The First Commandment“You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve. ... The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it.”
“You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve. ... The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it.”
(4. Mt 4:10; 8. Roman Catechism 3, 2, 4.)
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Catechism of the Catholic Church
U.S.C.C. Inc., 1994, p. 506.
What are the 10 Commandments?
by Mike Bennett
“The 10 Commandments are 10 beneficial laws given by the Creator God. The commandments show us how to live a better life now and please God forever...
The Bible tells us that God Himself spoke the 10 Commandments from Mount Sinai and wrote them with His own finger on tablets of stone (Exodus 20:1; 31:18). This adds powerful emphasis to the subject of the 10 Commandments in the Bible.
Jesus Christ explained that the 10 Commandments and all of God's laws are based on God's most prominent characteristic: love.”
Web (January 3, 2014
“The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, he is Jesus Christ himself, hidden under the veil of flesh.”
Catholic National July 1895.
“It is well known that the whole dynasty of Popes take to themselves the title, 'VICAR OF CHRIST.'
John Paul II claims loudly, 'I am the Vicar of Christ.'
The Apostle John styles the leader of Apostate Christianity, 'the Antichrist.'
The Papal title is the key which unlocks to us the true mystery and character of the Papacy.
'ntichrist' is a Greek word. 'Vicar' is an English word. The words are synonymous. They have exactly the same meaning. 'ntichrist' translated into the English is 'Vice Christ' or 'Vicar of Christ.' 'Vicar of Christ, rendered into the Greek is Antichristos = Antichrist. The ordinary use of the word in the Greek is decisive on this point. So every time the Pope claims to be, 'The Vicar of Christ,' he is pleading at the bar of the world's opinion that he indeed is THE ANTICHRIST.
The Vicar of Christ, the Vice-Christ, the Antichrist, comes in the room and in the stead of the true Christ and must therefore be characterised by deception, dissimulation and counterfeit.
Antichrist poses as the true representative of Christ, not Christ's enemy, hence deception and lying are his stock-in-trade. Atheists, Communists, Mohammedans and many others do not claim to be Christ's sole representatives on earth. They openly declare their opposition, hatred, and undying antagonism to Christ. They don't lie about that. They do not conceal their blasphemies against Christ. They openly declare themselves haters of our Lord Jesus Christ. They wear no masks. Therefore they are not the Antichrist.
Of all the religions on the earth Romanism is the only one which meets all the requirements of Biblical prophecy, as we shall see. Popery alone exhibits all the features of the Antichrist.
If we allow ourselves to be guided by the Holy Scriptures, the Facts of History and the Pope's Own Claims, then we will be forced to the conclusion, 'This is indeed the Antichrist.'
We must therefore study the parallel between Christianity and the Papacy, Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Popes, along the entire line of their careers. This parallel is the key to the mystery and explains how the LIE that the Pope was the Vice-Christ or Vicar of Christ misled the whole world, as it is still doing today, into thinking that Romanism is true Christianity. That LIE has wasted ages, overthrown Kingdoms, instituted tortures unmentionable, stained the world with blood and peopled Hell.
The Term“Antichrist", http://www.ianpaisley.org/
Web (October 15, 2013)
The Prince of Carnal Life His Holiness (Sanctitas) Benedict XII throbbed for the sister of the great scholar, Petrarch, who rejected his offer of a cardinal's hat. This lusty pope still managed to bed this pretty lass by bribing her brother, Gerardo.”Petrarch described — anonymously, since he did not want to be burned — the papal court as 'the shame of mankind, a sink of vice, a sewer where is gathered all the filth of the world. There God is held in contempt, money alone is worshipped and the laws of God and men are trampled under foot. Everything there breathes a lie: the air, the earth, the houses and above all the bedrooms.”
His Holiness Benedict IX was eleven years old in October 1032 when he became pope in the footsteps of his father Pope John XIX. His exploits with women brought an early puberty and by the time he was fourteen he had surpassed the exploits of all predecessors. St Peter Damain has this to say: “That wretch, from the beginning of his pontificate to the end of his life, feasted on immorality.”Another observer was more precise: “A demon from hell in the guise of a priest has occupied the Chair of Peter.”
Catholic Christianity begun with the satanic alliance between the barbaric, concubine-sired Constantine and Pope Sylvester (Bishop of Rome.) Constantine had by then already murdered Crispus (his son by his first wife) in 326, drowned his second wife in the bath, killed his eleven-year-old nephew, and then his brother-in-law. Both benefited enormously from this unholy alliance between Altar and Throne, the power of the Pulpit aligning with the terror of the Sword, a formidable foe that crushed all opposition.
