Category Archives: Rome

Rome’s Counter-Reformation Tactics (Updated)

A helpful series from Sound of the Alarm on Rome’s Counter-Reformation tactics can be read at these links:

Part 1 – Introduces Rome’s tactics as Institution, Inquisition, Intransigence, Invention, Insurgence, Indoctrination, Insinuation, and Infiltration.

http://soundofanalarm.blogspot.ca/2017/11/rome-counter-reformation-tactics.html

Part 2 – A look at Institution and particularly the Jesuits

http://soundofanalarm.blogspot.ca/2017/11/rome-counter-reformation-tactics-1.html

Part 3 – A  look at Inquisition

http://soundofanalarm.blogspot.ca/2017/11/rome-counter-reformation-tactics-2.html

Part 4 – A look at Intransigence and particularly the Council of Trent

http://soundofanalarm.blogspot.ca/2017/11/rome-counter-reformation-tactics-3.html

Part 5 – A look at Invention and the Index of Forbidden Books

http://soundofanalarm.blogspot.ca/2017/12/romes-counter-reformation-tactics-4.html

Part 6 – A look at Insurgence

http://soundofanalarm.blogspot.ca/2018/01/romes-counter-reformation-tactics-5.html

Part 7 – Rome’s Counter-Reformation Tactics #5 Insurgence Part 2

http://soundofanalarm.blogspot.ca/2018/02/romes-counter-reformation-tactics-5.html

Part 8 – Rome’s Counter-Reformation Tactics #5 Insurgence Part 3

http://soundofanalarm.blogspot.ca/2018/04/romes-counter-reformation-tactics-5.html

Part 9 – Rome’s Counter-Reformation Tactics #6 Indoctrination Baroque Art

http://soundofanalarm.blogspot.com/2019/01/romes-counter-reformation-tactics-6.html

Advertisements

The genesis of the government of the church of Rome, plus the testimony of Jerome in general

DTK on the Puritan Board:

Perhaps the most scholarly treatment of the genesis of the earliest church structure in Rome is that of the work of Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, trans. Michael Steinhauser (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003).

Peter Lampe: Thesis: The fractionation in Rome favored a collegial presbyterial system of governance and prevented for a long time, until the second half of the second century, the development of a monarchical episcopacy in the city. Victor (c. 189-99) was the first who, after faint-hearted attempts by Eleutherus (c. 175-89), Soter (c. 166-75), and Anicetus (c. 155-66), energetically stepped forward as monarchical bishop and (at times, only because he was incited from the outside) attempted to place the different groups in the city under his supervision or, where that was not possible, to draw a line by means of excommunication. Before the second half of the second century there was in Rome no monarchical episcopacy for the circles mutually bound in fellowship. Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, trans. Michael Steinhauser (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), p. 397.

Peter Lampe: It was useful to assign to someone in Rome the work connected with eternal communication. Hermas knows such a person by the name of Clement. In The Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 2.4.3, Hermas prepares two copies of his small book and sends (πέμπω, within the city) one of them to Clement, who forwards it “to the cities outside, for he is entrusted with that task” (πέμψει Κλήμης εἰς τὰς ἔξω πόλεις, ἐκείνῳ γὰρ ἐπιτέτραπται).
It is important to note that Hermas’s “minister of external affairs” is not a monarchical bishop. In the second next sentence, Hermas describes how he circulates his little book within the city. He makes it known “to this city together with the presbyters who preside over the church” (εἰς ταύτην τὴν πόλιν μετὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων τῶν προϊσταμένων τῆς ἐκκλησίας). A plurality of presbyters leads Roman Christianity. This Christianity, conscious of spiritual fellowship with the city, is summed up under the concept “ecclesia,” but that changes nothing in regard to the plurality of those presiding over it. In Vis. 3.9.7, Hermas also calls them προηγούμενοι [ verb roughly trans. “leading,” but can function as a noun] or πρωτοκαθεδρίται. See Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, trans. Michael Steinhauser (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), p. 398.

