms Bible" was created by a team of 11 scribes and artists. to copy a Bible took years to complete, making them expensive, by the 13th century, portable, compactly written Bibles were made in great numbers.

This Latin Biblical leaf (circa 1260AD) has been written by hand, in black ink using miniature gothic texture on animal vellum. Rubricated initials and marginalia can be seen in red and blue. It was originally owned by William Foyle of Beeligh Abbey England.

There were many Latin manuscripts in the Middle Ages because anyone who could read could understand that language, but it is false to say that the Reformation, or its predecessors, first brought the Bible to the people in their own tongue. It is historically certain that between the seventh and fourteenth centuries, in all European countries, there were translation in sixteen vernacular languages. That these were no more widespread can be readily explained by the lack of demand for works so costly to produce. Indeed the Bible was "the most widely circulated book in the Middle Ages, and had a great influence on the life of the nations" (Michael, Geschichte der Deutschen Volkes, iii., 223). The priests used it in preparing their sermons, and knew it from their daily reading of the missal and the breviary. The monks copied the Scriptures in their scriptoria, and meditated upon them frequently as we learn from the pages of St. Bernard and Thomas a Kempis (The Imitation of Christ, iv., 11; Luddy, Life of St. Bernard). Every church had to have at least one Bible for the Mass readings, and most had an extra or two in the public space of the church, chained down the way we chain down directories at public telephones now, and for steal it. We must remember that a new Bible would cost a community about as much as a new church building, and the finished book was easily worth a manor. Books in the Middle Ages were done on parchment or on vellum (made from the skins of young sheep or cattle) and lettered, gilded, and illuminated by hand. A whole Bible took maybe four hundred animals and years of work by a score of scribes and artists. Then as now, there were plenty of unscrupulous collectors, so a stolen Bible could always be converted into an immense sum of cash. Plus there were the customary "garnitures", the covers and bindings that could run to twenty pounds of gold, decorated with jewels and enamels (when Henry VIII burned all of the Bibles in England, lie was careful to keep the bindings for himself). The miracle is that so many still survive.

The laity, before printing was invented and when Bible manuscripts were rare and costly, knew the Scriptures from listening to sermons, and from studying the sculpture, paintings, frescoes and mosaics that filled their churches. What a comprehensive view of both the Old Testament and the blew could be had by a parishioner of St. Mark's in Venice in the thirteenth century. As Ruskin says: "The walls of the Church became the poor man's Bible, and a picture was more easily read than a chapter" (The Stones of Venice, ii., 99).

Many non-Catholics have answered the above question in the negative. "It is no longer possible to hold," says Kropat. scheck, "as the old polemics did, that the Bible was a sealed book to both theologians and laity. The more we study the Middle Ages, the more does this fable tend to dissolve into thin air" (Das Schriftprincip der Luth. Kirche, 163). "We must admit," writes Dobschiitz, "that the Middle Ages possessed a quite surprising and extremely praiseworthy knowledge of the Bible, such as might in many respects put our own age to shame" (Deutsche Rundsckau, 1900, 61). "There is," writes Dr. Cutts, "a good deal of popular misapprehension about the way in which the Bible was regarded in the Middle Ages. Some people think that it was very little read, even by the clergy; whereas the fact is that the sermons of the medieval preachers are more full of Scriptural quotations and allusions than any sermons in these days; and the writers on other subjects are so full of Scriptural allusion, that it is evident their minds were saturated

The invention that revolutionized the distributions of sacred scriptures was the printing press invented by a Catholic named Gutenberg in 1454. Gutenberg caused great excitement when in the fall of that year he exhibited sample pages at the Frankfurt trade fair. Gutenberg quickly sold out all of the 180 copies of his Vulgate Bible even before the printing was finished. Italy soon rival Germany as the leading center of printing by the 1470's Venetian Latin Vulgate Bibles had glutted the book market. By the end of the 15th century Catholics were operating print shops in some 250 cities and towns across Europe. with the advance of the printing press these Bible became more common among the people. So brisk was the trade in Latin Bibles in literature that many printers in England gave up printing these books which they could import and concentrated instead on English literature.

These are incunabula leafs from a Pre-Luther Biblia Germanica or German Bible. Printed by the Catholic Anton Koberger printed it on February 17, 1483 in the city of Nuremberg.

When the invention of movable type made the printing of inexpensive Bibles possible, numerous editions were published. In the seventy years before Luther's Bible was published (Luther's Biblical translations, begun in 1522, when he issued his New Testament, and carried on to 1545, when he finished the Deuterocanonical books and the first complete edition of his Bible.) there were 626 editions of the whole or of part of the Bible. Of the 198 in the language of the common people, 104 were complete editions. There were 20 in the Italian, 26 in French, 19 Flemish, 2 in Spanish, 6 in Bohemian, 1 in Slavish, and 30 in German for example the German Strasbourg translation published in 1466. To these editions of the whole Bible, must be added 94 printings of single sections, in the dialects of Europe. Besides these editions in the vernacular, there were 62 editions in Hebrew such as the 1477 Bologna Hebrew translation., 22 in Greek, and 343 in Latin, a language known to all the educated classes. A fitting climax to this period of popularizing the Bible, was the completion of Cardinal Ximenes' Polyglot Edition in 1517.

A good example of the influence of these Catholic bibles is the Rheims (English version of the new testament) first printed in 1582,which historians tell us was a source for the King James version. It is interesting to note that while the Catholic Church promoted the wide spread publishing of its Bibles the Protestants did not. The crown of England claimed a copyright on the King James version and printing of that version was a privilege accorded exclusively to the King's printer at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. for this reason English Bibles in the colonies were scarce. the first complete Bibles published in 1743 in the English colonies were not in English language but rather these English speaking settlers had to publish a copy and use Luther's Germans translation. it was not until after the outbreak of the American revolution and the end of the English rule over America that the first colonial presses began to publish the King James version openly. The first King James Bible to be published in Americas was a new Testament versions printed in 1777 by Robert Aitken, it was not until 1782 that the first complete American edition of the King James Bible. Aitken's KJV Bible was the only Bible ever to be sanctioned by the American Congress. By 1790 a Catholic named Matthew Carey had already begun to publish the Douay-Rheims Bible in United States.

Check out Ron Paul's Blog - The Daily Dose


January 11, 2008

Our campaign is growing every single day, with more and more volunteers and donors rallying to the cause of peace, freedom, and Constitutional government. And our staff is growing too! Our latest hire is Daniel McCarthy, who is coming on board as our Grassroots Communications Coordinator to keep the grassroots informed on the latest developments with the campaign.

You'll get the freshest and most exciting news from the campaign, straight from our War Room, from Daniel and other staffers at our blog, the Daily Dose. Instant reaction to breaking news, immediate mobilization of our supporters-the blog will keep you up to speed on everything happening with the Ron Paul movement.

And we're starting now: our first posts are up http://people.ronpaul2008.com/campaign-updates . Check back regularly!

Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee

Friday, January 11, 2008

Salvation Sermon

Salvation Sermon - #1





Salvation Sermon - #2





Salvation Sermon - #3





Salvation Sermon - #4

Do Catholics and Muslims worship the same God?

By Father Raymond Taouk, SSPX

"The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her" - Pope Gregory XVI [1]

The false notion that all religions who give homage to a deity of any sort somehow worship the true "God" but simply "under another form" is one that is presently being propagated in order lead the Church down the smooth path of apostasy in the name of ecumenism.

The Catholic position on this is precisely opposed to this proposition, which is set forth by the modernist element in the Catholic hierarchy today.

Objectively:

From a purely objective point of view, regardless of the doctrinal teaching professed by Mohammedans and Catholics, it is evident that Almighty God is the God over both. God exists. His existence is not dependent on the acknowledgement of mankind that He exists. Nor is God's existence dependent upon any religion. He is the Creator and the Providence of the Universe: the whole of creation, the entire cosmos, of all existing things, whether they be angels, human beings, animals or plants, animate or inanimate. He is also the Savior and the Judge of the living and the dead, having redeemed mankind and must judge Catholics and Mohammedans, believers and atheists. Their god is but another strange god. On every essential point concerning the true God and the nature of the true God, the Mohammedan belief radically and seriously conflicts with the established and revealed Dogma of the Catholic Church.

Subjectively:

Again from a purely subjective thinking the Muslims might think and believe with a firm confidence that they are worshiping the true God, "Allah" yet the reality is quite the contrary as objectively speaking we can only affirm the contrary. This point is clear from Scripture "Whosoever does not continue in the doctrine of Christ does not have God". - II St. Jn 1:9

The teaching and the beliefs of Catholicism and Mohammedanism are different and contrary. Their concept of, and their approach to God, diverge and conflict. Catholics indeed accept as dogmatic truth the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation and the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Moslems vehemently and vociferously deny the Blessed Trinity [2], the Incarnation [3], the Crucifixion of our Divine Lord and the Divinity of Christ [4]. The Mohammedans have such a carnal notion of heaven that St. Alphonsus did not hesitate to declare "The Mohammedan Paradise, is only fit for beasts; for filthy sensual pleasure is all the believer has to expect there." [5]

The Catholic and Christian God is 'The Trinity,' and our Lord Jesus Christ, the second Person of that Trinity, is the Creator and One true and merciful God. Despite monotheistic appearances, we do not have the same God; we do not have the same mediator. How then can it be that " together with us they (The Moslems) adore the one, merciful God." [6] This is incredible!

The Catholic Teaching: "Without faith it is impossible to please God." - Heb. 11:6

Mohammedans are infidels for "broadly speaking, infidels are those who do not possess the true faith; while in the strict sense infidels are the un-baptized"[7]. They are divided into monotheists (Jews and Moslems), polytheists (Hindus, Buddhists, etc.), and atheists.

From a Catholic perspective the Islamic worship is another form of false worship given to a "strange god" for as we read in scripture "All the gods of the Nations are Idols" - I Para 16:26

It would be blasphemous to declare that these false religions are the working of God. On the Contrary ''all faithful disciples of Jesus Christ well know that the false religions are only instruments of the devil to deceive souls and place them beyond Salvation" - [8a]

Pope Pius X long ago put forward that the modernist if they take logically there doctrine, would have no grounds for denying the Muslims there "experience" of " god" as being just as valid as that of another "believer" and hence he states:

"Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with that of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences from being found in any religion? In fact, that they are so is maintained by not a few. On what grounds can Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? [8b]

What a prophetic insight, Pope Pius X was so accurate that not even the Modernist came to deny what he stated, but only affirm the above with great audacity.

The Baltimore Catechism (No. 3) states as follows:

Q. 1148. How do we offer God false worship?

A. We offer God false worship by rejecting the religion He has instituted and following one pleasing to ourselves, with a form of worship He has never authorized, approved or sanctioned.

Islam clearly comes under the notion of false worship that (objectively speaking) is not render to God.

The psalmist tells us that "All the Gods of the Gentiles are Devils" (Psalm 96:5) and hence to whom do they render their worship? The Scriptures tell us clearly " They provoked him by strange gods, and stirred him up to anger, with their abominations. They sacrificed to devils and not to God: to gods whom they knew not: that were newly come up, whom their fathers worshipped not. " (Deut 32:16- 17 Cf. also Baruch 4:7)

They "sacrificed to devils and not to God" - regardless of whether or not they might have believed they were rendering homage to the True God, the reality is quite the contrary! It is an erroneous proposition to qualify a prayer addressed to the devil as authentic prayer.

