abomination /ə-bŏm″ə-nā′shən/
noun

1. Abhorrence; disgust.
2. A cause of abhorrence or disgust.
3. The feeling of extreme disgust and hatred; abhorrence; detestation; loathing.

This morning on Facebook I commented on a friend’s post who says, “The Abomination of Desolation is Jewish Temple Worship.” I took issue with that because they Bible doesn’t explicitly say so.

The phrase, “abomination of desolation” appears only twice in the Bible.

They are both referring to the same thing, the abominable Roman army desolating Jerusalem and the Second Temple. How do I know that? Because it’s a fulfillment of the latter parts of the prophecies of Daniel 9:26 and 27! Daniel 9:26 is the clearest:

And if that’s not clear enough for you what the Abomination of Desolation really means, the Gospel writer Luke makes it as clear as crystal in Luke 21:20!

Luke wrote his Gospel to the Greek Gentiles who did not read Daniel chapter 9. He interpreted for them the meaning of “abomination of desolation” as “Jerusalem compassed with armies,” the armies of Rome which were an abomination to the Jews! And what do armies do? Make desolation of every place they fight a war at.

This discussion inspired me to list all the verses in the Bible to see how the word “abomination” is used. In the KJV that word occurs 76 times in 69 verses in 54 chapters in 18 books. The plural of the word, “abominations,” is not included in this Bible study.

Abominations to the Egyptians

• Genesis 43:32 And they set on for him by himself, and for them by themselves, and for the Egyptians, which did eat with him, by themselves: because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians.
• Genesis 46:34 That ye shall say, Thy servants’ trade hath been about cattle from our youth even until now, both we, and also our fathers: that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians.
• Exodus 8:26 And Moses said, It is not meet so to do; for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to the LORD our God: lo, shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and will they not stone us?

It’s interesting to me that the first three times the word abomination is used, it’s something that was abominable about God’s people to the Egyptians. In the Bible Egypt is sometimes used as a metaphor for the world, the Establishment, the Powers that Be.

Abominations to you

• Leviticus 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
• Leviticus 11:11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
• Leviticus 11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
• Leviticus 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
• Leviticus 11:20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
• Leviticus 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
• Leviticus 11:41 And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten.
• Leviticus 11:42 Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination.

Abominations to God

• Leviticus 7:18 And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity.
• Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
• Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
• Deuteronomy 7:25 The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God.
• Deuteronomy 7:26 Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing.
• Deuteronomy 12:31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.
• Deuteronomy 13:14 Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;
• Deuteronomy 17:1 Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the LORD thy God any bullock, or sheep, wherein is blemish, or any evilfavouredness: for that is an abomination unto the LORD thy God.
• Deuteronomy 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel:
• Deuteronomy 18:12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.
• Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
• Deuteronomy 23:18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
• Deuteronomy 24:4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
• Deuteronomy 25:16 For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the LORD thy God.
• Deuteronomy 27:15 Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen.
• 1 Kings 11:5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.
• 1 Kings 11:7 Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
• 2 Kings 23:13 And the high places that were before Jerusalem, which were on the right hand of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had builded for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Zidonians, and for Chemosh the abomination of the Moabites, and for Milcom the abomination of the children of Ammon, did the king defile.
• Proverbs 3:32 For the froward is abomination to the LORD: but his secret is with the righteous.
• Proverbs 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
• Proverbs 8:7 For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.
• Proverbs 11:1 A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.
• Proverbs 11:20 They that are of a froward heart are abomination to the LORD: but such as are upright in their way are his delight.
• Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.
• Proverbs 15:8 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight.
• Proverbs 15:9 The way of the wicked is an abomination unto the LORD: but he loveth him that followeth after righteousness.
• Proverbs 15:26 The thoughts of the wicked are an abomination to the LORD: but the words of the pure are pleasant words.
• Proverbs 16:5 Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.
• Proverbs 17:15 He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.
• Proverbs 20:10 Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD.
• Proverbs 20:23 Divers weights are an abomination unto the LORD; and a false balance is not good.
• Proverbs 21:27 The sacrifice of the wicked is abomination: how much more, when he bringeth it with a wicked mind?
• Proverbs 28:9 He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.
• Isaiah 1:13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.
• Isaiah 41:24 Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work of nought: an abomination is he that chooseth you.
• Isaiah 44:19 And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree?
• Isaiah 66:17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine’s flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.
• Jeremiah 2:7 And I brought you into a plentiful country, to eat the fruit thereof and the goodness thereof; but when ye entered, ye defiled my land, and made mine heritage an abomination.
• Jeremiah 6:15 Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the LORD.
• Jeremiah 8:12 Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore shall they fall among them that fall: in the time of their visitation they shall be cast down, saith the LORD.
• Jeremiah 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
• Ezekiel 16:50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
• Ezekiel 18:12 Hath oppressed the poor and needy, hath spoiled by violence, hath not restored the pledge, and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath committed abomination,
• Ezekiel 22:11 And one hath committed abomination with his neighbour’s wife; and another hath lewdly defiled his daughter in law; and another in thee hath humbled his sister, his father’s daughter.
• Ezekiel 33:26 Ye stand upon your sword, ye work abomination, and ye defile every one his neighbour’s wife: and shall ye possess the land?
• Daniel 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
• Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
• Malachi 2:11 Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.
• Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
• Revelation 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

Abomination to others

• 1 Samuel 13:4 And all Israel heard say that Saul had smitten a garrison of the Philistines, and that Israel also was had in abomination with the Philistines. And the people were called together after Saul to Gilgal.
• Psalms 88:8 Thou hast put away mine acquaintance far from me; thou hast made me an abomination unto them: I am shut up, and I cannot come forth.
• Proverbs 13:19 The desire accomplished is sweet to the soul: but it is abomination to fools to depart from evil.
• Proverbs 16:12 It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness: for the throne is established by righteousness.
• Proverbs 24:9 The thought of foolishness is sin: and the scorner is an abomination to men.
• Proverbs 29:27 An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the way is abomination to the wicked.
• Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
• Mark 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judæa flee to the mountains:

World War I Pope Benedict XV

This is from the June 1920 edition of The Convert Catholic Magazine. I never heard this before! Pope Benedict XV was the Pope of the Catholic Church from 1914 to 1922. When he blessed certain people his “blessings” turned into curses on every one he blessed! The Devil empowered the Antichrist Pope to curse the people he blessed!

The Pope of Rome sent the Golden Rose and his apostolic blessing to Bomba, King of Naples, and within four days he lost his crown and kingdom.

His Holiness (sarcasm) sent his blessing to the Emperor of Austria, and shortly afterward he lost Venetia and was defeated at Sadowa.

The Pope sent a very special blessing to Queen Isabella, of Spain, and about two weeks afterward she lost her crown,

The Vicar of Christ on earth sent his blessing to Empress Eugenie, of France, and in less than a year France was overthrown by Germany, the emperor lost his crown and died in exile.

The Pope blessed General Boulanger, and in less than two weeks he was an exile, and later committed suicide.

The-Empress of Brazil was specially blessed by the Pope. She broke her leg three days later, and the emperor lost his crown, dying in exile.

The Emperor Maximilian, of Mexico, was blessed by the Pope, and was soon afterward shot by his people. His widow went to Rome, received the Papal blessing, and afterward became an incurable lunatic.

In 1895 the Archbishop of Damascus, at Vittoria, delivered the Pope’s blessing upon the Spanish troops and fleet, with the result that Spain lost two fleets and two armies.

The Empress of Austria received the Golden Rose. She was murdered in Switzerland. Her only son committed suicide.

The Papal Nuncio blessed a grand bazaar in Paris. Within five minutes the building was in flames and nearly 150 of the “aristocracy” of France perished, including the sister of the Empress of Austria.

The Queen Regent of Spain and King Alfonso were blessed by the Pope. They promptly lost Cuba and the Philippines.

King Edward VII visited the Pope and received, as a mark of favor, a signed photograph of Leo XIII. At once came the news of a reverse of the British troops in Somaliland.

The Pope blessed Lord Denbigh, the Special Envoy of the King of England. That very day disaster fell on the British Army in South Africa, Lord Methuen being severely wounded.

Major Archibald Butt, principal aide to Taft, sent to Rome on a private mission by the President, went down on the ill-fated “Titanic.” Before leaving Rome the Major was “specially blessed” by the Pope, who also sent his special blessing to the President. Taft was ignominiously defeated at the next election.

The former German Kaiser received an autograph photograph of the Pope, together with a special blessing—“Our apostolic blessing to our royal and holy Kaiser.” Well, you know what happened. (Forced to abdicate his throne and spent the rest of his life in exile.)

In a New Year’s message to America, given on Dec. 31, 1918), Pope Benedict expressed the hope that the Peace Conference might result in a new world order, with a League of Nations. That was the beginning of the end of the League of Nations joke.

On Jan. 2, 1919, Pope Benedict invoked the Divine blessing on President Wilson, and since that hour we have been under the impression that Mr. Wilson, because of a grave physical breakdown, has been unable to attend to affairs of State.

My wife tells me I’m posting too much stuff about the popes of Rome! What do you think. I’ll seek from the Lord another subject to work on.

This is from a May 1920 publication of the Converted Catholic Magazine.

BY REV. ALEXANDER ROBERTSON, D.D., VENICE.

The late William Arthur, in his book, “The Pope, the Kings and the People,” tells us that when he was in Rome he happened to say in company: “I began the study of this subject as a religious question, but . . .” He got no further, for a resident diplomatist broke in: “Yes, but—you find it is all politics, and the further you get into it the more purely political will you find it.” The diplomatist spoke the truth. So political is the Church that its religious aspect is a negligible quantity. In the Vatican the religious aspect of any question is little thought of. The officials of the Church there are not interested in true religion. No question, no problem is ever considered there on its religious side, but only on its political. The only concern of the Church officials is to increase the power of the Church, so as to bring gain to itself. It wants to get men into its grasp so as to advance its own selfish ends.

In Italy, previous to the overthrow of the Pope’s temporal power, people everywhere during long centuries were terrorized by the priest when they were dying, into leaving money to the Church for the poor and for masses to be said for the purpose of getting their souls out of Purgatory. This money accumulated, and accumulated until it amounted to a tremendous sum. After the Union of Italy, when the power of the Church was broken, the Church began to use this money for political purposes. That is to say, it would give tens of thousands of people in cities and towns a small sum monthly in order to have a hold upon them, enabling the Church to use them against the Italian Government in the interests of its own political ends.

To put an end to this the “Legge delle Opere Pie” was passed in 1890, which took all this money from the Church. Fortunately the Church had invested it in real property, so that the transfer of the money left in trust for the poor was easily effected. But in spite of this and of other laws, passed by the Italian Legislature, the political work of the Church goes on. That is the be-all and the end-all of its existence. And, of course, the saddest feature of it is that all the political intriguing of the Church is done under the cloak of religion.

The Vatican Professes Not to Acknowledge the Kingdom of Italy.

Pope Pius IX issued his non-expedit, forbidding “the faithful” to recognize the King of the Kingdom of Italy, forbidding them to go to the poll, or to take any part in political affairs. In harmony with this, neither he nor his successors ever call the Sovereign “King of Italy,” but “King of Sardinia.” The popes refuse the subsidy allowed them by the Italian Exchequer, and decline to be recognized in any way as Italian subjects.

But the Church in this matter, as in so many others, says one thing and does another. Before elections “the faithful” are instructed by the priests to vote, are urged to vote, are directed how to vote, are menaced if they did not vote as directed. All this is done in private; not publicly, or they would be liable to fine and imprisonment were they shown to influence a voter unduly. Not only Catholics but priests go to the roll. The Church brings all its influence to bear on the Clerical party to vote for its own candidates, men unpatriotic enough to pledge themselves to advance the interests of the Church, which, of course, are diametrically opposed to those of the country. When the election is over, the usual denials take place. The Pope says: “I sanction the recognition of the Kingdom of Italy! I forsake the glorious traditions of the Church! Impossible.” And the Vatican organs publish similar denials and official instructions to “the faithful” not to vote.