Hermas: Therefore you will write two little books, and you will send one to Clement and one to Grapte. Then Clement will send it to the cities abroad, because that is his job. But Grapte will instruct the widows and orphans. But you yourself will read it to this city, along with the elders (i.e., presbyters, πρεσβυτέρων) who preside over the church. See J. B. Lightfoot and J.R. Harmer, eds. And trans., The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations of Their Writings, 2nd Edition, The Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 2.4.3 (Grand Rapids: Babke Book House, 1992), pp. 345-347.
Greek text: Γράψεις οὖν δύο βιβλαρίδια καὶ πέμψεις ἓν Κλήμεντι καὶ ἓν Γραπτῇ. πέμψει οὖν Κλήμης εἰς τὰς ἔξω πόλεις, ἐκείνῳ γὰρ ἐπιτέτραπται. Γραπτὴ δὲ νουθετήσει τὰς χήρας καὶ τοὺς ὀρφανούς. σὺ δὲ ἀναγνώσῃ εἰς ταύτην τὴν πόλιν μετὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων τῶν προϊσταμένων τῆς ἐκκλησίας. Sancti Hermae Pastor, Liber I, Visio II, Caput IV, §3, PG 2:900.

The two following Jesuit scholars concur . . .

Klaus Schatz, S.J.: In fact, this “letter of Clement,” written around 95, is the first document indicating that the Roman community felt responsible for other churches. Its name is a subsequent addition, of course: according to Hegesippus’s list of bishops Clement was a bishop of Rome at that time, the third in succession. However, he is not named as the author of the letter; instead, the true sender is the Roman community. We probably cannot say for certain that there was a bishop of Rome at that time. It seems likely that the Roman church was governed by a group of presbyters from where there quickly emerged a presider or “first among equals” whose name was remembered and who was subsequently described as “bishop” after the mid-second century. Klaus Schatz, S.J., Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present, trans. John A. Otto and Linda M. Maloney (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1996), p. 4.

Francis A. Sullivan, S.J.: There exists a broad concensus among scholars, including most Catholic ones, that such churches as those of Alexandria, Philippi, Corinth and Rome most probably continued to be led for some time by a college of presbyters, and that only during the course of the second century did the threefold structure become generally the rule, with a bishop, assisted by presbyters, presiding over each local church. Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church (New York: The Newman Press, 2001), p. 15.

Another Jesuit scholar expresses serious doubt (well, more than doubt) regarding the founding of the early Roman church by Peter . . .

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J.: If some of the Roman sojourners in Jerusalem were among the three thousand Jews converted to Christianity according to the Lucan account (Acts 2:10-11,41), they may have formed the nucleus of the Christian community in Rome on their return there. Thus the Roman Christian community would have had its matrix in the Jewish community, possibly as early as the 30s, and thus was made up at first of Jewish Christians and God-fearing Gentiles (or even of proselytoi, Acts 2:11, also mentioned in Roman Jewish funerary inscriptions), who had associated themselves with Jews of Rome. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993), p. 29.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J.: A more reliable tradition associated Paul with Peter as “founders” of the Roman community, not in the sense that they first brought Christian faith there, but because both of them eventually worked there and suffered martyrdom there (or in its immediate environs), and because their mortal remains were in possession of the Roman church (see Ignatius, Rom. 4.3; Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 3.1.1, 3.3.2 [SC 211.22-23, 32-33]). Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993), p. 30.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J.: In any case, Paul never hints in Romans that he knows that Peter has worked in Rome or founded the Christian church there before his planned visit (cf. 15:20-23). If he refers indirectly to Peter as among the “superfine apostles” who worked in Corinth (2 Cor 11:4-5), he says nothing like that about Rome in this letter. Hence the beginnings of the Roman Christian community remain shrouded in mystery. Compare 1 Thess 3:2-5; 1 Cor 3:5-9; and Col 1:7 and 4:12-13 for more or less clear references to founding apostles of other locales. Hence there is no reason to think that Peter spent any major portion of time in Rome before Paul wrote his letter, or that he was the founder of the Roman church or the missionary who first brought Christianity to Rome. For it seems highly unlikely that Luke, if he knew that Peter had gone to Rome and evangelized that city, would have omitted all mention of it in Acts. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993), p. 30.

Fitzmyer gives his view of the probable origin of the Church at Rome and then states that “we know nothing of its evangelization by an apostle, even though a later tradition associated that with Mark the evangelist (Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 2.16.1).” Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993), p. 30.

