How to take over a Country

 The first thing to overthrow a country is set up opposing media and LIE like crazy! When people finally catch on, set up "alternative media" and tell them THAT'S independent. Limited hangout, modified limited hangout, throw in some actors and give them attention from movie stars and mainstream media. Like what they did with Alex Jones. CIA, 100%. And much more. They're in charge of both sides of all political debates. They do it to control everyone. It works, so why not?

Communism was intentionally subverted to try and make it look evil. It's done through covert operations like straw man sock puppets. The supposed mass starvation at the hands of Stalin is a fabrication of the devil. Stalin was one of the most noble souls that ever lived. His army defeated Nazism and exposed the 50 THOUSAND concentration camps set up all around Europe. Guess who they were largely filled with? Communists and Communist JEWS specifically. What was their crime? Liberty and prosperity for their people. What says the opposite? Western propaganda. Why? Controlled by capitalists like the POPE.

All My Posts Regarding Russell Bentley

 Because you can't find these in a search on twitter ! They HID all my posts !

Pope Francis calls child rapists ‘children of God’ deserving of ‘love’

Pope Francis raised some eyebrows while discussing sex abusers, whom he labeled “children of God” who deserve love and “pastoral care” — as well revolting “enemies” who must be punished.

The pontiff made his remarks last month during a private meeting with a group of Jesuit priests in Hungary, but they were only published Tuesday by La Civilta Cattolica, an Italian Jesuit journal.

“How do we approach, how do we talk to the abusers for whom we feel revulsion? Yes, they too are children of God. But how can you love them?” Francis was quoted as saying.

The 86-year-old leader of the Roman Catholic Church was responding to a question from a Hungarian Jesuit who asked: “The Gospel asks us to love, but how do we love at the same time people who have experienced abuse and their abusers?”

The pope acknowledged that the answer to this “powerful question” was “not easily at all.”

Francis explained that a sexual predator was to be condemned, “but as a brother” still deserving of love and care.

“There is a logic, a form of loving the enemy that is also expressed in this way,” he added. “And it is not easy to understand and to live out. The abuser is an enemy.”

While the pope was talking about sexual abuse writ large, the subtext to his answer is the staggering scandal that has rocked the Catholic Church involving generations of pedophile priests abusing hundreds of thousands of children all over the world.

As recently as last month, a Maryland state report revealed that more than 150 Catholic priests with the Archdiocese of Baltimore molested some 600 children, mostly with impunity, over the course of 80 years.

“When you hear what abuse leaves in the hearts of abused people, the impression you get is very powerful,” Francis told his fellow Jesuits during the April 29 meeting in Budapest, Hungary. “Even talking to the abuser involves revulsion; it’s not easy.”

“But they are God’s children too,” he noted, referring to sexual predators. “They deserve punishment, but they also deserve pastoral care. How do we provide that? No, it is not easy.”

During his 10 years on the throne of St. Peter in the Vatican, Francis has created a commission on child molestation prevention and has tightened church laws addressing clerical sexual abuse.

But the pontiff’s efforts to redress the crisis have been hampered by a spate of high-profile resignations from his Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors.

Last week, Francis urged the remaining members of the panel to pursue a “spirituality of reparation” with sexual abuse survivors. 

ξενοφοβία vs φιλοξενία

Good day everyone. Just two of the many flags of the nations I love, admire, respect in the world. Why? Because I'm a normal person. Many are taught to be xenophobes. But φιλοξενία (philoxenia) “φιλέω” = “Love of” and “ξένος” = “foreigner” is a greatest command to me by my God.

More in-depth research proving through the Bible exactly what I mean. This word philoxenia used many times. Especially by the apostle Paul. The word philo ranges from showing friendship to, or literally loving them. But showing friendship is loving them.

https://spirituallysmart.com/immigran...