Anything is Lawful if it Advances the Interests of Holy Mother Church

I shall quote a few sentences from Signor Ferdinando Martini, a late Governor of Eritrea. He say: “Is it exercising legitimate priestly influence to deceive the simple-minded peasant by attributing opinions to a candidate which are not his? In other words, is it legitimate to lie? Is it legitimate for priests to threaten the poor people with eternal punishment if they do not vote for this or for that candidate? Is it exercising legitimate priestly influence to secure votes by distributing freely bank notes? Christianity, morality and the law say NO. Yet these, and none other, were the means used in the exercise of priestly influence in the provinces.” ‘And yet,” Signor Martini adds, “The Clerical said, we are the instruments of Providence! With those who thus speak I will not attempt to contend, for it repels me to mix up Providence with illicit dealings of Clerical elections. It seems to me that to give to the people the spectacle of priests who are liars, corrupt, and corrupters of the soul, and who make merchandise of the conscience, is sufficient to kill faith and religion.”

This is from a March 1920 publication of the Converted Catholic Magazine which was not found in the Lutheran Library. It’s been 104 years since then and I wondered if indulgences are still being sold today in 2024. Here’s what I found:

The Catholic Church does not now nor has it ever approved the sale of indulgences. This is to be distinguished from the undeniable fact that individual Catholics (perhaps the best known of them being the German Dominican Johann Tetzel [1465-1519]) did sell indulgences–but in doing so they acted contrary to explicit Church regulations. This practice is utterly opposed to the Catholic Church’s teaching on indulgences, and it cannot be regarded as a teaching or practice of the Church. – Source: https://www.catholic.com/qa/does-the-catholic-church-still-sell-indulgences

This is certainly false information from a Catholic source! Those statements are contrary to what I know from reliable sources, insiders, former priests on the subject!

Many people assume that the Catholic Church stopped granting indulgences after Luther’s famous rejection of them. Indeed, nearly 50 years later, Pope Pius V put a stop to their sale. However, Pius V also affirmed the validity of indulgences themselves so long as no money was exchanged. – Source: https://theconversation.com/the-catholic-view-on-indulgences-and-how-they-work-today-193066

This sounds closer to the truth, but it still contradicts the article below what a former Catholic priest, Joseph McCabe, wrote in his article. He says “And indulgences are sold by the million all over Spain today (1920), under the direct and annual authority of the Vatican!” Let’s search the Internet a bit more. Here’s something that was written as late as 2016:

Those of us who know our liturgical calendars are reminded that November is specially devoted to the souls in purgatory—where all the souls whose sins are forgiven but who have not fully remitted the attaching temporal penalty receive a final purification before entering heaven. This is a fitting time for us to re-introduce ourselves to the tradition of indulgences—not only for our own benefit but also for the building up of the Church’s treasury. – Source: https://catholicexchange.com/church-still-believes-indulgences/

LOL! “…the building up of the Church’s treasury” means an exchange of MONEY! This was written only 8 years ago by Stephen Beale who says he was raised as an evangelical Protestant and converted to Catholicism. That’s sad. Any Protestant who converts to Catholicism is a person who does not know the Bible or a person who takes the authority of institution with a corrupt history over the authority of the Bible.

I think it’s quite possible the sale of indulgences is being done covertly today in the confessional box. The priest tells the confessor to give a certain amount of money to the Church, and he or she gets a certain amount of years less of suffering in Purgatory. Nothing said in the confessional box goes out of the confessional box. I went 8 years to a Catholic school in Chicago. The concept of obtaining indulgences to shorten my time in Purgatory was taught to me by Catholic nuns.

This is very interesting history for me about the Catholic Church in Spain and Italy. I hope you appreciate it too.

Are Indulgences Still Being Sold?

By Joseph McCabe, formerly the very Rev. Father Antony, of the Franciscan Order.

Nearly 400 years ago a rebellious monk set Europe aflame with revolt against the authority of Rome. Corrupt, sensual, skeptical, laughing at its own devices, the Court of Rome ruled a densely ignorant world with a levity born of ten centuries of secure domination. The world was growing, however, and the sonorous appeal of Luther brought it to a sudden manhood.

As is well known, one of the historic abuses that fired the indignation of Luther was the sale of indulgences. Scornfully he tossed aside the priestly casuistry that would represent the transaction as no “sale,” but the “giving” of a spiritual favor—in return for a sum of money.

Half of Europe followed the Saxon monk. But for the armies of Spain and Austria the Papacy would probably been erased from the map of Europe 200 years ago. Sell indulgences! Protestants look back with amazement on the Papal audacity, and take it as a measure of the dense ignorance of the Middle Ages that even the attempt should be made. It is a test of medieval conditions, a plumbing of the depths of ignorance. And indulgences are sold by the million all over Spain today (1920), under the direct and annual authority of the Vatican!

Indulgences Still Being Sold.

The sale of indulgences is so historic a symbol of Papal corruption that I can not do other than take it as the first point in my indictment of the Spanish Church. I refused to believe the fact when it was first brought to my notice, long after I had quitted the Catholic ministry. My informant, an American gentleman who had lived in Spain for more than ten years, forwarded to me copies of these “bulas,” as they are called, and the truth was evident. I have since made full inquiries, written on the subject, been “answered” by an English Jesuit—who explained that the indulgence was a pure gift from the Church, in return for a specific sum of money, much as (he did not say this) your soap or your butter is and have lost all doubt on the subject.

On the windows of Catholic bookshops in Spain one often sees the words “Bulas” (the Spanish word for indulgences) in large type. You enter and ask for a “bula”—or you may go to the nearest priest’s house for one —and find that there are four species, at two different prices. Lay a peseta on the counter, and demand the ordinary “bula de la Santa Cruzada.” A flimsy piece of paper, much sealed and impressed, about a foot square, and with the signature of the Archbishop of Toledo, is handed to you, with your change of twenty-five centimos. You have not bought it. You gave an “alms” of seventy-five centimos (about ten cents) to the Church (minus the shopman’s commission), and the Church graciously accorded you—but it would occupy too much of my space even to enumerate the extraordinary spiritual privileges which you can purchase for ten cents in that favored land. The central grace is a “plenary indulgence.”

The Passion for Pelf.

pelf /pĕlf/
noun

1. Wealth or riches, especially when dishonestly acquired.
2. Money; riches; lucre; gain; — generally conveying the idea of something ill-gotten or worthless. It has no plural.

Catholic theology teaches that there are two alternatives to Heaven, two unfathomable pits of fire—Hell and Purgatory. If you die in serious, un-absolved sin, you go to Hell; but few Catholics ever think of going there. It is so easy to get one’s self drafted into the second department. But the second department, Purgatory, is exceedingly unpleasant; the fire and other horrors are the same; the duration is uncertain. Here, again, however, the Church comes to the rescue. Confession and sorrow have relieved you of the first danger; something may be done to avoid the second. In earlier and harder times one went on the Crusades to achieve this. Some Spaniards offered the Papacy money instead, and received the comforting assurance that the Purgatory debt was canceled (a “plenary indulgence”). The sum has sunk with the course of centuries, and now in Spain you gain this gorgeous assurance, with a dozen others, for an “alms” of a dime! But attempt to give your alms to the poor, and you get no bula.

That is the common bula of Spanish church life. The rich, of course, pay more than the small sum stated on the paper; and as the ignorant peasants find frequent need of this comforting assurance, since it only lasts until they sin again, the amount that the church derives annually from this sordid source of revenue can be imagined. Another bula, of the same price, gives you the same comforting assurance in regard to any deceased friend to whom you may wish to apply it. Since, however, it is never quite sure that your “disposition” came up to the required altitude, you do well to continue buying and trying. A third bula is even cheaper, yet more substantial in its advantages. For fifty centimos (less than ten cents) you obtain permission to eat meat on Fridays and most of the days on which Catholics in less favored countries must not eat meat. Unfortunately, you find that the bula is invalid unless you buy the other bula as well; but twenty or twenty-five cents is fairly cheap for a year’s permission to disregard the fast-days.

The Conniving “Composition.”

The fourth bula is the most infamous, unless the reader chooses to regard it with humor. Technically, it is known as the “composition’—an excellent word. It says that if you have any stolen property of which you can not discover the rightful owner; the purchase of this bula makes the property yours. The pickpocket does not usually know the address of his victim; and though the bula declares that the theft must not be committed in view of the bula, the practised conscience of a Spanish thief easily negotiates that difficulty. But this is not the full enormity or the full justification of the title “composition.” One bula costs about twenty-five cents, and covers three dollars’ worth of ill-gotten goods. For every additional three dollars’ worth you have stolen you must give twenty-five cents to the Church—in other words, take out a fresh bula. And—let me quote the incredible words of the document— “in the event of the sum due exceeding seven hundred thirty five pesetas fifty centimos (one hundred twenty-five dollars), the amount compoundable by fifty Summaries, application must be made to Us for a fitting solution of the case!” The priest will take his tithe of your knavery on a scale he thinks fit to determine.

The Finger of the Pope.

Let it be clearly understood that I am not reproducing the statements of writers, travelers or residents; I am describing, or translating, the very words of the bulas, copies of which lie before me. Incredible as the facts will seem to most readers, there is only one quibble which the zealous Catholic, in his misguided wish to defend the Spanish Church, can raise: he will demur at the phrases “bought” and “sold.” I may safely leave that question of casuistry to the reader. From this appalling traffic the Spanish Church draws millions upon millions of pesetas every year—from the rich, who thus pay for its political support, and from the densely ignorant peasantry, whose hardbwon centimos are stolen by this abominable chicanery.

English Roman Catholics who heard of the traffic for the first time, innocently drew the attention of the Vatican to it, and were, after repeated letters, snubbed for their intrusion. The truth is that the whole traffic is under the control of the Vatican. These bulas are no bits of medieval parchment that have lingered into the dawn of the Twentieth Century; they are printed afresh every year, and they can not be issued until an annual permission comes from Rome. Then a procession of heralds marches through the streets of Madrid announcing the glad news that Spain’s unique privilege has been renewed. What a spectacle! Through streets equipped with the latest achievements of modern science there still marches the medieval troop, crying in the ears of educated Madrid that Spain still lives in the Fifteenth Century. I have only to add that until Eighteen Hundred Seventy the Vatican openly took a percentage on this sordid traffic. In these days of inquisitive American and English converts we do not know what the understanding is between the Papacy and the Archbishop of Toledo, who issues and seals those symbols of the Spanish Church’s degradation.

Holy Beggars.

From the sale of indulgences I pass to other features of Spanish Church life which are hardly less repellent. One of the most offensive practices that the traveler notices in modern Spain is the persistent begging. There are more than ninety one thousand beggars in Spain, and they regard themselves as practicing a profession which has the peculiar sanction of the Church. A resident in Spain informed me that he was boldly accosted for alms by a man whom he knew to have a flourishing market-garden near his own residence. Mrs. Bates, in her “Spanish Highways and Byways,” tells a story of a German lady who was accosted by a beggar. With modern feeling she explained to him that she would do something more pleasant than give him alms; she would give him an opportunity to earn the money. He drew his cloak about him with the dignity Of a hidalgo (a member of the Spanish or Portuguese nobility), as he replied, “Madam, I am a beggar, not a laborer.” The Church is directly responsible for this tribe of repulsive idlers. Her edifices are thrown open periodically that pious ladies may distribute bread, wine and cigarettes to the sitting crowd of professional beggars.

Catholicism and Education.