Vatican ends“Wall of silence"over child abuse scandal
“The Vatican is breaking its silence on the previously taboo subject of paedophilia, following allegations of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Germany. As the Pope has now become embroiled in the scandal, the BBC's David Willey questions whether he has been doing his job properly.
During four decades of reporting from the Vatican, I have never seen a graver crisis affecting the very credibility of the leadership of the world's longest surviving international organisation, the Roman Catholic Church.
In recent weeks, Pope Benedict has had to deal with some very serious allegations.
They have been documented in two official Dublin government reports on scandals concerning the way his Church leaders in Ireland have systematically played down reported cases of clerical sexual abuse of minors.
The Pope has been busy writing new instructions to the clergy and faithful of traditionally Catholic Ireland, drawing up stricter rules for dealing with priestly paedophilia.
Without warning, he was suddenly confronting new, similar scandals which have come to light in his own country, Germany - including one in the very town where he taught at the university and where his brother was choirmaster of a famous boys' choir.
His promised pastoral letter to Ireland has had to be put on hold.
Now his record as Archbishop of Munich in the late 1970s and early 80s, is being mercilessly scrutinised by the international media.”
BBC, 18 March 2010
A Treasury of Royal Scandals: The Shocking True Stories History's Wickedest, Weirdest, Most Wanton Kings, Queens, Tsars, Popes, and Emperor
Michael Farquhar, Penguin Books; (10) edition (May 1, 2001)
Part I - The Lust Emperors
“From Russia With Lots Of Love"
Catherine the Great loved horses. She also loved sex. Contrary to popular legend, however, she never managed to unite the two passions. Still, the autocratic empress of Russia brought all the enthusiasm of a vigorous ride to her extremely busy bedroom.
After ridding herself of her imbecile husband Peter III in 1762,1 Catherine grabbed the Russian crown and came to dominate her kingdom for the next thirty-four years. Boldly indulging herself as she grew more secure in her position, the empress consumed handsome young lovers with an appetite that sometimes shocked her contemporaries.”She's no woman,” exclaimed one,” she's a siren!"
The empress relished her weakness for men, abandoning herself to a giddy romanticism that belied her cold and pragmatic rule. She loved being entertained, even into old age, by a succession of well-formed young studs eager to please her.”It is my misfortune that my heart cannot be content, even for one hour, without love,” she wrote.
Sharing the empress's bed brought ample rewards, not the least of which was an intimate proximity to power, but getting there wasn't easy. A good body and a pleasant face, combined whenever possible with wit and intelligence, were merely starters. Potential lovers also had to have the right pedigree and pass a crucial test. Catherine had several ladies-in-waiting—test drivers of sorts— whose job it was to ensure that all candidates for their mistress's bed were up to the highly demanding task of satisfying her.
The applicants were most often supplied by the empress's one-eyed ex-lover—the man many assumed to be her secret husband—Gregory Potemkin. She had fallen in love with this rough, hulking officer relatively early in her industrious sexual career, overcome by his brash courage, quick wit, and almost primitive sexuality. Wasting little time disposing of Alexander Vassilzhikov, her boyfriend at the time, Catherine was delighted the first night Potemkin came to her bedroom, naked under his nightshirt and ready for action.”I have parted from a certain excellent but very boring citizen,” the empress wrote to a confidante,” who has been replaced, I know not how, by one of the greatest, oddest, most amusing and original personalities of this Iron Age.”
Because of his long greasy hair, and brutish unwashed body, many women found Potemkin repulsive. Catherine, however, reveled in his strength, charm, and sexual domination. She couldn't get enough of this strange man who made her forget her royal dignity. Whenever they were parted, even for a few hours, she regaled him with an avalanche of feverish love notes, each peppered with at least one of her special pet names: “My marble beauty,” "my darling pet,” "my dearest doll,” "golden cock,” "lion of the jungle,” "my professional bon bon.”
In one letter, she pretended to be shocked at the intensity of her passion and tried to get hold of herself: “I have issued strict orders to my whole body, down to the smallest hair on my head, not to show you the least sign of love. I have locked my love inside my heart and bolted it ten times, it is suffocating there, it is constrained, and I fear it may explode.”In other letters she gloried in his good company: “Darling, what comical stories you told me yesterday! I can't stop laughing when I think of them ... we spend four hours together without a shadow of boredom, and it is always with reluctance that I leave you. My dearest pigeon, I love you very much. You are handsome, intelligent, amusing.”