Islam is a false Religion. A false religion is any non-Christian religion "in so far as it is not the religion that God revealed and wants to see practiced. Moreover, every non-Catholic Christian sect is false in so far as it neither accepts nor faithfully practices the entire content of Revelation." [9]

Christ tells us who the true worshipers shall be: "But the hour cometh and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth." (Jn. 4:23).

These words go directly against the terminology now used by the modernist hierarchy. They speak from a subjective position wishing to dogmatize and "opinion" which goes directly against the mind of the Church on this point.

This religious subjectivism, which she has always condemned under the names of indifferentism or latitudinarianism, and which "seeks to justify itself under the pretended claims of liberty, failing to recognize the rights of objective truth which are made manifest either by the lights of reason or by Revelation." [10]

This subjectivism only leads to that Religious indifferentism, which is "one of the most deleterious heresies" and which "places all religions on an equal footing," inevitably leads one to consider the truth of religious belief as merely a matter of utility for a well-regulated life.... "One ends by considering religion as an entirely individual thing which can be adapted to the dispositions of each one, letting everyone form his own personal religion, and by concluding that all the religions are good even though they contradict each other." [11]

The Church is not concerned with the subjective dispositions of men. This is for God to Judge. The Church is concerned with objective facts. Her judgments are objective. Pope St. Pius X, for this reason declared that "those who die as infidels are damned." [11a]

1907 In answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved,wrote: "It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned."

Revelation is a reality, a fact, a truth accredited by God by sure signs. This revelation of God can in no way be placed on the same footing as those erroneous beliefs of infidels. We may say that the Mohammedans worship a false god, the god of their own making, which a deviation from the right worship of the true God.

Further we might rightly ask with St. Paul, "How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed?" - Rom 10: 14

Although the modern terminology used might not seem to be "explicitly heretical" in nevertheless leads one down this path to apostasy. This vague terminology, which has been employed to put forward an erroneous notion of the faith so that we may be deceived along the path of syncretism. Yves Marsaudon, in his book Ecumenism as seen by a Traditional Freemason, commented favorably on the ecumenism that was nurtured at Vatican II. He said:

"Catholics and especially the conservatives must not forget that all roads lead to God. And they will have to accept that this courageous idea of free-thinking, which we can really call a revolution, pouring forth from our Masonic lodges has spread magnificently over the dome of Saint Peter's." [12]

This is precisely path of deception to which the enemies of the Church hope to direct her. For this reason St. Pius X, who could see where this disorientation in precise terminology was leading, required every would-be Catholic priest to recite the following words at the feet of his Ordinary:

"I condemn and reject premises from which it follows that dogmas are either false or doubtful". [13]

The Council of Florence, clearly sets down the four notes of heresy as follows:

1) a pertinacious adherence to teachings expressly contradictory to that which has been defined by the Church;

2) an opinion opposed to a doctrine not explicitly defined by the Church nor clearly proposed dogmatically as an article of Faith;

3) a proposition that, although not directly contradictory to the Faith, nonetheless necessarily entails logical consequences against it; and

4) a speculation which reaches a certain degree of probability of being against the Faith.

The Modernist's in using these subjective terms to formulate their erroneous notions that "We together with the Muslims worship the same God" go directly against the above statements of the Council of Florence. This formulation works directly against the Churches dogma "Outside the Church there is No Salvation" [14]

Pope Leo XIII, affirms in his encyclical "Satis Cognitum": "Nothing is more dangerous than the heretics who, while conserving almost all the remainder of the Church's teaching intact, corrupt with a single word, like a drop of poison, the purity and the simplicity of the faith which we have received through tradition from God and through the Apostles."

Although it is true to say that the reason that those outside the Church are not saved is not purely because they worship a false 'god' nevertheless there is still a clear connection. When Christ states, "No one comes to the Father but through me" (Jn. 14:6), this precisely means, if you don't posses Christ, you can't posses the Father (God) for Christ is that door to the Father. Hence without Christ there is no salvation from God. The relation is evident. Again this is confirmed by St. Irenaeus who wrote, "Thus, without the Holy Spirit, we cannot see the Word of God; and without the Son no one can go to the Father." [15a]

The only authentic prayer is true prayer addressed to the true God. Pope Leo XIII declares without hesitation that "the fitting and devout worship of God, which is to be found chiefly in the divine sacrifice and in the dispensation of the sacraments, as well as salutary laws and discipline . . . The (Catholic) Church alone offers to the human race that religion" [15b]

Pope Pius XI declares the same saying that "In her (the Catholic Church) alone is Christ believed with a faith whole and entire, worshiped with sincere homage of adoration, and loved with the constant flame of ardent Charity" [15c]

What happened to the 1st Commandment?

I am the Lord thy God...Thou shalt not have strange gods before me....Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them..." (Ex. 20:2-5).

If all religions worship the true God by simply claiming to be doing so, then one could not violate the 1st Commandment since all worship of any "god" would be tantamount to worshiping the true "God" according to the post the modernist element in the hierarchy, yet this would not only render the 1st Commandment obsolete but make it seem as though God had given us and absurd command. God does not command anything in vain.

The first commandment is not optional. A man cannot worship in any way that which he does not believe in, for the Law of Praying determines the law of believing, and vice-versa. If Mohammedans believe in a one-person deity, that is what they worship, and in no way can we logically argue that they worship with us the Holy Trinity.

We are not unfamiliar with the notion that claims that they implicitly worship the trinity, yet we cannot maintain this from an objective stand point for the simple reason that we can not hold that one worships implicitly what he explicitly rejects.

In our day and age it is often too easily forgotten that all non-Catholic worship is offensive to God and clearly violates the first commandment. This is because the "first commandment may be broken by giving to a creature the honor which belongs to God alone or by false worship." [16a]

The Church has always regarded the worship of Non Catholics as mere acts of superstitions since "there are four kinds of superstition, namely, illegitimate worship of the true God, idolatry, divination, and superstitious practices. The first consists in a false worship, though applied to the living God; for instance, if you worship Him (God) according to the Mosaic law, which is contrary to all the precepts of the Gospel; or if you adopt a new religion in opposition to the doctrine if the universal Church." [16b] Hence it is clear that "any public worship of the true God, outside the Catholic Church constitutes a superstitious worship of God as no other Church is authorized to give public worship to God. [16c]

Religion has an intellectual foundation, that is, it is based on knowledge. To be true religion its basis must be truth. The basis must be true both speculatively and practically. In other words, true religion must be based on a correct knowledge of God as existing and worthy of all honor, and of the manner and obligation of worshipping Him. On the other hand, religion is false if what is not God is considered to be God, and worshipped as God, or if there is error in the worship of the true God. Therefore, God is not truly worshipped when erroneous signs are used in His worship, as those of the Jews, or when superfluous ceremonies are employed, as by pagans and may heretics. [16d]

Although subjectively, it is the virtue of religion which prompts a man to render to God the worship and reverence that is His by right. [16e]

It is to be noted that an act based on a false religion cannot be really an act of virtue. For a virtue requires a morally good work. But in the cult (worship) of a false god, or in the false and superstitious worship of the true God, there can be no moral goodness, since such worship is opposed to right reason. [16f]

St. Pope Pius X, truly the Pope of our Age, could see where such absurd reason of the Modernists was leading the Church as he affirmed:

"... a great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, nor discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world the reign of legalized cunning and force, the oppression of the weak, and of those who toil and suffer." [17a]

True ecumenism with the Muslims

"Those who have learned theology well," says St. Basil, "will not allow even one iota of Catholic dogmas to be betrayed. They will, if necessary, willingly undergo any kind of death in their defense." [17b]

One of the greatest frauds presented to us by a great number of the current hierarchy is the false notion of ecumenism, which in reality is not ecumenism but simple "syncretism" going by the name of "ecumenism. True Ecumenism requires all those outside the Church to come to the Ark of Salvation so that they may not perish.

True ecumenism can be effectively defined as follows:

"The unity of Christians cannot otherwise be obtained than by securing the return of the separated to the one true Church of Christ from which they once unhappily withdrew. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, that stands forth before all and that by the will of its Founder will remain forever the same as when He Himself established it for the salvation of all mankind." [18]

This has been the constant teaching of the Church. Holy Mother Church has always taught that true unity cannot be effected, except by a unity in faith and government. [19]

Pope Pius IX condemned in his syllabus of errors the following false notions:

"Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true." (Proposition XV).

"Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation and arrive at eternal salvation." (Proposition XVI).

The real problem with this false ecumenism (which lead to indifferentism) is not only the fact that Catholics are being deceived but in the same process so are the infidels and non-believers and they sadly continue on the road to perdition without being told to recant their errors.

Catholics often forget that those faithful living on earth come under the title of "Church Militant". What is a Catholic who does not confess his faith or worse yet a Catholic who does not believe his faith?

St. Peter Canisius puts it this way: "Who is to be called a Christian? He who confesses the doctrine of Christ and His Church. Hence, he is truly a Christian thoroughly condemns and detests, the Jewish, Mohammedan, and the heretical cults and sects." [20]

What did St. Peter Mavimenus tell the Mohammedans? Did he say, "We worship the same God, all is well" No! He told them the truth, he put it this way to them "Whoever does not embrace the Catholic Christian religion will be damned, as was your false prophet Mohammed." [21]

Again we read that Blessed Nicholas Tavilich was just as stern as he openly states, "You Mohammedans are in a state of everlasting damnation. Your Koran is not God's law nor is it revealed by Him. Far from being a good thing, your law is utterly evil. It is founded neither in the Old Testament nor in the New. In it are lies, foolish things, buffooneries, contradictions, and much that leads not to virtue and goodness but to evil and to all manner of vice." [22]

St. Alphonsus attests to the fact how the Holy Monk St. Goerge of San Saba openly confessed to the Mohammedans: "But the holy monk (St. George of San Saba) having declared that Mahomet was a disciple of the devil, and that his followers were in a state of perdition, he also was condemned (to martyrdom) with his companions." [23]

The same we read in the testimony of the five disciples of St. Francis of Assisi, who when reproached by the followers of Koran for preaching against Mohammed, simply responded by saying "We have come to preach faith in Jesus Christ to you, that you will renounce Mohammad, that wicked slave of the devil, and obtain everlasting life like us" [23a]

Further we read in the life of St. John Vianney how he stated openly to a Protestant who believed that his worship rendered to God should do him just as well in his Protestant Sect as it would have in the Catholic faith, The Saint responded to him with the contrary advice saying "My friend, there are not two ways of serving Our Lord; there is only one good way, and it is to serve Him as He wishes to be served".[24]

This is the truth we must speak in charity and honesty to these lost souls who without the grace and redemption of Christ can't be saved for By nature, men are "children of wrath" (Eph. 2:3); by Him, we have been reconciled with the Father (Col. 1:20), and it is only by faith in Him that we can have the boldness to approach God with entire confidence (Eph. 3:12). To Him was given all power in heaven and on earth (Mt. 28:18), and at His name every knee must bend, in heaven, on earth, and under the earth (Phil. 2:10,11). No one goes to the Father save by Him (Jn. 14:6), and there is no other name under heaven given to man by which he must be saved (Acts 4:12). He is the Light that enlightens every man who comes into the world (Jn.1:9), and whoever does not follow Him wanders in darkness (Jn. 8:12). Who is not with Him is against Him (Mt. 13:30), and who does not honor Him also dishonors His Father who sent Him (as the Jews do) (Jn. 5:23).