Far heavier, however, is the guilt of the clergy in regard to the atrocious proportion of illiterates in Spain. We are urged to regard the Catholic Church as the great founder of schools, the educator of Europe. The claim is easily tested. There are still two parts of Europe where her power is practically unbroken—Spain and Southern Italy. In Spain the proportion of illiterates is sixty-eight per cent., and in Southern Italy—in Calabria—it is seventy-nine per cent of the population.

Under Liberal pressure, a law of compulsory education was passed in Spain. By Eighteen Hundred Seventy-seven, four millions out of sixteen millions could read and write, and in the subsequent thirty years the ratio has only risen to six millions in eighteen and one-half million people. The teacher is awarded a salary of about a hundred dollars a year, so that the character of such instruction as is given may easily be conjectured. But the State will not even provide this sum, and schoolmasters are thrown on the voluntary donations of parents. The result is that the vast majority of the children get no instructions, and the schoolmaster is the butt of Spanish wit. The Madrid papers gave a case in Nineteen Hundred Three of a master who canvassed a district to find how many parents would contribute if he opened a school. Three families in one hundred promised to contribute. In another place, not far from Madrid, the alcalde (the traditional Spanish municipal magistrate) endeavored to enforce the law, which is universally disregarded, that there should be no bullfights where the master’s salary was not paid. The infuriated people drove the teacher to the plaza and there baited him. Thousands of children in Madrid itself have no school accommodation.

The Blessing of Illiteracy.

For this state of uncivilization the guilt must be equally divided between the Church and the State. Neither wishes to see the people educated. In one important respect, however, the Church has the greater guilt. Poor the State is, undoubtedly, though no sane social student will fail to see how profitably a large part of its expenditure would be diverted to education. But the Church is wealthy, immensely wealthy. The vast revenue already mentioned, together with all parochial dues and collection, goes to the secular (or parochial) clergy, in whose larger churches and cathedrals immense treasure has accumulated. While the workers in parts of Spain must labor for about five pesetas (ninety cents) a week, and while despairing schoolmasters must set their hands to whatever incongruous employment they can discover to augment their fifty to a hundred dollars a year for teaching in barn-like structures, the wealthier churches house incalculable treasure, and the clergy usually live in great comfort. The wardrobe of the image of the Virgin at Toledo would alone suffice to build hundreds of fine schools. “One robe bears,” says Mrs. Bates, “eighty-five thousand large pearls, and as many sapphires, amethysts and diamonds.” The crown used to decorate the statue is worth twenty-five thousand dollars, and the bracelets ten thousand dollars. The total value of this useless and senseless jewelry in the great churches of Spain is beyond calculation; and the country is too poor to educate more than a part of its children, and that with ridiculous inadequacy. Cordova alone has six hundred priests to fifty-five thousand people; and Cordova is on the verge of bankruptcy.

“Blind Mouths.”

But this overwhelming sufficiency of parochial clergy, with its incalculable wealth, is not the chief source of offense to enlightened Spaniards. A vast population of monks and nuns and Jesuits, who do no parochial work, is spread over the land, and amasses wealth with even greater success than the secular clergy. In the heated conflicts of the two bodies the truth is suffered to leak out. A Spanish prelate, Monsignor Jose Veleda de Gunjado, has recently declared that these regulars (monks and nuns) own two-thirds of the money of the country and one-third of the wealth in property, etc. While they flaunt vows of poverty before the ignorant peasantry, they draw out of the healthy circulation of the impoverished country a colossal proportion of its resources. A “religious review (the “Revista Christiana”) gave the income of the Jesuit body at Manresa alone as more than seventy-five thousand dollars a year, and this is only one among a thousand instances of an immensely wealthy community. Before the Phillippine Islands were taken from Spain, the Church drew one hundred thirteen million pesetas a year from the Islands (Note: To this day, the Philippines is still a developing country with mostly bad roads), the State being content with a further sixty-six millions. Barcelona had one hundred sixty-five convents until the recent riots, many of them worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Province of Catalonia supported two thousand three hundred of these institutions.

Popery and Decency.

Nor must the reader be misled by audacious Catholic assurances that these wealthy communities represent the voluntary piety of the faithful, and are holy retreats to which the timid may retire from “the world.” Even in this country the Catholic clergy generally–I am not speaking at random: I have been a priest and a monk—disdain and detest the communities of monks. The idleness and petty hypocrisy to which their ascetic professions lead is fully described in my “Twelve Years in a Monastery.” As I had the further advantage of living in monasteries in a “Catholic” country (Belgium), I obtained some idea of the real nature of such institutions under more or less normal conditions. The appalling laziness of the vast majority, the gross ignorance which masquerades as humility, the enormous consumption of alcohol behind closed doors, the all-pervading hypocrisy and very widespread immorality, would if they were fully appreciated by the educated laity of Belgium, turn the smoldering anti-clericalism into a fierce blaze of anger. Not one monk in twenty merited respect, even in his superstitions. The great majority were grossly sensual, lazy and hypocritical. But even in Belgium there is a large body of critical observers, and the monasteries of Spain have the same corruption in a far greater degree.

A Salacious Clergy.

salacious /sə-lā′shəs/
adjective

1. Appealing to or stimulating sexual desire.

The gross animality (characteristics or nature of an animal) of the monks, the unscrupulousness of the Jesuits—for the Jesuit in Spain is a Jesuit—and the widespread immorality of the clergy are well known to Spaniards. Any who imagine that the charge of flagrant immorality against the Spanish clergy is a Protestant or Rationalist calumny should read “The Priest and the People in Spain,” written by an Irish Roman Catholic, Mr. Doran, who wisely chooses to disassociate his co-religionists severely and emphatically from the Roman Catholicism of Spain. “I can remember the time,” he says, “when I would have dropped the acquaintance of my best friend had he but said, or hinted, half the things I now know to be true in regard to the condition of the Church in Spain.” He states that on one occasion, when he was dining with a number of Spanish priests, he remarked, “without giving the least offense,” that “if some of them ventured to say Mass in Ireland, they would be dragged off the altar.” They replied, genially, that they always confessed to a companion before Mass. He found a state of immorality among the clergy “which it takes an Irishman half a lifetime to understand and an eternity to forgive.” The sister of the gentleman at whose house he was staying was the mistress of a priest. He adds that the Spanish clergy will marry uncles to nieces readily, “given a sufficient amount of money,” and that “nine Spaniards out of ten will tell you that the desire to earn an easy living is the motive which induces so many to join the clergy.”

A Trained Hierarchy.

After this Catholic testimony I need not linger over the morality of the Spanish clergy. As an ex-priest I have always refused to create prejudice against my late co-religionists by discussing this side of their affairs; but when, in their corrupt interests, a body of priests like those of the Spanish Church egg on the civic or military officials to murder, it is time to speak. There is immorality enough even among the priests of this country. Sordid cases came to my personal knowledge. In Belgium the condition—a condition that any candid person will expect from their enforced celibacy and good living—is far worse. In Spain and the South of Italy it is flagrant, nor is it confined to the lower clergy and the monks. A writer in the “Church Quarterly” relates how an Italian prelate calmly discussed with him the fact, which he neither resented nor denied, that one of the candidates for the papal throne, one of the most distinguished cardinals in the Church, was a man of “conspicuous immorality.” The cardinal in question, whose life was described to me in Rome, kept a mistress in a villa not many miles from the Vatican. The hypocrisy that asks English people to shudder over the very intelligible and quite open conduct of Ferrer, whom the Church of Spain prevented from marrying when he wished, and cheerfully acquiesces in this sordid condition of the clergy wherever the mass of the people are still Catholic, is too revolting to characterize.

“Free Unions.”

It must not be imagined, however, that this condition of the clergy in Spain is one of the popular charges against them. For many centuries, in the Latin countries, the clergy have withheld their strictures on the conduct of their followers, and the greatest laxity prevails. In Seville, a town renowned for its Catholicism, a French Catholic writer, M. Bazin, was told by a priest that more than half the unions of men and women were “free unions.” While the Church parades before the world its high ideal of chastity, and speaks hypocritically of the growth of immorality in the wake of heresy, it is precisely in those regions where it retains enormous power today, and has held absolute sway for ages, that we find the most immoral parts of Europe. Northern Italy, predominant in rebellion against the Church, has a ratio of illegitimate births of only six percent; the Roman province has a ratio of twenty percent, and the Southern provinces much the same. It is a foolish superstition, encouraged by Catholics, that the laxity of the Latin races is a matter of temperature. The Northern races were just as bad before the Reformation. That notorious laxity is due solely to the fact that an immoral clergy never dared to press on the people their theoretic gospel of chastity.

Enlightened Spaniards Are Bitter.

But if the bulk of the Spaniards smile at the immorality of their priests, those more enlightened Spaniards who see the lifeblood of their country being drained to sustain such a system feel a pardonable bitterness. Let me give one detail by which one may measure the whole monstrosity. Diercks relates that the “Revista Christiana” at one time made a calculation of the value of the wax and incense burned in Spanish churches in the course of a year. The total reached the extraordinary sum of seven million five hundred thousand dollars-a sum little short of what Spain spends on education! And this is one small item of the total cost to the country of its religious system. Add to this the millions obtained in the ordinary way of fees and collections, the millions received for bulas, the millions charged (on one pretext or another) for scapulars, rosaries, bullet-proof prayers, agnus-deis, and the whole medieval magazine of charms, the millions received for obtaining dispensations to marry, for baptisms, funerals, masses (each of which costs from two to twenty pesetas), and other ceremonies, the millions acquired by wills, by taking over the goods of monastic aspirants, and in other ways. And the whole of this vast proportion of an impoverished circulation goes to feed the parasitic growth, with no spiritual vitality or social usefulness, which I have described.

Let the light fall upon the mind of Spain, and this decrepit and corrupt agglomeration of medieval vices and abuses will be swept ruthlessly away. Rebellion against the Vatican has followed immediately upon the extension of popular enlightenment in France, in Northern Italy, and in those South American republics which have dared to educate. Beyond all question, it is following the same course in Spain.

Will this effete and corrupt body, with all its dependent industries, contemplate impartially the spread of education in Spain? Will that colossal revenue from bulas and other medieval barbarities continue when Spain is Europeanized-— to use the phrase of its own social students?

How Can These Things Be?

But if Spain is so largely anti-clerical, how comes the Church to retain the power it does? Spain is seething with anti-clericalism. Mr. Isaacson, in his “Rome in Many Lands,” quotes an orthodox Spanish paper, “El Correo Espanol,” to the effect that only one million five hundred thousand men and three million five hundred thousand women, in a population of eighteen million five hundred thousand, now obey the clergy in Spain. I have dealt thoroughly with the question in my “Decay of the Church of Rome.” If that be so, how can we explain the power of the Church?

Here we come to another and not less sordid aspect of Spanish life, which it is absolutely necessary to understand if we wish to understand the murder of Ferrer. The political system is not less corrupt than the clerical, and the two corruptions support each other with despairing unscrupulousness. Many who are willing to admit the corruption of the Church will hesitate here, but it is a platitude of recent Spanish literature, and in fact is so well recognized by responsible Spanish statesmen as to make one wonder why any representative government treats the Spanish Government as a civilized Power.

This is the opportunity of the clergy. Driven from other lands, they make their last stand in Spain. From France, from Portugal, from Cuba, from the Philippines, they have concentrated on the land where only a few millions can read and write, and the political power is manipulated by a system as corrupt as their own. Within a few years, probably, they will be reinforced by the exiled monks of Italy. So long as Spain is ignorant, or only taught a smattering of letters and a vast amount of terrifying superstition in their own schools, they are safe. But they can not wholly shut out the light from France and England, and they play a desperate game. Jesuitry is Jesuitry in Spain. From the boudoir of the Queenmother, and now, I am informed, from the boudoir of the Queen, whom they have won, they rule Spain and swoop down with ferocity on all eruptions of revolt.

