199 thoughts on “The Vatican Has Disgraced True Catholic Values”

1. the vatican cultists are a cancer of the (above all) white race

   1. Religion, spirituality, supernatural = Blue Pill

      1. @NATURAL SELECTOR I’m sorry you feel that way. Religion has given many people great strength throughout the years and still to this day. I will pray for you. If you are having trouble finding reason to believe in God, there are numerous examples of how God has touched this earth. For instance St. Xavier’s body failed to decompose when he died, and many scientists and doctors have examined it yet there is still no conclusive evidence as to why his body is preserved with no embalming procedures ever being done to it. Or take the shroud of Turin, easily one of the most studied artifacts on the face of the earth to date, which continues to stump hundreds of scientists as to the nature of it. Research these yourself and come up with your own conclusions.

         1. You don’t need any of that nonsense to believe in God. Religion is man’s interpretation, thus needing a Priest, Rabbi, Iman etc etc to tell you how to live your life. Logic would dictate that God would have a direct line to all life, the only question is, do you have Him on hold?

      2. Bullshit.
         Gen 5:1
         Duet 23:2
         Isaiah 43:2
         How’s your etymology?
         The countries in Europe with the highest rates of atheism, have the highest rates of turd world, beasts of the field, scum. Contradicts your statement. Less then 20% of Swedes believe in a concept of a higher being, never mind a Christian God.
         Atheism, evolution, miscegenation, universal liberalism etc = Judaism
         Go ahead prove Christian Identity wrong.

   2. “those who engage in contraception have already committed murder in their heart.”
      Agreed, I won’t have sex with any woman that uses contraception, or tells me she is infertile for any reason.

      1. You dog whores bareback? Not.a.wise.choice…

   3. Hmmm, why don’t you go to Saudi Arabia and offer criticisms of Mohammed and the Koran? I guess your life her in the west has been horrible for you. You poor thing!

2. Did you know that the most holy ritual of Catholicism is actually an act of Cannibalism? aka. Transubstantiation

   1. Yes, we do. There are bloody good reasons for that. Witness the cannibalism of Britney Spears by her former fans for an example of life without Christ.

      1. You want Britney Speared?

   2. As taught by Christ: Gospel according to John 6:51-55 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

   3. Transubstantiation makes the bread [called the host] into the body and blood of Christ but it is also His soul and divinity. When animal joins plant [in the act of eating] – plant becomes animal: when God joins man man shares in God’s nature. It is metaphysics not physics. Ideas are held on FAITH.

   4. John 6:54, a-hole.

3. Ain’t it interesting how so many of us Catholic, Monarchist, Reactionaries find ourselves in the same place?
   God bless, brother.

   1. Thank You! They don’t call it Return of Kings for nothing. God Bless

4. Orthodox here,I laugh at Sedevacantists like the OP.vacantis apostolicae sedis by pope pius Nullifies and forbids any attempt to consecrate a bishop without the jurisdiction provided by a pope .since all Bishops on earth signed vatican II they excommunicated themselves and your church lost apostolicity by its own standards.since there is no pope you can’t consecrate any new Bishops even with a hypothetical missing bishop who didn’t sign vatican II and excommunicated himself from his office .point here is that the apostolicity of the catholic church is gone and it has lost its mark of truth and apostolicity.
   https://www.thesedevacantistdelusion.com/

   1. It would be more effective of a rebuttal if you fixed your syntax. Just saying. :/

   2. Gospel of Matthew 16:18-19 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

   3. You are wrong on several points
      1. A Bishop is able to consecrate another Bishop. Even if Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis forbid the consecration of Bishops during an interregnum, which I am not sure it does I am taking your word for it, the consecration would be illicit not invalid.
      2. Not all the Bishops signed V2 Archbishop Arrigo Pintonello did not to name one
      3. Even if excommunicated a cleric can preform valid sacraments
      4. Consecration confers an indelible mark upon the soul, this is not taken away by excommunication.
      5. Latae Sententiae excommunication can be remitted fairly easily which for signing the V2 documents would probably mean a public rejection of them which some Bishops did.
      6. The apostolicity of the Catholic Church means that the Church can trace herself back to the Apostles and has the same faith as them. It doesn’t mean that people won’t defect, nor that the Church may become very small. The Catholic Church still teaches what it has always taught as evidenced by traditional Catholic teaching seeping into this site, there are simply many less Catholics today.
      I readily admit that this is a very trying time for the faith, it was prophesied that there would be a great apostasy by the Church in the latter days and in my opinion that is what we are experiencing today. Yet there is still reason to hope for it is through trying times that the faith is made stronger. In time God will sort this mess out. The Church has experienced this before (though not as severe) and come out on top to quote St. Athanasius: “It is a fact that they have the premises─but you have the apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle-the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?”

   4. Your facts are not correct. There were at least a couple of bishops that rejected VCII – Thuc and LeFebreve and then validly consecrated other bishops. Also Orthodox bishops hold valid orders. Valid orders combined with the traditional Catholic faith can render what is necessary for a valid pope. After all every time a pope dies and another is not yet elected- the period is technically sede vacante.

   5. Ben, the Orthodox are heretics too. Just not as bad as the Protestants.

      1. they are both sort of liberation from the scheming devil pope

      2. I beg your pardon: Orthodox Christianity is not heretical. If you wish I will explain.

5. The Pope ordered the Crusades to weaken feudal lords and knights who were growing stronger and who might eventually challenge Vatican rule. The Crusades were designed to sap Europe of aggressive males who might not be under the thumb of Rome. They were designed as a strategic blood letting.

   1. The Pope ordered the Crusades to weaken feudal lords and knights who were growing stronger and who might eventually challenge Vatican rule. The Crusades were designed to sap Europe of aggressive males who might not be under the thumb of Rome. They were designed as a strategic blood letting
      Wrong, I will correct your historical ignorance. The Crusades were pilgrimages to Jerusalem, a Christian tradition dating back centuries before the Mohammedans overran and conquered the Middle East, Northern Africa and Spain. The Crusades were armed pilgrimages due to the massacres inflicted on Christian pilgrims by the Seljuk Turks who seized control of Mohammedan lands in the eleventh century and were threatening Byzantium itself.

   2. ” to weaken feudal lords and knights who were growing stronger and who might eventually challenge Vatican rule”
      Like Henry VIII and his band of nouveau riche opportunists?

   3. That’s a false dichotomy. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. Using your logic, WWII existed to stop making the trains run on time in Italy.
      The fact that crusades created an outlet for nobility to divest themselves of unwanted claimants within their own groups doesn’t have enough of a connection to the pressures placed on Rome which inspired the crusades in the first place. IOW, the correlation is not causation.

6. It is hard for me to take seriously someone who sits on a throne of gold inside a golden palace and speaks of sacrifice and charity.

   1. Religion has always been about power and wealth. It is a product of human nature. The strong take from the weak. This is how a cult of “virgins” amass a $15 Billion dollar fortune.

      1. This is how a cult of “virgins” amass a $15 Billion dollar fortune.
         ^Too stupid to realize the Vatican is a city-state, and poor compared to New York City, with government revenues of $85 billion.

   2. It is hard for me to take seriously someone who sits on a throne of gold
      ^Someone who isn’t taken seriously by others.

   3. If the Church is to sell all the golden chalices in the world and the profits given to works of charity to be taken seriously then why did Jesus not agree with Judas in castigating the Magdalene for using the precious unguent to anoint His body instead of using the money for charity. Also all the wealth and poperty of the Church is the patrimony of the Church, it is incorrect to think the Pope or hierarchy OWNS it.? I guess you are more charitable than God, or don’t you realize the poor we will always have with us.
      I think it was Ayn Rand that said words to the affect that something bad happened to the soul of man when his bank buildings became more lavish and higher that his churches.

   4. The chair is made of wood.

   5. I am glad to hear that you are criticising that minority that oppresses us, yes I speak of the Unitarians and Yuppies. Now go forth and take their ill-gotten gain from them.

7. 1. When will Hollywood start to portray all of the other religions in this way? Yes I am asking a rhetorical question but I do want to start the debate.

8. pope francis is a treator.
   except virtue signalling when he washes muslims feet, or accepts muslim families in vatican (but no catholic ones, go figure why) or demand european people to welcome migrants, he does nothing noticeable to christians.
   treator. and i’m not even religious.

   1. Learn to capitalize the first words of your sentences.

      1. found the grammar nazi.

         1. Aurini writes good stuff, and, as such, can speak with authority on the importance of presentation.

         2. bullshit. newcomers don’t have to lecture older posters. we’re not at school here.

      2. I agree with you and the OP in this case, lazy texting aside.

      3. He’s right. Just as people will treat you less seriously and like a bum if you dress poorly so will people do likewise when your grammer is poor.
         Stay elitist ROK readers.

   2. Buhe warsh muh feets.

   3. bullshit. newcomers don’t have to lecture older posters. we’re not at school here.

   4. It’s spelled traitor. I am guessing a treator is someone who signs or writes treaties, but I’m not sure that’s a word.

      1. i think you’re right.
         English is not my natal language, hence my mistakes.

9. https://web.archive.org/web/20161014224326/http://www.betrayedcatholics.com/free-content/4-a-catholic-course-of-study-new/j-so-is-sedevacantism-the-answer/
   http://www.betrayedcatholics.com/blog-2/reply-to-a-thuc-bishop-and-vacantis-apostolica-sedis-is-not-just-for-cardinals/
   this sedevacantist admits the catholic church has lost its apostolicity and can never regain it but doesn’t take it to its logical concusion.catholic traditionalism is a mental disease.orthodoxy is the cure.

   1. catholic traditionalism is a mental disease.orthodoxy is the cure.
      Hysterical accusations do not overrule the Bible.
      Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

      1. https://www.christiantruth.com/articles/mt16.html The Church Fathers’ Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18
         An Historical Refutation of the Claims of Roman Catholicism
         Includes a Critique of Jesus, Peter and the Keys
         By William Webster
         15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
         16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
         17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19
         in context the rock is what peter just confessed,that christ is the son of the living God.this is the rock.this is what the majority of fathers have said.
         and alexandria and antioch are the only sees of peter.rome isn’t a petrine see ironically,since linus was already bishop of rome when peter got there.

         1. No, I am correct.
            in context
            William Webster’s first lie you quoted. Making up lies is not taking things in context.
            the rock is what peter just confessed,that christ is the son of the living God.this is the rock.this is what the majority of fathers have said.
            Second lie by Webster.
            Peter means rock in the language the Gospel is written. He is the rock, not anything else.
            rome isn’t a petrine see ironically,since linus was already bishop of rome when peter got there.
            You are historically ignorant. Linus was after Peter.

         2. Come on man, it’s like you’re not even trying.
            Matthew 10:2
            Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter…
            Peter, from the latin, Petrus, meaning ‘rock.’
            Matthew 16:19
            19 et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis
            I give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
            THAT puts Matthew 16:18 in perspective.