Christ says, " Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No I tell you but division?" With the truth, division must come. This should not dishearten the man of God for "If God is for us, who is against us" - Rom 8:31

Salvation and Ignorance- "He that doth not believe is already judged." Jn, 3:18; Mk 16:16

Primarily it is important to we keep in mind that no one is save by ignorance, if anything we must boldly affirm the very opposite. Pope St. Pius X clearly affirms this saying: "We are forced to agree with those who hold that the chief cause of the present indifference and, as it were, infirmity of soul, and the serious evils that result from it, is to be found above all in ignorance of things divine. And so, Our Predecessor Benedict XIV had just cause to write: "We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect." [25]

St. Thomas Aquanis States " But through unbelief man is separated most from God: because he has no true knowledge of God. Nor can anyone in any way know God who holds a false opinion of Him" [26]

Although the Church makes a distinction between voluntary infidels in which one knowingly rejects the faith and involuntary infidels in which the offender is ignorant of the true faith.

Those who are not guilty of the sin of infidelity, but commit other grievous sins, are all those un-baptized persons who never had an opportunity of knowing the true religion, or of becoming aware of the obligation of seeking and embracing it, but who do not live up to the dictates of their conscience. This class of infidels will be lost, not on account of their infidelity, which was no sin for them, but on account of other grievous sins, which they committed against their conscience. "For whosoever have sinned without the law," says Saint Paul, "shall perish without the law." [27]

In fact, the infidels who are not lost because of the sin of incredulity, that is, by the sin of not having believed in Christ about whom they never knew anything, are lost by their other sins, the remission of which cannot be given to anyone without the true faith. Those infidels who are not guilty of the sin of infidelity and are faithful in obeying the voice of their conscience, Saint Thomas Aquinas says: "If anyone was brought up in the wilderness or among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of nature to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe that God, by an inward inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send someone to preach the Faith to him, as He sent Peter to Cornelius."

Further Fr. Michael Mueller, C.SS.R in dealing with the issue states: "A Mohammedan is taught by his conscience that it would be a crime to believe in Jesus Christ, and not believe in Mahomet; will this impious conscience save him? The Scripture assures us that 'there is no other name given to men under heaven by which we can be saved,' but the name of Jesus only; and 'he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remaineth on him." [28]

This should not surprise us since "what can be more contrary to reason than to be an infidel and not care to be under the sentence of eternal damnation" [29] Yes it is wholly against reason to place our faith in the testimony of a deceiver and murder as Mohammed manifested himself to have been. For this reason St. Thomas says "those who place faith in his (Mohammed's) words believe foolishly" [30]

Without the faith they can't be saved. Our Lord Jesus Christ is not optional.

Attendance at Islamic and Non-Catholic Worship

The abomination, which the Church has had from the very beginning for association of Catholics in the worship of Non Catholics [31], is evident from the words of St. John "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house, or say to him Welcome" - II John 1:10

Suarez (one of the greatest amongst the Jesuits theologians) affirms that the reason the Apostle gives for this prohibition is verified in religious communication especially, because he, who unites himself with those outside the Church in religious worship, communicates in their wicked works. [32]

A Catholic who communicates formally in the worship of Non Catholics sins grievously against the virtue of Religion, as a false exercise of it. [33] For this reason "One is never allowed to cooperate formally in something which is intrinsically wrong objectively." [34]

St. Augustine, the great Champion of Catholic orthodoxy, reproves both actual and simulated communication in non-Catholic worship. In a letter to St. Jerome he states that one who observes the rites of Jews, or Gentiles, not only truly, but even fictitiously, has fallen into the abyss of the devil. [35]

The mind of the Church on this point was enshrined in old Code of Canon Law (1917), which stated that: " It is not permitted at all for the faithful to assist in any active manner at or to have any part in the worship of non-Catholics." [36]

All subsequent moral theology works have simply reiterated the same point. [37]

Pius XI in dealing with this issue that was so vehement in his own day had only the following to say "Certainly such movements as these cannot gain the approval of Catholics. They are founded upon the false opinions of those who say that, since all religions equally unfold and signify- though not in the same way - the native, inborn feeling in us all through which we are borne toward God and humbly recognize His rule, therefore, all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy. The followers of this theory are not only deceived and mistaken, but since they repudiate the true religion by attacking it in its very essence, they move step by step toward naturalism and atheism. Hence it clearly follows that anyone who gives assent to such theories and undertakings utterly abandons divinely revealed religion. " [38]

The Church can never lawfully grant to Catholics permission to participate formally in non-Catholic worship. In dealing those who claim they have been given ecclesiastical permission to participate in the ceremonial rites of non Catholics Fr. Michael Mueller in his well known work, "God the Teacher of Man Kind" aptly answers the question by stating "Neither any priest nor bishop, nay, not even the Pope, can give you permission to violate any of the commandments." [39]

It has been rashly stated the Mohammedans and other infidels adore the same God "together with us" [40] yet not only is this undoubtibly offensive to Catholic doctrine (as we have shown above) but it shows forth an ignorance of Islamic notion of God and their absurd doctrines. Mohammedans don't pray to their god, together with us, they pray to their false god against us! The Quran is explicit on this point as it openly states: "The Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before, may Allah destroy them, how they have turned away." [41]

Ultimately we can do no better than assume to ourselves the advice of the Apostle of the Gentiles (St. Paul) himself "Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?" - II Cor. 6: 14-18.

Foot Notes:

1Pope Gregory XVI - Summo Jugiter Studio, May 27, 1832

2. Sura iv. 171

3. Sura xxiii. 91

4. Sura iv, 157 and Sura v. 78.

5. St. Alphonsus de Liguori, History of Heresies, Vol. 1., ch. vii., art. 1.

6. Lumen Gentium, 16. Vatican Council II.,

7. - Roberti-Palazzini, Dizionario di teologia morale, p.813. Cf. Also A Compendium of St. Thomas's Theology, by Fr. E. O' Donnell, Vol. II, Dublin 1859, Pg. 21

8a.St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians, VIII:2

8b. Pascendi, Sept. 8, 1907,

9. Roberti-Palazzini, Dizionario di teologia morale, p.813.

10. Dizionario de teologia morale, p.805.

11. Dizionario de teologia morale, p.805.

11a. The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, Pope St. Pius X, 1907 "In answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote: ' It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned.' - The reason for this is as we previously mention. The Church judges the Objective facts and not the subjective dispositions of Men!

12. Lefebvre; Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Fowler Wright Books Ltd., Herefordshire, England, 1986, p. 106.

13. Oath Against Modernism

14. This dogma has been affirmed many times over by the Churches Magesterium. It has been affirmed by Pope Innocent III (DS423), The IV Lateran Council (DS 430), Pope Boniface VIII (DS 468), The Council of Florence (DS 714), Pius IX (DS1647), Pope Clement VI (DS 5706), The Council of Trent (DS 861).

15a. THE FAITH OF CATHOLICS, The Introduction, by Frs. Joseph Berington and John Kirk, rev. Fr. James Waterworth, San Marino, CA: Victory Publications, 1985.

15b. Satis Cognitum, June 19, 1896

15c. Lux et Veritas, December 25, 1931.

16a. Fr. D. I. Lanslot, Catholic Theology, St. Louise, M O, 1911, Pg. 486.

16b. Fr. E. O'Donnell, A Compendium of St. Thomas's Theology, Dublin 1859, Volume II, Pg. 113, Cf. Summa Theologica, II-II, QQ. 92-96.

16c. Fr. John R. Bancroft, C.SS. R, Communication in Religious worship with non Catholics, Washington, 1943, pg. 48.

16d. Fr. John R. Bancroft, C.SS. R, Communication in Religious worship with non Catholics, Washington, 1943, pg. 14.

16e. Summa Theologica II-II, q. 81, Art. 1

16f. Suarez, Opera Omnia, Tom XIII, pg. 7

17a. Our Apostolic Mandate

17b. Apud. Theod., lib. 4, Hist. Eccl., c. xvii.

18. Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos

19. Pope Leo XIII, Praeclara Gratulationis., June 20, 1894

20. St. Canisius Catholic Cate-chism, Dillingen, 1560, Question no. 1

21. St. Peter Mavimenus, The Roman Martyrology for February 21

22. "National Catholic Register," 1974

23. St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Victories of the Martyrs, ch. LIII.

23a. Saint Francis of Assisi, A biography, by Omer Englebert, 1979, Pg. 178-9

24. St. John Mary Vianney . John Mary: SPIRIT OF THE CURE D'ARS, Bowden, 1864

25. Acerbo Nimis, April 15, 1905

26. Summa Theologica II - II q. 10, Art. 3

27. Romans 2:12. Cf. Also Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 11, Art. 1.

28. The Catholic Dogma, "Out of the Church there is positively no Salvation", BENZIGER BROTHERS, New York, 1888,

29. Fr. Michael Muller, Catholic Doctrine, preface, pg. 16

30. Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 1, Chapter 16, Art. 4.

31. Any documentation given in these regards are those which deal with only non Catholic worship in general, since there are volumes of condemnations both from antiquity and modern authorities on the communication of worship with heretics, who while retaining the name of Christian have departed from the faith of Christ. Since we are dealing with Non Catholics we limit ourselves to some of the authorities on this point.

32. Opera Omnia, Tom. XXIV, p. 708

33. Fr. John R. Bancroft, C.SS. R, Communication in Religious worship with non Catholics, Washington, 1943, pg. 48.

34. Fr. John R. Bancroft, C.SS. R, Communication in Religious worship with non Catholics, Washington, 1943, pg. 51

35. Epistola LXXXII, ad Hieronymum, Cap. II, n.18

36. Canon 1258

37. Moral Theology, A Complete Cource, by John A. Mchugh and Charles J. Callan, New York, 1929, Vol. I. n. 964, Pg. 376

38. Mortalium Animos

39. God the teacher of Mankind, New York, 1881, Pg. 331

40. Lumen Gentium, 16. Vatican Council II.

41. Quran, Book IX, par. 30, Cf. Sura 9:28, 5:17, 47:4, 5:62

Islamic Persecution of Christians

A book that relates the untold story of the murder of 45 million Christians in the 20th century alone has caused controversy in Italy. The author of The New Persecuted: Inquiries into Anti-Christian Intolerance in the New Century of Martyrs, Antonio Socci, has been accused of "demonizing Islam" by raising the issue of Christian suffering in the Muslim world.

Socci provides evidence that in the past 2,000 years some 70 million Christians have been killed primarily or exclusively for the reason of their faith, two-thirds in the past 100 years alone, with Joseph Stalin as the chief culprit. He says that an average of 160,000 Christians have been killed every year since 1990, the vast majority by Muslims in the Third World. Chronicling attacks, pogroms and wars in East Timor, Indonesia, Sudan, Egypt, Pakistan, India, and the Balkans, Socci identifies Islamic extremism as the main danger. And yet, says he, "This global persecution of Christianity is still in progress but in most cases is ignored by the mass media and Christians in the west."

Western indifference to Christian suffering, documented by Antonio Socci, is well illustrated by the recent standoff at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, one of the holiest Christian sites in the Holy Land, which was re-consecrated last month after being occupied by Arab gunmen and besieged by the Israeli army for 38 days. While extensively covered because of its photogenic value and its potential for further bloodshed, the stand-off has caused hardly a ripple in the Western world on what should be the obvious grounds for media scrutiny and public concern: the misuse and abuse of a Christian shrine by warring non-Christians in pursuit of their political objectives. The Bethlehem episode is thus illustrative of two parallel processes overlooked in the current Middle Eastern crisis: the apparently terminal decline of the Christian remnant in the Middle East after two millennia of precarious and mostly painful existence, and the remarkable indifference of the post-Christian Western world to its impending demise.