By Rev. C. R. Macfaul, M. A., OTTAWA, CANADA.

This is from a March 1920 publication of the Converted Catholic Magazine which was not found in the Lutheran Library. This article talks about the history of the Roman Catholic Church condemning Joan of Arc to death, burning her alive at the stake, and then canonizing her as a saint 488 years later!

Roman Catholic papers have announced that one of the great events of 1920 will be the formal canonization of Joan of Arc. In view of her being one day made a Roman Catholic saint, on April 18, 1909, in the presence of 30,000 French pilgrims, many cardinals, clergy, and others, the ceremonies of the beatification of Joan of Arc were carried out in St. Peter’s, Rome. A Roman Catholic Press report says: “The Papal Decree, ‘De Tuto,’ which is the formal act of ratifying the Canonization was publicly read in the presence of the Holy Father on June 8, 1919. Nothing is now required but the formal canonization, which is a ceremony of imposing grandeur. Invitations will be issued to all nations, France being prominently represented. As this ceremony takes some months to organize, it will probably be May or June next year before it takes place.”

This action on the part of the Roman Church has caused new interest in the history of this wonderful maid, and should lead every intelligent person to ask a few pertinent questions.

Who Was Responsible for Her Death?

Pierre Cauchon, Bishop of Beauvais, conducted her trial. He was a favorite of Cardinal Beaufort, who had shortly before the trial, recommended him to the Pope for the Bishopric of Rouen. It was Bishop Beauvais who negotiated the ransom of 6,000 francs whereby Joan came under his care when she was to be judged by the Church. In the chapel of the Castle of Rouen, on Feb. 21, 1431, the trial began. The judges present numbered about forty, and on the third day of the trial sixty-two. They are carefully classed, in the report of the trial, as doctors of theology, abbots, canons, doctors in canonical and civil law, with the Bishop of Beauvais at their head. Of the long public trial and private examination and re-examination of Joan, in which not a rule was omitted, “except those of justice, fairness and truth,” space will not permit us to mention. Suffice it to say that, with no advocate, no counsel, no one to conduct her defense, the maid was condemned to the stake.

On May 30, 1431, in the old Market Place of Rouen, surrounded by bishops, ecclesiastics and notables, she was burnt alive. Below the stake where Joan was sacrificed were written these words: “Jeanne, called the Maid, Liar, Abuser of the People, Soothsayer, Blasphemer of God, Pernicious, Superstitious, Idolatrous, Cruel, Dissolute, Invoker of Devils, Apostate, Schismatic, Heretic.”

The responsibility for the death of Joan rests therefore with the Roman Church. Let it be remembered that the faithful of the Church are taught to put faith in the appearance of saints and angels, in visions and dreams. Lourdes, in France, is founded on the visions of the child Bernadette. Jeanne was but following the teachings of her Church when she believed in the visions and voices which she said constrained her to seek to save France for the French, and yet her Church condemned her as a sorceress.

The moment she appealed directly to God and not to the Pope, she was a Protestant, although that word had not then been coined, and a heretic, and the stake had to follow; and even though she at one time appeared to submit to the Church, she had relapsed again into error, therefore she must be burnt. Only the Church that has always refused the individual the right of his thoughts and speech, the author of The Infernal Inquisition, could have so cruelly sacrificed this pure girl who, free from all thought of self-seeking had never any other motive but to serve her God and deliver her country.

After denouncing the Maid as a sorceress, heretic, apostate, idolater, blasphemer of God, and an invoker of devils, Rome will solemnly invite Catholic France to offer to the Vatican their humble and grateful thanks for the honor that the sovereign Pontiff will heap upon that country by canonizing the Maid of Orleans.

If one could believe that the Roman Church had no special part to play to her advantage in canonizing Joan of Arc, we would all greatly rejoice in the acknowledgment that it erred greatly in condemning her to death.

Rome had no intention of stopping with the beatification of the Maid of Orleans. They have been hunting up the records of Joan’s life to find if she ever wrought any special miracles, an essential condition, generally, of a person being canonized. No doubt they have succeeded in their hunt to Rome’s satisfaction.

The Roman Catholic Church will have a most difficult task ahead of hunting up past records to discover the saints it so foully murdered, and declaring it erred in burning and beheading them. It will never possess enough candles and incense to honor all the unknown and authentic saints that it, “the Scarlet Beast of the Tiber,’ has devoured while drunk “with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.”

Why Was She Canonized?

France, the elder daughter of the Church, has refused to submit any longer to her cruel and crafty Roman mother. The Maid of Orleans is now one of France’s greatest heroines and patriots. She was a peasant, a child of the common people. Rome has seized this opportunity to honor her with a view of winning the favor, especially of the people in the humbler walks of life, hoping thus to regain to some extent its lost power in the government of the country, and to recover its lost prestige in France owing to her pretended neutrality during the war. In the Roman Church, as among the heathen, female saints have always been the most popular, and the Pope thinks it wise to add the name of the maid to the list of saints, believing that she will be most welcome to the people.

The Church has been a long time coming to this decision. It dared not do it sooner lest its people be scandalized at its placing in her calendar of saints one that she condemned as a heretic and burnt at the stake. It is over 488 years since it committed the cruel deed. It hopes that the great majority of her people, ignorant of the history of the world at that time, will never learn that it was guilty of the crime, and if any do it has decided, because of the advantage it hopes to gain, to run the risk of their accepting its explanation of the part she played.

For duplicity, Rome has no equal on the face of the earth.

This is from a March 1920 publication of the Converted Catholic Magazine which was not found in the Lutheran Library. This article contains some interesting history how the much persecuted Waldenses obtained their rights as citizens and liberty of conscience by the King in spite of opposition by the Pope!

An Address Delivered in Christ’s Mission, October 20, 1919

BY JOHN MAZZEI, ATTORNEY-AT-LAW, NEW YORK,-N, Y.

There are few countries with which so many interesting associations are connected as with Italy. The student of history looks upon it as the seat of the longest-continued and most-extended dominion over the nations. It is the country in which the fourth great monarchy arose and extended its rule over all the then civilized world. When that vast empire came to an end, another, of a religio-political nature, rose on its ruins, whose influence over mankind has been far greater than that of its predecessor. The dominion of ancient Rome and its Caesars has been perpetuated in Rome and its Popes.

To the scholar Italy has indescribable charms, as the land of Cicero, of Tacitus, of Dante, of Tasso and a host of others, whose writings have enlightened, stimulated and guided the minds and polished the manners of men.

But, to the Christian, Italy ranks next, in point of interest, to the land associated with the Saviour of the world. It was visited by Apostles; it was the scene of some of the earliest and most glorious conquests of Christianity, and its soil has been saturated with the blood of martyrs.

For the Protestant there is much in Italy to excite deep and peculiar emotions. It is the land in which the Mystery of Iniquity gradually arose and eventually overpowered the truth in all parts of Christendom, save in some of its own Alpine valleys and filled the Christian world with the ignorance and superstition of a baptized paganism.

It is a remarkable fact that the Popes nowhere encountered a more steady, long-continued or powerful opposition than in Italy itself. In that country Truth had an uninterrupted succession of defenders from the days of the Apostles till the Reformation. It was in her mountain valleys in Piedmont that the true Church found a retreat during more than a thousand years, while all the rest of Christendom gradually, and at length universally, bowed beneath the dominion of the worldly system of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Beginnings of Liberty.

On February 22, 1848, France is proclaimed a Republic. Prussia and Austria are in rebellion. Milan and Venice expel the Austrians. Victory smiles upon the Italian brotherhood.

However, Radetsky (a Czech nobleman and Austrian field marshal) receives powerful reinforcement and gains for his army what they previously had lost. He breaks the Italian gatherings at Sommacampagna (town in northern Italy). Charles Albert (King of Sardinia) retires with his disordered troops. Soon he abdicates in favor of his son Victor.

The day after the defeat. the magnanimous king voluntarily left for exile and died the following year.

From such sorrows were born the independence, the unity, the liberty of Italy. All honor to the martyrs of every party who sealed with blood and with the loss of every possession their faith in the destinies of a strong, glorious and prosperous united Italy!

The Waldenses, who for more than five centuries had suffered and fought for their evangelical faith, were up to this time not permitted to worship God according to the dictates of their consciences outside of the limited boundaries assigned to them. They were denied civil and political rights. The universities and all the public offices of every grade were closed to them; the liberal professions, too, were denied to them.

One by one restrictive laws against the Waldenses lost their force. The word “Emancipation” was pronounced. The Marchese Robert D’Azeglia (an aristocrat, painter, author, and statesman who was a leader of the movement that advocated an Italian national revival (Risorgimento) by the expulsion of all foreign influences from the then-divided Italian states) took the initiative, asking that every obstacle be removed and that full liberty be granted to all subjects before the law, to the Waldenses and to the Jews.

On the night of February 16, 1848, the news spread in Turin that the king was about to sign the Act of Emancipation of the Waldenses. On February 17th the following edict appeared:

The valleys, at the announcement of the edict, broke forth into gladness. The hearts of the people beat with joy and praise to God and to the magnanimous king. As night fell every mountain, every hill, every peak shone forth a blaze of light; everyone carried torches.

On February 28th Turin began to celebrate the granting of the Constitution. All the provinces of Piedmont were sending their representatives. The deputation gathered upon Piazza Porta Nuova. Young girls in white dresses, with azure shoes (the colors of Piedmont), led the procession, followed by more than 600 persons. A velvet banner was carried, upon which shone in silver letters the words:

“To Charles Albert. The Waldenses recognized.”

More than 30,000 flags unfurled in passing under the balcony where the king sat.

On the 4th of March were proclaimed the Statutes of the Kingdom. Article 24 reads as follows:

This article left in existence, for the Israelites, those old interdictions that contrasted with the spirit of the times and with the new principle of the State, which the Government and Parliament felt the necessity of giving to the Waldenses. Finally, by help and intervention of Parliament, on March 29, 1848, the Minister of the Interior, Ricci, presented a decree with his Majesty’s signature, with which was ordered:

Up to this time the Israelites had been excluded from the military service. To take away this last objection, Prince Eugene of Savoy Carignano, Lieutenant of the Kingdom, on the 15th of April, published a decree as follows:

The liberty of conscience in Italy was first given to the Waldenses after many years of persecution, and after all the craft and tricks and scares and interdictions and excommunications of the Papacy were unavailing. They did not uprise to obtain it, but their faith in God and obedience to the law of the land, won for them victory. They ceased not in pleading their cause whenever opportunity presented itself. They were the most trustworthy subjects the king had. They caused no trouble, except when Rome made trouble for them. These servants of the Lord had been tried and found to be true,

The king’s heart was more tender than the Pope’s. The king had heard his subjects cry and saw the tears that flowed down their cheeks. Christ said, “If your son asketh bread, will you give him a stone?” The Pope, unlike Christ, had given them the stake and hot iron. He now bit his tongue and raged, but the king did not hearken to his voice.

Italy, anciently great, was almost wiped from the map of Europe by the misconduct of him who claims to have the keys of Heaven and Hell.

May God bless us here in America and give us the strength and courage to teach and to preach the good news to all men! By doing so we follow in the footsteps of Him who loved us and redeemed us with His Blood to bring us nigh unto God, our Father.

This is from a March 1920 publication of the Converted Catholic Magazine which is not found in the Lutheran Library. If you were raised a Catholic like I was, I think you will enjoy this article because it contains some insights I never knew until today!

The cover of the 1920 Converted Catholic Magazine,

Do You Confess Your Sins To A Priest?

BY G. R. MACFAUL, M.A., OTTAWA, CANADA.

Do you feel under obligation to confess your sins to a priest? Here are some sound reasons why you should not “go to confession.” You should not confess to a priest.