   2. Since the conquest of Rome by the Franks in about the year 1,000 and their subsequent abduction of Rome’s Patriarchy, the Church of Rome engendered the Great Schism in 1054 and subsequently instituted innumerable “Catholic innovations”, which have further distanced itself from the original apostolic traditions of Orthodoxy. It is best there is no change to Church tradition rather than all these legalisms that have placed all focus on the so-called “Vicar of Christ”. Ironically, the Bishop of Rome was one of the great promoters of Orthodox unity in the pre-schism church, especially during the iconoclasm period.
      With all the focus on one man, the “Pope”, it is inevitable that human weakness and error would overcome the church and take it even further from Apostolic Tradition. So Vatican II essentially changed the dogma and ecclesiology
      of the church and the Roman Catholic order was perhaps irrevocably ruined. Evidence of this is the stunning 95% collapse of its monastic orders post Vatican II. It is a big tragedy, but predictable given its Frankish traditions and its reliance on a single human being.

      1. Since the conquest of Rome by the Franks in about the year 1,000 and their subsequent abduction of Rome’s Patriarchy,
         ^Fake history.
         the Church of Rome engendered the Great Schism in 1054
         ^Ignores the Orthodox changes under pressure from the Mohammedan empires.
         and subsequently instituted innumerable “Catholic innovations”, which have further distanced itself from the original apostolic traditions of Orthodoxy.
         # of Catholic innovations identified by NTFYVR: 0
         With all the focus on one man, the “Pope”, it is inevitable that human weakness and error would overcome the church and take it even further from Apostolic Tradition.
         Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

10. Catholics who are disenchanted with the direction of the Church should look into the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and Archbishop Lefebvre’s story. They hold triditine (latin) mass and the priests oppose marxism explicitly. I’ve heard sermons that included “Muslim barbarians” and “Communist Jesuits,” as well as an honesty about the Jewish situation.

    1. Also, the SSPV and CMRI.
       The main body of the SSPX under Bishop Fellay is apparently converged. One thing they do is insist that their members must accept Francis as the Pope. Kinda weird… but consistent with SJW demands.

       1. SSPX accepts the pope as the pope, believing him to be a poor example of a man to hold the office, but duly elected. There is NO love for this pope, whom I’ve heard referred to as Pope Perrone I and Antipope Francis The Red, but he is viewed as legitimate if heretical… That being said, heresy can be recanted, which is the great hope of much of the traditional Catholic community, that the pope may see the error of his ways (or carry down his kind with him when he falls) before too much damage is done.
          ‘Converged’ as you used it there, is synonymous with ‘Catholic.’ We are meant to be universal, which is the opposite of what the SJW’s divisive ways have had on us.

11. This thread is the best example of why we cannot ever be united based on any particular religion, even though I wish you all accepted Asatru I don’t think that would ever happen. So lets stick to what unites us not divides, K?

12. https://www.thesedevacantistdelusion.com/q-a
    this demonstrates the absurdity of the traditional catholic movement.just admit the church defected and come to orthodoxy,the true church!

    1. just admit the church defected and come to orthodoxy,the true church!
       We wait patiently for you to admit you disregard Biblical teaching. Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

       1. https://www.christiantruth.com/articles/mt16.html The Church Fathers’ Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18
          An Historical Refutation of the Claims of Roman Catholicism
          Includes a Critique of Jesus, Peter and the Keys
          By William Webster
          15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
          16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
          17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19
          in context the rock is what peter just confessed,that christ is the son of the living God.this is the rock.this is what the majority of fathers have said.
          and alexandria and antioch are the only sees of peter.rome isn’t a petrine see ironically,since linus was already bishop of rome when peter got there.

          1. No, I am correct.
             in context
             William Webster’s first lie you quoted. Making up lies is not taking things in context.
             the rock is what peter just confessed,that christ is the son of the living God.this is the rock.this is what the majority of fathers have said.
             Second lie by Webster.
             Peter means rock in the language the Gospel is written. He is the rock, not anything else.
             rome isn’t a petrine see ironically,since linus was already bishop of rome when peter got there.
             You are historically ignorant. Linus was after Peter.

          2. I have a quote from a pope himself saying antioch and alexandria are petrine sees and that he shares his chair with them lol
             Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors… Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one… He himself stablished the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.
             (“To Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria,” Book VII, Epistle XL)
             EDIT:Don’t know why you blocked me

          3. this idiot already lied about the gospel being written in aramaic originally,and now completely disregards the unanimous agreement of the holy fathers that the rock min matthew is the confession of peter and not his person.

          4. nope
             Yup
             this idiot already lied about the gospel being written in aramaic originally
             No lie, that is what the historical evidence tells us. The Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic.
             and now completely disregards the unanimous agreement of the holy fathers
             Pure, unadulterated BS. There is no such agreement. You lie again.
             that the rock min matthew is the confession of peter and not his person.
             Wrong again, the text clearly identifies Peter as the rock. Jesus renames Simon to rock. Peter is rock. The rock is Peter the person. “You are rock, and upon this rock, I will build my church.

       2. vaican I said any departure from thr patristic consensus is heresy.the patristic consensus is that the rock is the confession of peter not his person.

          1. ^Triggered by my pointing out his ignorance and lies.
             the patristic consensus
             Pure, unadulterated BS. There is no “consensus”.
             <b? is that the rock is the confession of peter not his person.
             Peter actually means rock. You are ignorant of the language.

          2. peter does mean pebble but the greek word christ built his church on is a feminine big rock not masculine pebble.

       3. This is utterly absurd and a sad joke. Apostle Peter and Paul first founded the Antioch. Peter then founded Alexandria and finally Rome. Shrouded in all its legalism, the Roman Catholic Church is in fact a Frankish Papacy based on the terrorism of the Frank’s feudalism. There never was a Great Schism, but instead a Frankish abduction of Rome’s Patriarchy from Orthodoxy.

          1. Shrouded in all its legalism, the Roman Catholic Church is in fact a Frankish Papacy based on the terrorism of the Frank’s feudalism. There never was a Great Schism, but instead a Frankish abduction of Rome’s Patriarchy from Orthodoxy.
             ^More fake history from a fake historian.

          2. „There never was a Great Schism,“
             At least, publicly, it was. But now, even on public display, we can see that both apostate Churches have been reconciled. You can see no enmity between the leaders of these.

          3. Peter’s position as the supreme pontiff [pope is a nickname not an office] was only necessary upon his death. It is held as a life long office. His successor at Antioch was only as bishop of that see. Catholics can switch from the Roman Rite to a Unite Eastern rite.

13. http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/Guettee_ThePapacy.pdf The Papacy, by Guettee
    https://archive.org/details/papalinfallibil00gayegoog Papal infallibility and supremacy tried by ecclesiastical history, Scripture and reason
    by Arthur Edward Gayer

    1. It is quite telling that the best you can do is cite two historians from the 19th century, individuals whose research and knowledge is now woefully out of date. Innumerable historical records and details have been unearthed since their day, and many more historical “facts” known in their day have been either discredited or cast into doubt. They would reach entirely different conclusions if they began their work today.

14. Traditional Catholicism!!!!!! We need to overturn VATICAN 2!!!!

15. Get the fuck out with your Dark Ages horseshit. Traditional, new age doesn’t matter. The Vatican has always been a beacon of hypocrisy and excess. I say fuck’em.

16. This is the reason I converted from Catholic to the Orthodox faith. The split between the Orthodox and the Catholics in Rome occurred at 1054, and it was all these reasons plus the fact that the Orthodox did not believe in one Pope as the head of the church. The Orthodox Faith has remained unchanged for over 2000 years, and it is the only Faith that is traceable back to Jesus Christ and the twelve Apostles.

    1. The Orthodox Faith has remained unchanged for over 2000 years, and it is the only Faith that is traceable back to Jesus Christ and the twelve Apostles.
       While the Orthodox do trace their history back to Jesus and the Apostles, Orthodox lie when they claim they are the only ones who can. The Catholic Church also traces its history back to Jesus and the Apostles Peter and Paul. Orthodox also lie when they claim their faith has not changed for 2000 years, Byzantium iconoclasm in the 8th and 9th century was a break from religious tradition and faith that was a mistake which was only later corrected. An understandable reaction in the face of the power and faith of the Mohammedans, but it was a change that Orthodox today pretend was not a real change at all.

       1. the miaphysite orthodox were never iconoclasts.

          1. the miaphysite orthodox were never iconoclasts.
             Keith doesn’t mention miaphysite orthodox. Nice try though.
             peter does mean pebble
             Wrong, it means rock, not pebble.
             but the greek word christ built his church on is a feminine big rock not masculine pebble
             Unfortunately for you, the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic, not Koine Greek. In Aramaic, there is no maculine/feminine declension. Thus when Christ spoke the words, he told Simon that he is rock, and upon that rock he would build his church. Same exact word used both times. Again, nice try, but I have corrected your second lie.
             I have a quote from a pope himself saying antioch and alexandria are petrine sees and that he shares his chair with them lol
             So? That doesn’t change the historical fact that Peter was bishop of Rome. Your letter and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

          2. no Jerome says gospel of matthew was written in hebrew and existed in the library of caeserea at his time…typical catholic lying

          3. no Jerome says gospel of matthew was written in hebrew
             Yes he did, but I will now point out the lie this fool is making by not telling us what Jerome means by Hebrew. The Gospel of Matthew was written in the Hebrew language the Jews used at the time the gospel was written. That language was Aramaic, not the ancient Hebrew of the Old Testament. Aramaic is the language Christ spoke. So when Christ spoke to Simon, there was no masculine/feminine declension to distinguish Peter from rock. Christ said Peter is the rock.
             and existed in the library of caeserea at his time
             And it isn’t just Jerome’s testimony, we have Irenaeus and Eusebius also testifying in the historical record that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic.
             typical catholic lying
             I don’t lie, I just read and take into account all of the historical evidence, and let the chips fall where they may. Too bad you can’t say the same.

    2. That the Eastern Orthodox Church does „keep the old faith“ is scripturally false.
       Orthodoxy has changed and, eventually, departed from the Early Church’s faith. We can see that because the so called Orthodox Church accepts and promotes graven images, yet, the Early Church despised that forbidden practice as idolatry and, consequently, a violation of the Second Commandment in the same manner the true patriarchal Israelites had done so (see Exodus 20:4-6, 1 Corinthians 10:14).

       1. promotes graven images, yet, the Early Church despised that forbidden practice as idolatry and, consequently, a violation of the Second Commandment in the same manner the true patriarchal Israelites had done so (see Exodus 20:4-6,
          Wrong, God commanded Moses to make two graven images…Exodus 25:18 And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.
          Merely promoting a graven image, is not idolatry.
          1 Corinthians 10:14).
          This verse in no way bans graven images, which were used by the ancient Hebrews and the early Church.

          1. „And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.“
             Nowhere here does it say that the people shall bow down or kiss those cherubs, like pagans, Catholics and Orthodox believers do with their graven images.
             In fact, those sculpted angels were not made so that Iaraelites would at least gaze at them, since they were put, along with the Mercy Seat, upon the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:20,21), placed in the Most Holy apartment of the Tabernacle (Exodus 26: 34), place in which only the high priest would have acces to and only one day a year (Exodus 30:10; Leviticus 16:2; Hebrews 9:7).