Already by their choice of the stage for what soon became a propaganda exercise the Muslim gunmen who occupied the church desecrated the basilica built on the site of the grotto where Jesus Christ is believed to have been born. They ate the food they found on the premises until it ran out, while more than 150 civilians went hungry. They consumed alcoholic drinks that they found in priests' quarters, undeterred by the Islamic ban on drinking alcohol. They tore up Bibles up for toilet paper. They turned one corner of the ancient church into an impromptu mosque. They even attempted to bury seven of their comrades, who were subsequently killed by Israeli snipers, inside the church or on its grounds -- obviously intending to turn one of the holiest Christian shrines into a place of Islamic pilgrimage to the fallen "martyrs."

Two weeks before the siege of the Church of the Nativity, as Israeli forces stormed into Bethlehem, an Israeli tank shell hit the facade of the nearby Holy Family Church, in a complex with an orphanage, hospital and hostel. The soldiers then fired, from fifty yards' distance, at the statue of the Virgin atop the Holy Family Church. The statue lost its left arm and its face was disfigured. The Israeli army expressed regret and promised investigation, but this did not look like an accidental shot: no terrorist could possibly hide behind the figure on the pinnacle of the hospital church. The story was reported by Reuters, and a picture taken by an AP photographer. It was available to the world media but ignored. These two incidents illustrate the predicament of the dwindling Christian remnant in the Middle East. Once thriving Christian communities are now minorities squeezed between the warring Jews and Muslims who may hate each other but all too often share their aversion to Christianity. Institutionalized or covert discrimination to which Christians are subjected in Syria, Israel, Egypt, and Lebanon, accompanied by occasional eruptions of anti-Christian violence by the Muslim majority in the last two countries, have contributed to an exodus that threatens to eradicate the believers in Christ in the lands of his birth and life.


(Excerpted from Chronicles Magazine)

Pope hails persecuted Christians as modern martyrs

VATICAN CITY, Dec 26 (Reuters - Wed Dec 26, 2007 7:26am EST) - Pope Benedict said on Wednesday that Christians faced persecution, torture and death in some parts of the world and continued to be made martyrs for their faith.

In a message to pilgrims on the day after Christmas -- the feast day of St. Stephen, considered the first Christian martyr -- the Pope said Christians who die for their faith pray for forgiveness for their killers.

"We should always note that this is a distinctive characteristic of the Christian martyr -- it is exclusively an act of love, towards God and towards men, including the persecutors," he told crowds in a rainy St. Peter's Square.

"Christian martyrdom reminds us of the victory of love over hatred and death," he said.

St. Stephen was stoned to death by a mob in Jerusalem at a time when Christianity was first starting to spread. The Pope said such martyrdoms continued to this day.

"It is not rare even today that we receive news from various parts of the world of missionaries, priests, bishops, monks, nuns and lay people persecuted, imprisoned, tortured, deprived of their liberty or prevented from exercising it because they are disciples of Christ and apostles of the Gospel," he said.

The Pope did not give any examples, but it is less than two weeks since an Italian Catholic priest was stabbed in his church in Turkey, the latest in a spate of attacks on Christians in the predominantly Muslim country.

Another Italian priest in Turkey was shot dead in his church by a teenager in February, and in April three Christians had their throats cut at a Bible publishing house there.

On Wednesday, Hindu hardliners in India burned and damaged 12 churches, killing at least one person, in an outbreak of violence sparked by the reported injuring of a local Hindu leader by a Christian group. (Reporting by Robin Pomeroy, editing by Tim Pearce)



© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

Hindu Fundamentalists Beat 5 Nuns in Madhya Pradesh

Mark Alessio
REMNANT COLUMNIST, New York



The accusation of “forced conversions to Christianity has once again been used as a pretext to justify Hindu fundamentalist violence against members of the Catholic community,” reports Asia News (Oct. 27, 2007):

Yesterday 5 sisters of the Poor Clare’s order were savagely beaten with sticks by a group of activists from Dharma Raksha Samiti (Committee for the protection of religion), a fundamentalist organisation in favour of sati (the ritual suicide of the widows). The incident took place yesterday afternoon in Raseli, Indore diocese, Madhya Pradesh. The police have refused the diocese’ attempts to report the incident.

The sisters, members of the Franciscan Clarist Congregation, are Sr. Jincy, 40, Sr. Sayujia, 27, Sr. Pavitra, 26, Sr. Sweta, 26 and Sr. Anna Maria, 27. The young sisters are recovering from the brutal assault in Bhandari Hospital, where their condition is described as “grave.”

“We had gone to attend the Rosary Prayer at Mr. Anil’s house. He is a Catholic by birth and the driver of our convent, when they attacked us with sticks”, says Sr. Jincy. Kamal Waghela of the Dharma Raksha Samiti group accused the nuns of trying to convert local Hindus to Catholicism. He claims that, after the prayer meeting, the sisters “picked a quarrel on this issue which lead to [sic] clash between the sisters and our workers”.

Christiansunite.com reports (Nov. 6, 2007) that twenty Hindu militants surrounded the home of Mr. Anil in the city of Indore at approximately 8:30 PM on the evening of October 25th. At the conclusion of the prayer gathering, the mob began accusing the nuns of forcibly converting local Hindus to Christianity. They then proceeded to attack the sisters, continuing to assault them until police arrived. The police escorted the nuns to safety, but not before Sr. Jincy suffered serious head injuries as a result of the attack. Sr. Sayujya suffered a broken leg in the assault.

A statement released after the attack by the Indore diocese stated: “It is nothing but finding an easy way to justify the brutality done to women religious, we will fight with tooth and nail.” Archbishop Leo Cornelio, Chairman, Catholic Bishops Council of Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgarh, said, “We have been suffering silently but it looks that the fundamental organizations take it as a weakness from our part, it is an attack on women and human freedom.”

Local police refused to launch an official investigation into the attack until Catholic authorities agreed to call off a hunger-strike planned in response to the brutal beating of the five sisters. Police felt that such a protest would have reflected poorly on a meeting of Madhya Pradesh Industries which was scheduled for October 27th. Msgr. Cornelio told AsiaNews:

What is alarming is that these fanatical outfits are so powerful politically, that the authorities cannot take care of Law and Order and fail in their duty to protect the citizens and hence these fanatics get encouraged to intensify their hate propaganda and anti-minority sentiments to carry out act [sic] of violence towards the monitory [sic] and get away scot-free. India is a democratic country and this cannot be tolerated, our religious freedom is non-negotiable.

There is a bizarre twist to the story. After beating the nuns and inflicting serious injury upon them, the Hindu zealots filed charges against the sisters at the local police station under the state's law restricting religious conversions.

Comment: Strangely enough, the first thing that entered my mind after reading about the five courageous nuns brutally beaten in Madhya Pradesh was the image of two “Womanpriest” harpies who recently made the headlines here in the States. According to a November 7, 2007 Associated Press report, Rose Marie Dunn Hudson, 67, and Elsie Hainz McGrath, 69, are going to be “ordained” as “priests.”

Naturally, the St. Louis Archdiocese has warned the “ladies” that they will be excommunicated should they proceed with their unholy little charade. The response from the women was, of course, the usual protestations of martyrdom. "It's a typically hierarchical form of intimidation, and we will not be intimidated," crowed Elsie McGrath. "What is he going to do, burn us at the stake, or what?" asked Rose Marie Hudson.

Compare, for a moment, McGrath and Hudson... and ask who has the greater claim to “victimhood.” The nuns of Madhya Pradesh risked attending a prayer gathering at the house of a fellow Catholic, knowing full well that they risked their lives to do so. McGrath and Hudson cluck because they desperately want to “take the stage” (which is all that the altar is for them) to play a clerical form of “dress-up.” With Catholics being persecuted daily in places like India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China, etc., you would hope that, at the very least, these “womanpriest” types would feel some sense of shame in comparing themselves to truly courageous Catholic women.

As it is with Catholics everywhere these days, those living in India have an entire socio-political system against them. However, unlike Catholics living in America, who suffer “attacks” in the form of smarmy Hollywood blasphemies and persecution from idiotic celebrities and profiteering “civil-rights” groups, our brethren in India suffer direct assaults upon their persons. In fact, anyone who describes himself as a “Christian” is vulnerable to the most brutal assaults. The reports flow out of India in tidal waves. An 18-year-old Protestant boy from Madhya Pradesh, returning from a prayer meeting, dies after being thrown from a train by members of a militant Hindu youth group. The wife of a Protestant minister in Bihar state is raped by a man put up to the deed by Hindu militants. In Orissa, three daughters of a Protestant pastor are molested by Hindu militants and chased down by a tractor while on their way to school.

Meanwhile, Indian states pass “anti-conversion bills,” mandating jail-time and fines for anyone found "forcibly converting" another person. As can be seen from the case of the five nuns savagely beaten in Madhya Pradesh, “forcibly converting” is in the eye of the beholder. And, of course, the police turn a blind eye to violence directed against Catholics and Protestants. In fact, in the case of the boy thrown from the train, the police wanted to rule his death a “suicide!”

No, aspiring “womenpriests” Rose Marie Dunn Hudson and Elsie Hainz McGrath, you won’t be burned at the stake by an “intimidating” hierarchy. You’ll be able to play dress-up, and no one will bother you. And, pray God, someday, you may acquire a fraction of the love for Christ and the Catholic Faith that has motivated the true martyrs of history. In fact, may we all be so blessed.

The One True Church

The Only Church That Christ Established Is The Catholic Church

By Arnold Damen S.J.

Imprimatur: Michael Augustine, Archbishop of New York

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned." Mark xvi. 16.


I. MY DEARLY BELOVED CHRISTIANS: From these words of our Divine Savior it has already been proved to you, that faith is necessary for salvation and without faith there is no salvation; without faith there is eternal damnation. Read your own Protestant Bible, 16th verse of St. Mark, and you will find it stronger there than in the Catholic Bible.

Now, then, what kind of faith must a man have to be saved? Will any faith do? Why, if any faith will do, the devil himself will be saved, for the Bible says the devils believe and tremble.

It is, therefore, not a matter of indifference what religion a man professes; he must profess the right and true religion, and without that there is no hope of salvation, for it stands to reason, my dear people, that if God reveals a thing or teaches a thing, He wants to be believed. Not to believe is to insult God.

Doubting His word, or believing even with doubt and hesitating, is an insult to God, because it is doubting His Sacred Word. We must, therefore, believe without doubting, without hesitating.

I have said, out of the Catholic Church there is no divine faith-can be no divine faith out of that Church. Some of the Protestant friends will be shocked at this, to hear me say that out of the Catholic Church there is no divine faith, and that without faith there is no salvation, but damnation. I will prove all I have said.

I have said that out of the Catholic Church there can be no divine faith. What is divine faith? When we believe a thing upon the authority of God, and believe it without doubt, without hesitating. Now, all our separated brethren outside of the Catholic Church take the private interpretation of the Bible for their guide; but the private interpretation of the Bible can never give them divine faith.

Let me, for instance, suppose for a moment, here is a Presbyterian; he reads his Bible; from the reading of his Bible he comes to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is God. Now, you know this is the most essential of all Christian doctrines - the foundation of all Christianity. From the reading of his Bible he comes to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is God; and he is a sensible man, an intelligent man, and not a presumptuous man. And he says: "Here is my Unitarian neighbor, who is just as reasonable and intelligent as I am, as honest, as learned, and as prayerful as I am, and, from the reading of the Bible, he comes to the conclusion that Christ is not God at all. "Now," says he, "to the best of my opinion and judgment, I am right, and my Unitarian neighbor is wrong; but, after all," says he, "I may be mistaken! Perhaps I have not the right meaning of the text, and if I am wrong, perhaps he is right, after all; but, to the best of my opinion and judgment, I am right and he is wrong."