Because You Have Not Sinned Against the Priest

Think of how foolish a man would be who would come and kneel before you and ask you to forgive him when he had never wronged you. Should he not go and confess his sin to the person against whom he had transgressed? Think of the foolish position your priest puts you in when he obliges you to kneel before him and utter the following prayer, called the “Confiteor”: “I confess to Almighty God, to blessed Mary ever Virgin, to blessed Michael the Archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, to all the saints, and to you, Father, that I have sinned exceedingly,” etc.

The first part of this prayer is sound advice. It is right to confess one’s sin to Almighty God, because all men have sinned against Him; but why should you confess your sins to Mary and Michael and John the Baptist, and the Apostles Peter and Paul, and to all the saints, and to the priest? If you have not sinned against all these, why should you confess to them? If you have, in any way, injured or wronged your priest, go and confess to him your fault, and if he is a Christian man he will forgive you; but sins you have committed against God, your Heavenly Father alone can forgive you.

Because Confession to a Priest is of Human Origin

There are some old people in Canada. They accept the teachings that have been invented by men hundreds of years after the beginning of the Christian Church, but they refuse to follow the teachings of Christ and the apostles as found in the New Testament. They obey the commandments of men, but disobey the commandments of God. Are you one of this class?

The Roman Catholic Church declares that the priest has power to forgive sins. A Roman Catholic leaflet, entitled “The Priest,” on pages 21-23, has the following declaration: “What is a priest? A man who holds the place of God, a man clothed with all the power of God. … When the priest forgives our sins he does not say, ‘God forgives you.’ He says, “I absolve thee.” … If you were to confess your sins to the blessed Virgin, or to an angel, could they absolve you? A legion of angels, were they here with you now, could not absolve you from your sins. But the simplest and humblest priest of the Church can do it?? He can say to you, ‘Go in peace, I forgive thee.'” Rome has based her claim chiefly on the following misinterpreted passages of Scripture:

1. Matthew 16:18, 19. She declares that the Church was built on Peter, and quotes this passage as a proof. Take up your Bible and read the whole context, beginning at verse thirteen. Jesus says nothing about appointing Peter as His successor. What is the question under debate? It is simply a question of faith. Jesus first asked the apostles whom the people thought He was? Then He turned to the apostles and asked them what was their idea of Him? Peter answered for all by saying, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.”

Note that Christ did not say, “Thou art Peter, and on thee, Peter, I will build My Church,” but “on this rock”; that is to say, on Christ Himself, the Son of the living God, which Peter confessed. This interpretation of this passage is upheld by other passages of Scripture. No verse of Scripture can be found stating that the Church had for its foundation Peter. Many passages of Scripture can be quoted declaring Christ to be the foundation of the Church. Paul said, “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” (1 Cor. 3:11). “And did (the Israelites) all drink the same spiritual drink, for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” (1 Cor. 10:4).

If Peter had been the foundation of the Church, the Church would have been built on a foundation of sand—for Satan prevailed against Peter. Only a few minutes later (see Matt. 16: 23), Jesus said to Peter: “Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art an offence unto Me.” Some people may be satisfied with such a foundation, but Jesus the Saviour against whom Satan never prevailed, is the foundation of the true Christian Church.

But what about the keys? Did not Jesus say to Peter: “And I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven”? etc. When Jesus spoke of giving Peter the keys, he was referring to a Jewish custom which would be very familiar to Peter, who was a Jew. The scribes of Israel were thought of as stewards of divine wisdom (Matt. 13:52). When the Jews made a man a doctor of the law, they put into his hands the key of the closet in the temple where the sacred books were kept and also tablets to write upon ; signifying by this that they gave him authority to teach and to explain the Scriptures to the people. Peter having understood and confessed Jesus as the Christ, the Saviour, by this statement: “I give unto thee the keys,” etc., simply gave Peter the authority to teach others the truths he had himself learned.

2. Again, Rome quotes John 20:19-23, especially verses 22 and 23: “Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” The apostles, Rome says, received this power to forgive sins, and the priests are the successors of the apostles. Read verses 19 and 20, and compare them with Luke 24:33, and it will at once become evident that this power of forgiving sin was not only given to the apostles, namely the twelve, but to the disciples—hence to all believers. Therefore, all God’s children have the power to declare sins forgiven or sins retained. As long as the apostles and others who were Christ’s disciples exercised their powers according to God’s will and God’s way, in establishing His Kingdom on earth, their acts would be ratified in Heaven.

How did the disciples forgive sins? Here is the important question. Did they pretend to stand in God’s place, clothed with all the power of God and compel people to kneel before them and confess to them their sins in detail, and then did they pretend to have power to grant absolution? No, never! How can we find out how the early Christians forgave sins? By reading the New Testament, and especially the Acts of the Apostles. On reading we find: That all men are born in sin and under condemnation, (See such passages as John 1:18; Rom. 3:22, 23). That Christ alone can liberate or set free. “If therefore the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” (John 8:36). (See also John 3: 16, 18, 36; Acts 4:12). The disciples simply preached Jesus as Saviour, declaring that those who believed on Him would have their sins forgiven, and those who refused to repent and believe on Him, they would be left bound in their sins.

The-apostles were sent to preach the forgiveness of sins, and not to confess the people. The reading of Luke 24:45-47; Acts 2:14-42; Acts 10:42, 43; Acts 13:38, 39, will make this plain.

3. John 21:15-18 is also quoted by Rome as proof that Peter was given special privileges over the other apostles because Christ said to him, “Feed My lambs,” “Feed My sheep,” three times. The . explanation is simple; it does not indicate any peculiar power granted to Peter over the others; but as Peter had denied his Lord three times Christ asked him three times if he loved Him, and three times told him to care for His flock. Christ wanted Peter to understand that although he had denied Him three times. he was forgiven, and his labors would still be acceptable.

How Did Auricular Confession Originate?

It was an outgrowth of several centuries of darkness and ignorance. Toward the end of the second century, when a member of the Church committed a grave sin he was requested to confess it before the whole Church, but in 450, under Leo I, Bishop of Rome, this public confession became private. It was only in 1215, at the Council of Lateran, called by order of Pope Innocent III., that auricular, or private, confession was declared an article of faith. Therefore, confession to a priest is purely human in its origin and development.

Because the Priest’s Pretended Pardon is Worthless

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that if a person is dying and far away from any priest he can cry out to God for forgiveness, and God can forgive, although no priest is near. If God can forgive a man, say, away in the bush, where there is no priest, can He not forgive a man in his own home, though he does not send for the priest who is at hand? What God can do for a man in the woods He can do for him anywhere. Again, Rome teaches that if a man sincerely repents of his sins and makes a true confession of them God forgives him, even though the priest may refuse him absolution; and that a man may receive absolution from his priest without being forgiven by God, seeing he has not properly confessed and is not truly penitent. What conclusion can we come to but that the priest’s pardon is valueless. If God pardons when the priest does not pardon, and God does not pardon when the priest does, it is surely evident that the priest’s pardon is worthless. Frequently a person has gone to one priest, and that priest has refused to pardon him; he has then gone to another and obtained absolution. It is surely plain that God’s pardon is the only one of value.

Because Confession to a Priest is Immoral

Is it not absurd, yes, even shameful, for a married woman, or a young lady, to reveal all her sins by thoughts, by desires, by words and by actions, into the ears of an unmarried man? Religion does not consist in such indecent conversations. It is not by plunging into dirty water and by stirring it to its very depths that you can wash and be clean. Confession to a priest has been frequently disastrous both for priests and their penitents. The priest has no right to search out and discover all the secret sins of your life. It is none of his business. God knows your sins. Go to Him and confess them. The priest should not be allowed to interfere in your personal affairs. No man has a right to examine your conscience. (See 2 Cor. 13:5).

Because God Alone Can Forgive Your Sins

“Who can forgive sins but God alone?” This is what the Scribes and Pharisees said as they accused Jesus of speaking blasphemies, because He said to the man sick of the palsy, “Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.” The Pharisees were right; God only can forgive sins; but they overlooked the fact that Jesus was God, and, therefore, had the right to forgive this man his sins.

Confession to God is the only true confession. God never gave to any man the power to forgive sins through the confessional. God never established the priest as a judge over your conscience. Peter forbade Cornelius to kneel down before him. (See Acts 10: 26.) Jesus and the apostles never practiced auricular confession, nor did they ever teach it. The forgiveness of sins can be obtained to-day exactly as it was obtained when our Saviour was on earth. By going directly to God in the name of Jesus. Listen: “And ye know that He (Jesus) was manifested to take away sins, and in Him is no sin. (1 John 3:5.) “And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto Heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, “God be merciful to me, a sinner. I tell you this man went down to his house justified…” (Luke 18:13,14) Like the publican, go straight to God and receive His forgiveness.

The priest cannot answer for your sins. You are accountable directly to God. Paul says (Rom. 14:12), “So, then, every one of us shall give account of himself to God.”

When Simon committed his great sin in trying to buy the gift of God with money Peter did not make him kneel at his feet and forgive him, but simply sent him to God for forgiveness. Read Acts 8:22, “Repent, therefore, of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. ..’ All true ministers today follow Peter’s example; they do not pretend to forgive sins committed against God, but they send sinners to God for pardon.

If you confess your sins to the Lord the Saviour you can be sure they are forgiven. Listen: “If we confess our sins He (Christ) is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9.) But now that Christ is exalted to the right hand of God, does He still forgive sins? Yes. Hearken: “Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Is- © rael and forgiveness of sins.” (Acts 5:31.)

“Let the wicked.forsake his ways, and the unrighteous man his thoughts ;and let him return unto the Lord, and He will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon.” Isa.55:6, 7.)

This article is from a PDF file on LutheranLibrary.org. It was published by The Converted Catholic Magazine which was edited by former Catholic priest Leo Herbert Lehmann.

CRIMINOLOGISTS and sociologists have not yet allowed themselves to consider religious teaching as anything but a deterrent against crime. They seem to have omitted from their calculations the possibility that certain religious teachings, far from helping to lessen crime in youths and adults, and among nations, may actually foster it.

This is an updated version of the article I posted on December 4, 2023. More thoughts and verses are added below the original article.

A rebuilt third temple of Solomon is a popular Endtime doctrine today among evangelicals who hold John Nelson Darby’s doctrines of Dispensationalism and Futurism.

Would a third rebuilt temple in Jerusalem be of God? This is what Rick Wiles of TruNews.com has to say about it:

An article on christinprophecy dot org talks about a Third Temple. It’s ironic the name of the website is Christ in Prophecy even though a rebuilt temple has nothing to do with Christ! The website states:

The Bible clearly teaches that a new temple — which will be called The Third Temple — will be built in the future.

Oh yeah? Does the Bible really teach that? Based on what Scriptures? The website states:

The Third Temple will exist during the Great Tribulation. Daniel refers to this temple when he says that “the prince who is to come” (the Antichrist) will enter it and stop the sacrifices in the middle of the Tribulation (Daniel 9:27). The Apostle Paul mentions it when he declares that the “man of lawlessness” will profane the temple by entering it and declaring himself to be God (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4).

Do these Bible verses actually prophesy there will be a third temple? Or is the author reading into these Scriptures his own bias based on false teaching? What do these Scriptures actually say?

Daniel 9:26  And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27  And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

What was the “city and the sanctuary” of Daniel 9:26? Jerusalem and the Temple. When was it destroyed? History tells me it was destroyed in 70 AD. By whom? History tells me it was destroyed by the Roman army led by General Titus, the son of Roman Emperor Vespasian. Titus, the son of the emperor, was therefore a prince and the very prince who led the army that destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple 40 years after the Messiah was “cut off”, meaning crucified as a common criminal to take our place for our sins (crimes) against God.

Matthew 24 calls the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple a time of “great tribulation.”