Fitzmyer then goes on to cite the anonymous early church writer whom Erasmus designated as Ambrosiaster . . .

Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384) stated that the Romans “have embraced the faith of Christ, albeit according to the Jewish rite, without seeing any sign of mighty works, or any of the apostles.” In Epistolam Ad Romanos, Prologus, PL 17:46.

Now then, Notice Jerome’s comments regarding presbyters and bishops . . .

Jerome (347-420): For when the apostle clearly teaches that presbyters are the same as bishops, must not a mere server of tables and of widows be insane to set himself up arrogantly over men through whose prayers the body and blood of Christ are produced? Do you ask for proof of what I say? Listen to this passage: “Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the bishops and deacons.” Do you wish for another instance? In the Acts of the Apostles Paul thus speaks to the priests of a single church: “Take heed unto yourselves and to all the flock, in the which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, to feed the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” And lest any should in a spirit of contention argue that there must then have been more bishops than one in a single church, there is the following passage which clearly proves a bishop and a presbyter to be the same. NPNF2: Vol. VI, The Letters of St. Jerome, Letter 146 – To Evangelus, §1.

Jerome (347-420): Of the names presbyter and bishop the first denotes age, the second rank. In writing both to Titus and to Timothy the apostle speaks of the ordination of bishops and of deacons, but says not a word of the ordination of presbyters; for the fact is that the word bishops includes presbyters also. Again when a man is promoted it is from a lower place to a higher. Either then a presbyter should be ordained a deacon, from the lesser office, that is, to the more important, to prove that a presbyter is inferior to a deacon; or if on the other hand it is the deacon that is ordained presbyter, this latter should recognize that, although he may be less highly paid than a deacon, he is superior to him in virtue of his priesthood. In fact as if to tell us that the traditions handed down by the apostles were taken by them from the old testament, bishops, presbyters and deacons occupy in the church the same positions as those which were occupied by Aaron, his sons, and the Levites in the temple. NPNF2: Vol. VI, The Letters of St. Jerome, Letter 146 – To Evangelus, §2.

Jerome (347-420): In both epistles [i.e., 1 Timothy & Titus] commandment is given that only monogamists should, be chosen for the clerical office whether as bishops or as presbyters. Indeed with the ancients these names were synonymous, one alluding to the office, the other to the age of the clergy. NPNF2: Vol. VI, The Letters of St. Jerome, Letter 69 – To Oceanus, §3.

Jerome (347-420): And I do not say this because I have anything to blame in the mission itself, except certain partialities which beget suspicion, but because you ought rather to clear yourself in the actual presence of your questioners. You begin with the words, “You have sent a most devoted servant of God, the presbyter Isidore, a man of influence no less from the dignity of his very gait and dress than from that of his divine understanding, to heal those whose souls are grievously sick; would that they had any sense of their illness! A man of God sends a man of God.” No difference is made between a priest and a bishop (presbyterum et episcopum); the same dignity belongs to the sender and the sent; this is lame enough; the ship, as the saying goes; is wrecked in harbor. NPNF2: Vol. VI, To Pammachius Against John of Jerusalem, §37. See Contra Joannem Hierosolymitanum, §37, PL 23:390.
Latin text: Nec hoc dico, quod praeter amicitias, quae suspicionem generant, quidquam in legatione reprehendam; sed quia apud interrogantes magis et praesentes te purgare debueris. “Misisti religiosissimum hominem Dei Isidorum presbyterum, virum potentem tam ex ipsa incessus et habitus dignitate, quam divinae intelligentiae, curare etiam eos, qui animo vehementer aegrotant; si tamen sensum sui languoris habeant. Homo Dei mittit hominem Dei.” Nihil interest inter presbyterum et episcopum; eadem dignitas mittentis et missi: hoc satis imperite: in portu, ut dicitur, naufragium. Contra Joannem Hierosolymitanum, §37, PL 23:390.