Of course Catherine loved the sex, and in her exultation could sound much more like a bad romance novelist than the authoritarian empress of all the Russias:
—“There is not a cell in my whole body that does not yearn for you, oh infidel!"
—“I thank you for yesterday's feast. My little Grisha fed me and quenched my thirst, but not with wine...”
—"My head is like that of a cat in heat...”
—“I will be a 'woman of fire' for you, as you so often say. But I shall try to hide my flames.”
Moody and temperamental, subject to bouts of black depression and fits of jealousy, Potemkin was sometimes lovingly scolded by his royal mistress: “There is a woman in the world who loves you and who has a right to a tender word from you, Imbecile, Tatar, Cossack, infidel, Muscovite, morbleu!“The relationship was so physically intimate that Catherine did not hesitate to share even the most unflattering of ailments with him: “I have some diarrhea today, but apart from that, I am well, my adored one... . Do not be distressed because of my diarrhea, it cleans out the intestines.”
There is no surviving evidence to support the rumor that Catherine secretly married Potemkin, although she often referred to him in her letters as"my beloved spouse,” or"my dearest husband.”Married or not, the relationship certainly transcended the bedroom as it evolved into a close political partnership. Catherine shared her vast kingdom with Potemkin as if he were her king. She consulted with him on all affairs of state, working closely with him on her ambitious plans to expand Russia's borders and crush the Muslim Turks.
The empress's powerful lover is perhaps best remembered for the legendary"Potemkin Villages"he is said to have created for her benefit as she embarked on a grand tour of all the newly Russianized lands he had conquered for her. These"villages,” it was said, were little more than elaborate stage sets of prosperous towns, populated by cheerful serfs, all of which were quickly collapsed and set up again at the next stop on Catherine's carefully plotted itinerary. The artificiality of the Potemkin Villages came to represent in the minds of many, Catherine's superficial and halfhearted attempts to reform and liberalize her kingdom.
Though the relationship with Potemkin endured until his death in 1791, the sexual intensity between them dimmed after only a few years. No longer champion of the empress's boudoir, Potemkin resolved to retain her favor by pimping his replacements. He handpicked a steady succession of new lovers for his erstwhile mistress—all of whom paid him a handsome brokerage fee for the privilege of servicing her. There was Zavadovsky, followed by Zorich, followed by Rimsky-Korsakov, followed by Lanskoy, followed by Ermolov, followed by Mamonov and so on and on, and on.
After being installed in the official apartment set aside for Catherine's lovers, each new favorite was feted and adored by the passionate monarch with almost girlish enthusiasm. But each, in turn, was eventually dismissed, either for boring Catherine or breaking her heart. Few, however, left her service without a handsome settlement. When Zavadovsky was dismissed in 1776, for example, Chevalier de Corberon, the French chargé d'affaires in Russia, wrote that“He has received from Her Majesty 50,000 rubles, a pension of 5,000, and 4,000 peasants in the Ukraine, where they are worth a great deal [serfs at the time were tradeable commodities, like cattle]... . You must agree, my friend, that it's not a bad line of work to be in here.”
One ex-lover, Count Stanislas Augustus Poniatowski, was even given the crown of Poland, although Catherine did eventually hack away huge chunks of his kingdom and absorb them into her own. All told, the generous payments to fallen lovers amounted to billions of dollars in today's currency. When her friend, the French philosopher Voltaire, gently chided Catherine for inconsistency in her love affairs, she responded that she was, on the contrary,” absolutely faithful.” "To whom? To beauty, of course. Beauty alone attracts me!"
From Publishers Weekly
In another royal exposé, Farquhar, a writer at the Washington Post, duplicates some of the ground covered in Karl Shaw's Royal Babylon, such as Peter the Great's delight in administering torture (he had his son lashed to death) and the way Britain's Queen Mary cajoled her subjects into giving her their household treasures (“I am caressing it with my eyes,” she would coyly coo). Written in a provocative tabloid style (with headings like“We Are Not Abused. We Are Abusive,” “A Son Should Love His Mother, But...”and“All the Holiness Money Can Buy"), Farquhar publicly washes the dirty laundry of not only European royalty, but also of Roman emperors and popes. Murderers and torturers who slept with their siblings (and other relatives), the emperors of Rome excelled at corruption. The maniacal pedophile Tiberius Caesar (A.D. 14-37) left the corpses of his many victims to rot on the Gemonian Steps, which descended from the Capitol to the Forum, or alternatively enjoyed watching them being thrown from a cliff (“A contingent of soldiers was stationed below to whack them with oars and boat hooks just in case the fall failed to do the trick"). Many popes were no better. Not content with just rooting out Christian heretics by launching a bloody crusade against the Cathars in southern France, Innocent III (1160-1216) declared himself ruler of the world. He sacked Constantinople and massacred every Muslim he could find. Like Royal Babylon, this gossipy string of anecdotes is a popularized rather than an authoritative history and perfect for travel reading.
