LET MY PEOPLE GO

A LOOK AT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

PART 2

As you know, one of my favorite topics is the Catholic church. So if you like, I can explain how the Catholic church began to take some aspects as symbolic and others as literal. The idea of transubstantiation is a favorite of mine. Here comes a history lesson.

Thousands of years before Christ was born, a man named Nimrod lived. We have covered this. After he died, he supposedly became the sun god. His name was Baal. In the ancient rites of the Babylonians, they worshiped Baal. They would go out just before the dawn and pray as the sun rose. This custom was spread throughout the world after God dispersed the Babylonians (due to the tower of Babel.) Even the central and south American Indians practiced it. The druids too, worshiped the same god as the god of corn. They also had a wafer with an image of their deity and a stalk of corn upon it. (Interestingly enough, this has become part of the Catholic litany "Breadcorn of the elect, have mercy upon us.") The priests of Baal would make unleavened bread, perfectly circular to represent the sun, and with a starburst design on it also to represent the sun. After a blessing by the priests, the people believed that this wafer actually became the blood and body of their god, Baal. They ate the wafer as a sacrifice. Allow me to quote Hislop here.

Although the god whom Isis and Ceres brought forth, and who was offered to her under the symbol of the wafer or thin round cake, as "the bread of life," was in reality the fierce scorching sun, or terrible Moloch, yet in that offering all his terror was veiled and everything repulsive was cast into the shade. In the appointed symbol, he is offered up to the begninant Mother, who tempers judgement with mercy, and to whom all spiritual blessings are ultimately referred; and blessed by that mother, he is given back to be feasted upon, as the staff of life, as the nourishment of her worshipers souls.

Because she was the goddess of mercy, blood sacrifices were not allowed to her. In the book of Jeremiah, the prophet says "...you have made cakes to the queen of heaven..." he was rebuking them for having this bloodless sacrifice to Isis.
Now, because the people actually ate Baal, we have the word cannibal. ( I believe cannha Baal was the correct Chaldean term, which when assimilated into the English language became cannibal) in any case, it meant to eat Baal.
Today, there are three letters on the Eucharist. IHS. interestingly enough, this IHS was used well before the Catholics used it. To the Catholics, it is "Iesus hominum salvator" but to a roman worshiped of Isis, the IHS stands for "Isis, Horus, Seb." The mother, son, and father. The "holy trinity."
Around 1563, at the Council of Trent, the Catholic church made it a crime to claim the Eucharist was only symbolic. The law said that anyone who denied the actual presence of Christ in the bread and wine should be anathema.
Consequently, many people who declared it as simply symbolic, were tortured and murdered for heresy. Today, the pope and every one before him has accepted the ratification of the doctrine of the Council of Trent. Therefore, any Catholic who does not believe in transubstantiation is supposed to be anathema.
As far as the pope speaking ex cathedra, that is interesting as well. Two of the titles of the pope is sovereign pontiff and potifex maximus. When the Romans and Babylonians followed their gods, they had one person who was supposed to be the highest of the order. In Rome, this person was called the "pontifex maximus." after Constantine had his "conversion," this title was given over to the bishop of Rome. The bishop of Rome then consolidated his power, not only as a religious figure, but also as a political figure.
As the spokesman for the gods, the original pontifex maximus was supposed to be infallible. He was the divine interpreter of the mysteries. When the bishop of Rome took over this position, the belief was still held that he was completely infallible. As the interpreter of the gods, with the title of pontifex maximus, he was allowed to be honored by people claiming to be Christians, as well as pagans, even though paganism was outlawed. It was a means of "bringing pagans to Christ" or so the Catholic church claimed, but in reality, it lead to greater apostasy. Anyway, it wasn't until 1869 that ex-cathedra became a doctrine. The Catechism says "it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ex-cathedra, that is, when acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians...possesses...the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his church to be endowed in defining doctrine concerning faith and morals; and that such definitions are therefor irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the church."
Prior to this, all popes were supposed to be infallible. The only problem with this is that some popes denounced the popes before them, or claimed the popes before them were heretics. A man who is infallible cannot be a heretic.
Now, the idea of papal infallibility wasn't needed as much before the world got so small, but when news spread more rapidly, and with the advent of technology which allows the rapid dissemination of knowledge, it became necessary to have a safeguard. Today, when someone asks about such and such pope making a mistake, the general response is...well, he was not speaking ex-cathedra. But what about prior to the 1800's when the popes persecuted people for saying the world was round? At that time, they were always, 100% infallible. So much for infallibility. Not to mention just plain lifestyles. Many of the popes were known drunkards and had reputations for sleeping around. This coming from various historical sources, both secular and non-secular.
The pope has set himself up as God on earth. If he is actually God on earth, then he should be infallible 24 hours a day, seven days a week, but this is not the case. Now you, and many Catholics will say, he has not set himself up to be God, but read the Bull Unam Sanctum from Boniface VIII. It says:

