LET MY PEOPLE GO

  Before anyone accuses me of having an axe to grind, let me say this. I have absolutely nothing against Catholics. My problem is with the doctrines of the Catholic church solely.
Catholics are people, and as such, deserve the love and respect due to every human being. Catholicism is a doctrine which calls itself Christian, and thus, needs to be scrutinized against scripture to determine it's faithfulness to the Bible.
I grew up in an Italian (Roman Catholic) neighborhood, and consequently, have many Catholic friends. Three of my grandparents were Catholic and died as Catholics. For a while, when I was younger, I attended a Catholic church and youth groups.
The information contained in these pages is a comprisal of much research through both Catholic and non-Catholic sources, including Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, O.C. Lambert's Catholicism Against Itself Vol. I and II, John A. Hardon's Pocket Catholic Dictionary; and The Catholic Catechism, Ralph Edward Woodrow's Babylon Mystery Religion, and of course, The Bible (KJV). These are just a few of the books I used, and are highly recommended for anyone searching out the truth.

 You may find that this is written in a rather informal manner. It was written as several letters to a Catholic friend of mine, and that is the reason for the informality. The letters have been edited insomuch as to remove the personal dialogue only. Unfortunately, I do not have all the letters at this point, but you will find that these pages are still extremely insightful and informative.
Whether you are Catholic or not, I believe you will find these pages benificial. You never know when you will meet someone who is longing for Truth.

As a last note, this page is by no means done, so please bookmark it and check back.

 It is true the Catholic church is steeped in tradition, but unfortunately– not the tradition of Christianity, Christ, or the Apostles. The name Catholic means universal. Strange, it is, that such a church was supposed to precurse the end of time. A universal, worldwide church. Now, I understand and even know it is a bold leap to say that they named themselves after the end-times, church. But I find it somewhat humorous that it should bear the name. As for apostolic, I have to laugh. I realize that the Catholics pride themselves on being the only people who can trace their lineage back to the apostles, but boast as they do, this is not the full truth. Sure, Catholicism was around in the days of Christ, but it bore a different name. It was called paganism. The truth is there was no such thing as a pope until the 7th century. I believe it was around 606 that they first laid claim to the title of pope. It wasn't until well after, that they traced their lineage back to Peter. If in fact, Peter were the first pope, you would not have been baptized in the titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. No, not at all, because in the book of Acts, when people asked what they needed to do to be saved, Peter said "Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (2:38.) Elsewhere, in the book of Acts, whenever someone was baptized, it was done in the "name of Jesus Christ," "in the name of the Lord, Jesus" etc. There is not one instance in the bible where anyone was baptized in the names of the titles, or offices of God. It is a fact that for the first 300 and some odd years, everyone who joined the Catholic church was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, but around the middle of the fourth century there came a great war between Catholics. At the Council of Nicaea in 325, the idea of a trinity was proposed. Prior to this, most people believed in the oneness of God. It was the popular belief that there was one God who manifested himself in three different manners. (This is completely scriptural, for I Cor. 12:5 tells us "there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.") But after this council, the people began claiming there were three people in the Godhead. Now, the official terminology is three persons in the Godhead, but more than one person makes people. It was further stated that not only were there three, but that each one was separate and distinct from the other two. One could not be the other, but they were all one. For this reason, popes, cardinals, priests, bishops, and Catholic laymen say that the trinity is a mystery which man's feeble mind cannot comprehend.
Prior to Christianity, prior to Christ in fact, there was already a "holy trinity" established. This, as we have already said was Osiris, Isis, and Horus. (Isis, Horus, Seb) the IHS from the Eucharist if you will remember. It is not hard to imagine, nor does it require any leap of faith to conclude that the Catholics received the idea of the Trinity from the worshipers of Isis, Diana (in Ephesus), or any other of the corresponding goddesses.
Before this trinity was introduced, Catholics were what is known as modalists. That is, they believed in One God with three manifestations, but NOT three persons. Even Catholic sources say that the doctrine of the Trinity began late in the third century, and was not complete until the end of the fourth century. Shortly after the defining of the trinity, its followers began to grow in numbers. The Trinitarians and the modalists fought back and forth until finally, through assassinations and murders, the Trinitarians won. They then made it a crime to not believe in the trinity. Anyone who did not confess three gods rolled up into one big capital God, was executed for heresy.
Because of the distance of time between us and them, it is easy for today's clergy and parishioners to say, "well, it is just part of a checkered past." But remember, Christ was without blemish. He had no checkers. And the apostles, after coming to Christ had no checkers either. So, for an organization to say "yes, we were evil. Yes, we killed and tortured. Yes, we lied and stole and incorporated all sorts of paganism, but we ARE STILL the one true church of Christ" is absurd. Christ kept his disciples in line. When peter cut off the ear of the soldier who seized Christ, Christ chastised him; said "Peter, just what in the world do you think you're doing? Don't you know this isn't our way?" and then Christ put the man's ear back on. (I have yet to see a pope who can do that.)