On what does he believe? On what authority? On his own opinion and judgment. And what is that? A human opinion - human testimony, and, therefore, a human faith. He cannot say positively, "I am sure, positively sure, as sure as there is a God in heaven, that this is the meaning of the text." Therefore, he has no other authority but his own opinion and judgment, and what his preacher tells him. But the preacher is a smart man. There are many smart Unitarian preachers also, but that proves nothing; it is only human authority, and nothing else, and, therefore, only human faith. What is human faith? Believing a thing upon the testimony of man. Divine faith is believing a thing on the testimony of God.

II. The Catholic has divine faith, and why? Because the Catholic says: "I believe in such and such a thing." Why? "Because the Church teaches me so." And why do you believe the Church? "Because God has commanded me to believe the teaching of the Church; and God has threatened me with damnation if I do not believe the Church, and we are taught by St. Peter, in his epistle, that there is no private prophecy or interpretation of the Scriptures, for the unlearned and unstable wrest the very Scriptures, the Bible, to their own damnation.''

That is strong language, my dear people, but that is the language of St. Peter, the head of the Apostles. The unlearned and unstable wrest the Bible to their own damnation! And yet, after all, the Bible is the book of God, the language of inspiration; at least, when we have a true Bible, as we Catholics have, and you Protestants have not.

But, my dearly beloved Protestant friends, do not be offended at me for saying that. Your own most learned preachers and bishops tell you that, and some have written whole volumes in order to prove that the English translation, which you have, is a very faulty and false translation.

Now, therefore, I say that the true Bible is as the Catholics have it, the Latin Vulgate; and the most learned among the Protestants themselves have agreed that the Latin Vulgate Bible, which the Catholic Church always makes use of, is the best in existence; and, therefore, it is, as you may have perceived, that when I preach I give the text in Latin, because the Latin text of the Vulgate is the best extant.

III. Now, they may say that Catholics acknowledge the Word of God; that it is the language of inspiration; and that, therefore, we are sure that we have the Word of God; but, my dear people, the very best thing may be abused, the very best thing; and, therefore, our Divine Savior has given us a living teacher, that is to give us the true meaning of the Bible.

And He has provided a teacher with infallibility; and this was absolutely necessary, for without this - without infallibility we could never be sure of our faith. There must be an infallibility; and we see that in every well-ordered government, in every government-in England, in the United States, and in every country, empire and republic, there is a Constitution and a supreme law.

But you are not at liberty to explain the Constitution and supreme law as you think proper, for then there would be no more law if every man were allowed to explain the law and Constitution as he should think proper.

Therefore, in all governments there is a supreme judge and supreme court, and to the supreme judge is referred all different understandings of the law and the Constitution. By the decisions of the supreme judge all have to abide, and if they did not abide by that decision why, my dear people, there would be no law any more, but anarchy, disorder and confusion.

Again, suppose for a moment that the Blessed Savior has been less wise than human governments, and that He had not provided for the understanding of His Constitution, and of His Law of the Church of God. If He had not, my dear people, it would never have stood as it has stood for the last eighteen hundred and fifty-four years. He has then established a Supreme Court, a Supreme Judge in the Church of the Living God.

IV. It is admitted on all sides, by Protestants and Catholics alike acknowledged, that Christ has established a Church; and, strange to say, all our Protestant friends acknowledge, too, that he has established but one Church - but one Church - for, whenever Christ speaks of His Church, it is always in the singular. Bible readers, remember that; my Protestant friends, pay attention. He says: "Hear the Church," - not hear the churche s- "I have built My Church upon a rock" - not My churches.

Whenever He speaks, whether in figures or parables of His Church, He always conveys to the mind a oneness, a union, a unity.

He speaks of His Church as a sheepfold, in which there is but one shepherd - that is the head of all, and the sheep are made to follow his voice; "other sheep I have who are not of this fold." One fold, you see. He speaks of His Church as of a kingdom, in which there is but one king to rule all; speaks of His Church as a family in which there is but one father at the head; speaks of His Church as a tree, and all the branches of that tree are connected with the trunk, and the trunk with the roots; and Christ is the root, and the trunk is Peter and the Popes, and the large branches are the bishops, and the smaller branches the priests, and the fruit upon that tree are the faithful throughout the world; and the branch, says He, that is cut off from that tree shall wither away, produce no fruit, and is only fit to be cast into the fire - that is, damnation.

This is plain speaking, my dear people; but there is no use in covering the truth. I want to speak the truth to you, as the Apostles preached it in their time - no salvation out of the Church of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

V. Now, which is that Church? There are now three hundred and fifty different Protestant churches in existence, and almost every year one or two more are added; and besides this number there is the Catholic Church.

Now, which of all these varied churches is the one Church of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? All claim to be the Church of Jesus.

But, my dear beloved people, it is evident no church can be the Church of Jesus except the one that was established by Jesus. And when did Jesus establish His Church? When? When He was here upon earth. And how long ago is it that Christ was upon earth? You know our Christian era dates from Him. He was born many centuries ago. That is an historical fact admitted by all. He lived on earth thirty-three years. That was about nineteen centuries before our time. That is the time Christ established His Church on earth. Any Church, then, that has not existed thus long, is not the Church of Jesus Christ, but is the institution or invention of some man or other; not of God, not of Christ, but of man.

Now, where is the Church, and which is the Church that has existed thus long? All history informs you that is the Catholic Church; she, and she only among all Christian denominations on the face of the earth, has existed so long. All history, I say, bears testimony to this; not only Catholic history, but Pagan history, Jewish history and Protestant history, indirectly.

The history, then, of all nations, of all people, bears testimony that the Catholic Church is the oldest, the first; is the one established by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

If there be any Protestant preacher who can prove that the Catholic Church has come into existence since that time, let him come to see me, and I will give him a thousand dollars. My dear preachers, here is a chance of making money - a thousand dollars for you.

Not only all history, but all the monuments of antiquity bear testimony to this, and all the nations of the earth proclaim it. Call on one of your preachers and ask him which was the first church - the first Christian Church. Was it the Presbyterian, the Episcopalian, the Church of England, the Methodist, the Universalist or the Unitarian? And they will answer you it was the Catholic Church.

But, my dear friend, if you admit that the Catholic Church is the first and the oldest-the Church established by Christ - why are you not a Catholic? To this they answer that the Catholic Church has become corrupted; has fallen into error, and that, therefore, it was necessary to establish a new church. A new church, a new religion.

And to this we answer: that if the Catholic Church had been once the true church, then she is true yet, and shall be the true Church of God to the end of time, or Jesus Christ has deceived us.
Hear me, Jesus, hear what I say! I say that if the Catholic Church now, in the nineteenth century, is not the true Church of God as she was 1854 years ago, then I say, Jesus, Thou hast deceived us, and Thou art an impostor! And if I do not speak the truth, Jesus, strike me dead in this pulpit - let me fall dead in this pulpit, for I do not want to be a preacher of a false religion!

VI. I will prove what I have said. If the Catholic Church has been once the true Church of God, as is admitted by all, then she is the true Church yet, and shall be the true Church of God until the end of time, for Christ has promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church. He says that He has built it upon a rock, and that the gates of hell shall never prevail against it.

Now, my dear people, if the Catholic Church has fallen into error, then the gates of hell have prevailed against her; and if the gates of hell have prevailed against her, then Christ has not kept his promise, then He has deceived us, and if He has deceived us, then He is an impostor! If He be an impostor, then He is not God, and if He be not God, then all Christianity is a cheat and an imposition.

Again, in St. Matthew, 28th chapter and verses XIX and XX., our Divine Savior says to His Apostles: ''Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you." "Lo," says He, "I, Jesus. The Son of the Living God. I, the Infinite Wisdom, the Eternal Truth, am with you all days. Even until the end of the world."

Christ, then, solemnly swears that He shall be with His Church all days to the end of time, to the consummation of the world. But Christ cannot remain with the Church that teaches error, or falsehood, or corruption. If, therefore, the Catholic Church has fallen into error and corruption, as our Protestant friends say she has, then Christ must have abandoned her; if so, He has broken His oath; if He has broken His oath He is a perjurer, and there is no Christianity at all. Again, our Divine Savior (St. John, 14th chapter) has promised that He would send to His Church the Spirit of Truth, to abide with her forever. If, then, the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth, teaches the Church all truth, and teaches her all truth forever, then there never has been, and never can be, one single error in the Church of God, for where there is all truth there is no error whatsoever.

Christ has solemnly promised that He will send to the Church the Spirit of Truth, who shall teach all truth forever; therefore, there has never been a single error in the Church of God, or Christ has failed in His promises if there has.

Again, Christ commands us to hear and believe the teachings of the Church in all things; at all times and in all places. He does not say hear the Church for a thousand years or for fifteen hundred years, but hear the Church, without any limitation, without any reservation, or any restriction of time whatever. That is, at all times; in all things until the end of time, and he that does not hear the Church let him be unto thee, says Christ, as a heathen and as a publican. Therefore, Christ says that those who refuse to hear the Church must be looked upon as heathens; and what is a heathen? One that does not worship the true God; and a publican is a public sinner. This is strong language. Could Christ command me to believe the Church if the Church could have led me astray - could lead me into error? If the teaching of the Church be corrupt, could He, the God of truth, command me without any restriction or limitation to hear and believe the teachings of the Church which He has established?

Again: Our Divine Savior commands me to hear and believe the teaching of the Church in the same manner as if He Himself were to speak to us. "He that heareth you,'' says He, in His charge to the Apostles, "heareth Me, and he th espiseth you despiseth Me." So then, when I believe what the Church teaches I believe what God teaches. If I refuse what the Church teaches I refuse what God teaches.

So that Christ has made the Church the organ by which He speaks to man, and tells us positively that we must believe the teaching of the Church as if He Himself were to speak to us.

Therefore, says St. Paul, in his Epistle to Timothy, "the Church is the ground" - that is, the strong foundation - "and the pillar of the truth." Take the ground or foundation of this edifice away, and it crumbles down; so with regard to these pillars upon which the roof rests; take them away and the roof will fall in; so St. Paul says, "the Church is the ground and the pillar of truth," and the moment you take away the authority of the Church of God you induce all kinds of errors and blasphemous doctrines. Do we not see it?

VII. In the sixteenth century Protestantism did away with the authority of the Church and constituted every man his own judge of the Bible, and what was the consequence? Religion upon religion, church upon church, sprang into existence, and has never stopped springing up new churches to this day. When I gave my Mission in Flint, Michigan, I invited, as I have done here, my Protestant friends to come and see me. A good and intelligent man came to me and said:


I will avail myself of this opportunity to converse with you."

"What Church do you belong to, my friend," said I.

"To the Church of the Twelve Apostles," said he.

"Ha! ha!" said I, "I belong to that Church too. But, tell me, my friend, where was your Church started?"

"In Terre Haute, Indiana," says he.

"Who started the Church, and who were the Twelve Apostles, my friend?" said I.

"They were twelve farmers," said he; "we all belonged to the same Church - the Presbyterian - but we quarreled with our preacher, separated from him, and started a Church of our own."

"And that," said I, "is the Twelve Apostles you belonged to - twelve farmers of Indiana! The Church came into existence about thirty years ago."