"The roman pontiff judges all men, but is judged by no one. We declare, assert, define, and pronounce: to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is to every human creature altogether necessary for salvation...that which was spoken of Christ 'thou hast subdued all things under his feet,' may well seem verified in me...I have the authority of the King of Kings. I am all in all and above all, so that God himself and I, the vicar of God, have but one consistory, and I am able to do all that God can do. What therefore, can you make of me but God?"

(It has come to my attention from a reader that this quote may not be accurate. I am currently looking for a reproduction of the original or substantive proof either way that this is either accurate or inaacurate. In my quest I have already found a couple different versions, so I need the original copy in the Latin.)

We must remember that when God came down to earth, he came down not as a man dressed in lavish clothing, bedecked in precious metals and gemstones, but as a lowly carpenter. It was for this very reason that the Jews rejected him as savior. They were expecting him to come down in full glory. To be the child of a great king. Even though his lineage was that of the greatest king ever, a man after God's own heart, David, the Jews still rejected him.
The clothing which the pope wears, and some of his processions, have interesting histories as well, but I will not suffer you to bear them now. As a devout Catholic, I understand that all of this must be rather heavy material for you. It is never easy to question one's beliefs, especially where religion is concerned, because religion is, by virtue, a thing of faith. But questioning, difficult as it is, is important if a person has a desire to serve God or avoid the flames of hell. As a last brief point about the Roman Pontiff, let me add this. In the Bible, after the resurrection and ascension of Christ, when Peter walked into a house, the people dropped down to their knees before him. Peter told them, "get up. I am just a man." But the pope has people bowing down before him constantly. If...IF Peter were actually the first pope, and consequently God, then why did he say he was just a man? And why did he rebuke people for bowing down before him? And why does the current pope now allow it? Although I already know the pat Catholic answer to this, it still does not apply, and if you can answer it, go ahead.
It is certain that some things in the Bible were meant figuratively. When Jesus issued the "communion" he said "eat, this is my body " and he break the bread. Then he offered wine and said " drink, this is my blood." Now, since Christ was not yet crucified, it is obvious that he was speaking as a figurative sense. He said "this do in remembrance of me." He did not say, "offer me as a sacrifice daily." Which is what the mass is. No. The Bible says that he was the propitiation for our sins. The perfect and final sacrifice. In the books of Daniel, The Revelation, Ezekiel, etc...(prophetic books) it is obvious that symbolism is used. We all know that a great bear isn't going to terrorize the world. But what is to be taken as literal and what is to be taken figuratively must be discerned through context. Therefore, when the Bible says that God parted the red sea and the Israelites crossed over on dry ground, it means just that. The symbolism is used in prophecy and as metaphors or similes, but when it says God did something, he must have done it. For example, it says that we are clay in the potter's hands. That he will break us and remold us. now, we both know that a persons appearance doesn't change simply because they have become a Christian, so the vessel does not appear altered, though the agreement that the spiritual vessel has been changed is correct.
The problem, not only with the Catholic church, but also with many other religions claiming Christ as a leader is that they pick and choose verses to believe and discard all the others, or the ones they disagree with. The Bible as an entity, must be taken as a whole. It is an entire manuscript with types and shadows. One portion often elucidates another.