          2. Nowhere here does it say that the people shall bow down or kiss those cherubs, like pagans, Catholics and Orthodox believers do with their graven images.
             And nowhere does it say the high priest was not allowed to do exactly that.
             In fact, those sculpted angels were not made so that Iaraelites would at least gaze at them,
             Except for the high priest…
             since they were put, along with the Mercy Seat, upon the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:20,21), placed in the Most Holy apartment of the Tabernacle (Exodus 26: 34), place in which only the high priest would have acces to and only one day a year
             …as you just conceded.

          3. Three. He also commanded that Moses make a bronze serpent to save the israelites.

    3. You mean that Jesus, who knew He would ascend into heaven, would leave his Church without a prime minister holding the keys? During his time on earth Jesus trained his apostles as a hierarchy. In the four gospels he repeatedly singled out Peter, James and John. Jesus always spoke from the bark of Peter. Fight all you want over Simon’s name change to Peter – the crucial question is why did Jesus change it. Lastly when the payment or non-payment of the Temple tax became an issue – Jesus told Peter what to do to fulfill the requirement for BOTH of them?

17. Don’t subestimate that Antichrist, whom your American pioneers had abhorred notwithstanding your current incumbents praise and take heed to his venomous lips, even inviting him to Congress, thus bringing a bloody curse upon the New World through his vamps and inveigling.
    He is well calculated when kisses rabbinical hands, thus joining forces with the fleshly descendants of the traitors of God on the basis that the enemy of his enemy is his ally, and inculcate Dark Ages doctrine (a.k.a. Augustinian terror-dominionism) like „common good“ or „sustainable environment“ to power-people, by dint of cunningnes for part of his Gregorian ambassadors which, in manners of working and slyness of character, they trode after the footsteps of those historical infamous Jesuits whose purpose the obliteration of Protestantism was and is.
    „And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast[Roman-Catholicism].“ {Revelation 13:3}

    1. And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast[Roman-Catholicism].“ {Revelation 13:3}
       Just an FYI, Revelations 13:3 does not state the beast is Roman Catholicisim. Revelations does not mention Roman Catholicism at all. Cătălin Bordea made that up.

       1. What’s under the brackets is aditional, that’s why it’s under the brackets.
          That the Beast is the Roman-Catholich church is, however, not my private invention. It’s the only one interpretation that true Protestants saw and see Revelation 13:1,2, along with Daniel 7, is talking about. Only that Church fits the criteria outlined in the passages above mentioned. I can defend this with your Bible.

          1. What’s under the brackets is aditional
             Yes, like I said, something you made up.
             That the Beast is the Roman-Catholich church is, however, not my private invention. It’s the only one interpretation that true Protestants saw
             You mean ignorant Protestants.
             and see Revelation 13:1,2, along with Daniel 7, is talking about. Only that Church fits the criteria outlined in the passages above mentioned. I can defend this with your Bible.
             That would be a welcome change from what you have been doing so far, which is ignoring Bible verses that don’t fit your opinions and denying or explaining away verses when they are pointed out to you.

          2. May I ask – who gets to decide who a false Protestant is?

18. what an idiot
    religion is the source of evil
    thus I am pro religious freedom – the freedom of religion for all

    1. religion is the source of evil
       ^Spoken by someone who doesn’t understand evil.
       thus I am pro religious freedom – the freedom of religion for all
       ^Someone who doesn’t understand logic either.

       1. sooo,
          burning people alive is not evil?
          spreading deseases like aids by forbidding condoms is not evil?
          torturing people who disagree with you is not evil?
          also, it’s called word-play…

          1. burning people alive is not evil?
             It depends on whether or not they deserve it.
             spreading deseases like aids by forbidding condoms is not evil?
             ^Doesn’t know what AIDS is.
             torturing people who disagree with you is not evil?
             ^More historical ignorance.

19. All middle Eastern religions are bad. Fuck Muslims Christians and Jews. Europe has only one religion. Paganism ! Be it Nordic. Slavic Celtic or greek-roman. I will not boy to middle Eastern religions or defend them. Fuck you all you cucks you betrayed European spirituality. Judaism is there to screw the economy. Christianity to weaken the European man. ( The other cheek like a bitch lol ) and Islam to kill us. That’s the 3 steps plan of abrahamic religions. While Europe was invaded by muslims. Cucks went fighting in Jerusalem for Jews. Now Jews own Jerusalem and Muslims are conquering Europe. While cucks are still worshipping muh jewsus.

    1. Paganism ! Be it Nordic. Slavic Celtic or greek-roman. I will not boy to middle Eastern religions or defend them. Fuck you all you cucks you betrayed European spirituality
       We like indoor plumbing and heated homes. Enjoy your European spirituality in your wooden hut.

       1. Pagan Rome had indoor plumbing and heated homes. Christ himself lived modestly.

          1. Pagan Rome had indoor plumbing and heated homes.
             But Nordic pagans, Celtic pagans and Slavic pagans didn’t.
             Christ himself lived modestly.
             In Palestine. He didn’t have to live in Northern Europe or Minnesota during winter.

          2. Of course other pagans had heated homes via fireplace. Romans admit Celts were advanced and borrowed inventions like chainmail from them. Medieval Christian Europe lacked indoor plumbing.

          3. Of course other pagans had heated homes via fireplace.
             But they didn’t have indoor plumbing.
             Romans admit Celts were advanced and borrowed inventions like chainmail from them.
             I said we like indoor plumbing and heated homes, not chainmail. Nice try sport.
             Medieval Christian Europe lacked indoor plumbing.
             True, they were still in the process of recovering from the Dark Ages. But thanks to their efforts, Western Civilization continued to progress to what we have now. We have no intention of losing such a precious legacy.

          4. All European groups have their moments. The English invented and much later popularized the modern flush toilet. Good thing Charlamagne didn’t behead all the Saxons….

       2. He might still be upset about St. Boniface killing their religion with a single woodsman’s axe and then going on tour about it, which spelled the end of paganism in the nordic countries, well, until the recent resurgence of pretty obvious Satanism recast as whatever the hell they call that modern psuedoreligion they made out of the remnants of Odinism.

    2. Yet another idiot who thinks modern cucked “turn the other cheek” Cuckstainanity is real Christianity. Did you even read the article, bro?

    3. Unfortunately, what passes for “paganism” today, aka neopaganism is an offshoot of 1960s hippie culture. It has as much to do with true paganism as Donald Duck has to do with Arthurian myth.

20. It’s funny because just the other day some of the Orthodox folks were boasting about how a top-down hierarchy was a much more reliable guardian of traditional Christianity, unlike those icky Protestants who are more democratic.
    I pointed out that that is absolutely not true and got down-voted to oblivion. And now here we have a whole article validating my point.
    The real issue, though, is that the Catholic Church teaches things that are not taught by Christ or by the apostles, but instead were invented centuries afterward, and these guys say that it’s just as Christian as the any teaching in the Bible. Complete nonsense. This is one thing the Protestants do better, and no amount of downvotes will change that.

    1. The real issue, though, is that the Catholic Church teaches things that are not taught by Christ or by the apostles, but instead were invented centuries afterward,
       # of such teachings identified by Gouv: 0
       and these guys say that it’s just as Christian as the any teaching in the Bible. Complete nonsense. This is one thing the Protestants do better,
       No Protestants are no better than Catholics at this, and are sometimes worse.
       and no amount of downvotes will change that.
       Now this is true, downvotes don’t change anything. But likewise, neither do content-free-comments which have no facts to back them up.

       1. do you mean facts as in the non-existing ones called religious beliefs or are you referring to actual provebale facts?

          1. do you mean facts as in the non-existing ones
             fact
             fakt/
             noun
             noun: fact; plural noun: facts
             a thing that is indisputably the case.
             “the most commonly known fact about hedgehogs is that they have fleas”
             synonyms: reality, actuality, certainty; More
             truth, verity, gospel
             “it is a fact that the water is polluted”
             antonyms: lie, fiction
             used in discussing the significance of something that is the case.
             noun: the fact that
             “the real problem facing them is the fact that their funds are being cut”
             a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.

       2. You know damn well which Catholic teachings aren’t in the Bible, but if you want to play stupid, then fine, I’ll throw them all in your ugly face:
          The Immaculate Conception
          Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
          The Assumption of Mary
          Papal Infallibility when speaking ex cathedra
          Prayer to Mary
          Prayer to the Saints
          Papal authority (after Peter, for sure)
          The authority of the Church (and its traditions) being on par with the Bible
          That’s just what I could come up with off of the top of my head. I’m sure there are many more.
          The best you can do is go, “well, uh, Jesus IMPLIES the above doctrines!” No He didn’t. You took one phrase and made massive leaps in logic with them. Nowhere are any of the above doctrines actually straight-up taught by Jesus or even the apostles. But go ahead and make your rationalizations. This should be fun.

          1. You know damn well which Catholic teachings aren’t in the Bible, but if you want to play stupid,
             No Gouv, I don’t play like you do.
             I’ll throw them all in your ugly face
             ^Gouv is triggered, and he doesn’t even have any downvotes yet.
             The Immaculate Conception
             Luke 1:28
             Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
             Luke 1:31-34
             The Assumption of Mary
             Revelations 11:19
             Papal Infallibility when speaking ex cathedra, Papal authority (after Peter, for sure
             Matthew 16:18
             Prayer to Mary, Prayers to the Saints
             Revelations 5:8
             The authority of the Church (and its traditions) being on par with the Bible
             ^Doesn’t realize the authority of the Church was what decided which books would actually become the Bible.
             That’s just what I could come up with off of the top of my head. I’m sure there are many more.
             # of teachings Gouv claimed are not Biblically based: 8
             # which are not actually Biblically based: 0
             The best you can do is go, “well, uh, Jesus IMPLIES the above doctrines!” No He didn’t. You took one phrase and made massive leaps in logic with them.
             No Gouv, I don’t use your methods.
             This should be fun.
             Definitely much more fun than downvoting.

          2. disagree with prayers to saints
             Hosea 12:4 Yea, he(Jacob) had power over the angel, and prevailed: he wept, and made supplication unto him: he found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us
             But you have approached Mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and myriads of angels, and the assembly and church of the firstborn who have been enrolled in heaven, and God the judge of all, and spirits of righteous ones who have been made perfect, and Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and the sprinkled blood which speaks better than that of Abel” (Heb.rews 12:22-24)
             Praise the LORD, you his angels, you mighty ones who do his bidding, who obey his word. Psalm 103:20
             Hebrews 1:14 Are not the angels ministering spirits, sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?
             Psalm 148:2 Praise Him, all His angels; Praise Him, all His hosts!
             Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, “These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and where have they come from?” 14 I said to him, “My lord, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 15 “For this reason, they are before the throne of God; and they serve Him day and night in His temple; and He who sits on the throne will spread His tabernacle over them.” (Revelation 7)
             Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us” (Hebrews 12:1)
             And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God’s people.Revelation 5:8

          3. Actually Catholicism teaches that Scripture and Tradition are both valid and non-contradictory parts of the deposit of faith. Basically this means that not everything we are supposed to believe was written down in the Bible. Now many of your aforementioned beliefs are in fact mentioned in Scripture, but you should no that Catholicism does not teach Sola-Scriptura.