Jerome (347-420): Therefore, as we have shown, among the ancients presbyters were the same as bishops; but by degrees, that the plants of dissension might be rooted up, all responsibility was transferred to one person.
Therefore, as the presbyters know that it is by the custom of the Church that they are to be subject to him who is placed over them so let the bishops know that they are above presbyters rather by custom than by Divine appointment, and ought to rule the Church in common, following the example of Moses, who, when he alone had power to preside over the people Israel, chose seventy, with the assistance of whom he might judge the people. We see therefore what kind of presbyter or bishop should be ordained. John Harrison, Whose Are the Fathers? (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1867), p.488. See also Karl Von Hase, Handbook to the Controversy with Rome, trans. A. W. Streane, Vol. 1, 2nd ed. rev. (London: The Religious Tract Society, 1909), p. 164. Cf. also
Thomas P. Scheck, trans., St. Jerome’s Commentaries on Galatians, Titus, and Philemon (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010), p. 290.
Latin text: Haec propterea, ut ostenderemus apud veteres eosdem fuisse presbyteros quos et episcopos: paulatim vero ut dissensionum plantaria evellerentur, ad unum omnem sollicitudinem esse delatam. Sicut ergo presbyteri sciunt se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sibi praepositus fuerit, esse subjectos: ita episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine, quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate, presbyteris esse majores, et in commune debere Ecclesiam regere, imitantes Moysen, qui cum haberet in potestate solum praeesse populo Israel, septuaginta elegit, cum quibus populum judicaret. Videamus igitur qualis presbyter, sive episcopus ordinandus sit. Commentariorum In Epistolam Ad Titum, PL 26:563.

J. N. D. Kelly: Particularly interesting is his [i.e., Jerome, examples given above] view that in the apostolic age the terms ‘bishop’ and ‘presbyter’ were synonymous, each church being governed by a committee of coequal presbyters. The emergence of the episcopate proper, he argues (much to the embarrassment of Catholics down the centuries), was due, not to any ordinance of the Lord, but to ecclesiastical custom, with the object of excluding divisions. J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2000), p. 147.

Source: https://puritanboard.com/threads/the-genesis-of-the-government-of-the-church-of-rome-plus-the-testimony-of-jerome-in-general.97729/

“The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptized, instead of leading them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community. . . Without doubt it is the duty of the presbyters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the Church they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head, but it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution by the Lord” (Jerome, Commentary on Titus 1:7)

Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=cross+crescent&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1, #4

Vindicated: Vatican Insider who Accused Francis I of a Cover-Up

Shaun Willcock at Bible Based Ministries:

Some six months ago in September 2018, I wrote an article entitled Top-Ranking Vatican Insider Accuses Francis I of a Cover-Up,[1] about the allegations made by retired Roman Catholic archbishop, Carlo Maria Viganò, against his pope, Francis I, in August 2018.  Viganò, a former Vatican nuncio (ambassador) to the United States under popes Benedict and Francis, described as a top-ranking Vatican “insider”, released an open letter alleging that Francis had known, at least five years before, about the sexual molestation of seminarians (young male students for the priesthood) by a former cardinal named Theodore McCarrick, because he (Viganò) had told him about it in June 2013; and yet Francis had done nothing about it.

McCarrick reportedly invited seminarians to his beach house, where he shared a bed with them.  “McCarrick was using the Catholic seminary at Seton Hall as a harem.  His boy-toys were given rapid promotions.  Those not into [sodomy] were shunted aside.  McCarrick’s power was such that even men not in his ‘circle’ were afraid to come forward…”[2]  By the late 1990s all this was in fact an open secret among New Jersey’s Roman Catholics where McCarrick was archbishop, and was often discussed by priests and nuns.[3]

Following a ruling in June 2018 on two of the allegations against him by a New York archdiocesan tribunal, which judged that the allegations were “credible”, McCarrick resigned from the College of Cardinals.  This step was described as “very shocking, very unusual, hasn’t happened in decades”.[4]

Nevertheless, Francis himself had done nothing, even though the allegations against McCarrick had been known for so many years.  And in light of this failure to act, Viganò actually took the astounding step of urging Francis to resign.

Viganò’s open letter threw the Vatican of Francis into a major crisis, with pro-Francis prelates scrambling wildly to contain the damage as the ripples spread out across the globe.  But it turns out that Viganò was right all along – and has now been vindicated.

Let us backtrack somewhat, to remind readers about his allegations, and then see what has now happened to vindicate him.