A few years ago, when I was in Terre Haute, I asked to be shown the Church of the Twelve Apostles. I was taken to a window and it was pointed out to me, "but it is not in existence any more," said my informant, "it is used as a wagonmaker's shop now."


Again, St. Paul, in his Epistles to the Galatians, says: "Though we Apostles, or even an angel from heaven were to come and preach to you a different Gospel from what we have preached, let him be anathema." That is the language of St. Paul, because, my dearly beloved people, religion must come from God, not from man. No man has a right to establish a religion; no man has a right to dictate to his fellow-man what he shall believe and what he shall do to save his soul. Religion must come from God, and any religion that is not established by God is a false religion, a human institution, and not an institution of God; and therefore did St. Paul say in his Epistles to the Galatians, "Though we Apostles or even an angel from heaven were to come and preach to you a new Gospel, a new religion, let them be anathema."

VIII. You see, then, my dearly beloved people, from the text of the Scripture I have quoted that, if the Catholic Church has been once the true Church, then she is yet the true Church.

You have also seen from what I have said that the Catholic Church is the institution of God, and not of man, and this is a fact - a fact of history, and no fact of history so well supported, so well proved, as that the Catholic Church is the first, the Church established by Jesus Christ.

So, in like manner, it is an historical fact that all the Protestant churches are the institutions of man - every one of them. And I will give you their dates, and the names of their founders or institutors.

In the year 1520 - 368 years ago - the first Protestant came into the world. Before that one there was not a Protestant in the world, not one on the face of the whole earth; and that one, as all history tells us, was Martin Luther, who was a Catholic priest, who fell away from the Church through pride, and married a nun. He was excommunicated from the Church, cut off, banished, and made a new religion of his own.

Before Martin Luther there was not a Protestant in the world; he was the first to raise the standard of rebellion and revolt against the Church of God. He said to his disciples that they should take the Bible for their guide, and they did so. But they soon quarreled with him, Zuinglius, and a number of others, and every one of them started a new religion of his own.

After the disciples of Martin Luther came John Calvin, who in Geneva established the Presbyterian religion, and hence, almost all of those religions go by the name of their founder.

I ask the Protestant, "Why are you a Lutheran, my friend ? "

"Well," says he, "because I believe in the doctrine of good Martin Luther."

Hence, not of Christ, but of man - Martin Luther. And what kind of a man was he? A man who had broken the solemn oath he had made at the altar of God, at his ordination, ever to lead a pure, single, and virginal life. He broke that solemn oath, and married a Sister Catherine, who had also taken the same oath of chastity and virtue. And this is the first founder of Protestantism in the world. The very name by which they are known tells you they came from Martin Luther.

So the Presbyterians are sometimes called Calvinists because they come from, or profess to believe in, John Calvin.

IX. After them came Henry VIII. He was a Catholic, and defended the Catholic religion; he wrote a book against Martin Luther in defense of the Catholic doctrine. That book I have myself seen in the library of the Vatican at Rome a few years ago. Henry VIII. defended the religion, and for doing so was titled by the Pope "Defender of the Faith." It came down with his successors, and Queen Victoria inherits it today. He was married to Catherine of Aragon; but there was at his court a maid of honor to the Queen, named Ann Boleyn, who was a beautiful woman, and captivating in appearance. Henry was determined to have her. But he was a married man. He put in a petition to the Pope to be allowed to marry her - and a foolish petition it was, for the Pope had no power to grant the prayer of it. The Pope and all the bishops in the world cannot go against the will of God. Christ says: "If a man putteth away his wife and marrieth another, he commiteth adultery, and he that marrieth her who is put away committeth adultery also."

As the Pope would not grant the prayer of Henry's petition he took Ann Boleyn anyhow, and was excommunicated from the Church.

After a while there was another maid of honor, prettier than the first, more beautiful and charming in the eyes of Henry, and he said he must have her, too. He took the third wife, and a fourth, fifth and sixth followed. Now this is the founder of the Anglican Church, the Church of England; and, therefore, it is that it goes by the name of the Church of England.

Our Episcopalian friends are making great efforts nowadays to call themselves Catholic, but they shall never come to it. They own that the name Catholic is a glorious one, and they would like to possess it. The Apostles said: "I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church'' - they never said, in the Anglican Church. The Anglicans deny their religion, for they say they believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church. Ask them are they Catholics, and they say, "Yes, but not Roman Catholics; we are English Catholics." What is the meaning of the word Catholic? It comes from the Greek word Catholicus - universal - spread all over the earth, and everywhere the same. Now, first of all, the Anglican Church is not spread all over the earth; it only exists in a few countries, and chiefly only where the English language is spoken. Secondly, they are not the same all over the earth, for there are now four different Anglican churches: The Low Church, the High Church, the Ritualist Church and the Puseyite Church. Catholicus means more than this, not only spread all over the earth and everywhere the same, but it means, moreover, at all times the same, from Christ up to the present day. Now, then, they have not been in existence from the time of Christ. There never was an Episcopalian Church or an Anglican Church before Henry VIII. The Catholic Church had already existed fifteen hundred years before the Episcopal came into the world.

After Episcopalianism, different other churches sprang up. Next came the Methodist, about one hundred and fifty years ago. It was started by John Wesley, who was at first a member of the Episcopalian Church; subsequently he joined the Moravian Brethren, but not liking them, he made a religion of his own - the Methodist Church.

After John Wesley several others sprang up; and finally came the Campbellites, about sixty years ago. This Church was established by Alexander Campbell, a Scotchman.

X. Well, now, my dear beloved people, you may think that the act of the twelve apostles of Indiana was a ridiculous one, but they had as much right to establish a church as had Henry VIII, or Martin Luther, or John Calvin. They had no right at all, and neither had Henry VIII, or the rest of them any right whatsoever.

Christ had established His Church and given His solemn oath that His Church should stand to the end of time; promised that He had built it upon rock, and that the gates of hell should never prevail against it - hence, my dear people, all those different denominations of religion are the invention of man; and I ask you can man save the soul of his fellow-man by any institution he can make? Must not religion come from God?

And, therefore, my dearly beloved separated brethren, think over it seriously. You have a soul to be saved, and that soul must be saved or damned; either one or the other, it will dwell with God in heaven or with the devil in hell; therefore, seriously meditate upon it.

When I gave my Mission in Brooklyn several Protestants became Catholics. Among them there was a very highly educated and intelligent Virginian. He was a Presbyterian. After he had listened to my lecture he went to see his minister, and he asked him to be kind enough to explain a text of the Bible. The minister gave him the meaning. "Well, now," said the gentleman, "are you positive and sure that is the meaning of the text, for several other Protestants explain it differently?" "Why, my dear young man," says the preacher, "we never can be certain of our faith." "Well, then," says the young man, "good-bye to you: If I cannot be sure of my faith in the Protestant Church, I will go where I can," and he became a Catholic.

We are sure of our faith in the Catholic Church, and if our faith is not true, Christ has deceived us. I would, therefore, beg you, my separated brethren, to procure yourselves Catholic books. You have read a great deal against the Catholic Church, now read something in favor of it. You can never pass an impartial sentence if you do not hear both sides of the question.

What would you think of a judge before whom a policeman would bring a poor offender, and who on the charge of the policeman, without hearing the prisoner, would order him to be hung? "Give me a hearing," says the poor man, "and I will prove my innocence. I am not guilty,'' says he. The policeman says he is guilty. "Well, hang him anyhow,'' says the judge. What would you say of that judge? Criminal judge! unfair man; you are guilty of the blood of the innocent! Would not you say that? Of course you would.

Well now, my dearly beloved Protestant friends, that is that is what you have been doing all along; you have been hearing one side of the question and condemning us Catholics as a superstitious lot of people, poor ignorant people, idolatrous people, non-sensical people, going and telling their sins to the priest; and what, after all, is the priest more than any other man? My dear friends, have you examined the other side of the question?

No, you do not think it worth your while; but this is the way the Jews dealt with Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; and this is the way the Pagans and Jews dealt with the Apostles, the ministers of the Church, and with the primitive Christians.

Allow me to tell you, my friends, that you have been treating us precisely in the same way the Jews and Pagans treated Jesus Christ and His Apostles. I have said this evening hard things, but if St. Paul were here tonight, in this pulpit, he would have said harder things still. I have said them, however, not through a spirit of unkindness, but through a spirit of love, and a spirit of charity, in the hope of opening your eyes that your souls may be saved. It is love for your salvation, my dearly beloved Protestant brethren - for which I would gladly give my heart's blood - my love for your salvation that has made me preach to you as I have done.

XI. "Well," say my Protestant friends, "if a man thinks he is right would not he be right?" Let us suppose now a man in Ottawa, who wants to go to Chicago, but takes a car for New York; the conductor asks for his ticket; and he at once says: "You are in the wrong car; your ticket is for Chicago, but you are going to New York." "Well, what of that?" says the passenger. "I mean well." "Your meaning will not go well with you in the end," says the conductor, "for you will come out at New York instead of Chicago."

You say you mean well, my dear friends; your meaning will not take you to heaven; you must do well also. "He that doeth the will of My Father," says Jesus, "he alone shall be saved." There are millions in hell who meant well.

You must do well, and be sure you are doing well, to be saved. I thank my separated brethren for their kindness in coming to these controversial lectures. I hope I have said nothing to offend them. Of course, it would be nonsense for me not to preach Catholic doctrines.

Romans

by Fr. Andre Lemieux

St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans is one of the greatest human documents of all time. In majestic style it expressed the radical concept of justification by Faith in Jesus Christ, rather than by the works of the old Mosaic Law.

This concept is now so clearly central to Christianity that nobody can reject it and still call himself Christian. However, when Paul wrote the Epistle on his third missionary journey about 25 years after Our Lord died on the cross, the concept was radical because for 1500 years previously the Jews had believed in justification by the Law. Even "completed" Jews (those who became the first Christians) would not accept the idea of replacing the Law of Moses with the Cross of Christ. They insisted that the Gentile converts had to be circumcised and to observe all the constrictive practices of the Old Law.

But this was a grave misunderstanding of the purpose of Our Lord's life and death, and it threatened to nullify the Incarnation of God altogether. Hence St. Paul's presentation in "Romans" of justification by faith is, as it were, interspersed with a series of objections on the part of an imaginary Jew to the new doctrine of salvation by Jesus Christ. In overcoming these objections which he must have been meeting with unceasingly as Doctor of the Gentiles, St. Paul lays out what might be called the Founding Charter of Christianity:_

The Gentiles are plunged in vice (I), but the law-breaking Jew are no better (II), and so all men alike are in absolute need of God's grace (III). Man attains this grace by believing in Jesus Christ (III) with a faith in God of which Abraham, Father of the Jews, provides the outstanding example (IV). Thus justification by faith, man is freed from sin to lead the life of the spirit in Christ Jesus (V-VIII). That Jews should be rejecting this Gospel of which they were the cradle, is a great mystery, but this rejection is for the benefit of the Gentiles, and the Jews will finally convert (IX-XI). Let then the Catholics of Rome, Jew or Gentile, faithfully practice their religion, leading lives of holiness and justice (XII, XIII), and putting up with their weaker brethren for Christ's sake (XIV, XV). Greetings finally to a long list of the Catholics in Rome (XVI), already famous for their obedience (v.19)

Does the Catholic Church Encourage us to Read Scripture?

a) Yes, b) upon certain conditions.

a) In 1968, many Indulgences were done away with, but this one remained: "A partial indulgence is granted to any Catholic who reads Scripture with due veneration for the word of God and in the manner of spiritual reading. The indulgence is plenary if he does this for at least half an hour." (Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, 1968, no. 50).