          4. Regarding Luke 1:28: An angel saying the Lord is with Mary in no way implies that she was immaculately conceived. You just did PRECISELY what I said you idiots do: you took one verse that had nothing to do with the doctrine you believe in and cited it as proof.
             Jesus, you people are fucking stupid.
             Let’s go on down the line
             Luke 1:31-34: Mary stating that she was a virgin AT THAT TIME in no way implies that she was a virgin for the rest of her life. Once again, your dumbass assumption.
             Revelation 11:19 talks about a temple in heaven and then inclement weather. It in no way even mentions Mary. How the fuck do you even begin to believe that that has anything to do her when SHE’S NOT EVEN FUCKING MENTIONED??!!
             Matthew 16:18: Has to do with Peter (possibly) being the rock. That in no way means that Pope Francis today is infallible when speaking ex cathedra. Pure fucking idiocy.
             Revelation 5:8 refers to God’s people praying. It in no ways states that they were praying to other saints. Once again, you’re a fucking dumbass.
             I have to admit, your “support” for those doctrines was even weaker and more irrelevant than I believed. Some of the verses you cited didn’t even deal with the subject matter at hand, and THAT is what you use as a justification.
             Do the world a favor and get off the Internet and go read a book or something. Start with logic. That’ll get you somewhere.

          5. Regarding Luke 1:28: An angel saying the Lord is with Mary in no way implies that she was immaculately conceived.
             Lie #1. Go ahead everyone, read the verse for yourself. Notice that Gouv has edited the Bible verse, omitting some of what the angel said. Of course he did, the words he omitted are the Biblical basis for the Catholic teaching of the Immaculate Conception.
             You just did PRECISELY what I said you idiots do: you took one verse that had nothing to do with the doctrine you believe in and cited it as proof.
             Lie #2. I am not citing any proofs. That is because I did not make the original claim. Gouv made the original claim that the Catholic Church teaches stuff “invented centuries later”. I pointed out he can’t back that up with facts. So now he tries to shift the burden of proof onto me. Understandable, since he has no way of making his case that the Immaculate Conception was invented centuries later.
             Jesus, you people are fucking stupid.
             As everyone can see, I am much smarter than Gouv.
             Luke 1:31-34: Mary stating that she was a virgin AT THAT TIME in no way implies that she was a virgin for the rest of her life. Once again, your dumbass assumption.
             More laughable nonsense from Gouv, and lie #3. Mary never claims she is a virgin just “at that time”. The angel doesn’t say she will conceive “at that time”. Gouv can pretend and insert the words “AT THAT TIME”, but they appear nowhere in these verses, verses which are the Biblical basis for the Catholic teaching on Mary’s perpetual virginity.
             Revelation 11:19 talks about a temple in heaven and then inclement weather. It in no way even mentions Mary. How the fuck do you even begin to believe that that has anything to do her when SHE’S NOT EVEN FUCKING MENTIONED??!!
             Here Gouv is not lying, he is simply ignorant of Mary being the new Ark of the Covenant. He knows little about the Bible so this isn’t surprising that he doesn’t know of this particular analogy drawn in Scripture between Mary and the Old Testament.
             Matthew 16:18: Has to do with Peter (possibly) being the rock.
             Not possibly, Peter is the rock. That is what the word Peter means. This forms the Biblical basis for the infallibility doctrine, which was laid out by Jesus in this Gospel, not invented centuries later.
             That in no way means that Pope Francis today is infallible when speaking ex cathedra. Pure fucking idiocy.
             Wrong again Gouv.
             Revelation 5:8 refers to God’s people praying.
             Here Gouv completely fails reading comprehension. Go ahead and read the verse everyone. You will see that he doesn’t even understand what the verbs and the subjects of the verbs are in the sentences in this verse.
             It in no ways states that they were praying to other saints. Once again, you’re a fucking dumbass.
             The saints have gathered the prayers said to them and are offering them to God. You lose Gouv, again. The Biblical basis for the Catholic doctrine of praying to saints is right there, not invented centuries later.
             I have to admit, your “support” for those doctrines was even weaker and more irrelevant than I believed. Some of the verses you cited didn’t even deal with the subject matter at hand, and THAT is what you use as a justification.
             As everyone can now see, I have refuted Gouv’s lies, pointed out his unsupported edits to the Biblical text, corrected his historical and Biblical ignorance, and even pointed out where he completely failed basic reading comprehension. Felling his arguments was no more difficult than toppling dominoes.
             Do the world a favor and get off the Internet and go read a book or something. Start with logic. That’ll get you somewhere.
             # of Catholic teachings Gouv claimed are not Biblically based: 8
             # of Catholic teachings which Gouv can show are not actually Biblically based: 0
             # of facts Gouv has provided to back up his words: 0

          6. „Tradition and the Bible“ is a contradicting statement. What clergymen means by this is „tradition above the Bible“. Even one Catholic legate said that, when tradition and scripture conflict, they’d rather choose tradition’s teaching over the inspired scripture.
             And here comes the hipocrisy of all Churches who pretend to be „patriarchal of old ages“ or having „true archaic faith“:
             „Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?“ {Matthew 15:1-3}

          7. All right, let’s go down the line again:
             Luke 1:28: The angel saying the Lord is with Mary is the entire extent of the verse. There was no editing; it is you that is lying, you disingenuous piece of shit.
             So again, nothing there about Mary being immaculately conceived.
             Luke 1:31-34: Mary states, “I am a virgin.” That is entirely different from saying “I will always be a virgin.” Ergo, your ‘proof’ fails.
             Revelation 11:19: Where in the Bible does it state that Mary is the human version of the AoC? Even if you can establish that, on what basis do you claim that this verse here is referring to her and not the literal one? You have none, because there is no reference to Mary standing in for the AoC in this verse. Once again, dumbass assumption.
             Matthew 16:18: Peter being the rock (allegedly) of the church in no way implies that the current Pope speaks infallibly when speaking ex cathedra. They have nothing to do with each other, since papal infallibility isn’t even brought up. Pure idiocy.
             Revelation 5:8: “And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God’s people.”
             Where in this text does it state that any prayers are made to saints? Explain it.
             I didn’t edit or distort jack shit. The only one lying here is you, fucktard.

          8. All right, let’s go down the line again:
             Lie #4 from Gouv. He is not going down the full line, as he still has failed to even try to justify this claim he made in his initial list…”The authority of the Church (and its traditions) being on par with the Bible”
             He totally dropped my reply down the memory hole, wouldn’t touch it. So I will continue to wait for him to address that one, while I refute the latest laughable nonsense he posted.
             Luke 1:28: The angel saying the Lord is with Mary is the entire extent of the verse….So again, nothing there about Mary being immaculately conceived.
             Lie #5 from Gouv. Go ahead everyone, read the verse again. The angel does not just say what Gouv claims, he says two other things. One key word that Gouv is omitting is where the angel teaches us Mary’s state of no sin, which is the Biblical basis for the Immaculate Conception.
             There was no editing;
             Yes there was, caught you doing it twice in a row now. That is why you won’t include the full text of the verse here.
             it is you that is lying
             No Gouv, I don’t use your methods.
             Luke 1:31-34: Mary states, “I am a virgin.” That is entirely different from saying “I will always be a virgin.”
             First, everyone note that Gouv has conceded he was lying when he edited the verse previously, no longer is he adding the words “AT THIS TIME”. But Gouv’s poor reading comprehension means he still doesn’t grasp what Mary is saying. Mary is not just speaking present tense…note the future tense of the verb the angel uses…”And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb” and Mary’s reply…”Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” She asks how this will be possible in the immediate now or in the future. Gouv is making the error of logically leaping to the conclusion that Mary knows she will be impregnated in the now. The angel says no such thing. So here we see the Biblical basis for the Catholic, Orthodox and (some) Protestant teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Yes, even some Protestants accept and believe Mary was a perpetual virgin, the smart ones who are skilled at reading comprehension.
             Ergo, your ‘proof’ fails.
             Once again Gouv laughably tries to push the burden of proof onto me. I don’t have to prove anything. It is Gouv who has to prove his original claim that the Catholic Church teaches things “invented centuries afterward.” I called him on that, because I know he can’t prove it. And so far he has failed. All I have to do is show, not prove, the Biblical text which teaches the doctrine. And then refute each attempt by Gouv to discredit or disqualify the verses I cite. By my pointing out the teachings in the Bible, Gouv can never make a case that the teaching was invented centuries later. I laid the bear trap, and Gouv walked right into it. He will have to gnaw his own leg off in order to escape.
             Revelation 11:19: Where in the Bible does it state that Mary is the human version of the AoC?
             Luke is the one who uses Biblical typology to teach that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, not the human version of the Ark of the Covenant. He does this by deliberately framing his language when speaking of Mary with references to Old Testament description of the Ark of the Covenant. When the angel says to Mary in verse 35 “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee” Luke is calling out the language of Exodus 40:34 “Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.”
             In both cases, God comes down upon the Ark and upon Mary, and fills the Ark and Mary. Just as Jesus dwelled in Mary, God dwelled in the OT Ark of the Covenant(Exodus 25:8).
             Another typology use by Luke 1:43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? This is written to reflect 2 Samuel 6:9 David was afraid of the Lord that day and said, “How can the ark of the Lord ever come to me?”
             Even if you can establish that, on what basis do you claim that this verse here is referring to her and not the literal one? You have none,
             Wrong again Gouv. All I have to do is read the next verse, the one right after 11:19. Could you not even read one more verse after the one I cited?
             Once again, dumbass assumption.
             No Gouv, I don’t use your methods. I read the Biblical text and research the language while cross-referencing the commentary and research by various writers and scholars over the past seventeen centuries. That is why I know so much more than you do. Now, assuming that Mary is only speaking in present tense when the angel speaks in future tense, THAT is a dumbass assumption.
             Matthew 16:18: Peter being the rock (allegedly) of the church in no way implies that the current Pope speaks infallibly when speaking ex cathedra. They have nothing to do with each other, since papal infallibility isn’t even brought up.
             Once again, Gouv can’t even bother reading the next verse. Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
             Who has the keys now Gouv?
             Pure idiocy.
             Yes, reading one verse without even trying to reach the verses before and after it to make sure you understand the full context is, indeed, pure idiocy on the part of Gouv.
             Revelation 5:8: “And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God’s people.” Where in this text does it state that any prayers are made to saints?
             Everyone, let’s hope that Gouv actually carefully read the passage this time. Hopefully he understands holding a golden bowl is not the same thing as praying.
             Now to answer your question, I will ask a question…how did the elders get the bowls Gouv?
             I didn’t edit or distort jack shit.
             Yes you did, I caught you every time and documented it. That is lie #6 on your part.
             The only one lying here is you
             No Gouv, I don’t use your methods.

       3. “The real issue, though, is that the Catholic Church teaches things that are not taught by Christ or by the apostles, but instead were invented centuries afterward,”
          As opposed to Protestantism, which was invented in the 1500s.
          The Third Law of Protestants: Protestants always project.