“Boniface VIII (1235-1303): Historians and literary men who now repeat fraudulent Catholic claims about“The glorious thirteenth century"shrink from noticing that it was crowned by the pontificate (1294-1303) of one of the most scandalous in the long gallery of"bad Popes.”Apart from a very serious but unprovable charge that he had his predecessor murdered — he certainly took the Papacy from him by fraud and imprisoned him — his successor Clement V had, as part of his own corrupt bargain for the Papal chair, to convene a Council of the French Church in 1312 to try the dead Boniface, and, at this, voluntary Roman witnesses, chiefly priests and lawyers, accused Boniface of blasphemy, cynical scepticism, denial of immortality, defence of adultery ("no more harm in it than rubbing your hands together,” he had said), and mockery of all religion and morals. The statement of the Catholic Encyclopaedia that the prelates acquitted him of the charges is false. They were afraid to make any pronouncement on the evidence, which was endorsed by the greatest lawyers in France. Gregorovius, the Papal historian, tries to relieve him of the charge of vice on the ground that he was eighty years old, but even the Catholic Encyclopaedia makes him only sixty-eight years old when he died, or less than sixty at his accession. The severe strictures on him in Prof. Rockwell's article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica have been cut out of the article in the last edition, but the Cambridge Mediaeval History, which reflects the general opinion of historians, says that“The evidence seems conclusive that he was doctrinally a sceptic“And“It is probable that for him, as later for Alexander VI, the moral code had little meaning" (VII, 5). Dante voices contemporary opinion in Italy when he puts the Pope deep in hell (Canto XIX, 52-7).”
Dr. Jacob McCabe, Rationalists Encyclopaedia
IS POPERY THE ANTICHRIST?
THE TENDENCY OF PROPHECY TO DESCRIBE THINGS ACCORDING TO THE REALITY, RATHER THAN THE APPEARANCE OR PROFESSION
“The interpretation which has been given in the text of the strongest terms in the apostle's language respecting the antichrist, by understanding them of a virtual, in contradistinction to a formal and avowed assumption of blasphemous prerogatives, is so much in accordance with the general style of prophecy, and so plainly demanded by the connection, that we cannot refrain from expressing our wonder, at finding interpreters of note still pressing the opposite view. Their doing so must be regarded as another instance of that tendency to literalism, which has wrought such confusion in the prophetical field, and which, at particular points, returns upon some, who in general have attained to a correct discernment of the characteristics of prophecy. The practice of describing things by their real, as opposed to their professed or apparent character, is one that peculiarly distinguishes the Apocalyptic imagery. Thus the worldly kingdoms, both in Daniel and the Revelation, are represented as beasts-not that they actually were, or gave themselves out to be such, but because they pursued a course which partook largely of the bestial nature; they were, one might say, virtual beasts. And the false, seductive power designated Babylon, The Mother of harlots an d abominations, we may be sure, was not going to proclaim her own shame by declaring herself to be what those epithets import. Beyond all doubt, she is described according to what she really was, not by what she would profess, to be. In like manner, the names of blasphemy on the head of the beast indicate a real rather than a professed dishonour to the God of heaven; for open profanity and avowed atheism have, with few exceptions, been studiously avoided by the worldly power. It has almost uniformly striven to associate with its different forms of government, and political aims, the name and sanctions of religion. Even in the more prosaic parts of the Apocalypse we find the same characteristic prevailing-as when it describes the soaring spirit of the Gnostic teachers, by their knowing the depths of Satan (not those of God, which they themselves rather affected to understand), and designates them by such epithets as Nicolaitans (people-destroyers), followers of Balaam, Jezebels-which they were so far from professing to be, that they laid claim to the highest gifts and the most honourable distinctions. Nor could it be otherwise with the wolves, of whose coming St Paul warned the Ephesian elders (Acts xx.); they were not going, when they appeared, to avow their own wolf-like character, but would, doubtless, aspire to the place of guides and shepherds of the flock. All prophecy, indeed, abounds with examples of this mode of representation; for, speaking as with Divine intuition, it ever delights to penetrate through showy appearances, and to strip deceivers of their false disguises....