Matthew 24:21  For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

The parallel passage of Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple is in the Gospel of Mark chapter 13. Mark calls that time “affliction”.

Mark 13:19  For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.

Tribulation and affliction on whom? On the unbelieving Jesus Christ-rejecting Jews! By whom? The armies of Rome! When? In 70 AD. Will this happen again in the future? Both Matthew and Mark quote Jesus saying, “nor ever shall be.” “neither shall be.”

Related to Dispensationalism and Futurism is the doctrine of the “pre-tribulation rapture” which says Jesus will return just before the rise of the Antichrist and save us from tribulation. Ask yourself, has there been tribulation of Christians by those who hate Christ throughout history? Roman emperors up to Constantine fed Christians to the lions during the first two centuries of Christianity. It’s been estimated that the Church of Rome, the Roman Catholic Church killed 50,000,000 Bible believers over a period of 1260 years from 538 AD to 1798 AD when the Popes had temporal power over governments up to the time Napoleon exiled the Pope!

Other Scriptures christinprophecy dot org give to support the rebuilding of the temple doctrine are:

Daniel 9:27  And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,…

They combine that with:

2 Thessalonians 2:1  Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2  That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3  ¶Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4  Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Dispensational Endtime doctrines interpret the “he” of Daniel 9:27 to be the Endtime Antichrist who shall rule the entire earth during the last 7 years of the governments of man. The “covenant” of Daniel 9:27 is supposed to be a pact or treaty the Antichrist makes with the Jews so they can rebuild their temple. The prophecy “he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease” is interpreted as the Antichrist breaking the Covenant of peace with the Jews which starts 3 and 1/2 years of persecution of the Jews. The Antichrist stands in the Temple and tells the world he is God. This is what most American evangelicals believe today with some variation. Some believe there will be 7 years of tribulation, not just 3 and 1/2 years.

IT’S ALL FALSE DOCTRINE!!! These teachings are not yet 200 years old! None of the early Protestant Reformation leaders believed or followed these doctrines. And why not? During the first 300 years after Martin Luther started the Reformation, true Protestant and Baptist Christians to a man all KNEW exactly WHO the Antichrist, the “man of sin, the son of perdition” of II Thess 2:3 is: The Popes of Rome! He was the one claiming to be God on earth sitting in the midst of the Temple, the Church of God!

1 Corinthians 3:16  Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

The early Protestants knew II Thess 2:3 could not be talking about a physical temple because the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. Nor did they expect that the Temple had to be rebuilt in the last days in order for this prophecy to be fulfilled. They had first-hand knowledge of the Pope’s hatred for them and they were risking death to disobey the Pope and cling to the doctrine of grace through faith in Jesus Christ. They knew the Popes of Rome persecuted and killed Bible-following Christians over the centuries before the Reformation started in 1517. The Waldensians and Anabaptists suffered years of massacre, rape, and pillaging during the Catholic Church’s attempt to stomp it out. And even after the Reformation began, tens of thousands of French Protestant Huguenots were murdered by the Pope in a single day in 1572 on St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre. Even Wikipedia talks about it.

When the doctrines of Dispensationalism and Futurism were introduced in the 19th century, not everyone bought it. Charles Spurgeon continued to hold the traditional Protestant doctrine of the Antichrist.

You may ask, “What happened? Why did Protestant and Baptist Christians stop looking at the Popes of Rome as the fulfillment of the prophecy of II Thessalonians chapter 2, and start thinking the Antichrist is yet to come and who will make a pact with the Jews to rebuild their Temple?” Good question. The answer is very simple: It was the work of the Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation which was promoted by Jesuit priests who infiltrated Protestant schools and seminaries to teach their false doctrines of Dispensationalism and Futurism in order to get Protestant and Baptist Christians’ eyes OFF the POPE as the Antichrist! Did it work? You know it did. How many today still think of the Pope as Antichrist, the man of sin of II Thessalonians chapter 2? Not many. Only a tiny minority still do. The leader of Northern Ireland, Ian Paisley, believed the Pope was an antichrist. He was the only world statesman I know of in the 20th century who publically denounced the Pope as an antichrist! Just listen to him in this 1.5-minute video!

The Bible says the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Revelation 19:10  And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

What has a rebuilt Jewish temple in Jerusalem to do with Jesus Christ? It represents further REJECTION of Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah and the true Christ by rebuilding the temple to resume animal sacrifices. It represents further REJECTION of the Blood of the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ in favor of the blood of animals which can never permanently take away sins.

The Bible says the day of animal sacrifices are OVER!

Hebrews 10:1  For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2  For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3  But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4  For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Would therefore a rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem be therefore considered a “holy place” in the eyes of God? What do you think? I believe it would be an abomination in the eyes of God and further rejection of the Son of God, the Word Who became flesh, the Lord Jesus Christ!

My wife Tess and I were impressed by some verses in Jeremiah chapter 7 which we read together this morning, February 13, 2024.

Jeremiah 7:4  Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, …

Jeremiah 7:9  Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not;
10  And come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations?
11  Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, even I have seen it, saith the LORD.
12  But go ye now unto my place which was in Shiloh, where I set my name at the first, and see what I did to it for the wickedness of my people Israel.

In the Book of Joshua, Shiloh was the first place the children of Israel set up the tabernacle of the Lord, the tent that contained the Ark of the Covenant.

Joshua 18:1 And the whole congregation of the children of Israel assembled together at Shiloh, and set up the tabernacle of the congregation there. And the land was subdued before them.

Judges 18:31 And they set them up Micah’s graven image, which he made, all the time that the house of God was in Shiloh.

It’s interesting the remnant of the tribe of Benjamin that was nearly wiped out by a war with the other tribes of Israel got their wives from Shiloh, the place of the tabernacle of the Lord, so that the tribe of Benjamin would not die out among the other tribes! I never made that connection before.

Judges 21:20 Therefore they commanded the children of Benjamin, saying, Go and lie in wait in the vineyards; 21 And see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin.

Because the Tabernacle of the Lord was in Shiloh, of course Eli the priests, his sons, and the prophet Samuel also lived there.

1 Samuel 1:3  And this man went up out of his city yearly to worship and to sacrifice unto the LORD of hosts in Shiloh. And the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, the priests of the LORD, were there.

What did the Lord do to His Tabernacle at Shiloh in reference to Jeremiah 7:12? He let the enemies of Israel take from it the Ark of the Covenant!

1 Samuel 4:10  And the Philistines fought, and Israel was smitten, and they fled every man into his tent: and there was a very great slaughter; for there fell of Israel thirty thousand footmen.
11  And the ark of God was taken; and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were slain.

And what did the Lord say He would do to the first Temple of Solomon?

Jeremiah 7:13  And now, because ye have done all these works, saith the LORD, and I spake unto you, rising up early and speaking, but ye heard not; and I called you, but ye answered not;
14  Therefore will I do unto this house, which is called by my name, wherein ye trust, and unto the place which I gave to you and to your fathers, as I have done to Shiloh.
15  And I will cast you out of my sight, as I have cast out all your brethren, even the whole seed of Ephraim.

The Temple of the Lord was only called the House of God when the Ark of the Covenant was in it. Where is the Ark now? Not in Jerusalem! The Book of Revelation says it’s in Heaven!

Revelation 11:19  And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament:

It’s interesting that the Ark of the Covenant or Testament is only mentioned twice in the entire New Testament! Beside Rev. 11:19, it’s mentioned in Hebrews:9:4

Hebrews 9:4  Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

Was the Ark of the Covenant in Herod’s Temple at the time of Jesus? The Bible doesn’t say, but it does say the veil of the Temple was ripped open so that people could see inside the Holy of Holies where the Ark was supposed to be.

Mark 15:38  And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.

Hebrews 9:3  And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;

Could it be the Lord ripped the veil in two in order to show the children of Israel the Ark of the Covenant was no longer inside it? John saw it in Heaven!

The Temple with no Tabernacle with the Ark of the Covenant meant that God was no longer with the Jews. He gave them 40 more years to repent and then destroyed the Temple through the Romans in 70 AD.

And Christian Zionists want to see the Temple rebuilt?! What about the Ark of the Covenant? It’s not on earth if we take Revelation 11:19 literally. Years ago I read the Jews may claim they have found the the Ark, but it will be a fake, an imitation.

The prophet Jeremiah prophesied that the Ark would not be remembered anymore.

Jeremiah 3:16  And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.

And why? Because those who believe on the Name of Jesus as the Son of God have God’s presence with them continually! Praise the Lord!

Catholic Relics For Sale

This article is from a PDF file on LutheranLibrary.org. It was published by The Converted Catholic Magazine which was edited by former Catholic priest Leo Herbert Lehmann.

THE STRENGTH of the Roman Catholic church lies in the power it has exercised for centuries over the illiterate semi-Christian masses of Eastern Europe and the Latin countries. It has grown fat on their credulity. Even in the modern world it has dared to defy science and historical facts just as if it were in the Middle Ages. This defiance and intolerance aroused great admiration on the part of Hitler. In fact the Nazism that he founded is only an adaptation to politics of the means and principles by which Catholicism grew strong: the Inquisition, condemnation and burning of books, mass pageants, and an hierarchical order with one sole leader who is an infallible demi-god who lays down the law to his underlings.

In Mein Kampf, the Bible of Nazism, Hitler outlined and praised the principles of Catholic organization. Basic among these principles was the dogmatism of the Catholic church and its defiance of known facts. On page 882 of the unexpurgated edition of his book he expressed his admiration for this attitude in the following words:

Among the teachings of Catholicism that conflict “quite unnecessarily with exact science and research” are its countless ‘pious lies’ that masquerade as facts. For the sake of the record we will narrate a few of them here. Hundreds of them are listed in such scholarly works as Karl von Hase’s Handbook to the Controversy with Rome and Five Centuries of Religion by G. G. Coulton of the University of Cambridge. Those who want to explore the unlimited credulity of ignorant and prejudiced minds are referred to these sources, which in turn quote from Catholic authors.

In Rome a set of 28 stone steps, covered with wood, have for hundreds of years been venerated as the very steps of Pilate’s palace in Jerusalem up which Jesus walked. They are described as having been brought to Rome by Helena, the mother of the Emperor Constantine. A notice posted at the foot of these stairs informs the public that Pope Pius VII, during the 19th century, granted nine years of indulgences for every step of them that a person prayerfully climbs without getting off his knees. In 1909 Pope Pius X ‘raised the ante’ by granting to everyone who completed the performance on his knees full forgiveness of all his venial sins and the Purgatorial punishment that might still be due on mortal sins. Tens of thousands of simple believers go through this act every year, and contribute generously to collections taken on the spot, as a sort of double-check on getting the prize indulgences.

In 1903 the Congregation of the Holy Office of the Inquisition in Rome formed the Archbishop of San Jago in Chile, in answer to his inquiry, that it was permissible to swallow little paper pictures of the Virgin Mary in order to recover health. Similar pictures of Joseph and St. Anthony are swallowed by devout Catholics in this country. Franciscan churches, like the one near Pennsylvania Station in New York City, give them out for a money “offering”.

One of the world-famous fictions of Catholicism concerns Saint Januarins, Bishop who is supposed to have been martyred in 305 A.D. His body for centuries has been entombed in Naples, Italy, in a church erected in His honor. Since the end of the 14th century his body is preserved in two small phials. It is normally solid, but three times a year (in May, September and December) it liquefies and bubbles when placed near a silver bust said to contain the saint’s head. Catholics stoutly maintain that no law of science can explain this phenomenon.