all the good things of this world to you,
L

Let the games continue. When last we left our hero and heroine, they were discussing the Trinity. Since you have yet to comment on my response, I will not add anything more about the Trinity, but would rather do a small study of Mary, and the giving of honor to her.
Before we get into this, let us first look at Christ. We are both inclined to agree that he was Theotokos. That is God-man. Christ had two natures. One nature was flesh. He was all human. At the same time, he was all God. Not even Trinitarians will argue with this point. When Christ ate, slept, prayed, walked, etc. he was acting as man, or was within the parameters which define a human. When he taught, healed, preached, worked miracles etc. he was acting in the office of God.
The Bible tells us that Christ was born of a woman as the law demanded. Since he got some of his nature from Mary, what did he get? He got flesh, a human will, a human mind, and all things human. In short, he received his human nature from Mary. From God, he received his deity. That side of him which was all God came from God.
By this, we should be able to see that Mary was not the mother of God, but the mother of flesh. She was the mother of a human in which "all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt." Surely, to have this honor– to be the vehicle through which God arrived on earth– she was fortunate. But to say she had or took any part in the salvation of man– other than that of being the bus through which Christ came– is absolutely false. It is certain she wept as her son was crucified, what mother would not weep at the death of her child? But this does not make her the co-redemtrix the Catholic church claims her to be. If it did, then everyone who wept for Christ would be considered a co-redeemer in the salvation of man.
I will say that each of us, as sons of God and daughters of God, plays a part in the salvation of man inasmuch as we lead people to the fountain which is the never drying well. I have brought at least one person to know Christ, but this does not make me a co-redeemer. This makes me a servant of Christ who is following the command of our Lord, to feed His sheep. But the dead are dead. They cannot walk, talk, eat, or sleep. If, perchance, we can look at them and say "they were a good role model, I should be more like them," this is well. I know several people who lived very Godly lives, and as such, should be looked upon as men and women who worked God's will. Through their living, they set an example that holiness and righteousness (not self-righteousness) are possible and attainable. But to envision them with special powers imbued through death is nothing more than paganism. One of the largest trends among heathen tribes is ancestor worship. (Especially in Latin and African countries.) Although they do not directly worship their ancestors, they believe that the spirits of their dead ancestors are in what we would call heaven, and by honoring them and praying to them, they can gain grace from the major deities. Is this any different from honor paid to saints and Mary? Not at all. The Catholic church teaches that these people lived Godly lives and therefore are close to God. They teach that we should petition these saints for things. Because they are close to God, He is more likely to listen to them than to us. Therefore, by praying to saints, the God of mercy either through himself, or through the saints will dispense mercy and grace on each of us. But let us consider it this way. You have a child who has done something wrong, and a husband who you love. Because the child has done something wrong, you have grounded her to her room. Now, if she asks you for food, will you deny her? Would you say "no?" Of course you wouldn't. If she were hungry and needed to eat, you would let her. Even so, God knows all of our needs and supplies them.
Let us take the same circumstance. The child is grounded, and she asks if she can play with some matches. You, of course, tell her no. So, she asks her dad, "Daddy, will you ask mommy if I can play with matches?"
Daddy comes over and says, "Honey, she would like some matches to play with." Most likely, you will look at your husband like he is a nut.
I can hear the argument already, "but she may tell her daddy she is hungry, in which case, he would tell you." But this would have to mean that you are not there. Surely, God is in heaven and able to hear. Furthermore, if the two of you were standing there, and she looked at your husband and said "Daddy, will you ask mommy to cook for me?" You would, no doubt, be hurt that she ignored your presence; and feel that she was being disrespectful.
God said he will not share his glory with another. So, if you would feel jilted in the above situation, how much more would God be hurt by the same thing, since he is capable of a much greater love? Each and every one of us, the sinners and saints alike (saints as in the Biblical sense of living children of God) belongs to God. He created us. He looked down through the ages and foreknew us. He allowed himself to be beaten, abused, spit on, and crucified for you, your mother, me, and the atheists that live in the distance between us. He died not only for the righteous, but for the Satanist, the Mormon, the Jehovah's Witness, the Moonie. Why? Because we are all his children. Even those of us who go against his will are considered his children to the extent that He is our One Father. For it is not his will that any should perish, but that all should have eternal life.