Scripture itself recommends we draw on its treasures: "For what things soever were written, were written for our learning: that through patience and the comfort of the scriptures, we might have hope" (Rom. XV,4). "The Holy Scriptures ... can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus" (II Tim. III, 15).

b) But the Bible itself also indicates certain conditions for reading Scripture: St. Peter says that in the epistles of "his most dear brother" Paul, "are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction" (II Peter III, 15-16). For instance, numberless souls will have been drawn to destruction by Luther's having wrested "justification by Faith" to mean a subjective assurance of one's being saved regardless of the works that God requires to follow faith and to proceed from it (Gal. V6; James II, 20-26).

So the Catholic Church unconditionally encourages her children to study their catechism because here divine truth is humanly expressed to convey mysteries of God which m ay be neither simple nor clear, Mother Church encourages her children to read on certain conditions:- that they never use non-Catholic translations or non-Catholic editions (which would include all modernist editions), that they approach Scripture with humility and reverence as the Word of God that it is, and that they be willing to accept that the Catholic Church is the sole guardian of Scripture and sole interpreter of its true meaning.



The Challoner Douay-Rheims Bible, easily available in the U.S.A., provides a reliable text of Scripture, of which the Overview within provides an introduction to the Epistle to the Romans.

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

New Hampshire District Admits Ron Paul Votes Not Counted




Sutton township reported Congressman had zero votes, actual number was 31


Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, January 9, 2008


The head clerk of the New Hampshire town of Sutton has been forced to admit that Ron Paul received 31 votes yet when the final amount was transferred to a summary sheet and sent out to the media, the total was listed as zero. The fiasco throws the entire primary into doubt and could lead to a re-count.

As we reported earlier today, an entire family voted for Ron Paul in Sutton, yet when the voting map on the Politico website was posted, the total votes for Ron Paul were zero.

Vote fraud expert Bev Harris contacted the head clerk in Sutton, Jennifer Call, who was forced to admit that the 31 votes Ron Paul received were completely omitted from the final report sheet, claiming "human error" was responsible for the mistake.

Two or three votes not counted could be a plausible mistake - but 31 votes for one candidate? "The classic method for rigging a hand count is to write the wrong number on the form," Harris told the Alex Jones Show.

"They are counting everything in public real nice, they fill out a form in public real nice and then they transfer it to another form and they call that a summary sheet and then that is the one they send in," explained Harris.

"What happened is she said they did not transfer the number correctly and put zero instead of 31 - that is unacceptable as an answer."

With 100% of precincts now reporting, the map originally listed zero votes for Ron Paul as you can see below. It has now been updated to reflect the 31 votes Paul actually received.

The remainder of the 31 people in Sutton who voted for Ron Paul need to go public immediately with the charge of vote fraud and make it known that they were cheated out of their right to vote.

Harris estimates that it could cost the Ron Paul campaign as much as $67,000 dollars for a recount, but such a move could throw the entire primary into doubt, especially in light of the fact that Barack Obama appears to have been cheated out of a win by Hillary Clinton .




































The Persecution of Catholics in France by the Protestant Calvinists




By William Thomas Walsh. EXCERPT FROM "PHILIP II" (Copyright © 1937)

Calvin: "Persons who persist in the superstitions of the Roman Antichrist . . . deserve to be repressed by the sword." (Harkness, Georgia, John Calvin: The Man and His Ethics, NY: Abingdon Press, NY, 1931)

In the fall of 1561 the Calvinists of France, well supplied with money, took arms under Conde' and Coligny and began marching through the country to mobilization points, often under the leadership of preachers armed to the teeth.

While these men thundered against the Scarlet Women of Babylon and preached slaughter with a fervor more becoming to Mohammedans than to men who called themselves Christians... they had begun to sack bishop's houses and churches, to destroy altars and images of Christ and of the saints, and to deprive Catholics of their arms.

The storm of hate, which had so long been gathering, burst in all its fury. Almost simultaneously, as if by a concerted signal, well-organized bands of Calvinists fell upon the Catholic churches, convents, schools and libraries. At Montpellier they sacked all the sixty churches and convents, and put one hundred-fifty priests and monks to the sword. At Nimes they made a great pile of statues and relics in front of the Cathedral, danced around it while the flames arose, yelled that they would have no more Mass or idolaters, and then wrecked and plundered the churches. At Montauban they dragged the Poor Clare from their convent, exposed them half-naked to the jibes of the paid mob, shouted insults at them and told them to get married. At Castres, in December, a Reformed Consistory or Sanhedrin, ordered the city officials to take every one found on the streets to Huguenot sermons. Priests were dragged from the altars, the Poor Clare were scourged at the whip's end, peasants were driven with blows to hear the preachers inveigh with their peculiar nasal intonation against the Mass, Confession, the Pope. The fields and vineyards around Catholic villages where the people refused to listen to the preaching were burned or cut down.

Within a year the Calvinists, according to one of their own estimates, "murdered 4,000 priests, monks and nuns, expelled or maltreated 12,000 nuns, sacked 20,000 churches, and destroyed 2,000 monasteries " (Novuvelle Collection de memoires relatif a l'histoire de France, Ch. XI, p. 512)with their priceless libraries and works of art. The rare manuscript collection of the ancient monastery of Cluny was irreparably lost, with many others. Sacred vessels from the churches were melted into money to pay German mercenaries, who were urged to be ruthless.

Coligny took an active part in many of the atrocities. He displayed such cold and vindictive cruelty, especially to priests and nuns, that Catholics came to call him Holofernes.(21) In some places the entrails of the victims were plucked forth, stuffed with straw, and given to the horse of the Huguenot troopers to eat. Hundreds of cities and villages were burned. Lyons and its prosperous commerce were ruined.

This ancient fury, deliberately cultivated, spared not even the dead. Not only was the tomb of William the Conqueror destroyed, but the venerated bodies of holy men and women who had spent their lives in the service of God and of the poor were dragged from their resting-places, trampled, burned, thrown into rivers. A mob cast down the statue of Saint Joan from the bridge at Orleans. Other fanatics threw the remains of Saint Irenaeus and Saint Martin of Tours into the Loire. In Poiters they destroyed the relics of Saint Hilary and precious books written by his hand. Breaking into the tomb of Saint Francis of Paula at Plessis-les-Tours, they found the body whole and incorrupt after more than half a century; instead of being awed by the phenomenon, they dragged it at the end of a rope thought the streets, and burned it. A few of the saint's bones were found afterward by Catholics and preserved in various church of the Order of Minims.

Not only those who had laid down their lives for Christ, but Christ Himself, seemed a special object of hatred to these men who called themselves Christians and taught the damnation of infants and the predestination of many souls to Hell. As in all anti-Christian revolutions, statues of the Savior were spat upon, knocked down and demolished. The Body of Christ was often injured and reviled in the Blessed Sacrament. At Nimes, in Paris and others places, the tabernacles were broken open, and the Host thrown out and trampled upon, both by men and by horses.

Although these atrocities were perpetrated by a small minority in an overwhelmingly Catholic country, all the forces of the national and local governments seemed paralyzed and impotent for the moment. The Calvinists had majority in the States-General and friends in the Parliament of Paris. There seemed to be men everywhere in important positions to protect them and to sidetrack any attempt to punish them.

Catherine, inspired by L' Hopital, issued and edict in January, 1562, giving the Calvinists the right to worship as they pleased outside the cities, provided the churches were restored and both sides abstained from violence. This was intended to mollify the Calvinists. It had no such effect. Taking if for the surrender it was, the Calvinists rejoiced over the first breach of the union of Church and State in France. They promptly destroyed the Cathedral in Beza's city, and drove away all the clergy. In part of Gascony no priest could be found within forty miles. More nuns were dragged form convents, more tabernacles opened and profaned. In February, just after the opening session of the Council of Trent (with French delegates present, thanks to the determination of their leader, the Cardinal of Lorraine) seventy Calvinist preachers met in solemn synod at Nimes and deliberately planned to destroy all the Catholic churches in the city and the diocese. They promptly proceeded to put the plan into execution, burned the Cathedral, and drove away all the priests. The reign of terror was not the impassioned unthinking work of an ignorant mob, but a carefully engineered program of spoliation, destruction and assassination.

Many Catholics who had at first supported the Coligny faction for some political reason, such as feud with Guises, now withdrew. The Constable Anne de Montmorency left the Politiques for the Catholic party. Anthony of Navarre returned to the Faith, joined Duke Francis de Guise, and proposed establishing the Inquisition to heal the wounds of France. But it was too late for such a peaceful measure.

Guise now started for Paris, at the invitation of Anthony of Navarre, taking along, with an armed escort, his children, and in a litter his sick wife, lonely daughter of Renee of France and Duke Hercule d' Este of Ferrara, of whom Ronsard had sung, Venus la sainte en sess graces habite....

At Vassy the cavalcade came upon a party of six or seven hundred Calvinist, most of them armed, holding a meeting in a barn. An altercation arose between some of Guise's men and the Calvinists. As the Duke rushed in to quell the disturbance, a Calvinist wounded him. Some of his men, infuriated, fell upon the heretics, killed twelve on the spots, and wounded forty others so badly that they afterward died.

Beza and the other vociferous propagandist of Calvinism seized upon this unfortunate but perhaps inevitable incident, inevitable considering the provocation given by the Calvinist Reign of Terror, to cry up the "Massacre of Vassy," until it was magnified into a cold-blooded slaughter of hundreds of noble and defenseless Calvinists. What is more remarkable is that so many modern historians have dated the Huguenot wars from this incident, instead of from the Tumult of Amboise. Beza preached a crusade against the Catholics. Conde' made another attempt to seize the young King, but failed. Guise meanwhile marched into Paris, and was received with delirious joy by the citizens. The merchants offered him 2,000,000 lives to defend the Faith and restore peace in the city. The Duke refused, saying he had come to place himself at the disposal of his King. Of all the principals in the first of the eight bloody Huguenot wars, this man clearly stands out, calm, courageous, loyal, patriotic and devout, a heroic character, one of the finest surely in French history.

The Homily that Caused an Outcry and the Priest to be Dismissed

Homily on NFP provokes congregation member to stand up and shout at priest "When are you going to stop?"

By John Jalsevac
LifeSiteNews.com
Monday January 7, 2008
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2008/jan/08010703.html


ROCKFORD, Illinois, January 4, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - This past December 9, at St. James' parish in Rockford Illinois, a very normal Mass suddenly became a very unusual Mass when a parishioner stood up in the middle of the homily, interrupted the priest, shouting at him "When are you going to stop?", and then left, with her homosexual partner in tow. A few other parishioners also stood up and left the church. A few days later, the priest was dismissed from his duties at the parish by his bishop.

Catholics know that there are some things that you just don't hear preached from the pulpit any more. The most conspicuous of these unpreachables is sexual ethics, especially the idea that using contraception might be immoral, and contrary to a Culture of Life. Most priests know that these are unpopular subjects, and emphatically avoid them. But Fr. Tom Bartolomeo, who until several weeks ago was the associate pastor at St. James parish, is not your typical priest.

To begin with, Fr. Bartolomeo was ordained only just over a year ago. This, of course, is not exactly extraordinary in itself, except for the fact that he is now seventy years old. At an age when many other priests are retiring, therefore, he is only getting his feet wet.

Perhaps, says the elderly priest in an interview with LifeSiteNews.com, his newness to the ministry and late vocation explains his almost youth-like zeal for his priestly duties. "I'm going to die with my boots on," he says. "Who knows how many years I have left? That kind of puts pressure on me to preach the Gospel message. My days are numbered."