The violation of this principle in regard to the passages which treat of the antichristian apostacy, by adhering to a mistaken literalism, is the more to be regretted, as it is doing with this portion of the prophetic Scriptures what it has already done with those which have respect to the promised Messiah-it is altogether destroying in the hands of its abettors their apologetic value. As, with the one class of predictions, Jewish Rabbis find themselves backed by Christian literalists in denying the fulfilment of some of the clearest prophetic intimations in the history of Jesus of Nazareth, so Romish controversialists are sheltering themselves under the wing of Protestant interpreters of the same school, in rebutting the application of the Scriptural antichrist to Popery. Thus, in a small volume recently published on“The End of the World, or the Second Coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by the Very Rev. John Baptist Pagani,” a very adroit use is made of the name of the late Mr Faber. An astonishment is first expressed that any intelligent person could ever have thought of identifying the Pope of Rome with the antichrist of Scripture, especially that this could be done in so enlightened a country as England; and then a passage from Mr Faber's“Calendar of Prophecy“Is quoted to show how a sensible Protestant writer exposes the absurdity of the idea. In the passage referred to the argument is thrown into what is considered both by Mr Faber and by his Catholic admirer a conclusive syllogism.”I shall throw my argument,” Mr Faber says,” into the form of a syllogism, and if any person be able to confute me, I shall be very ready to own myself mistaken. According to St John, he who denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist. The line of the Roman Pontiffs did not deny the Father or the Son; therefore the line of the Roman Pontiffs is not the antichrist.”Embracing with satisfaction this triumphant syllogism, Mr Pagani proceeds to give it additional strength by affirming, that so far from denying the Father and the Son, the Roman Pontiffs have always maintained the doctrine of the Trinity against Deists, Sabellians, Unitarians, and other herectics; that they have uniformly held, that Christ has come in the flesh; that they have also been remarkably distinguished for their humility, taking for their ordinary title,” unworthy ministers of Christ,” "servants of the servants of God,” whereas antichrist is to exalt himself above all that is called God. P. 41, sq.
One might go through a considerable portion of prophecy with this sort of syllogism, and ask in vain for anything in the transactions of real life, that would answer to the terms of the predictions. What, on such a style of interpretation, could b e made of the passages to which we have been adverting? Must we suspend the veracity of one prophet on the question, whether the proud Chaldeans actually hung up a net in some temple and did sacrifice to it? Or that of another, on the similar question, whether the Israelites literally bore about during their long sojourn in the wilderness an idolatrous tabernacle in impious rivalry to that of Jehovah?1 Or must we have credible testimony to the fact, that the great worldly monarchies, as they successively arose, did each proclaim their own beast-like and blasphemous character? Or, finally, shall we hold that nothing can verify the description given of the mystic Babylon, which does not set itself openly to establish and avow the prostitution of all righteous principle? If such be the kind of expectations, with which we proceed to examine the prophetic word, we may certainly lay our account to meet with few instances of fulfilment; we know not where they are to be found in the past, and are afraid they shall in vain be looked for in the future. But surely, if the apostle in his day knew persons in the Christian church, whom he could declare to be the"enemies of the Cross of Christ,” even while they were avowedly looking to that cross for salvation, the pontiffs of Rome might justly enough be characterized as denying the Father and the Son, if they should be found claiming prerogatives, and upholding a system of error and delusion, which virtually subvert the revelation given of the Father and the Son in Scripture. Let it just be granted, that in the descriptions of the collective antichrist, the apostles had their eye on the realities, not on the mere appearances of things—no very extravagant postulate surely—then the proper syllogism will stand thus: the antichrist, according to St. John, is he who denies the Father and the Son; but the line of the Roman Pontiffs, by their own blasphemous assumptions, and by their system of legalized falsehood and corruption, utterly opposed to the spirit and design of the Gospel, have denied what is revealed of the Father and the Son; therefore the line of the Roman pontiffs is antichrist. This we take to be a truer form of syllogism than Mr. Faber's. But it only meets one fallacy involved in the interpretation. There is another in its taking for granted, that the representations in John's epistles are to be regarded as comprehensive of all that was to characterize the spirit and conduct of the antichrist. He merely points to one of the first forms and manifestations of the evil-that which took shape under the hands of the Gnostic teachers. By and by this was to lead on to others, of which not less distinct intimation was given elsewhere in the New Testament writings. The anti christian spirit was to assume different phases, according to the peculiar influences of the time, and the changing fortunes of the church. But they were all to have one thing in common: under a profession of Christianity, there was to be something in doctrine or practice, which in effect made void the Christian truth and life. This in every form was to be the characteristic of antichristianism as contradistinguished from atheism, heathenism, or undisguised worldliness. And hence, so far from expecting that the Popes, or any other embodiments of the antichrist, should formally assume what is predicted of this power, we should rather expect the reverse. We should expect a studious effort to disguise the truth of the case, though such a one as should only impose upon the ignorant or the corrupt. And precisely as the Servant of servants can in lordly arrogance place his foot upon the necks of princes, and claim the ascendancy over all earthly power and authority, so under a boastful proclamation of the doctrine of the Trinity, and the conversion of the Cross into a magic charm, may there by found the most substantial denial of the Father and the Son. In a word, the question is, not what Popery pretends to be, but what it really is; with this alone we have to do in determining its relation to the prophetic delineations of Scripture. And when the subject is viewed in this light, he must be strangely blinded or unhappily biased, who fails to perceive the striking correspondence between the one and the other.”