Alex Jones gets asked about Spirituallysmart.com Live on air

All my research on Alex Jones: spirituallysmart.com/Jones-CIA.htm

Ukrainians are cannibals

 I keep seeing videos and images of Ukrainian military personnel and civilians engaging in cannibalism and sick simulations thereof. So now I will tell people that Ukrainians are cannibals also. No wonder this spec-op is also being referred to now as the deSatanization of Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/tlthe5th

Nazi-Ukraine, A Creation of the Vatican and the Jesuits (Big Update)

 

Updated my Vatican-Nazi page which now connects the Vatican, The US, EU, NATO to the revived AXIS powers which are coming together to start WW3 by provoking Russia through their proxy, the Ukraine: https://spirituallysmart.com/nazi.html

2/28/22: There is a major update for this web page regarding the Russian-Ukrainian War. This information has earned me special censorship from Twitter, Facebook, Google, Youtube and many other companies. So Please Allow this page to fully load. It is worth your time, I promise. Also keep in mind that this Page was Created for PC use, not Phones. Consider this page as a research lead because I cannot fit everything in here. There are hundreds of pieces of documentation proving it to be true.

!! ALERT !! April 28 2022 - The United States, EU, NATO and all affiliated countries are now Nazis and now make up the revived AXIS Powers. The etymology of Nazi is the German form for Ignatius. Yes, the Ignatius who founded the Jesuits for the purposes of the counter-reformation. And now, for the first time in history we have a Jesuit (Nazi) Pope. And he is initiating WW3 against their dreaded enemy, RUSSIA. The same RUSSIA that defeated Nazism during WW2. This web page serves as documentation of the fact that the Vatican and the Jesuits were responsible for Nazi-Germany and WW2 as a whole. And Now I will add the newest and most relevant part of my work which is now the most important and censored information in the world. Adolf Hitler called the Ukraine "the Jewel of the [Nazi] German Empire]. Now we see why. It's because that is where Hitler wanted to set up forces for the eventual destruction of RUSSIA.

The First Pieces of Information You Should Know:

1. Russia's President Vladimir Putin did NOT want this War but was PROVOKED by the United States who had stationed themselves within Ukraine for provocation purposes.

2. Putin has lost many family members to the Nazis

3. The Vatican has always hated the Russian Orthodox Church and Communism. There's been interesting comparisons between the founding of Communism and the manner in which God created human beings. It's said that the creation of Communism was based on the fact that human beings are created in the image and likeness of God and therefore can also be great creators. The Vatican and the United States teach the opposite and is only seeking to make everyone stupid and corrupt through the public school system. Therefore, they make their private catholic and military schools far superior and then go on the best universities and positions where they will always be servants of their Roman Catholic Masters.

President Putin lost a Brother, Grandmother and at least two Uncles to Nazi forces. Both Putin's parents served in Russia's military to fight Nazis. His father was severely wounded in battle. This is the most incredible history here. Putin's life was deeply affected by the Nazis. My God, no wonder why Putin is so great. God help him.

Putin's father was a war hero and earned the equivalent of the #PurpleHeart.

The very thing the US media hides and has always hid. This silence speaks VOLUMES. This should be on the front page of every newspaper. This is very important. It's even on wikipedia.

One should be aware, Nazism has been mainstream within the Ukraine since the end of WW2 (Ukrainian Nazis murdered Jews and others), but it has spiraled out of control more recently. This is why Russia had to go into Ukraine for the purpose of DeNazification and liberation of the anti-Nazi faction within Ukraine. The Ukrainian Nazis have been terrorizing Ukrainian civilians for years. The videos and documentation can be found online if one wants to look.

Please pray that God protects and blesses Russia as they DENAZIFY the Ukraine and liberate the persecuted anti-Nazi factions within the Ukraine! Also, pray to God that He punishes this country for allowing so much wickedness and filth to take place here as they target everyone through their satanic social engineering via public schools and universities.

also see my twitter account where 100s of pieces of documentation have been posted

U.S. Gathered Personal Data on Times Reporter in Case Against Ex-C.I.A. Agent

By CHARLIE SAVAGE

WASHINGTON — Federal law enforcement officials, trying to uncover the sources of a New York Times reporter, James Risen, obtained extensive records about his phone calls, finances and travel history, according to a court brief filed late Thursday.