If he loved us enough to die for us, why doesn't he love us enough to listen to us? That is, of course, a rhetorical question. He knows our needs and delivers accordingly. Christ said, " seek ye first the kingdom of heaven, and all these things will be added to you."
When we petition saints, we are disrespecting God, indirectly giving his glory to another. Now, without a doubt, good Catholics will debate this point, saying "we are not giving latria to them." Latria being the worship allowed only to God. But by the same token, neither did the girl above give her love for you to your husband. She still loved you, she simply disrespected you. Perhaps even to provoking you to anger.
If, in the New Testament, someone living prayed to Moses, Abraham, or David, I might be able to understand praying to saints. Perhaps I would even encourage it since there is a New Testament example. Have you ever wondered why no one prayed to any of these men? The only instance of someone talking to the dead was the rich man when he looked up from hell (not purgatory) and cried "father Abraham..." But this is a soul in hell crying out to a soul in heaven. It is not and cannot be considered an example of a person praying to a saint.
Moreover, when the disciples said "Lord, teach us to pray" he said " Our Father, who art in heaven..." Surely, if God wanted us to pray to a saint, Christ would have knelt and said "David, man after God's own heart, protect me in this, my hour of temptation." But he didn't. He didn't because it would not have been right. Since Mary was still alive at the time, he couldn't have prayed to her, I will give Catholics that much room. Not a jot more.
Most certainly, though, if it were intended for us to pray to Mary, either she, Christ, Paul, Peter, or any of the other writers of the Gospel would have told us we would have another advocate in the future. As it stands, the Bible tells us there is One Advocate– Christ. And one mediator between heaven and earth– "the man Christ Jesus."
A point worthy of note here is that it says "the man" and not the deity. Why? Because Christ is God robed in flesh. As such, he alone– that flesh– is what bridges the gap between flesh and spirit. It is the only time "all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt...bodily" among us. Through the persecution, death, and resurrection of that flesh, a bridge was created forever more; that whosoever would, could cross that bridge, close the gap between God and man, and make his physical petition heard in the spirit.
We do not need, and should not want, a second, third, or one thousandth advocate. Christ said " render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." Well, let us render unto the heathen what is the heathen's. Let us remit the pagan practice of praying to the dead, and direct our prayers at the One and Only advocate we have– our Lord Jesus Christ.
Here is another simple question: why not pray to angels? Surely, if those in the OT didn't know of saints, they should have prayed to angels; that is- if the practice of praying to anyone other than God is acceptable. It is food for thought. And if we cut into it, we will see the only time people prayed in the OT, it was either to God, or to a false god. An idol, or the Queen of Heaven.
Isn't it interesting that people are still praying to the "Queen of Heaven?" As this is one of Mary's titles.
Catholics generally make the argument they are not worshiping Mary, but venerating her. (Semantics.) Rather, look at these words though. Look at the commandments given to Moses. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven...thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them."
The Hebrew word for bow is shachah which means "bow, prostrate, humbly beseech, do reverence, crouch to, make to stoop." now, by reciting the Hail Mary, a person is humbly beseeching something from her. This is a direct violation of God's law. Call it what you will, venerate, revere, hyperdulia, honor– it all falls apart when anyone asks her for something.
Catholic tradition says hat Mary died three years after Christ's ascension. Why, then, did Paul pray to Jesus instead of Mary? Could it be Paul didn't know the proper way to get God's attention? No one would claim that. So, why didn't he at least address the subject? Because at that time, none of the true Christians even thought of praying to her.
Although I don't believe any of the tradition arguments, I will concede that less important traditions such as music in the church may have been around. But when it comes to something as important as directing prayer at someone besides God, surely there would be at least some hint of it in the gospels. Especially since the Jews would have had a difficult time with it. That is, they were not accustomed to praying to anyone but YHWH (Yahweh, Jehovah.) They didn't have any statues, and whenever they did make a statue, God was sorely grieved at them. Recall to mind all the times God's judgement fell against the Israelites because they "went a-whoring," committing religious fornication by adopting pagan customs and practices.
Without a doubt, when Peter preached to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, if he brought up the veneration of saints, or the kneeling down before a statue of even Jesus, they would have killed him on the spot.