About a month ago, however, Fr. Bartolomeo's enthusiasm for the Gospel message brought an unexpected turn into his life, when he gave what he thought was a normal Advent homily. The homily was the second of a projected series of four homilies dealing with life and family issues, designed to coincide with the four Sundays of Advent - the season leading up to the birth of Jesus. This particular homily had to do with contraception and natural family planning.

The Catholic Church teaches that the use of contraception is intrinsically and gravely immoral. Church teaching does, however, allow married couples to use the natural rhythms of the female body to knowingly space children, if there is a sufficiently grave reason to do so. These fundamental moral teachings formed the basis of Fr. Bartolomeo's homily.

"New births, anniversaries and funerals, separations of any kind, a photograph from the past - give us pause and remind us whom we are bound to," he said in his homily, a copy of which he provided for LifeSiteNews. "Our human sexuality - father, mother, brother, sister - reveals our deepest relationships. We call God our father, and his Son our brother."

"Contraception, contra-conception, trivializes the sacred value of human sexuality - a danger humanity did not have to face a century ago before the advent of modern chemistry and technology, the pill (before or after) and a host of plastic devices."

"Contracept, take God's plan off the table, and you have mayhem," he said. "The most important thing in your lives, bearing children, is no longer discussed. It has been permanently removed from the conversation. Done deal. The pill, the IUD, the diaphragm, the sponge, the condom - who is making money here? - have shut down not only the body but the brain. And wives and husbands wonder why they grow apart? When a man and woman, a husband and wife, share daily this most wonderful mystery of their human sexuality they are bonding as nature and God intended."

In the middle of this homily however, say witnesses, one congregation member stood up and began to argue with the priest, yelling "When are you going to stop?" Gerald Weber, who has been a parishioner at St. James for 47 years, was at that Mass. "It was embarrassing, the noticeable argumentative tone with which she stopped him in his homily," he told LifeSiteNews. "Father treated her nicely for the way she was acting, but she continued yelling. She finally sat down, but then stood up again, and took her friend with her and made a show of leaving the church. With that there were some other people who objected to the subject matter."

While Weber suggests that the homily may have been somewhat "graphic" for a Sunday Mass, insofar as it touched on some of the science of NFP, he points out that nothing in the homily was contrary to Catholic teaching. The fact that Fr. Bartolomeo was dismissed from the parish Weber calls "drastic." "I think it's rather drastic, without knowing all the facts, to come down on a man in this way."

Another parishioner, Heidi Martinez, who was also at the Mass in question, disagrees that the homily was graphic, saying that she can't even recall what might have been considered objectionable in that way.

Martinez says she distinctly remembers the date and time of the homily, because she gave birth to her first-born child that same day, shortly after she left the church; she calls her new-born child her "miracle baby," since she had previously gone through three miscarriages. She also says that she has something of a different perspective on the homily, being as she is recently married. The message that Fr. Bartolmeo preached was extremely pertinent and necessary, she says. "The Catholic Church pushes all the time--don't use contraceptives, use NFP, and all that, but a lot of people don't know why. And if you don't hear it from the Church that pushes it, where are you going to get it from?"

"You're certainly not going to get it in the Catholic schools."

Weber also revealed to Fr. Bartolomeo, and LifeSiteNews, that the parishioner who had created the scene was a publicly practicing lesbian. She and her partner had recently been told that they could no longer lector or distribute Communion at the parish. "They [the lesbian couple] may have had an edge," says Weber, "because they have recently been kind of, not reprimanded, but not allowed to participate like they had been participating."

The priest, however, is quick to defend his bishop. "Bishop Doran's orthodox Catholic reputation is well established," he points out. "Our diocesan Respect Life Office under the leadership of Bishop Doran is continuously advancing the pro-life cause."

"I'm not being punished," Fr. Bartolomeo clarifies, pointing out that Bishop Doran agreed that his homily was perfectly in keeping with Catholic teaching. "I wasn't accused of doing anything wrong. I think the implication was that I was imprudent."

The Rockford Diocese's media relations official, Penny Wiegert, told LifeSiteNews that the diocese would not comment on Fr. Bartolomeo's dismissal, saying "The reasons for these moves are between the individual priest and his bishop and is considered a personnel issue that our diocese does not discuss in the press out of respect for both the individual priest and his bishop."
Wiegert also defended the Rockford Diocese's pro-NFP stance, saying "The Rockford Diocese is in the forefront of supporting Natural Family Planning and educating the faithful on its physical and spiritual benefits especially in its marriage preparation programs, seminars for married couples and in informational classes....The aforementioned forums are considered to be the most appropriate for educating and promoting the benefits and details of NFP. "

Fr. Bartolomeo, however, clearly does not agree that he was imprudent. "The Church is really under attack, and I think we flinch at the slight objections and I don't think that's the proper way to react to our enemies," he says. "Rather than dissuading me, all of this is drawing me more and more into that truth, into the Gospel. I have no idea where this is going to take me." He says that now he is beginning to read everything he can get on the life and family issues, and is looking into the possibility of pursuing advocacy in those areas.

He also disagrees that his homily was "graphic," observing that even the youngest children routinely encounter much more explicit material in their day-to-day encounters with television, the internet, and sex-ed at school.

The priest says that he was surprised at the adverse reactions to his homily, but is also learning that many of the Church's teachings on sexuality are not well-known, and are often considered optional by some Catholics. "The fact is, I suspect that most Catholics do not practice NFP," he says. "I think for many people there's a visceral reaction to that, particularly if they haven't heard it before. And tweaking of consciences can be painful."

But, he adds, "There's nothing more central to the malaise and disease in the church than contracepting Catholic couples, and not realizing the wonderful strengthening of faith that can be found in NFP. All you have to do is meet a family and their children to see that they have found the proper way to relate to each other. It's so demonstrably wonderful to see this natural, loving union of children. You don't ordinarily see that in families."

See Fr. Barolomeo's complete homily at http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2008/jan/080107a.html
*************

Fr. Tom Bartolomeo's Homily
Presented December 9, 2007 at St. James Parish, Rockford, Illinois


Every man innately prizes his own life above everything. No law of nature is as strong as the law of self-preservation and by extension the life of another united to his own. Most parents if needed would sacrifice their own lives for their childrens'. The same is often true in special relations such as the bond between soldiers in combat.

We speak of the family of man. Even in the worst of circumstances, violence and war, human life may be taken but it is never taken lightly. So, too, we extend our highest honors to firemen and soldiers who sacrifice their lives for others. Ask any parent of any new born child. New births, anniversaries and funerals, separations of any kind, a photograph from the past--give us pause and remind us whom we are bound to. Our human sexuality, father, mother, brother, sister reveals our deepest relationships. We call God, Our Father, and his son, our brother.

At a time, a century ago and earlier, when life was more organic, before baby formula, when babies were raised on mother's milk, a woman would not ovulate until she stopped suckling her child - nature's way of maintaining an intimate relationship of mother and child: children immunized from viral diseases, mothers immunized from breast cancer and children sufficiently spaced apart naturally. Imagine that! A woman's body would not release an egg for insemination as long as she suckled her child.

A woman's body has not changed. This remains God's plan for having children, not artificial contraception, chemical or mechanical, and all the health, emotional and spiritual dangers they present.

Sadly medical practice is not as holistic as it once was; now it is driven more by technology, chemistry and making money. Yet this same science can serve humanity by natural means- natural or organic family planning. It requires, however, some personal study and education, in place of supposedly other more convenient means (pills and plastic devises).

Sadly, too, so much of the medical profession is caught up in the trap of expanding internal medicine-prescription pads versus education. When I was recently hospitalized, I was handed by a doctor I did not know a prescription for additional medications I had not had before. I asked my own doctor, why? He explained that the government and the medical industry had decided from a large case study that additional medications may improve the average statistical results. I then sat down and consulted my own doctor, and we decided to maintain my current medication. What is a husband and wife, a man and a woman to do? Is a woman's primary recourse to a gynaecologist instead of her own and her husband's council in matters of sexuality and fertility?

Contraception, contra-conception, trivializes the sacred value of human sexuality - a danger humanity did not have to face a century ago before the advent of modern chemistry and technology, the pill, before or after, and a host of plastic devises.

God built the truth, our guidance, in our bodies - a wonderful process of fertility which, once understood, is the most effective, danger-free, means of growing a family. A woman's individual fertility cycle can be exactly determined by her and her husband's observations in as short as a three month period-for the purposes of bearing or deferring children. There are three indices determining a woman's fertility period: body temperature, the condition of cervical fluid and the cervix.

That's it. Set up your chart and you have the safest and most effective means of deciding when you choose to bear or defer having children. God's plan has always been there for husbands and wives.

The alternative is a wife whose primary relationship resides with a doctor whose appointments she must make and whose costly fees she and her husband must pay. And for what? For the woman to tell her doctor what she does not know about her body so he can make an uninformed decision? And where is her husband in all this? In some subservient position to another man...or woman doctor? A wallet in place of a conjugal mate?

Contracept, take God's plan off the table and you have mayhem. The most important thing in your lives, bearing children, is no longer discussed. It has been permanently removed from the conversation. Done deal. The pill, the IUD, the diaphragm, the sponge, the condom - who is making money here? - have shut down not only the body but the brain. And wives and husbands wonder why they grow apart?

When a man and woman, a husband and wife, share daily this most wonderful mystery of their human sexuality they are bonding as nature and God intended. Artificial contraception drives families apart. Has your wife taken the pill? How do you know? Or has she taken the pill and not told you, how do you know? If she has not taken the pill do you blame her? Has the husband had a vasectomy...in secret? How do you know? Who is responsible for the means of contraception? Do you resent your part or his part in the decision making? So sex is reduced to pleasure. What Christ had warned had happened in the days of Noah, "They were eating and drinking, marrying and remarrying" in the days before the flood.

Consider how the pleasure principle, "it feels good" or "it tastes good" has skewered our popular understanding of sexuality and nutrition - leaving in its wake an onslaught of sexual and eating disorders, an onslaught of sexual diseases, diabetes and obesity - including children's - which affect more than half our population. After coronary disease and cancer, eating and sexual disorders rank third and fourth as our most serious health issues today.

Their most pernicious effect corrupts the developing sensibility of children and their growing cynicism of sex and marriage. Can a man or boy see, speak or relate to a woman or girl without subconsciously evaluating her as an object of pleasure? The same can be said for women and girls' attitudes towards men and boys. I once heard a speaker who was a paraplegic from his neck down who explained how often women would open up to him and discuss matters with him which they would not ordinarily discuss with other men, because they sensed he was free of any predatorial sexuality.

Chastity, in marriage or in the single state, frees men to relate to woman as people first and women to relate to men as people first. Chastity relieves unhealthy tension and suspicion between the sexes. The liberation and honesty of a brother relating to a sister or a sister relating to a brother. There are no real personalities in promiscuous and pre-marital relations, only a sense of using and being used by the other which never lasts. Why sexuality at creation is a matter of permanency as Christ explained, "From the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [and be joined to his wife], and the two shall be one flesh."

Good secular instruction books on natural family plan. Use of condoms or other artificial birth control means described in these books are not approved by the Catholic Church:

Nona Aquilar, The New NO-PILL NO-RISK Birth Control
Toni Weschler, MPH, Taking Charge of Your Fertility, revised edition.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) Copyright: LifeSiteNews.com. Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but acknowledgement of source is *REQUIRED* (use LifeSiteNews.com).