Prosecutors gathered “various telephone records showing calls made” by Mr. Risen, as well as “credit card and bank records and certain records of his airline travel” and three credit reports listing his financial accounts, the document said.

The brief was filed by lawyers for a former Central Intelligence Agency official, Jeffrey A. Sterling, who has been charged with leaking classified information to an unnamed reporter. The details of Mr. Sterling’s indictment, which was unsealed earlier this year, made clear that prosecutors believe he was a source for Mr. Risen’s 2006 book, “State of War: The Secret History of the C.I.A. and the Bush Administration.”

One of the book’s chapters details a C.I.A. program in 2000 that aimed to disrupt Iran’s nuclear research by giving it blueprints for a nuclear device containing a hidden design flaw. Mr. Risen portrayed the effort as botched, saying it probably helped Iran gain valuable expertise.

The indictment made clear that the government had obtained records of the men’s e-mail and phone contacts. But those could have been obtained by gaining access to Mr. Sterling’s accounts alone. The new brief, which was reported Thursday evening by Politico, showed that law enforcement officials have also extensively investigated Mr. Risen.

The brief did not say when the government obtained the records about Mr. Risen, and the Justice Department declined to discuss the matter. Its investigation into Mr. Sterling dates to the administration of George W. Bush, and Mr. Risen was twice subpoenaed — once under Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, and again under the current attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., Mr. Mukasey’s successor in the Obama administration.

 

Mr. Risen has refused to talk about his sources. The first subpoena lapsed when a grand jury expired, and a federal judge eventually quashed the second subpoena. It remained unclear whether prosecutors would try to subpoena him again for Mr. Sterling’s trial.

Under Justice Department rules, prosecutors may seek subpoenas of journalists for testimony or for their phone records only if the information sought is essential and cannot be obtained in another way.

In addition, the attorney general must personally sign off after balancing the public’s interest in the news against its interest in effective law enforcement. Those regulations do not cover other kinds of personal records for journalists, however.

It also remained unclear whether the phone records came from Mr. Risen’s account. Justice Department rules require notifying a reporter within 90 days if his or her phone records have been subpoenaed. Mr. Risen said that he had received no such notification, but that he believed that the Justice Department had been “harassing” him because of his reporting during the Bush administration.

“This seems to bolster the view that I was targeted by the government,” Mr. Risen said. “They basically tried to get everything about me. I’m not sure what else they could have gotten except my kids’ birth certificates.”

Lucy A. Dalglish, the executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, portrayed the scrutinizing of Mr. Risen as part of a crackdown on leaking that is making it increasingly difficult to report on security and intelligence matters. (The Obama administration, in its first two years, indicted more officials for leaking information to reporters than any previous one.)

“Is it creepy? You bet it is,” Ms. Daglish said. “But that’s how the feds investigate crimes. The problem is that Jim and other reporters are going to have a much more difficult time in the future having government whistleblowers talk to them, and that’s the reason they do this.”

Scott Shane contributed reporting.

Rolling Stone: General Deployed Psy-Ops Against US Senators

The U.S. Army ordered a "psychological operations" team to manipulate visiting U.S. senators into pushing for more funding and troops for the war in Afghanistan, according to a report in Rolling Stone magazine.

Three-star U.S. general Lt. Gen. William Caldwell is accused of deploying propaganda techniques, which the Army says are intended to "alter the behavior of foreign populations," against visiting U.S. dignitaries to Afghanistan in a potentially illegal, months-long operation to lobby Congress. Caldwell is responsible for the training of Afghan security forces.

Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of operations in Afghanistan, told reporters today he was calling for an investigation to "determine the facts and circumstances surrounding the issue."

Ali Abbas, AFP / Getty Images

Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, seen here in 2007, is accused in a Rolling Stone story of deploying propaganda techniques against visiting U.S. dignitaries in Afghanistan.

The commanding officer of the "psy-ops" team tried to blow the whistle on the operation but was ignored and later steamrolled by his superiors, according to the Rolling Stone story.