Read more: http://www.biblebasedministries.co.uk/2019/04/02/vindicated-vatican-insider-who-accused-francis-i-of-a-cover-up/

The Grand Old Papal Duke and the March Up and Down the Hill

Shaun Willcock of Bible Based Ministries:

Oh, the grand old Duke of York,
He had ten thousand men;
He marched them up to the top of the hill
And he marched them down again.

__________________________________________________________________________

This old children’s nursery rhyme sums up the recent Vatican summit on the sexual abuse of children by priests and bishops.  Substitute “Francis, Pope of Rome” for the “grand old Duke of York”, and it says it all.  Francis marched his cardinals, archbishops, bishops and priests up to the top of the seven hills of Rome (Rev. 17:3,9) – and then?

Then he marched them down again.

For, having come from all over the world and having reached the summit, they heard speeches, watched videos, shut their eyes in prayer – and then returned home.  The summit achieved nothing.  The priestly abuse will continue as it has for hundreds and hundreds of years, and the cover-ups and lies will continue just as they always have.

The Summit: an Appearance of Doing Something While Doing Nothing

The summit on “The Protection of Minors in the Church” lasted from 21 to 24 February 2019.  During this time, the heads of all the world’s bishops’ conferences met with the Jesuit pope in the Vatican, as well as with many cardinals and other Vatican officials, to discuss this crisis facing the Roman Catholic institution.  Three main subjects were to be the focus of the summit: “Responsibility; Accountability; Transparency”.  All very popular buzz words.  But all meaning absolutely nothing when found on the lips of Romish bishops, archbishops, cardinals and the pope of Rome himself.

Doubtless many of these priestly perverts will be more cautious in the future.  Doubtless many will continue to be arrested and go to prison.  Doubtless hundreds, perhaps thousands of priestly heads will still roll.  But all this will be window dressing.  It will be sound and fury, signifying nothing.  There will be pious cries of shock, horror and outrage.  But the abuse will not stop.

The world, however, as well as millions of outraged and scandalised Roman Catholics, have been left with the impression that something has been done, and that more will still be done.  And this is all that matters to the Vatican.  The Papist archbishop of Malta, Charles Sciculna, said: “This is a new day in terms of transparency.  Bishops are going to be held accountable.  My hope is that people see this as a turning point.”[1]  Yes, sadly, many people will see it as a turning point; and yet no turning – no true repentance, no true conversion – has occurred.  It is not a new day of transparency, and the overwhelming majority of bishops will not be held accountable.  Oh, certainly, some will be, and an appearance of being more “transparent” will be given; but the Popish system will close ranks, and continue to find ways to hide the abuse and get away with it.

For this global priestly perversion is not merely some leaven in an otherwise unleavened “Church”.  It is not merely some bad apples in an otherwise beautiful basket.  And it is not a new phenomenon.  It is an intrinsic part of the entire system of Popery, and always has been.  Whether the victims have been boys, girls, nuns, married women, single girls, even other priests – sexual abuse is a centuries-old abomination of epidemic proportions in the Roman Catholic system.

Read more: http://www.biblebasedministries.co.uk/2019/03/07/the-grand-old-papal-duke-and-the-march-up-and-down-the-hill/

The Sister Lucy Fraud

The Thinking Housewife:

SOME VERY evil deeds have been perpetrated since the modernist sect subverted the true Catholic Church and took over its worship, doctrine and buildings. But none may be more wicked than the parading of an impostor Sister Lucy…

Read more: https://www.thinkinghousewife.com/2018/08/the-sister-lucy-fraud/

Pope Warns Catholics not to Convert Muslims to Christianity

Pope Francis warned Catholics in Morocco not to attempt to convert Muslims to Christianity, as he addressed a large crowd of his Moroccan flock on Sunday…

READ MORE: https://neonnettle.com/news/7006-pope-francis-warns-catholics-in-morocco-not-to-convert-muslims-to-christianity
© Neon Nettle

Why Does Pope Francis’s New Morocco Logo Imply Submission To Islam?