Patrick Fairbairn, The Interpretation of Prophecy
Wipf & Stock Pub; 2 Reprint edition (October 12, 2005) p. 367
“The Ten Commandments are precepts bearing on the fundamental obligations of religion and morality and embodying the revealed expression of the Creator's will in relation to man's whole duty to God and to his fellow-creatures. They are found twice recorded in the Pentateuch, in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, but are given in an abridged form in the catechisms. Written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, this Divine code was received from the Almighty by Moses amid the thunders of Mount Sinai, and by him made the ground-work of the Mosaic Law. Christ resumed these Commandments in the double precept of charity—love of God and of the neighbour; He proclaimed them as binding under the New Law in Matthew 19 and in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5). He also simplified or interpreted them, e.g. by declaring unnecessary oaths equally unlawful with false, by condemning hatred and calumny as well as murder, by enjoining even love of enemies, and by condemning indulgence of evil desires as fraught with the same malice as adultery (Matthew 5). The Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord's Day. The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, can. xix) condemns those who deny that the Ten Commandments are binding on Christians.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia
“The head of the Pontifical Biblical Commission today is Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Cardinal Ratzinger is also head of another Catholic institution, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This designation is fairly new, dating from 1965, and probably unfamiliar to most laymen; but the institution itself is one of long-established pedigree. It has, in fact, a unique and resonant history behind it, extending back to the 13th century. In 1542, it had become known officially as the Holy Office. Prior to that, it was called the Holy Inquisition. Cardinal Ratzinger is, in effect, the Church's modern-day Grand Inquisitor.”
Michael Baignent and Richard Leigh,
The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception
Jonathan Cape, London (1992) p. 120
“Mark 13:22: FOR FALSE CHRIST'S AND FALSE PROPHETS SHALL RISE, AND SHALL SHEW SIGNS AND WONDERS, TO SEDUCE, IF IT WERE POSSIBLE, EVEN THE ELECT.
Christ=i.e. anointed, False Christ's is simply meaning those who think they're anointed, but also these same people have been quoted as claming to be Christ's or gods. Most people, in their own religion of Christianity, already agree these people are false Prophets and have fooled even the elect.
Example; Christian preachers & evangelists fulfill Mark:
Benny Hinn who does false wonders and miracles quotes: .” . the anointing is dependent upon my words. God will not move unless I say it. Why? because He has made us coworkers with Him. He set things up that way.” (Benny Hinn, The Anointing. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. 1992. 82.)
“We are 'little gods' and even part of God with all the power of God“And“We are 'little messiahs,' everything that Jesus ever was.”So Benny Hinn Fulfills Matthew: But who else? How about the many Popes who do false miracles and wonders or push these things? The title"Lord God the Pope“Is found within a gloss of Extravagantes of Pope John XXII, title 14, chapter 4.
Roman Catholic Canon Law stipulates through Pope Innocent III that the Roman pontiff is“The vicegerent upon earth, not a mere man, but of a very God;"
“We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.”..Pope Leo XIII
"For thou art the shepherd, thou art the physician, thou art the director, thou art the husbandman, finally thou art another God on earth.”Labbe and Cossart's“History of the Councils.”Vol. XIV, col. 109
“The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, he is Jesus Christ himself, hidden under the veil of flesh.”
Catholic National July 1895.
Bishop on trial makes history
“A French bishop has gone on trial charged with concealing information that a Roman Catholic priest was sexually abusing young boys.
Monsignor Pierre Pican, 66, made history at the court in the northern town of Caen as the first bishop in modern French history to appear in the dock.