"My job in psy-ops is to play with people's heads, to get the enemy to behave the way we want them to behave," the officer, Lt. Colonel Michael Holmes, told Rolling Stone. "I'm prohibited from doing that to our own people. When you ask me to try to use these skills on senators and congressman, you're crossing a line."

Sens. John McCain, Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Jack Reed and Al Franken were all targets of the propaganda campaign, as well as Rep. Steve Israel of the House Appropriations Committee and Adm. Mike Mullen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to the magazine.

Lt. Gen. Caldwell issued issued a statement to Rolling Stone saying that he "categorically denies the assertion that the command used an Information Operations Cell to influence Distinguished Visitors."

Sen. Levin, the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he has always been supportive of training Afghan forces and didn't need "convincing" from the military.

"For years, I have strongly and repeatedly advocated for building up Afghan military capability because I believe only the Afghans can truly secure their nation's future," he said in a statement sent to AOL News via e-mail today.

Related Stories

• Rolling Stone's Big Army Psy-Ops Story: Here are the 5 Juiciest Nuggets From It
• Rolling Stone's Army Psy-Ops Story Is Out; Twitter Already Making 'Goat' Jokes
• Rolling Stone McChrystal Profile: The End of Fly-on-the-Wall Reporting?
• Opinion: Why Is Anyone Surprised by Rolling Stone's Scoop?

"I have never needed any convincing on this point. Quite the opposite, my efforts have been aimed at convincing others of the need for larger, more capable Afghan security forces, and that we and NATO should send more trainers to Afghanistan, rather than more combat troops. I am confident that the chain of command will review any allegation that information operations have been improperly used in Afghanistan."

The story is written by Michael Hastings, the same reporter whose June profile of Gen. Stanley McChrystal prompted his resignation.

Former FBI and Navy JAG officer M.E. "Spike" Bowman said in a phone interview today that it is illegal for the military to lobby Congress and said the allegations against the general are serious. If they are true, Bowman said, Caldwell would likely be forced to resign.

"It's still hard to tell what, precisely, occurred," Bowman later wrote in an e-mail to AOL News. "However, if the story is accurate, it does appear that a line was crossed. It's a sufficiently important line that, if provable, would merit the relief of General Caldwell."

Bowman said it will be up to the Army inspector general to determine what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against the general and any other officers involved.

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment by AOL News today.

Delaware diocese settles priest abuse claims for $77M

By Associated Press

Lawyers involved with the Delaware Catholic Diocese of Wilmington's $77 million settlement with nearly 150 alleged victims of sexual abuse said the church's agreement to release unredacted documents is a historic step toward making sure it doesn't happen again.

And lawyers for the alleged victims said they will post the documents on the Internet.

"When people see the documents, they will be able to judge for themselves" how the church dealt with pedophile priests, attorney John Manly said.

The diocese agreed Wednesday to settle the lawsuits, which claimed child sexual abuse by dozens of diocesan and religious order priests dating to the early 1960s. Attorney Thomas Neuberger, who represented 99 of the 146 alleged victims, said they would each receive $530,000 on average.

Diocese attorney Anthony Flynn said church officials were pleased with the settlement.

"It's been a long struggle, but we've finally reached agreement," he said.
Delaware law created a two–year "lookback" window that allowed claims of abuse to be brought regardless of whether the statute of limitations had expired.

The abuse cases created a potential liability that drove the diocese to seek Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2009. At the time, it was the seventh U.S. diocese to file for bankruptcy since allegations erupted years earlier against Catholic clergy in Boston. Numerous multimillion dollar settlements between alleged victims and dioceses across the country have been reached in the aftermath.

The Wilmington Diocese covers Delaware and the Eastern Shore of Maryland and serves about 230,000 Catholics.

The bankruptcy filing had delayed some trials, but Judge Christopher Sontchi ruled in August that lawsuits against several parishes could go forward.
On Dec. 1, a Delaware jury awarded $30 million in damages to a man who claimed he was abused by a priest — a verdict that was exceptional for both the amount and for finding the local parish liable, not just the diocese.

The lawsuit by John Vai claimed that he was abused repeatedly as a boy in the 1960s by Francis DeLuca when the former priest was a teacher at St. Elizabeth's parish in Wilmington.