 Let us put this checkered past aside for now and examine what the church claims. The Catholic church asserts that Peter was the first pope and the church was built upon him. It also asserts that Peter went to Rome and founded the Catholic church. But is this accurate?
The bible verse that the catholic church uses for the former is Matt 16:18. Jesus told Peter "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
But we must first look at what came before this, Jesus asked Peter who the people said he was. When Peter answered some say Elias, others Jeremias, or one of the prophets, Jesus asked, "But whom say ye that I am?" and Peter answered "Thou art the Christ." It was to this, that Christ said he would build his church, etc. Now, Catholics said that Peter's name in Greek meant rock, which it does, but...BUT there is more. Peter's name in Greek is Petros. And the word for rock used was petra. So the verse read..."Thou art Petros and upon this petra I will build my church." Petra is the feminine form. Strong's Greek dictionary defines it as a "mass of rock" whereas Petros is masculine and is defined as a "piece of rock," or the apostle Peter.
Through context, and in the original language, it is evident that Christ was not talking about Peter being the rock upon which the church was built, but instead, the truth that Jesus was the Messiah. That was the rock. The same word petra is later used in I Corinthians 10:4. Paul said "for they all drank of that spiritual rock that followed them; and that Rock was Christ." So the claim that Christ told the world he was going to build the church upon Peter is absolutely false.

 In the book of the Revelation, we are forewarned, that if any man add to or take away from anything that is in the New Testament, all the plagues of the book will be added to him. Earlier, we were forewarned by Paul, he said "if any man, even if I or an angel, come preaching anything other [than what is in the Bible] let him be accursed." That is pretty harsh. It also means he was absolutely certain of what he preached. That not even an angel would come behind him and change one word. The reason Paul issued this warning is because some false preachers were already coming through, preaching ideas not in the gospels. In any case, we were warned several times over in the Bible that there was nothing more to it than what was in it.
Catholics like to say that they received their instruction through word of mouth, and that what they received was oral tradition. They had to make such an assertion. In the early centuries it was easy to simply forge documents or say that they existed, but as time progressed, and people became more aware of the Bible, it became impossible to pass off the forgeries. In fact, even the Catholic Encyclopedia and books bearing the imprimatur will admit that many of the church's documents are forgeries. But they dismiss the fact they are forgeries by quickly adding, "but the truth in them is not forged." what is in them is attested to by itself only. It would be like me making up a bankbook and giving myself a balance of $2,000,000 then taking that bankbook to the bank and asking for another bankbook to replace the current one. Just because the bank gives me a new book with $2,000,000 printed on it does not mean it is true. What they are using is false logic. Someone said it, so it was true. Later it was learned that no one said it, but because it was true in the first case, it still holds true.
Now, this leads us to Peter being in Rome. We know that Paul went to Rome. And we know that Peter went to various cities, but the Bible never says he was in Rome. It would be a curious fact if Peter did go to Rome to found the Church and the Bible didn't mention it. There was, however, a different Peter in Rome. Peter-Roma. At this point, I must reproduce an excerpt from Alexander Hislop's book.

In the Eleusinian Mysteries at Athens, when the candidates for initiation were instructed in the secret doctrine of paganism, the explanation of that doctrine was read to them out of a book called by ordinary writers the book Petroma. [This was ] intended to amuse the vulgar. The nature of the case, and the history of the Mysteries, alike show that this book could be none other than the "Book Pet-Roma;" that is, the "Book of the Grand Interpreter;" in other words, of Hermes Trismegestus, the great "Interpreter of the Gods." In Egypt, from which Athens derived its religion, the books of Hermes were regarded as the divine fountain of all true knowledge of the Mysteries. In Egypt, therefore, Hermes was looked up to in this very character of Grand Interpreter, or "Peter-Roma."

 Now, Peter-Roma carried two keys in his hands. The Keys of Janus and Cybele. Janus was the god of hinges and doors. Therefore, Peter-Roma needed to carry these keys. They were symbolic of his power to open the doors of the mysteries.
It was not difficult for the Catholic church to reconcile Peter the apostle with Peter-Roma. All they needed to do was pick out the scripture where Jesus (figuratively) gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom of heaven. The keys that Christ gave Peter were truth and love. Not keys of bronze, gold, etc. Contrary to belief in Janus, which was rampant in Christ's day, Christ said "what I shutteth, no man openeth. And what I openeth, no man shutteth."
Although many people have proven that Peter was never in Rome, the Catholic church still stands on it. The only proof they have is a short story in The Clementines, written at the end of the second century or the beginning of the third century in which it is said that Peter went to Rome and found Simon-Magus there. When Peter challenged Simon to show his powers, Simon flew up into the air. Then Peter brought him down so quickly that his leg broke when he hit the ground. Other than this, they have no proof. There is of course, Peter's chair, which was said to have been positively erected by Peter himself.
Until 1662 this was accepted as fact. But on January 18th of that year, it was discovered that the carvings on it were of Hercules and his 12 adventures. They quickly replaced this chair with another chair. When, in 1795 Napoleon took Rome, they found upon the back of the chair an inscription from the Koran which said "there is no God but Allah..."
So, with all this, it is historical fact that there was a figure known as Peter-Roma in Rome at the time. It is nothing more than Catholic assertion that Peter the apostle was ever there. Now, if the first line of popes actually got his instruction from a Peter, it is more probable that it was Peter-Roma that gave it to them.
This, in conjunction with the rest of Catholic history, makes it more than evident that the claims the Catholic church lay to being Christ's church are not only unfounded, but blatant lies. In the Bible, when the church is mentioned, it is referred to as a group of believers. The church is not a building, but the body of people who follow God's commandments and the gospels. At a later point, I will delve into the disregard Catholicism has for God's commandments, but for now, I will refrain. Also, as a last note, when saints were spoken of in the Bible, they are all alive. There were no dead saints. Saints were the members of the church. Therefore, any person who is truly Christian is a saint.