Just how this miracle happens was explained in the October, 1921, issue of the scholarly theological quarterly, The Hibbert Journal, by Dr. Frederic N. Williams, L.S.A., L.R.C.P., a fellow of the Linnaean Society:

Laughable as these fake miracles are to people of unbiased reason, still funnier ones received wide acceptance in medieval times. In the days of the Crusaders such alleged relics as the swaddling clothes of Jesus, (he tears he shed at Lazarus’s grave and the like, were brought to Europe. The crib of the Christ Child is still publicly venerated in Rome at Saint Mary Major’s, one of Rome’s principal basilicas. Incredible though it seems, Dr. Cecil Cadoux in Catholicism and Christianity, p. 486, vouches for the fact on historical evidence that “things like a rung of Jacob’s ladder, Moses’ horns, Jesse’s root, and a feather from Michael the archangel’s wings, enjoyed in the Middle Ages a transitory veneration.” Anyone familiar with Europe knows that the Benedictine abbey of Monte Vergine, south of Naples, exhibits, as a relic, milk of the Virgin Mary. Seven other churches in Europe make similar claims. To encourage devotion to the shrine at Monte Vergine Mussolini built a road up to the mountain-top where the abbey is located.

Little wonder that Lord Acton, well-known Roman Catholic and historian, father of the Cambridge Modern History, wrote to Mary Gladstone, daughter of England’s famous Prime Minister, about Vatican Catholicism: “It not only promotes, it inculcates, distinct mendacity and untruthfulness. In certain cases it is made a duty to lie.”

St. Paul (in II Thess. 2:9-11) warned of this “working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in those that perish… And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.”

Because the point of this article is Catholics should not worship the image of Jesus dying on the cross of Calvary, I am not including a picture of it. I am a former Roman Catholic.

This is from a PDF file on LutheranLibrary.org. It was published by The Converted Catholic Magazine which was edited by former Catholic priest Leo Herbert Lehmann.

BETWEEN the two great declarations of the Lord’s death and resurrection is the explicit statement: “He was buried.” From then on we know not Christ after the flesh — “Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh,” says Paul, “yet now henceforth know we Him no more.” The importance of this is that, if Christ must still be contemplated on the cross, and still in His place of sacrifice, then our sins also remain upon us; Christ’s work is unfinished.

This is what the Roman Catholic church would have us believe, since an unfinished work of Christ is the only excuse for the continuance of its priesthood and the baneful control it exerts over the souls of millions. Priests and the sacrifice they falsely offer daily for the sins of men, it teaches, are necessary to make up for the imperfectness of the redemptive work of Christ. For, if the saving work of Christ is perfect and complete, then the Roman priesthood has no reason for existence.

But the Gospel fact is that He was buried. The body of death is thus forever put out of sight, and with that body of death went all our sins. Only profane and impious men would dare make the sign of death the adored symbol of salvation and life.

How dishonest is the crucifix! It has become an idol and a snare to millions, a fetish and a relic of an apostate Christendom, diverting men’s minds from light to darkness, from life to death. So it happened to the serpent of brass that Moses once lifted up as a promise in the wilderness, but which the great King Hezekiah long after was forced to break in pieces because it, too, had become an idol and a snare to his people.

Christ in glory is the only object of the true Christian’s contemplation, adoration and affection — the victorious, life-giving, all-powerful Saviour and only High Priest: “Who needeth not daily, as those other priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.” (Heb. 7:27)

By beholding and contemplating, not a dead or dying Christ, but this powerful, living Saviour, we are changed into the same image of Him, from glory unto glory.

Before you get upset with me for telling you something that you may not like, please let me tell you why I think the way I do.

First of all, I lived in Russia from 1994 to 1997 in the cities of Novosibirsk in Siberia, St. Petersburg, and Murmansk in the Arctic Circle, to share the Gospel with the Russian people. And I visited one of the most remote places in the Russian Arctic, the village of Teriberka. The Russians were very kind to me and I made lots of friends. It was fun learning to communicate in Russian and learning the customs and culture of the Russian people. Russians have a sense of humor just like Americans. They often use amusing sarcasm to make their point. They’re a well-mannered people and sometimes corrected me on my manners, something I appreciated.

Besides Russians, I also met the peoples of all the 14 other republics of the former Soviet Union who lived in Russia. There were lots of ethnic Ukrainians in Russia including two sisters in Christ from Kiev, my partners in evangelism to the Russians. I can tell you at the time there was no natural enmity between Russians and Ukrainians, at least there wasn’t until Putin came along. Russians and Ukrainians were like cousins, one big family. I couldn’t tell them apart! All the Ukrainians in Russia speak the Russian language, and even in Ukraine 1/3 of Ukrainians speak only Russian.

At the time there was still a spiritual vacuum in Russia because of the demise of Communism. One lady told me Communism and the Soviet government was her god. She said it was as if her god had died when the Soviet Union broke apart. Many were disheartened. But because of that, they were open to hearing the Gospel! My elderly friend from Moscow, Helen, one of the English-Russian interpreters to Japanese NHK journalists when they interviewed the first man to orbit the earth, Yuri Gagarin, appreciated all the Bible-based literature I gave her. I saw a lot of Russians come to know Jesus as their savior!

I also went to other former Soviet Republics, Estonia where I lived for one month, Latvia for one week, and Lithuania for a couple of days. There’s an ethnic Russian population in those former Soviet Republics, and they live in peace with each other. All the ethnic Russians had to learn the languages of those countries to earn a living there after the Soviet Union broke apart. Before that in Soviet times, they were allowed to do business speaking Russian. Now they are not!

Unlike Belarus and Ukraine then, there was a natural enmity between those three Baltic nations and Russia! And why? Russian is not their language and they were forced to join the Soviet Union against their will.

I once passed through Belarus on my way from St. Petersburg to Poland, the land of my grandparents. Lukashenko was president of Belarus even then! I was surprised then (1976) to learn that not all of the Polish people like Russia. Much less now for sure.

I also passed through Ukraine by train from Novorossiysk, a city on the Black Sea, on my way back to St. Petersburg. Ukrainian immigration officials saw that I didn’t have a visa for Ukraine, but my Russian friends talked them out of fining me! I was on a train line built during Soviet times. There were no borders then between Soviet Republics. The area of Ukraine I passed through is the Donbas region Putin annexed to Russia. I do not believe it was with the will of the people there.

Before I went to Russia when I lived in Japan, I met a young lady from Latvia in Tokyo. I knew she could speak Russian, and because I was studying the Russian language from NHK radio programs, I wanted to try out my Russian with her. I spoke to her some words in Russian and she immediately stopped me! “Russian is not my language,” she said. But there’s no doubt in my mind she understood what I said.

Once in Tallinn Estonia, I heard a lady scold a boy for standing on the park bench. At first, she spoke to him in Estonian, and because he didn’t seem to understand her, she spoke in Russian and he got the point. That was in 1977. I’m sure Russian speakers in Estonia are less and less and all ethnic Russians in Estonia are Estonia speakers by now.

Of the 15 former Soviet Republics, only Ukrainians and Belorussians are Slavic peoples with a language very similar to Russian. It stands to reason they would get along with each other more. The other former Soviet peoples all have different languages, and those languages are not related to each other.

I’m telling you all this because I didn’t know the attitudes of the people of these countries before I actually lived there, and therefore I’m assuming you may not know them either. It’s one of the reasons why I was heartbroken over Putin’s invasion of Ukraine! Not only Ukrainians, but the Russian people themselves are suffering and dying in this war! I only want the war to stop!

I also want you to know that I like Tucker Carlson. I appreciate his conservative views. I saw once a video an average New Yorker made when he saw Tucker Carlson fly fishing in Central Park New York City. Tucker was very cordial to him and answered all his questions. You can tell a lot about a person when you see how he treats others.

That being said, I was surprised Tucker went out of his way to give Putin an opportunity to spread his propaganda.

Putin, a former head of the KGB, is not to be trusted no matter what he says. I met lots of Russians on the island of Guam where I lived for 5 years. None of them like Putin! They ALL call him a criminal! And they all support Ukrainian resistance to the Russian invasion! I know that for a fact. I had a Russian friend who attended my church in Guam, Alex from a town in southern Russia near Crimea and the Black Sea, and that’s what he told me. And I met other Russians in Guam who agreed with him. Some of them actually fled from Russia to escape prosecution by Putin’s government!

Putin is not merely just a criminal, he’s a murderer of his OWN PEOPLE! The 1999 Moscow apartment bombings were a false flag operation that brought him into power. Yeltsin appointed him to take over under the condition Putin would not prosecute the Yeltsin family for ripping off billions from the Russian government. They are ALL corrupt! And Tucker trusts that guy?! Incredible!

Putin is the aggressor. He invaded Ukraine. To justify him for the invasion is a great delusion. To think he’s justified in what he’s doing is spitting on all the graves of the ones that died in the war so far, the graves of BOTH Ukrainians AND Russians!!

Lydia from Kyiv was my evangelism partner in St. Petersburg and Murmansk. Wouldn’t you think she knows the situation better than most Americans who never have been to Russia or Ukraine? This is what she wrote me:

Lydia apparently thought from something I posted on Facebook that I agreed with Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. I never did. I made that clear to her in a reply.

If you have seen Tucker Carlson’s interview with Vladimir Putin, how can you reconcile what he says with what Ukrainian Lydia says? You can’t. I trust what Lydia says. She’s fled Kyiv for her life with her daughter Diana and is now living in France.

Just because Biden supports the Ukrainian resistance against the Russian invasion does not mean Putin is wearing the white hat! We should not judge according to appearances! I don’t support Biden or most of his policies, but neither do I justify Putin in his actions. I think the situation is deeper than most people realize.

My friend from Belarus, Yanek, another one of my evangelism partners in St. Petersburg and Murmansk Russia, believes Putin was tricked into invading Ukraine because he was given false information. He thought the war would be over in days. He apparently thought the Ukrainian people would welcome the Russian soldiers as liberators from Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s “repressive” government! Whatever you may think about Zelinskyy and his government, you can see that was not the case!

My friend Russian friend Alex says the Orthodox Church fully supports Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. I hear the Catholic Church is stronger than the Orthodox in Western Ukraine. Could the war really be all about a Jesuit / Vatican plan to destroy Russia? I believe Western Europe is controlled by the Vatican, and the Vatican has failed twice so far to conquer Russia through Napoleon and Hitler.

Contrary to what others are saying, I can’t see how Putin can win this war. Even if he takes over Kyiv, it’ll be like the Nazi takeover of Paris. Just like the French underground resistance was a thorn in Hitler’s side, so would a Ukrainian underground resistance be to Putin. That’s what I believe.

Historically Ukrainians have more reasons to not like Russians than vice versa. Millions of Ukrainians starved to death from 1932-1933 because all the food from their farms was shipped to Russia!

I have lost friends over my view about Putin and the Russian invasion. Putin is feeding American conservatives what he knows they like and want to hear! But his only interest is money and power. He’s not in it for the welfare of the Russian people.

I hope I don’t lose you too, but this is how I see it based on what I know directly from my own experiences in that part of the world and what my Russian and Ukrainian friends tell me, and not what the media or American conservatives tell me. I too am an American conservative! But my allegiance is first of all to God’s Kingdom, the Lord Jesus, and the truth.

Decoding Putin’s Interview with Tucker Carlson

The 7-minute video below is an interview with Jack Barsky, a former KGB spy in America. He gives insights into Vladimir Putin’s recent interview with Tucker Carlson about Putin’s assertions about Ukraine, military support, and diplomatic strategies.

Here’s a quote during the interview from Mr. Barsky:

Mr. Carlson sat through most of that interview like a middle school student. But at one point he should have been prepared to know that Putin was just lying. Putin was stating that the war was started by Nazis in the Ukraine in 2014. That’s a blatant lie! In 2014 there was an uprising by the people to support the parliament’s decision to get closer to the European Union. And then Putin’s next step: He invaded Crimea.

Comment from a new friend on Facebook:

I was very impressed by what this man has to say about why the Republicans are embracing Putin.