          1. You forgot “by an overly ambitious heretic Catholic monk,” after ‘…which was invented in the 1500’s.’
             Funny, too, as Islam was invented by an overly ambitious heretic Rabbi. There’s a correlation there of charismatic writers who fail to advance in their careers lashing out to destroy the institutions that failed to admit them to positions of power. A VERY human, not divine, inspiration for schism.

    2. One of the major unnoticed things in this world is the fact that the majority of Protestants, religion whose doctrinal basis the Bible it claims is, blindly follows the maneuvres of that old Dark Romanism. Example:
       At the spiritually tumultuous Council of Trent, the Archbishop of Reggio smartly reasoned: „The written word explicitly enjoins the observance of the Seventh Day as the Sabbath. They[Protestants] do not observe the Seventh Day, but reject it. If they do truly hold the Scripture alone as their standard, they would be observing the Seventh Day as is enjoined in the Scripture throughout. Yet they not only reject the observance of the Sabbath enjoined in the written word, but they have adopted and do practice the observance of Sunday, for which they have only the tradition of the Church. Consequently the claim of ‘Scripture alone as the standard,’ fails; and the doctrine of ‘Scripture and tradition’ as essential, is fully established, the Protestants themselves being judges.”
       Nothing did the Protestants do since that defeat to slove the argument. Except, three centuries later, just after The Great Disappointment, a group of Millerites, in tears they were constricted by the spiritually unfavorable situation to review the interpretation of their former beliefs and Protestant origins. They found the solution of that old intrigue. They started the Seventh-Day Adventist Movement, which, until today, seems to be the only Protestant Church who does not contradict herself when she says says that the Bible is her only doctrinal guide.

       1. They started the Seventh-Day Adventist Movement, which, until today, seems to be the only Protestant Church who does not contradict herself when she says says that the Bible is her only doctrinal guide.
          This is false. The Seventh Day Adventists specifically ignore Acts 20:7, which shows the Apostles chose to move the day of religious observance from the seventh day(Saturday) to the first day of the week(Sunday). Most Protestants pay attention to Acts 20:7 on this, and are doing the right day.

          1. On the contary: this verse is one of the best verses in the Bible that validates Seventh-Day Adventism and the fact the Fourth Commandment hasn’t changed. Let’s pay attention to this scripture:
             „And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.“
             According to Genesis 1:5, a day begins at sunset night, not at 12:00 midnight, since the Gregorian calendar was not used by the Apostles, but the Biblical calendar.
             With that in mind, it makes more sense that they had Sabbath service on Lord’s Day (Saturday), and through the sunset they continued their worship all until midnight due to religious talk.
             The moment, in which Paul had to depart was, thus, Sunday morning. This means he didn’t have any reverence towards the Sunday, because, otherwise, he would have assembled and rest on Sunday (day of the Sun), contradiction with the fact that he returned to labor, the same as another non-Sabbath day.
             Also, you ignored what Archbishop Reggio had said. And not only him. Any high learned Catholic clergyman would argue that the transference of the solemnity of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, was strictly a Catholic idea to assert their pretended authoritative power over Scripture and not the initiative of the Early Church’s fathers.

          2. this verse is one of the best verses in the Bible that validates Seventh-Day Adventism and the fact the Fourth Commandment hasn’t changed.
             Wrong again, I cannot believe you actually tried this stupid argument.
             Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.“According to Genesis 1:5, a day begins at sunset night, not at 12:00 midnight, since the Gregorian calendar was not used by the Apostles, but the Biblical calendar.
             No it doesn’t stupid. Everyone, read the verse, it says the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Cătălin Bordea claims…
             Genesis 1:5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
             The end of the day and start of the new day is at dawn, not sunset.
             Mark 16:1-2 “And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen.”
             Note that the sun was risen, and it is “very early” in the day. If Mark actually considered sunset the end of one day and the start of another, he wouldn’t call dawn, “very early on the first day”.
             If they do truly hold the Scripture alone as their standard, they would be observing the Seventh Day, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
             Let me know when you have completed remedial reading classes.

21. Do not despair, my Catholic brethren. The Church cannot be destroyed by anyone, even a Pope. That is Christ’s promise to us.
    I went down the “rad trad” and Sedevacantist route several years ago. That road leads nowhere. After months of study and consideration, I realized I’d made a mistake. I am not qualified to judge the Church. That is something that non-Catholics (and anti-Catholics) do.
    If you are upset by current Church developments, know this: the younger generation of clergy and laymen have no use for 20th century liberal/Marxist Catholicism. They are not cut from the same cloth as the Boomer hippies who are now on their way out. Interest in traditional (not “rad trad”) Catholicism is increasing.
    Don’t abandon the One True Faith. The best thing you can do is to become involved in your local parish, and help bring the Church out of the real dark age: the 20th century, the age of Satan. Modernism is dying, and will soon take its place on the ash heap of history, but the Catholic Church is eternal.

    1. Sorry bub, but you aren’t getting any sacraments from the mainstream Church, since they invalidated all their sacraments in 1969.

22. First of all thank you for taking the time and effort to write your article. I mean that.
    I completely disagree with your viewpoint and beliefs.
    I was raised Catholic, and recognize first hand the damage done to others in the name of good.
    I both envy your ignorance, while feeling profound sadness for you.
    Maybe when you grow up, your critical thinking skills will develop and allow you to break free of the enslavement of the church.
    You are committing the sin of pride, thinking you are smarter and more knowledgeable than your readers.
    The Catholic Church is simply an older version of corrupt government; writing laws, dolling out punishments and charging taxes (tithe).
    The Church teaches that people are worthless pieces of shit that deserve to be tortured in hell for eternity.
    Just on that single point, every mother on Earth would disagree – which is why they weren’t allowed to be priests.
    There is no point trying to get you to think clearly about a subject in which you place blind faith in a centuries old document without ever learning the Kahbala or Gematria that explains the entire Torah, and why each word was chosen and what each number means.
    I was that way once too. I read you and I hear myself- and I am ashamed of having my innocence removed by the Catholic Church and its followers and the evil done to me by the ignorant faithful.
    I don’t blame you.
    You are just another victim spreading the toxic rhetoric as you have been taught.
    Not your fault.

    1. You are committing the sin of pride, thinking you are smarter and more knowledgeable than your readers.
       No, it is not pride to think you are smarter when you actually are smarter than someone, and it is not pride to think you are more knowledgeable than someone when you are more knowledgeable. The sin of pride is when you are proud of the facts being what they are.
       The Catholic Church is simply an older version of corrupt government; writing laws, dolling out punishments and charging taxes (tithe).
       And now I can say, with the utmost humility, that I am more knowledgeable than you are. The church passes down the commandments, but they are not laws of government. The church has no enforcement powers, you cannot be arrested for sinning, and even if you are arrested when the sin breaks the law, it is the government, not the church police, who arrest you. And tithes, by their very nature, are voluntary, for if you never pay a tithe you cannot go to jail for not paying your taxes.
       The Church teaches that people are worthless pieces of shit that deserve to be tortured in hell for eternity.
       Wrong, it teaches people who sin deserve to be tortured in hell for eternity, as Christ himself taught.
       Just on that single point, every mother on Earth would disagree – which is why they weren’t allowed to be priests.
       An excellent reason, priests are, ideally, supposed to be teaching what Christ taught, not teaching their feelings.
       I was that way once too. I read you and I hear myself-
       But the difference is that you are not as smart and knowledgeable as others of us. And I say that most humbly, simply pointing out the fact.
       and I am ashamed of having my innocence removed by the Catholic Church and its followers and the evil done to me by the ignorant faithful.
       And here we see your pride, your pride in claiming to be more knowledgeable than those you call ignorant, and your pride in your victimhood status.

       1. It would be nice for ME, if you were smarter or more knowledgeable than me, because then I could ask you intelligent questions requiring reasoning skills and memory.
          Unfortunately, you don’t HAVE more intelligence than me, or knowledge and use circular reasoning to justify your sin of pride.
          Again, not your fault. The brainwashing is very effective on young, immature minds and can only be broken through effort and reading books OTHER than the Bible.
          You will never know if you are capable of thinking for yourself- until you actually TRY. Which would require that you question the things you believe to be true as much as you question the things other people think to be true.

          1. then I could ask you intelligent questions requiring reasoning skills and memory.
             Ask away.
             Unfortunately, you don’t HAVE more intelligence than me
             I have an IQ of 149. That makes me smarter than you and 99.91% of the human population. So yes, I do have more intelligence than you, as an objective measurement.
             or knowledge and use circular reasoning to justify your sin of pride.
             I have already humbly shown that it is you who have the sin of pride. You merely project your pride and circular reasoning onto me.
             The brainwashing is very effective on young, immature minds
             Which is why you were brainwashed into thinking that the Catholic Church was like a government, fortunately my knowledge was able to correct your ignorance.
             You will never know if you are capable of thinking for yourself- until you actually TRY. Which would require that you question the things you believe to be true as much as you question the things other people think to be true.
             I already do this. That is why I had the knowledge to correct your errors and your ignorance.

       2. David, my IQ tests scores are OVER 149, so boasting to me and making claims that you know you are smarter than me are simply in error. Aside from a true lack of demonstrated proof.
          Hmmm , how do I get through your thick layer of cultural conditioning and ego protection to show you the truth when your every word cries out from the viewpoint of moral superiority and fear?
          Let’s pretend that you could tell the difference between fictional narrative and scientific discovery narrative. Science allows (and requires) inquiry and logic. History requires blind acceptance and belief. Science can be PROVEN, history can be ACCEPTED, but not proven.
          Nowhere in your favorite document does there exist any science, any references to science, any great provable truths, only -like other historical documents- claims.
          Even a poor biblical scholar is receptive to the FACT that a document composed hundreds of years after the alleged events occurred is a work of FICTION based upon actual ( or thought to be actual) events.
          So what would I ask you IF you were smarter and more knowledgeable than me?
          I would ask you why the Kahbala and Gematria of numbers wasn’t taught to the Catholic believers since it was considered sacred to the authors of the Torah, which is the cornerstone of the Bible. A document that you pretend is a factual account of events.
          All the dialog is made-up. All the speeches. All the physical descriptions. The names. Whatever happened or didn’t happen 2000 years ago bears no relation to anything in your favorite book.
          You should try putting that good mind of yours to use on things that you can witness for yourself. Following the teachings of a cult to control the ignorant masses of illiterate people hundreds of years ago is slimming it from an intellectual perspective.
          At some point in an adult life, the intelligent rational person stops believing in Santa Claus.