He is accused of keeping quiet about the acts of Father Rene Bissey, who was sentenced to 18 years in prison last October for raping one boy and abusing 10 others in the 1980s and 1990s.”
BBC, 14 June, 2001
Ex-priest, 71, jailed over sex offences
“A retired Roman Catholic priest who sexually abused young girls in his church when they came to him for religious instruction was jailed for six years yesterday.
Canon Joseph Terry, 71, admitted four charges of indecency against four girls, aged between seven and 16, between 1963 and 1971, when he was a parish priest in the West Highlands. At the High Court in Edinburgh, Lord Cullen, the Lord Justice Clerk, told him: “It is quite plain that what you did was deliberate.” "
www.telegraph.co.uk/, 24 January 1998
“In 1998, the Roman Catholic Church in Dallas, Texas, agreed to pay more than $30m to 12 former altar boys molested by a priest.
Church authorities allegedly ignored warnings and covered up Father Rudolph Kos's activities. He is serving a life sentence for more than 1,300 attacks carried out between 1981 and 1992.”
BBC, Wednesday, 19 July, 2000
Orphans tell of the Sister without mercy
“A nun living in retirement in a home run by her order, the Sisters of Mercy, has become the focus of the latest scandal to bring public condemnation on the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland.
After a lifetime's service in educational and welfare missions, Sister Mary Xavieria, 76, might have hoped to spend her final years content in the knowledge that hundreds of people held treasured memories of their time in her care.
Instead, a number of people who were brought up in the institutions where she worked have come forward to portray her as a pitiless woman whose alleged cruelty added to the misery of countless orphaned and abandoned young children in the 1950s and early 1960s.
Many who spent all or part of their childhoods under Sister Xavieria's control at the Goldenbridge orphanage in north Dublin claim they were victims of a regime in which severe beatings were commonplace, babies were strapped to potties and food was sparse.”
www.telegraph.co.uk/, 25 March 1996
“A Roman Catholic priest has been jailed for a total of eight years at Cardiff crown court for a string of sex offences.
Father Joseph Jordan, 42, of Barry, south Wales, pleaded guilty to six charges of indecent assault committed between February 1987 and February 1989.”
BBC, Friday, 20 October, 2000
Priest jailed for abusing baptism girl
“A Roman Catholic priest was jailed for 21 months yesterday for sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl minutes after baptising her.
A judge told Father John Lloyd, 57, a close friend of the Most Rev John Ward, the Archbishop of Cardiff, that he was guilty of a gross breach of trust.
South Wales Police announced that they would seek a retrial on nine charges of indecent assault on a nine-year-old girl and two altar boys on which jurors failed to reach a verdict last week.
The jury at Cardiff Crown Court had found Lloyd guilty of indecently assaulting the girl at his home in 1974 after baptising her to enable her to attend a Roman Catholic secondary school. His victim, now 37, reported the assault to police last year after hearing of Lloyd's arrest on child abuse charges....
Mr Justice Rougier told him that he had been found guilty of“A most serious offence of abuse.”The judge said: “There can be few grosser breaches of trust than when a priest sexually abuses a young child while exercising his pastoral function. I find the description of what you did to that girl almost unbelievable. This girl was prepared to accept the Catholic faith and you were entrusted with the duty of baptising her, a ceremony which I have always understood is regarded as one of very spiritual significance. Yet within 10 minutes of that you were giving her a most unwelcome introduction to the nastier aspects of the sins of the flesh. You also added perjury to your sins. There is little that can mitigate what you did.”
www.telegraph.co.uk/, 20 February 1998
“A ROMAN Catholic priest who has admitted sexually abusing teenage boys has been made to resign from his parish three weeks after indecency charges against him were dropped.
Yesterday, Eduard Peach, 50, was undergoing a psychiatric examination at an undisclosed location....
In Ireland, William Gallagher, 56, another Catholic priest, was bailed yesterday by Londonderry magistrates on eight charges of abusing two girls, aged 10 to 13 at the time of the alleged offences between 1960 and 1964.
At the same court, a second Catholic priest, Gerard McCallion, 47, was bailed, charged with indecently assaulting three girls in Londonderry between May 1987 and August 1988.”
www.telegraph.co.uk/, 26 September 1995
“Of the hundreds of known and probably thousands of unknown cases, that of 'Father' James Robert Porter, reported in the New York Times of July 15, 1992, is one of the most horrific. It involved more than 100 men and women who said they were sexually assaulted by Porter as children. John Daignault, a psychologist at Harvard Medical School, described them as“The largest single group of victims of one perpetrator, in a position of authority, in psychology's history.” [New York Times, December 4, 1992.] One writer called it the"true story of a demented demigod shuffled from diocese to diocese, raping at will"— a story which"could not have been written by even the most fertile imagination in the world of fiction.”