Its all some kind of harebrained gambit to discredit the other political party. Tucker’s logic for this is something like “If Biden and the Dems hate Putin, we will embrace him.” Trump and others play this same game. The truth or what is right doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is if “our” team comes out on top. The underlying modus operandi is “Blow up all our institutions and our long-standing views on decency and manners, as well as what is right or wrong. If we are the creators of chaos, we can be the rulers when the whole thing collapses.” I’m a bit of a liberal, but I have to say the Dems do something similar, but in an awkwardly opposite style. They just ignore any major problem that the Republicans want to fix. For example, Biden’s inaction on the border and illegal immigration. Also, some Dems also champion new so-called “liberal” ideas, such as gender reassignment for adolescents that is widely unpopular and drives many Centrist and conservative voters away. The extremists on both sides are making headlines with radical views, and that makes it impossible to do the things that 80% of Americans need and want; repair bring our infrastructure up to date, put in place logical, practical, workable solutions to the border problems. solve the homeless crisis, make it possible to financially support your family if you work. (Thanks for listening to my rant 😉 )

May the war between Russia and Ukraine end! In Jesus’ Name!

By Joseph Zacchello

This article is from a PDF file on LutheranLibrary.org written in 1944. It was published by The Converted Catholic Magazine and edited by former Roman Catholic priest, Leo Herbert Lehmann. If you see the word “recently,” just think it was recent relative to 1944. But I believe the subject of this article is still relevant today. If you’ve seen the film, “The Godfather,” I think you know what I mean.

Joseph Zacchello is a former Roman Catholic priest born in Italy in 1917. You can read his interesting life story and conversion to Christ from Roman darkness on, The Priest Who Found Christ.

After studying the Bible for the first time in my life after hearing the Gospel in 1971, one of the things I rejoiced in was not having to confess my sins to a Catholic priest in the confessional box! Jesus is my High Priest! The Bible says,

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. – 1 John 1:9

MANY WERE STARTLED by the statistics from official Catholic sources in The Converted Catholic Magazine for January showing the abnormally high percentage of Roman Catholics in our jails and penitentiaries, as well as the disproportionate number of Catholics among young people arrested in New York as juvenile delinquents. Persistent Catholic propaganda by radio, press and pulpit had almost convinced Protestant Americans that all the crime in America was the result of our “Godless” American public schools, and that few, if any, Roman Catholics ever went to jail.

It is too much to expect that Catholic propagandists will publicize their own crime statistics and allow their Catholic people to find out who or what is responsible for the abnormally high rate of crime among Catholics.

There are priests in the Catholic church who place the blame on the fact that nuns are made the moral teachers of youth in Catholic schools. Nuns, they say, because of their self-repressive, ascetic training are not fitted to teach and prepare Catholic children to face the real facts of life. Nuns regard every thought of sex, for example, as a mortal sin and feel guilty themselves even when they look at the nude image of Christ on the crucifix. But these days, when children have so many ways of discovering the facts of sex for themselves outside school, the influence of the nuns in this regard may be largely discounted.

In the January issue of The Converted Catholic Magazine, Mr. Lehmann points to the unethical teaching of the Catholic Church on theft and robbery as a possible cause of the high rate of crime among Catholics. This teaching, which gives the reasons that excuse from theft, should not be underestimated since, as he proves on good authority, more than 50% of all crimes among youth are connected with thievery. But such explanations are merely partial and still leave us to find some underlying cause in the Catholic church’s whole moral system of the alarming rate of crime among Catholics. This root cause is the Catholic practice of confession, one of the seven ‘sacraments’ or foundation-stones upon which the entire superstructure of Roman Catholicism is built.

Protestants oppose the Roman Catholic confessional because it is a purely Roman invention, is contrary to scripture teaching, and was never taught or practiced by Christ or his apostles. But few, if any, have ever brought to light its evil effects in social and moral matters. These evil consequences flow from the fact that Roman Catholics are taught to believe that the priest, a mere man, has the power to absolve them from their sins, on the simple condition that they tell their sins in secrecy to him in the confession-box, and promise to perform a simple ‘penance’ that he imposes. The following should be noted with regard to the practice of confession:

1. The priest is a real judge.
2. He himself can forgive, or withhold forgiveness, of every kind, degree and number of crimes at his own discretion;
3. There are no witnesses;
4. The sinner is his own accuser;
5. No record of the proceedings is kept; a guarantee in fact is given the sinner that absolute secrecy will be observed;
6. No public jail sentence or fine is imposed, only a few minutes of prayers and a verbal promise of reform;
7. By this procedure all effects of the crimes confessed are destroyed and the criminal instantly made “holy” and a good citizen again.
8. This secret process of forgiveness and hiding of crimes may be accomplished again and again as long as the sinner conforms to the regulations set forth above and as laid down in Catholic Canon Law.

Canon 888 says:

Again Canon 872:

As to the power of the priest as judge in confession, Canon 870 says:

The Council of Trent (Sess. VL. Chap. 7.D.B. 799) decreed that the priest not only forgives sins in confession, but has power to destroy them and thus make of the criminal a perfect citizen and a saint: “The crimes are not only forgiven but destroyed and the criminal made as a new person — a saint”. To obtain pardon it is not necessary to be sorry for crimes committed because they are offenses against society or God, but it is sufficient if the criminal is sorry for fear he will go to hell forever if he does not confess them and obtain the forgiveness from the priest in confession. On this point the Council of Trent (Sess. 14, C.H.) says of the sinner: “It is sufficient if he is sorry for fear of otherwise burning in hell for all eternity.”

All the decrees of the Council of Trent are binding on Catholics under pain of anathema and excommunication.

The main reason why crime is high in Catholic nations: Catholics have no deterrent to crime!

Anyone can understand that this practice of the Catholic confession is no deterrent to crime, and can easily, in fact, be made an excuse for continuing in it. Big-time criminals and racketeers, especially, generally can find ways to circumvent the civil law and its penalties. If they are Roman Catholics and believe in confession, they have assurance of an easy way of also escaping punishment in the next life.

Examples are plentiful of such big-time Catholic criminals and racketeers continuing in crime without any qualms of conscience. ‘Big Tom’ Prendergast of Kansas City who died recently after release from Federal penitentiary was one of them. Under his rule, Kansas City was a menace to the morals of young and old… Brothels flourished openly and criminal gangs enforced his dictates. Gambling houses were as commonplace as grocery stores, and he himself was the biggest gambler of his age. Political corruption abounded and Prendergast, as boss of it all, grew fabulously rich from the wealth that flowed into his pockets from this underground traffic in crime. Yet, when he died last January 26, Monsignor Thomas B. McDonald who preached his funeral sermon after solemn high mass, publicly proclaimed him “a man with a noble heart and a true friend,” because “he went to mass every morning at 7:30 for 30 years.”

Tom Prendergast, and other Catholic criminals like him, did not fear the penalties of the civil law, because he could escape them by bribing and corrupting judges and officers of the law whom he himself had appointed. As a Catholic, however, he feared the tortures of hell in the next life. But he was assured by his church’s teaching that he could also escape God’s punishment as long as he went to confession regularly, told his crimes to the priest and said he was sorry merely because he was afraid of going to hell. He was further assured that he could continue his life of crime with impunity as long as he made sure of having a priest to absolve him before he died and to say masses afterwards for his soul in Purgatory.

Mayor Hague of Jersey City is another of many examples of ‘devout’ Catholic political bosses and racketeers who escape the punishment of the civil law by bribery and corruption, and at the same time have the assurance from their church’s teaching that they can also escape God’s punishment in the next life by obtaining pardon regularly from their priests in confession.

Why then should Catholic parents wonder if their wayward children, trained to confession in a Catholic school, refuse to heed their admonitions? Forgiveness may be had in confession without any expression of sorrow to their parents. Nor should a Catholic wife wonder how her husband can remain unfaithful, even after going many times to the priest to tell him the details of his unfaithfulness. Each time his sin is blotted out and he again becomes the ideal husband — all by merely confessing to the priest and saying a few ‘Hail Mary’s’ as a ‘penance.’

Should we wonder why there are so many Catholic criminals? Perhaps we should wonder why there are not many more. That there are not many more may be due to the fact that not all ‘judges’ sit in confession-boxes, but on criminal court benches and send criminals to jail and penitentiaries, and even to the electric chair.

We former priests now know what true forgiveness of sins means in Christian teaching: that God alone forgives sins and with forgiveness comes a complete change of life. The Catholic practice of confession is merely a recital to a man of sins committed, with no guarantee of pardon from God, and nothing to prevent the repetition of the same sins over and over again. In true Christian teaching, forgiveness of sins is not just the wiping off of old sins from the soul and then going forth to soil it again with more of the same sins. It means the gift of a whole new soul, the rebirth to a new life for the sinner to whom sin becomes abhorrent and who remains sanctified and a true child of God thereafter. Then the sinner is really saved. He becomes not only a saint, but also a good citizen. Only this kind of religious teaching is a real deterrent to crime.

Catholic priests confronting Galileo

By J. J. Murphy

This article is from a PDF file on LutheranLibrary.org. It was published by The Converted Catholic Magazine and edited by former Roman Catholic priest, Leo Herbert Lehmann.

It was written in the middle of the 20th century, but I believe the Vatican has not changed since then and continues to have the same attitude toward science and knowledge in general it has always held. If you don’t think so, just look at the low academic standard of public high schools in the USA today. Without a doubt, the Jesuits were behind the dumbing down of America. How many Americans on the street if shown a world map can point to Japan or the Philippines when asked? Some can’t even point to the USA. And what’s the purpose of the dumbing down of a nation? It’s far easier for the government to control an ignorant people than a well informed one.

The author, J.J. Murphy, shares in this article some very interesting history I never knew before!

SCIENCE and Roman Catholicism are essentially antagonistic. The former faces the untried future with experiment as its only tool and honesty to truth its only guide. Roman Catholicism fears the future, and is opposed to experiment and change as revolutionary and destructive of its fixed dogmas and religious practices.

Like Fascism and Nazism, Roman Catholicism will use science when, but only when, it suits its purposes. Just as its ‘leadership principle’ was the groundwork of Nazism — as Goering testified at the Nuremberg trials last March 14 — so too were its censorship and Inquisition methods, its book burnings and other means for the repression of individual thought and scientific progress. Hitler himself, in Mein Kampf, laid down the principle that, “The greatness of every powerful organization… is rooted in the religious fanaticism with which it intolerably enforces itself against everything else, fanatically convinced of its own right.” Further on in the same book (p. 882) he says:

Treatment of the Catholic church’s attitude to science in all its branches — chemistry, physics, astronomy, geology, etc. — would be impossible in one short article. Its entire strategy against science and the tactics of its warfare can best be surveyed from the viewpoint of one single science. Medical science, which relates directly to the welfare and everyday life of all of us, affords the best vantage point from which to view the whole attitude of the Catholic church to science.

Catholicism And Medical Science

Back of the whole attitude of the Catholic church toward medicine are two primitive superstitions from Persia that crept into the Catholic world through the early Fathers. One of these is the teaching that all matter is evil and contemptible, from which it follows that freedom of the soul can be obtained only by neglect and abuse of the body. Sanctity and physical filthiness thus became synonyms, as in the case of Simon Stylites, and centuries later that of Saint Benedict Labre, whose claim to sainthood is that he lived his whole life in rags and covered with fleas. The second doctrine was that all diseases are caused by demons that are banished only by supernatural means. The priest therefore was the only doctor for the treatment of the ills of the body, mind and soul.

Thomas Aquinas, whose teachings are regarded today as the embodiment of the Catholic church’s ‘scientific’ outlook and achievement, was particularly responsible for the lack of scientific progress till modern times. Dr. Andrew Dickson White, distinguished, American historian and late president of Cornell University says:¹