          1. David, my IQ tests scores are OVER 149
             I find it hard to believe that anyone stupid enough to compare tithing to taxes has an IQ higher than mine.
             so boasting to me and making claims that you know you are smarter than me are simply in error. Aside from a true lack of demonstrated proof.
             Yeah, I might need to see some proof. Nothing you write indicates high intelligence. Is English a second language for you? Maybe that is the problem.
             Let’s pretend that you could tell the difference between fictional narrative and scientific discovery narrative.
             No need to pretend, I can.
             History requires blind acceptance and belief.
             Not true. You can consider the historical evidence and weigh for yourself what is likely true and what is not likely true and what is uncertain. There is no need for blind acceptance.
             So what would I ask you IF you were smarter and more knowledgeable than me?
             I would ask you why the Kahbala and Gematria of numbers wasn’t taught to the Catholic believers since it was considered sacred to the authors of the Torah, which is the cornerstone of the Bible.
             Because the early church patriarchs never used or took the Kabbalah and Gematria seriously. They did take the Torah seriously and used it. Being independent of Judaism they made their own decisions. That is why. Today it would be rejected on the basis of tradition alone.
             All the dialog is made-up. All the speeches. All the physical descriptions. The names. Whatever happened or didn’t happen 2000 years ago bears no relation to anything in your favorite book.
             While you might know something about science, you obviously know nothing about history or creative writing. Any creative writer would laugh at the nonsense you are asserting. You have no clue how hard it is to make something up and have people read it and quote it 2000 years later. You are arguing that 2000 years ago, four William Shakespeares and Ciceros were born near the Sea of Galilee and they each wrote about the same guy…that they all made up…but not together because they never synchronized their independent texts. Are you smart enough to understand how ridiculous you look claiming that?
             You should try putting that good mind of yours to use on things that you can witness for yourself.
             I already do, that is why I know how hard creative writing is and why I was able to refute you.
             At some point in an adult life, the intelligent rational person stops believing in Santa Claus.
             You have yet to show me you are intelligent or rational. Nothing you have written requires an IQ above 120.

       3. David, your ignorance is truly amazing.
          There are no vowels in Hebrew. The names “Matthew, Mark, Luke and John”, and English names without Hebrew equivalents.
          “Who wrote the bible?” by Richard Elliot Friedman, gives many example of edited biblical text. The obvious examples are the common use of the words “lord”, “god”, “We”. Different priest in different time periods had their favorite phrase for their creator. Proof of editing, omissions and additions.
          Another good book is “The Bible Unearthed” by Finklestein.
          The massive edits of the bible, over the centuries, has produced a composite work of many authors, many editors, many translations.
          If you lack the ability to form letter/number correspondences and if you further lack the ability to recognize the repitition of these occurrences within a standard Torah written in Hebrew, then I guess you would be well advised to spend all your time and effort memorizing an English translation of the King James Bible. Chapter and Verse. Why go for an in depth understanding when you can just hammer out tried and true numbers to avoid the effort of logic and reason? Clearly, you have found your niche. Please continue. An awareness of your surroundings would just bother you. The blue pills are working just fine for you. It’s good that you know your limits. 149. hah. funny.
          I’m not particularily concerned that your pride will not allow you to accept that there are people smarter than you in the world. Heavens forbid that you are wrong once in a while. Or that you have met a superior man. “Hard to believe”.
          But an entire book full of superstition, angles, adversary, burning bushes, miracles, people with total recall of conversations that never happened, life spans in the hundreds of years, raising from the dead….oh yeah, that’s real. Absolutely 100% real!
          But ONE person in the world smarter than you?-Clearly, that’s hard to believe.
          PRIDE
          PRIDE
          PRIDE
          History IS creative writing.
          Math doesn’t require us to “consider and weigh” what is real. It either is true or it isn’t. We can already tell that you never read any history books from other countries. And why would you? The Bible has everything a man with an IQ of 149 needs!
          Well we’ve wasted enough of each others time.
          Best of luck to you.
          Hope you grow up someday.
          Make a valuable contribution to the world.
          That sort of thing.

          1. David has pride
             No CCV, you project your own pride on to me.
             David, your ignorance is truly amazing.
             No CCV, I don’t have your problem.
             There are no vowels in Hebrew. The names “Matthew, Mark, Luke and John”, and English names without Hebrew equivalents.
             ^Fake Hebrew linguist.
             “Who wrote the bible?” by Richard Elliot Friedman, gives many example of edited biblical text. The obvious examples are the common use of the words “lord”, “god”, “We”. Different priest in different time periods had their favorite phrase for their creator. Proof of editing, omissions and additions.
             Friedman suffers from poor reading comprehension. “Friedman claims that passages have a certain content while in fact they do not. Friedman’s interpretation of passages violates the meaning of the language, or contradicts itself, or there is a more plausible alternative interpretation”
             Another good book is “The Bible Unearthed” by Finklestein.
             ^Fake Biblical scholarship.
             If you lack the ability to form letter/number correspondences and if you further lack the ability to recognize the repitition of these occurrences within a standard Torah written in Hebrew
             Your speculation is unfounded, you asked why the Torah was accepted by Christians, and I told you the correct answer.
             Why go for an in depth understanding when you can just hammer out tried and true numbers to avoid the effort of logic and reason?
             I do go for an in depth understanding, that is why I refute your errors. You have no clue about creative writing, and it shows.
             149. hah. funny. I’m not particularily concerned that your pride will not allow you to accept that there are people smarter than you in the world.
             On the contrary, I know perfectly well there are people with IQs higher than me. That is part of my humility. Your strawman has no support.
             Heavens forbid that you are wrong once in a while. Or that you have met a superior man.
             Superior in what way? Your pride is peeking out, you might as well let it loose.
             But ONE person in the world smarter than you?-Clearly, that’s hard to believe. PRIDE PRIDE PRIDE
             I am curious why my answer bothers you so much that you keep repeating yourself. I already pointed out 0.009% of the population is smarter than I am, I don’t find it hard to believe at all. I just find it hard to believe that you are smarter, when you formulate arguments and write as if you were significantly less intelligent than you claim.
             History IS creative writing.
             If CCV thinks that in any way answers my refutation of his claim the Gospels are fiction, he has poor reading comprehension. History could be creative writing, and it could be the documentation of facts. But CCV is clueless about how difficult it is to make something up and have people care enough to read and quote it 2000 years later.
             life spans in the hundreds of years, raising from the dead….oh yeah, that’s real. Absolutely 100% real!
             And yet CCV’s own position is that four uneducated peasants near the Sea of Galilee managed the feat of equaling, and in some cases exceeding, the work of creative writing giants like Homer, Shakespeare, Dante and Milton. CCV is insisting that we believe in miracles too. Just a different kind of miracle only slightly less impossible than raising the dead.
             Well we’ve wasted enough of each others time.
             On the contrary, it was not a waste of my time. It was my pleasure to educate you.

    2. And yet the Catholic Church are proven right, by the forthcoming end of the white race caused by our women who fuck, but refuse to reproduce.

23. This is why all women should be atheists. If some so-called “holy” books (holy by whose standards or criteria) written by bearded dudes send you forcefully to the kitchen, regardless of your actual purposes of your own life, yup, that religion is bullshit.
    If women wrote “holy” books that said all men must be restrained to forced housework and want nothing else, I suppose all the pathetic losers on this website would be in a rage and spurting hatred and fury.
    Hell, they already do because some women who don’t owe them anything prefer lucrative careers.

    1. So the “purpose of your life” is to have a lucrative career serving corporate overlords? Meanwhile women who serve their families and the men who love them are “restrained” and “forced into the kitchen”? Ha!

24. The Eastern Orthodox perspective is that the other Churches had no idea that they were supposed to obey the Bishop of Rome. In the case of Polycarp, a man ordained by the Apostle John as Bishop of Smyrna, we find that Anicet (Bishop of Rome) was unable to convince him to adopt the mainline custom. Only a few years later, we see Victor (Bishop of Rome) unable to force a change on the Asiatic Churches. Why? Because no one there recognized Rome’s authority to do so. This, in the Orthodox mind, is important because these Churches were essential witnesses of the Apostles’ teachings. It is likely that John, Philip and Andrew had ministered in the area. The memory of St. John was exceptionally strong among these bishops. Had they heard anything about a Petrine succession of plenary authority in Rome? No. And yet, the Beloved Apostle was alive for at least twenty years after Peter’s martyrdom in Rome. Was John under the authority of Peter’s successor in Rome? This conclusion, which is unavoidable according to Rome’s ecclesiology, is one that the East cannot accept (Cleenewerck L. His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism Between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches (An Orthodox Perspective). Euclid University Consortium Press, Washington (DC), 2007, p. 259).
    Irenaeus focuses on the church of Rome which he describes as “greatest, most ancient and known to all, founded and established by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.” Here we must acknowledge a bit of rhetoric, as the church of Rome was obviously not so ancient as those of Jerusalem or Antioch, nor was it actually founded by Peter or Paul (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 147).
    We must conclude that the New Testament provides no basis for the notion that before the apostles died, they ordained one man for each of the churches they founded…”Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?”…the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222).
    Very little is known about Linus. St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 200) and the historian Eusebius of Caesarea (d. ca. 339) identified him with the companion of Paul who sent greetings from Rome to Timothy in Ephesus (2 Timothy 4:21), but Scripture Scholars are generally hesitant to do so. Early sources, including Eusebius, claim Linus held office for about twelve years, but they are not clear about the exact dates or his exact pastoral role and authority. It should be remembered that contrary to pious Catholic belief–that monarchical episcopal structure of church governance (also known as the monarchical episcopate, in which each diocese was headed by a single bishop) still did not exist in Rome at this time (McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XVI. Harper, San Francisco, 2005 updated ed., pp. 33-34).

    1. here we must acknowledge a bit of rhetoric, as the church of Rome was obviously not so ancient as those of Jerusalem or Antioch, nor was it actually founded by Peter or Paul
       It was founded by their disciples.
       ”Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?”…the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century(Sullivan F.A.
       Wrong again. It was led by a bishop, the first bishop in Rome was Peter. Did you notice the slight of hand game Sullivan FA pulled here? First he has to disqualify Irenaeus, so Sullivan pretends that Irenaeus was only speaking rhetorically. Then he acts as if that means he can ignore the historical evidence Irenaeus provides on the documented history of the bishops of Rome. This is called lying. Anyone honest would admit Irenaeus is historical evidence for bishops in Rome in the first century AD.
       Very little is known about Linus.
       True, but what little is known includes the historical evidence that Linus is the second bishop of Rome after Peter.
       It should be remembered that contrary to pious Catholic belief–that monarchical episcopal structure of church governance (also known as the monarchical episcopate, in which each diocese was headed by a single bishop) still did not exist in Rome at this time (McBrien
       Notice the language…we are told what to remember. So according to McBrien, we should not look at the historical evidence, and that historical evidence is that Rome did have the Apostle Peter as bishop there. Instead we must wipe our minds free of historical evidence and just remember what McBrien wishes us to remember. Nice try, I am not interested in brainwashing. I would rather read the historical evidence, and let the chips fall where they may.

25. All “popes” since 1958 either non-Catholic apostates; the last true Catholic pope known to date, is Pope Pius XII. We’re alive and well. Seek out Masses and those who teach what the Church always taught, namely, for starters, the CMRI or those united to Bishops Dolan and Sanborn.

    1. Don’t believe it, brother. All of the Popes since Pope St. John XXIII were validly elected. The Church has declared them so; we are not in a position to declare otherwise.
       http://catholicism.org/modern-popes.html#3

       1. Yeah… like a bunch of heretics would declare their own leaders to be invalidly elected? Do you even know how to use your brain?