Peace,

L

J,

 I have decided to reproduce a small list of forgeries from a book by O. C. Lambert.

  Now, keep in mind, this is just the beginning. I didn't list everything, nor did Lambert. But it should be interesting that some of the things the Catholic Church admits as forgeries occurred in the 20th century. It must be pointed out that this book was written in the mid 50's, about the same time pope Pius XII announced the Assumption of Mary as a divine revelation (November 1, 1950.)
Although he declared it a revelation, the fact is, he sent about letters asking bishops and cardinals if they wanted her (Mary) to have been assumed up into heaven. With a nearly unanimous yes, the pope declared it so. An interesting quote from the Catholic Catechism explains how this became a revelation.

How do we know? On the answer to this question rests a new insight into Christian Tradition that had been gaining momentum since the eighteenth century. Briefly stated, tradition is coming to be identified more with the church's magisterium or teaching office and less exclusively as the source along with Scripture, of the truths of salvation.

 Personally, if I went to a church, and the preacher told me something contradictory to the Bible, I would leave immediately. It does not matter to me how small the misleading. I suppose if I went to a church and he said Christmas was actually Christ's birthday; that killing in war was acceptable; or holding a grudge against the rapist who murdered my wife was ok, I would leave. The fact is, that there is no room for mistakes. The Bible says "If the righteous scare make it (into heaven) then where shall the sinner be?"
There are many quotes which attest to this fact.

" Enter ye in at the straight gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because straight is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

[interestingly enough, the next passage says " beware of false prophets, which come in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. "]

"Not everyone that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven...Many will say to me in that day in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then I will profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

"Many are called, but few are chosen."

"...But they regard not the work of the LORD, neither consider the operation of his hands. Therefore, my people are gone into captivity...their honourable men are famished, and their multitude dried up with thirst. Therefore, hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it."

[although it is in the Old Testament, it is a type of this present dispensation.]

[another type of this current day, is Noah and the flood. Remember, that few went into the ark, and all that were without were destroyed.]

"Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

[now the Greek word used for effeminate is malakos which today is translated in the vulgar as "pansy." and the word used for "abusers...mankind" is arsenokoites which is translated in the New Revised Standard as "homosexuals." In the Greek-Interlinear Translation this word is translated as "Sodomites." The word is a composite of two Greek words which mean "man, male" and "cohabitation, sperm, chambering, x conceive."]

  In any case, if we exclude all the people guilty of each of these things, we can see that there are very few people remaining to enter heaven. So it is important to know that we have the absolute truth. Let me produce one more quote which is prophetic. It pertains to the above quotes, as well as religion.

"In the latter times, some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats."

 Because we have seen nearly every prophesy in the bible come true, it is not a wide leap across the synapse between this prophecy and the Catholic Church. It is forbidden for clergymen and women to marry. When I was growing up, it was also forbidden to eat meat on Fridays. This practice has been abolished, but a recent article from the AP said that the Catholic Hierarchy gathered a few months ago and discussed re-instituting this as a practice necessary for salvation. They are undecided whether to make it necessary or a voluntary fast to bring greater grace. Although it was done away with except during Lent, many hardline Roman Catholics still keep the practice year round.

 Knowing all of this, knowing that priests, popes, cardinals, etc lied to us (humanity) about the doctrines of Christ and the bible, what can we say about it? Can we honestly believe in a system or will we willingly place our faith in a system which is (admittedly) littered with fornications, murders, thieveries, lies, forgeries, pagan rites, and every other type of ungodliness?

 Surely, the authority of the "mother church" should be questioned. Especially since it so blatantly defies the commandments of Christ. Consider this passage. "Be ye not called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ...and call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."(Matt 23:8-9)
This was a commandment from Christ. In another passage, it also says call no man "Abba" or father. The word abbot comes from Abba. And the word pope comes from papa meaning father. So, whereas Christ commanded us to call no man father, the Catholic church has based its entire hierarchy on the title of father...a title reserved for God alone.

Peace to you and yours,

L

click here to continue

Click here for a response to Trinitarian literature

Or continue down for some good links.