ALL SHALL CALL ME BLESSED

In the New Testament, there are five words translated as blessed. These words are:

Eulogeo– to speak well of
Eulogetos– adorable, blessed
Makarizo– pronounce fortunate, call blessed, count happy
Makarios– supremely blest, fortunate, well off; happy (-ier)
Eneulogeo– confer a benefit upon.

In Luke 1, when talking about Mary, the angel said "blessed art thou among women." The word the angel used was Eulogeo. So, he said "well spoken of art thou, among women." (1:42)
And Mary's response was "all generations shall call me makarizo." Or, "all generations shall count me happy, fortunate, blessed." Through context, we can see that neither of these translations of blessed means anything more than fortunate or happy. They do not imply a special grace not conferred to ordinary man. By the same token, I am makarizo, that I have come to know Christ, my Lord."
Compare this to Christ's own words, he said " Makarios are those that hear the word of God and keep it." So, Christ put those faithful to God above Mary. Because they are "Supremely blest."
The last form of the word was used twice, both times talking about Abraham. One instance was in Acts 3:25 where we read "Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying unto Abraham, and in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be eneulogeo." Through Abraham, all the nations of the world are blessed, because through him, came the Messiah.
The Catholic church has conferred upon Mary, a blessing greater than on anyone or anything else. They have seated her on a throne in heaven, called her the Queen of Heaven, the Mother of God, and the Mother of all Humanity. They have called her our Holy Mother, and other titles which equate her to God. I am full aware of the Catholic stance against worship of Mary, and how they get around it, but consider this. If God is Our Holy Father, then calling Mary the Holy Mother, puts her on the same level as God. (The same goes with calling the pope our Holy Father.) It makes her the wife of God, and the Mother of God. When put like that, it almost sounds incestuous.
Let us recall that in the Babylonian Mysteries, when Nimrod was married to Semiramis. After Nimrod died, Semiramis claimed the holy ghost of her husband overshadowed her, impregnating her with a child. That child was Horus. She claimed that her child was also her husband, reincarnated. Thus, the sun god was reborn. This blasphemy is continued on through the Catholic church. I know that blasphemy is a rather strong word, and may seem offensive to you, but since blasphemy means to speak of or refer to irreverently, I must call it as I see it. We both know I am never short of words, nor do I spare them when speaking about the Bible.
There is too much to gain to lose. We can ill afford to be wrong when eternity is hanging in the balances.
If you so desire, I will also send you some information on some of the saints the Catholic church has canonized. You may find it interesting that some of them never existed. Others were directly lifted from pagan mythologies. In the case of the former, it is kind of ironic that some people pray to a person that never lived. And yet they believe their prayers were answered. If their prayers were, indeed, answered, then who was behind it? Fate? Destiny? Satan? Again, just more food for thought.

Love in Christ,
L

Click here for response to Trinitarian literature