          1. Kind sir, I’m guessing that you are not, and never have been, a Catholic?

          2. Your guess is completely wrong.
             You’re making a tautological argument: the Novus Ordo is valid because it has declared itself to be. Well, duh. I ask again: why would the fake Catholics running the Vatican ever declare their own leaders to be invalid? Heck, they’re even declaring them saints, including JP2 the Koran Kisser!

          3. You certainly are an angry fellow, aren’t you? But according to your logic, I can’t answer your gentle question about using my brain. If I say yes, I know how to use it, wouldn’t that be a tautological argument? “I know how to use my brain, because my brain tells me I do.”
             However, I did use my brain to read ROK’s guidelines for comments, and found this:
             “Don’t talk down to writers, staff, or other commenters. Don’t call someone an idiot, moron, or hater. Don’t use condescending language such as “WTF are you talking about?”
             My brain tells me that you may be in violation of these guidelines.

          4. You didn’t answer my question: Let’s try again: why would the fake Catholics running the Vatican ever declare their own leaders to be invalid?

          5. BTW, you’re yet another data point that convinces me that hard-core bury-their-heads-in-the-sand believers in the validity of the fake Vatican II “popes” like yourself are Gamma males. Congratulations.

          6. You’re implying that your judgement (as a lay person) of what defines heresy supercedes that of the magisterium of the church. While I am no friend to the novus ordo, myself, calling someone a heretic does not make it so. I believe you are conflating heresy and heretical belief. Discussions, specifically refutations and support of the labeling of ideas as heretical in the years before and after Vatican II are widely available.
             We forget that in the pace of the Catholic Church, Vatican II was just last week. Slow and exceedingly fine, and all that.

          7. The short answer to your question, my friend, is that those “fake Catholics” are not fakes.
             You’ve written at length about fake Catholics, idiots, “a-holes”, Koran kissers and others whom you have pronounced judgment on, which is something reserved exclusively to our Lord. But oddly enough, you haven’t once mentioned His name.

          8. “I believe you are conflating heresy and heretical belief.”
             That’s a good one. Like conflating Islam and Islamic belief, amirite?
             The fake Catholics running the Novus Ordo are pertinacious heretics, and waiting for them to pronounce themselves heretics is flat-out stupid. They get all their power from Catholics accepting them as valid.
             “The short answer to your question, my friend, is that those “fake Catholics” are not fakes.”
             Sorry, asserting something as true does not make it true. And yes, you are very much an idiot.

26. The Bible is literally full of game references. The (((Juice))) tasted good so to speak.
    “The lazy do not roast any game, but the diligent feed on the riches of the hunt.”
    – Proverbs 12:27
    “Isaac, who had a taste for wild game, loved Esau, but Rebekah loved Jacob.”
    – Genesis 25:28
    ‘Bring me some game and prepare me some tasty food to eat, so that I may give you my blessing in the presence of the Lord before I die.’
    – Genesis 27:7
    “Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last, but we do it to get a crown that will last forever.”
    – Corinthians 9:25

27. Actually Catholicism teaches that Scripture and Tradition are both valid and non-contradictory parts of the deposit of faith. Basically this means that not everything we are supposed to believe was written down in the Bible. Now many of your aforementioned beliefs are in fact mentioned in Scripture, but you should no that Catholicism does not teach Sola-Scriptura.

28. Could someone PLEASE post up the restrictions involving posting a comment. I’m sick to fucking death of seeing “FORBIDDEN” half the time I try to comment.

29. After seeing some of the comments here, it’s obvious why the world is in the state it is in. The Catholic Church is the TRUE and ONLY RELIGION and ONLY CHURCH. The majority of the population has abandoned it since the middle ages. You lost God’s protection.
    Want to get rid of feminism and the sick world we live in today? Return to the Catholic Church and pray the rosary. Once the Triumph of the Immaculate heart happens, we will be saved from Marxism, feminism, communism, socialism, homo-ism, everything-ism.

30. Excellent article, thanks for writing it. Good points all around (especially those about Islam and feminism) and I like that you cited sources of past Catholic leaders. I am not Catholic (I was raised as a Congregationalist Protestant in the USA) but have always respected both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches and their deep connections to European/Western history and values.

31. I am Baptist not Catholic. However, I am still glad that someone is pointing out how WAY off the modern Roman church is nowadays, and how far its nominal adherents have strayed from basic Christian morality.
    In fact, I am glad you brought up the topic of contraception. It has been forgotten why it was opposed in the past, and opposition to it is considered a novel concept.
    I read a good book called “Home: Courtship, Marriage and Children : A Bible Manual of 22 Chapters on the Christian Home” by John R. Rice. In it, he explains very well why contraception is going to harm us, and how beneficial big families can be.
    For those worried about the health of the woman, keep in mind that a good diet can give her body the strength it needs to produce intelligent, strong, and beautiful children. Look up “Nutrition and Physical Degeneration” by Weston Andrew Price.
    Lastly, contraception just makes sex bland. takeninhand.com has plenty of writers who can explain it better.

32. Just because I can’t help it:
    

    1. Lol! This scene is pretty much everyday Francis gets in front of a microphone.

33. Wowza! Its kinda disorienting to read a debate over theocratic semantics on a website devoted to tits and ass! 😮

    1. It’s a site for men. That’s why.

34. Even more WOW!
    DAVID wins the MVP Award of the Day..
    He is spot-on. The word ‘values’ implies standards and measures as applied to priorities and morality. It is obvious then that the Church is not Peter’s in this time! Orthodoxy is NOT the future.. at best it was a bridge.. and ultimately it failed Russia. Like EVERYTHING on ROK though what is the solution to the question asked? Yes, the world is a mess.. what can be done about it? The Vatican IS contaminated with Jesuitism and is a den of thieves.. how do you counter this?

35. The problem with catholic church and the biggest argument that catholic doctrine is false is the fact that it claims you can’t be saved outside the church and faith in Christ is insufficient (you need the sacraments etc.) .
    also repetitive prayers were condemned by Christ.
    But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. (Matthew 6:7 KJV)
    This is already enough to prove the falseness of roman doctrine.

    1. The Church does not say that non-Catholics cannot be saved. A former Protestant explains it here:
       https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/no-salvation-outside-the-church
       Jesus’s supposed admonition against “repetitive” prayer is another commonly misunderstood doctrine:
       https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/do-catholics-pray-vain-repetitions
       It’s sad that so many reject the Church based on misunderstanding and inaccurate information. If people would take the time to do their own research, they would learn the truth about the One True Church founded by our Lord.

    2. Look at it from the Church’s perspective.
       Jesus founded the Church and the sacraments
       If you really believe in Jesus how can you deny his Church and don’t do what he commands?

36. Mr. White,
    Thank you for the links.
    The Bible is in it’s complexity also a fairly simple book. It’s written not for intellectual debates but is the word of God, to be a guiding light for all people. The smart and the foolish should both be able to understand and follow it to be saved. It clearly states in more then one place that faith in Christ is the only thing you need to be saved. You don’t need the sacraments. The only condition is repent, believe in Jesus and you will be saved. Also it says in many places that only God can save us. Not Mary, not anyone else. Jesus tells us to not call anyone father but God, for he is our Father. He even warns us in the parables about a false church.
    I understand, catholic church had a lot of time to piece together material which gives it appearance of legitimacy. But nowhere in Bible it is said about the Mary cult, Saints worship, necessity of sacraments etc.
    But the Bible clearly states in words of Jesus himself and the apostles what needs to be done. Regardless of its depth, because of its divine inspiration Bible can and was designed to be understood by peasants, illiterates, children and everyone else. So unless we assume that God is in all his might is unable to write a book for everyone to understand and follow, the Catholic Church has no basis for existence. I believe that God and his Word are without flaws, thus he wrote a book (through divine inspiration) that everyone can understand and which is sufficient. The protestants had a point. And while it is truly a shame what became of protestants today (and the same can be said about catholic church) the original idea that led to Protestantism is rock solid. While catholic doctrine is based on a lot of (sometimes far fetched) interpretation, sophisms and assumptions.
    Respectfully

    1. I understand your point of view, and I’m not hostile toward any non-Catholic Christians. Neither is any other Catholic who lives his faith.
       The problem with Sola Scriptura is that, as you said, the Bible is complex, but it can be seen as a simple book. This leads to many different interpretations of Scripture. Enemies of Christ have been quoting Scripture to “prove” their arguments for eons. Some atheists delight in citing supposed Biblical contradictions to mock and ridicule Christians. People have actually lost their faith because they interpreted Scripture incorrectly, and became disgusted with the apparent violence, cruelty, “sexism”, and whatever other negative meanings they projected on to Bible verses.
       If you’ll permit me to offer one more link, I would recommend this article on Sola Scriptura by Tim Staples, a Protestant who converted to Catholicism, and is a tremendous apologist for the Church: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/according-to-scripture

       1. Sola scriptura is simply relativism

37. Mr. Whyte,
    first my apologies for misspelling your name in the previous post. I was typing on my phone and it probably got spellchecked and I didn’t notice.
    Thank you for providing the link. I have read it now and while it does seem to be solid reasoning, I don’t agree with many things in there.
    but this debate has been going on for centuries and I doubt that we could say something that hasn’t been said before.
    Instead, I have a question. What is the Catholic interpretation of the parables of the mustard seed and the yeast?
    Respectfully

    1. Brother, I have only a passing familiarity with these parables.
       Here is an article pertaining to the mustard seed parable. Hopefully, it will be helpful:
       http://www.catholic.org/homily/yearoffaith/story.php?id=52644

38. Just for those interested here is a defense for sola scriptura, which to me seems more reasonable, but I might be biased.
    http://www.equip.org/article/a-defense-of-sola-scriptura/

    1. If sola scriptura is the case – why would Jesus not have written it himself and trained the apostles to propagate a biblical society, instead of making them the pillar and ground of truth? Such a scenario is not beyond the realm of probability even?

    2. Thank you for posting that. The argument is interesting, and while I could debate the merits of the article I will instead raise a question that the article never addresses. When they say…
       One, the fact that Scripture, without tradition, is said to be “God-breathed” (theopnuestos) and thus by it believers are “competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, emphasis added)
       What they really mean by that is reading believers are competent, equipped for every good work.
       What if you had been born 1000 years ago? Your life would be very different from now, but only one of those differences means you are doomed by Sola Scriptura…you can’t read. It isn’t that you are incapable of learning how to read, you are more than capable. People who lived above the arctic circle in the past were more than capable of learning how to swim…they just never got a chance.
       If you had been born about 1400 years ago and lived in Europe and were a scribe with some money, you could have hypothetically lived your life by Sola Scriptura. But then the rise of the Mohammedans and their capture of Egypt would cut off cheap papyrus to Europe and you. Only parchment is available, and the cost is so high you can’t buy it. You have your copy of the Bible, but what will your grandchildren do? At some point before they are born, the Bible you hand on to your descendants will disintegrate. Did Christ come only to save the generations who could read?
       Sola Scriptura is really Sola Scriptura Gutenberg. It cannot exist without the printing press.

    3. Sola scriptura = relatavism = liberals = progressives = delusional childish thinking, “Oh, I can DO whatever I think I can do!” – yawwnnn…

39. Mr. White, just missed your post. I will read your link. But I believe in those parables is the seed of our discourse here. Which explains both the Catholic and protestant problems.