To this can be added the string of recent paedophile priest scandals in Britain, Belgium, France, Germany and several other countries—all of which serve to underline the unsurpassed moral corruption and sexual vice endemic in the Roman Church. The flood of cases amply demonstrates that Rome has not changed one iota since the days of Luther, who led the revolt against its inherent rottenness.”
“During the two-week trial at Warwick Crown Court, 16 men now in their 40s and 50s told of the sexual abuse they suffered. Police who investigated the case are convinced that there are many more victims. They said that at least 10 men who had been through the Father Hudson's system during Taylor's time there had subsequently committed suicide. One man who had been due to give evidence in Taylor's trial tried to kill himself days before he was due in the witness box.
Taylor had preyed on boys in their dormitories as they lay ill in bed, in his office and bedroom at the presbytery, in the swimming pool changing rooms and sports pavilion. He abused boys in lay-bys after taking them out as a"treat“In his green Morris van, and inflicted assaults in his tent during camping holidays to North Wales. He also kissed and fondled choirboys in the church vestry, and even subjected one boy to an indecent assault behind the altar.”
www.telegraph.co.uk/, Friday 1 May, 1998
“SENIOR figures in the Catholic Church who covered up the activities of paedophile priests are being investigated by detectives and could face charges of criminal negligence.
The inquiry, led by Steven Hussey, the head of Warwickshire CID, will look at several senior church figures who are accused of failing to report to police warnings that their subordinates were abusing children. Last night police were unable to say whether Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster and head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, would be investigated.”
www.telegraph.co.uk/, Sunday 22 October 2000
“A ROMAN Catholic priest was described as a disgrace to his cloth and jailed for seven years yesterday after being convicted of 18 sexual assaults on young boys in his care.
Eric Taylor persistently preyed on boys as young as six while he worked as an administrator at Father Hudson's Homes, a Catholic orphanage in Coleshill, Warwicks. He subjected his victims to systematic sexual abuse, then turned a blind eye as they were beaten with sticks and straps by nuns.”
www.telegraph.co.uk/, Friday 1 May, 1998
Catholic church shaken by sex scandals
“The Catholic Church is now counting the cost of the revelations of sexual abuse by priests.
The growing scandal on both sides of the Atlantic has created a crisis of trust for the church, with claims that senior clerics failed to take action for years.
In Ireland, victims of abuse by priests have called for the resignation of the Archbishop of Dublin, Cardinal Desmond Connell. The government has ordered an inquiry.
In England and Wales, the church has set up a national child protection unit. It follows the publication last year of the Nolan Report, which called for the"great evil"of child abuse to be rooted out.
In the United States, some dioceses have already paid out millions of dollars to settle law suits brought by victims. And the abusers are now being dealt with by the criminal courts.
In New York, the church has handed prosecutors a list of priests suspected of abusing children. And in Boston, a"zero tolerance"policy is now in force.
BBC, 9 April, 2002
Record award for Church abuse victims
“An Australian Roman Catholic order has agreed to pay 3.64m Australian dollars ($2.1m) in compensation to 24 mentally handicapped men who were sexually abused while in its care.
The out-of-court settlement far exceeds previous compensation awards made by the Catholic Church or religious orders in Australia in sex abuse cases....
The Church has confirmed that since 1996 it has paid A$3m in compensation to 101 sexual abuse victims in Victoria state alone.
Adelaide's Catholic Archbishop Philip Wilson will address the US Conference of Catholic Bishops called to discuss the child sex abuse scandal rocking the American Church.
The conference opens in Dallas, Texas, on Thursday.
In April, Archbishop Wilson described the scandal as a"firestorm“Which could inflict"perhaps the greatest ever destruction of the Church in western civilisation.””
BBC, 13 June, 2002
Cardinal Keith O'Brien Quits amid Priests' 'Inappropriate Behaviour' Claims
"Britain's most senior Roman Catholic Cardinal Keith O'Brien has resigned amid“Inappropriate behaviour“Allegations.
According to the Scottish Catholic Church, the Vatican accepted O'Brien's resignation from his role as the Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh in November. That resignation has now taken affect.
He was originally due to retire next month at the age of 75.
O'Brien's resignation follows allegations that he had been reported to the Vatican by three priests and a former priest over allegations of inappropriate behaviour. He denies the claims.”
International Business Times UK, February 25, 2013