The Federalist:

If this Vatican logo tells us anything, it is that Pope Francis is comfortable with Islam’s ascendency. The “relation” made visual here is one of domination. Take a look…

Read more: https://thefederalist.com/2019/01/22/pope-franciss-new-morocco-logo-imply-submission-islam/

The Pope From Hell

An interesting interview from 2015:

The Pope From Hell – Father Paul Kramer – Caravan To Midnight – Episode 353

The Mass and Occasional Hearing

Calvin on being present for the Mass (from The Unlawful Rites of the Ungodly) and the sin of occasional hearing:

Come now and consider with me, in regard to a pretended observance of the Mass, with what kind of conscience you can be present at the performance of its mysteries. Immediately on your entrance, the altar offers itself to your view, differing little from a common table, but proclaiming, by its very name, that it is to be used for sacrificing ! This itself assuredly is not free from blasphemy. You see the Priest coming forward, who boasts that, by the anointing of four fingers, he has been appointed mediator between God and man, who, carrying off from the faithful of the Church, and from -the Supper itself, that promise in which Christ gives his Body and Blood to his servants, to be eaten under the symbols of Bread and Wine, arrogates it to himself and his fellow slayers, who dishonour his heavenly Supper by giving it the name of Mass, in which it is completely inverted and deformed. The people stand by, persuaded that every one of these things is Divine ; you stand among them pretending to be similarly affected. When the impostor has gone up to the altar, he begins the play with acts partly motionary, partly stationary, and with those magical mutterings by which he thinks himself, or, at least, would have others to think—he is to call Christ down from heaven, by which he devotes Him when called down to Sacrifice, and by which he procures the reconciliation of God with the human race, as if he had been substituted in the place of a dead Christ ! These acts you see received by the whole multitude, with the same veneration as those above-mentioned ; you shape your features to imitate them, when they ought visibly to have expressed the utmost abhorrence !

Will it still be denied to me that he who listens to the Mass with a semblance of Religion, every time these acts are perpetrated, professes before men to be a partner in sacrilege, whatever his mind may inwardly declare to God ? At last, behold the Idol (puny, indeed, in bodily appearance, and white in colour, but by far the foulest and most pestiferous of all Idols !) lifted up to affect the minds of the beholders with Superstition. While all prostrate themselves in stupid amazement, you, turning toward the Idol with an expression of veneration, prostrate yourself also. What effrontery must ours be, if we deny that any one of the things delivered in Scripture against Idolatry is applicable to the Idolatry here detected and proved ! What ! is this Idol in any respect different from that which the Second Commandment of the Law forbids us to worship ? But if it is not, why should the worship of it be regarded as less a sin than the worship of the Statue at Babylon ? And yet the three Israelites, to whom we above referred, shuddered more at the idea of offering- such worship than of suffering death in its most excruciating form. If the Lord declares the impurity of the vulgar superstitions of the Gentiles to be such that they are not to be touched, how can it be lawful to keep rolling about in such a sink of pollution and sacrilege as here manifestly exists ? Taking the single expression which gives the essence of all the invectives which the Apostle had uttered against Idolatry—that we could not at once be partakers at the table of Christ and the table of demons—who can deny its applicability to the Mass? Its altar is erected by overthrowing the Table of Christ, and its feast is prepared by plundering, lacerating, defiling the meats prepared for the Table of Christ. In the Mass Christ is traduced, his death is mocked, an execrable idol is substituted for God—shall we hesitate, then, to call it the table of demons? Or shall we not rather, in order justly to designate its monstrous impiety, try, if possible, to devise some new term still more expressive of detestation? Indeed, I exceedingly wonder how men, not utterly blind, can hesitate for a
moment to apply the name ” Table of Demons” to the Mass, seeing they plainly behold in the erection and the arrangement of it the tricks, engines, and troops of devils all combined.

Source: https://puritanboard.com/threads/christians-visiting-churches-which-preach-a-false-gospel.95345/, Comment 3

The Tycoon on the Tiber

Nino Lo Bello, The Vatican Empire, “Prophets and Profits XIII:”

This writer foresees the day, perhaps a thousand years from now, when the Vatican will cease functioning as a religious institution and take up, on a full-time basis, the duties of a large-scale business corporation. The transition will not be as difficult to effectuate as one might suspect. For just as Catholicism will decline and eventually withdraw from the ranks of the major religions, so, too, will Church money find its way into nearly every area of the free world’s economy. Then, at last, the tycoon on the Tiber will shed the mantle of piety; then, at last, the Vatican will expose the full extent of its financial interests.

Read more: http://www.jamesjpn.net/roman-catholicism/the-vatican-empire/14/