40. In regard to Sola Scripura—Sola Gratia, if you want a qualitative defense look, beside Luther’s most inspired speech at Worms, at the records of Germanic princes’ protest at the Diet of Spier, April 25, 1529.

41. The Talmud has several passages about destroying Catholicism. Just a cohencidence I suppose that after (((they))) defeated and deceived the world in ww2 that the Catholic Church became vatican2 and the Pope’s heretics.

42. Vatican 2 was a faggot take over of the church.
    Then the commie faggots had public education flunkies AND child molesting White guilt pussies.
    On the day of the rope, all White liberals go first.
    Pets after that.

    1. Much of the Church isn’t white, hoss. Neither was the boss’ kid.

43. Sedevacantism is impossible. If one believes that the Church has not had a valid Pope since 1958, then one can stop calling himself Catholic, because Sedevacantism implies that the Church is dead. Forever.
    “If Vatican II is a false Council…then it means that the Church from the time of Paul VI onwards has been a false Church. But if that’s the case, Catholicism is over. Every Cardinal elector on earth was appointed by Pope St. John Paul II,  Pope Benedict XVI, or Pope Francis. In this vision of history, none of these men were really popes, and had no more authority to appoint Cardinals than do you or me. So if [this theory] was right, we would not only be left without a pope, but without any way of ever having a pope. In that case, there’s no possible future pope or future College of Cardinals capable of declaring Vatican II a false Council, because there’s no possibility of a future pope or College of Cardinals at all. There’s simply no more Church.” (http://shamelesspopery.com/sedevacantism-is-impossible-how-we-can-know-francis-is-pope/)
    Christ promised us that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. Was our Lord a liar?

44. Ultimately none of anything even listed in the article is for us to decide, its already all been decided by the maker (God). The head bishop of Rome (aka the Pope) is a speaker head, don’t confuse his actions. The Holy Spirit does what it will and wills what it does. Best to follow along and not be bitter about the bishop of Rome’s current policy’s.
    “Rome has spoken, the case is closed” – St. Augustine

45. Mosmaiorum.org/persecution_list.html Some of that good ol Catholic loving।।

46. woooow… ok an article written by a so called catholic on a site that approves sex before sacred marrige… I ll take this art. seriously lol

47. A great deal of this article confuses big T and little t tradition. Neither the vatican nor the pope have contradicted big T tradition …ever.
    Communism is anti-catholic as is late stage feminism. St. John Paul II was heroically anti-communism. However, catholics arent duty bound to be anti-communism, or anti-feminism any more than they are duty bound to be republican or democrat.
    The bit about contraception could have been coupled with a bit about the alternative nfp. Its also noteworthy that the author feels duty bound to chastise anti-catholic popes (in sspx fashion) on a site regularly promoting premarital sex without adequately addressing that elephant in the room.
    All that aside, its always nice to read something by someone so passionate about the church.

48. David, it seems like what you’re really passionate about is your religion.
    Ok, great — but is that what brings men to Return of Kings?
    Men come here, I think, for self-improvement, but it seems to me like you’re proselytizing. You’re proclaiming the “absolute truth,” and then proceeding into battle in the comments section, with your Apologetics turned up to 11, joyously demolishing anyone foolish enough to engage.
    Could it be that what you are really passionate about is not your religion, but beating other people in arguments?
    Catholicism has a deep intellectual tradition and uniquely values human reason. Great minds have erected for it a solid doctrinal edifice over the past 2000 years. Ok, I get it.
    However — a thorough understanding of a bullet-proof rational system is not really a sign of faith, hope or charity. Rather, it can be a sign that a religion — which is there to help open us to reality — has ossified into an ideology — that which helps to blind us to reality.
    My own 2 cents about religion — I’m in favor of it. But I would not suggest to anyone that by becoming religious, you will have an easier time finding a girlfriend or wife, or successfully dealing with one, or raising a family, etc. It can be just as hard to find a good religion as to find a good woman. But I believe the search is worth it.

    1. You’re proclaiming the “absolute truth,” and then proceeding into battle in the comments section, with your Apologetics turned up to 11, joyously demolishing anyone foolish enough to engage.
       Guilty as charged.
       But I will be serious for a moment and put into context what I have done. There is another article posted on RoK exactly one year ago with the title “The 10 Commandments of Atheist Men”. If you go read that article and the comments, you will find mostly men interested in atheism making comments.
       Now I could, at the time, have replied to this comment:
       Christianity doesn’t make sense even given its own assumptions. For example, supposedly only a finite number of angels rebelled against god and went to hell. If these fallen angels now have jobs as hell’s prison guards, like we see in Dante’s Inferno and in Jack Chick’s tracts, yet billions of humans die every century and most of their souls go to hell, how does this system work, exactly? How does the math work?
       Or this comment:
       Right. And Adam sinned, which allegedly automatically damned all of humanity without giving them any choice in the matter. And then Christ allegedly died to atone for all the sins of humanity, but didn’t really save anyone because most of humanity still goes to hell. You were damned automatically (by a God who supposedly honors free will, lol) but you’re not saved automatically and you will still be punished even though Christ allegedly already took your punishment and paid your debt in full. Christianity is a scam and a control mechanism.
       But that article wasn’t written for me, I am not the target audience. I am not the logic police and it isn’t any of my business to start proselytizing in the comments of an article where atheists have been invited to read and discuss.
       Now this article, written by John Augustine, has, as its target audience, Catholics who, like him, are
       1) Dismayed by Pope Francis(what the hell is he doing?) and the actions of the Catholic Church hierarchy
       2) Hopeful in Catholic Church tradition which they can rely and fall back on
       I loved this article, not because I fully agree with it, but because I loved its message of hope. Hope is important for everyone, and I salute John for his courage and hope in writing this article. Catholics have some serious problems in their Church and they need hope.
       But what I found in the comments is that some people from a variety of backgrounds decided that this article was an invitation to vent their personal grievances with the Catholic Church while opining on historical minutia or perceived Biblical or logical inconsistencies so that all the Catholics this article was written for could have that hope snuffed out. Or at least diminished while the commenter gloats.
       As you already guessed, one thing I love as much as hope is rigorous logical intellectual consistency. It’s one of my personal preferences and a big reason I am still Catholic.
       So when I saw those comments, I was triggered. But when I am triggered, I don’t retreat to a safe space. Those commenters wanted to have a little superiority contest and I made sure they got contested, good and hard.

       1. David,
          Thank you for your kind words! I have read some of your comments and you are a very passionate defender of the Church which is something we desperately need these days. When I decided to write this article the purpose I had in mind was simply to state the positions of the Catholic Church, which today are just as true as they were 2,000 years ago. The Church, being the the bride of Christ, is always a beacon of hope. Indeed this is why Catholics are called to be the salt and the light of the earth. Although I should have expected it I, like you, have been taken aback by the nastiness and hatred of the Church by some commentators. Yet by behaving like sharks who smell blood I think their words betray far more about themselves than what the object of their comment is. Even still let us remember that as the purpose of the Church is to save souls, we should as members treat men with charity. As long as we are not throwing pearls before swine! lol.
          God Bless,
          John

49. With the current pope, I have decided to explicitly reject Roman Catholicism, the religion of my upbringing. I was a lapsed Catholic for most of my life, but was always pro-Catholic. Not anymore. The Roman Church in its current corrupt form has to go down and be replaced by a purer one. I need to explore the old conservative Catholic orders that still say mass in Latin. I hear the actor/director Mel Gibson belongs to such a group. Anyone here know anything about these Catholic orders?

    1. If you reject the current “pope” you are not rejecting the Faith, in fact you will be closer to Roman Catholicism than you have been your entire life. Here is a directory of Roman Catholic Churches in the U.S. and beyond. http://www.ecclesia.luxvera.org/Directory-USA.html
       If you seek Roman Catholicism I highly encourage you to go to one.
       God Bless

       1. To Nick,
          If you reject the current “pope” you are not rejecting the Faith, in fact you will be closer to Roman Catholicism than you have been your entire life. Here is a directory of Roman Catholic Churches in the U.S. and beyond. http://www.ecclesia.luxvera.org/Directory-USA.html
          If you seek Roman Catholicism I highly encourage you to go to one.
          God Bless

    2. I attend latin mass at a local church run by the Society of St. Pius X, (SSPX for an appreviation). I wasn’t a lapsed Catholic, just a bad one. Now at least I have the mass on Sundays when I’m home to give me something better to aspire to.
       http://sspx.org/en

50. WORST COMMENT SYSTEM EVER. FILED WITH TROLLS. ROK IS GARBAGE NOW

51. True Catholic values…does that include covering up for pedophiles in the church? The Royal Commission conducted in Australia found the Catholic Church hierarchy actively covered up abuse and protected pedophile priests. In one location over 60% of priest’s were abusing kids.
    The Catholic Church, about a month ago held a Vatican funeral for a priest who was convicted of pedophilia and he had never showed any sign of regret for harm to children. Still got his vatican funeral.

52. How can one even complain that Francis is a ‘bad’ Pope, it makes no sense – look back at history and look at the actual bad popes; – Francis doesn’t even come close to falling into that same category, leave the bad popes where they lie – we get it, Francis is too ‘soft’ on stuff that he shouldn’t be, but overall he’s not even in the same category – 99% of the popes have been scholarly and saintly men – granted yeah, a few bad apples; Pope Alexander VI comes to mind.
    Martin Luther had some reasons to rebel against the Church – the key here is that the Holy Spirit is promised to the Church primarily through the leaders of the Church when they proclaim the gospel, and their behavior can’t mess it up, the Church is indestructible because it has to be indestructible; its made up of weak sinners like me and anyone else who is Catholic – Jesus knew what He was doing and has been remarkably faithful in the quality of men He has given us – Alexander VI had mistresses, he had men killed (had hits put out on them), but the Holy Spirit protected the Church (and him) from teaching any error, that’s the key – the Church can’t teach error because the Holy Spirit is the spirit of truth and Christ did not leave us orphans.
    Here’s a quick antidote for you; a Jewish businessman in Paris named Abraham (very practical guy) goes to the Bishop of Paris saying, “I want to become a Catholic, I want to be baptized, but I first want to go to Rome.” – and the Bishop said, “Uhhh Abraham, you probably just want to get baptized now” (because he knew how bad Rome was at the time, it was corrupt, it would be a scandal, he would never want to come to the Church after witnessing it. Abraham says, “Nope, I’m a practical businessman, I want to go there. I’ll be back in a fortnight.” – He goes to Rome, then comes back, rings the door of the Bishop’s residence saying, “Hey Bishop, I’m here, baptize me.” – Bishop says, “Abraham, you went to Rome, you saw all the corruption, all the bad behavior and the scandal?” – “Yeah, I did.” – “and you still want to be baptized? Can I ask why?” – He said, “Your excellency, when I was in Rome I saw things so bad I couldn’t believe my eyes, this organization is so corrupt, so scandal ridden, so badly run, it would’ve folded two weeks after the resurrection, it has to have the Holy Spirit behind it. I want in.”

53. …

54. …

55. …hmm

Comments are closed.