Advocates for victims of clergy abuse said the value of the compensatory damages was the largest ever awarded in such a lawsuit in the United States and that a parish had never before been found liable for abuse.

Manly said he thought December's verdict played a role in the settlement. "The verdict made it very clear to diocese that things were going to get a lot worse," he said.

The Associated Press typically does not name victims of sexual abuse, but Vai has spoken publicly about the allegations and testified at trial.

Neuberger told the Wilmington News Journal that each victim also would benefit in the future from any settlement or judgment from lawsuits filed against religious orders including the Oblates, Capucians and Norbertines.

He expects that will produce another $80 million for the victim trust. The settlement still needs approval from the bankruptcy judge.

Vatican's Eyes on Egypt

Catholics are just as surprised as anyone, but nobody knows the endgame.

by JOHN THAVIS (CNS) 01/31/2011 

A protester gestures in front of a burning barricade

VATICAN CITY (CNS) —

Church leaders are watching the unfolding political drama in Egypt with a mixture of hope for reform and concern over potential violence, said the head of the Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land.

Father Pierbattista Pizzaballa told Vatican Radio Jan. 30 that the widespread unrest that has weakened the 30-year rule of President Hosni Mubarak came as a surprise to Catholics in the region.

“We all sense that these are epochal changes. None of us would have imagined these kinds of developments a few months ago,” he said.

“This means that there are currents, especially in the Arab world, that now have found visible expression. This is certainly a positive sign, but it’s also worrying because we don’t know how all this will end — we hope with the least possible amount of violence and bloodshed,” he said.

Father Pizzaballa said he hoped that “respect for religious minorities will be preserved” in Egypt. His concern appeared to reflect the fact that Mubarak’s opponents include both radical and moderate Muslim groups, and it was unclear who might assume power if the president resigns.

Father Pizzaballa spoke on a Church-sponsored day of prayer for peace in the Holy Land. At the Vatican, Pope Benedict XVI marked the day with a prayer to “lead minds and hearts toward concrete projects of peace.” He did not specifically mention the unrest in Egypt.

The Pope, joined by two Italian youths, then released two doves from his apartment window as a sign of peace.

In his comments to Vatican Radio, Father Pizzaballa said the search for peace and freedom involves “not allowing oneself to be dominated by passions.”

“We all see how in the Middle East, in the Holy Land and in Jerusalem, passions can blind people. Instead, to have real freedom, we need a certain distance from things in order to see them more clearly,” he said.
He said real freedom in the Middle East needs to include religious freedom, access to places of worship and holy places, and freedom of religious expression.

Francesco Zannini, who teaches at the Pontifical Institute for Arabic and Islamic Studies in Rome, said the situation in Egypt reflected the weakening political power of Arab leaders who have ruled as “monarchs” but who are threatened by changes brought by globalization.

In Egypt, it was unclear whether the momentum of the unrest was great enough to bring lasting reforms, Zannini told the Rome-based agency AsiaNews. One big question, he said, was whether Mohamed ElBaradei, an opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner, had the capacity to govern Egypt.
Zannini said that although Islamic extremists had begun to join the protests in Egypt, he doubted whether they would ever present a governing alternative there. He said he thought radical Islam was losing influence among the populations of the Middle East, and had shown itself too inflexible to have success on a political level, where consensus-building is needed.

Terror Accusations, but Perjury Charges

Crowds gathered for a march in Havana in 2006 to protest United States policy in dealing with Cuba, including its handling of the Posada case.

By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.

Published: January 9, 2011

HOUSTON — An elderly Cuban exile who once worked for the C.I.A. and has been linked to bombings in Havana and the downing of an airliner in the 1970s is scheduled to go on trial this week in a Texas courtroom — not on terrorism charges, but for perjury.

Luis Posada Carriles in 1985.

The exile, Roman Catholic - Luis Posada Carriles, who as a Central Intelligence Agency operative waged a violent campaign against Fidel Castro’s regime for decades, is accused of lying to an immigration judge about his role in the bombings at Havana tourist spots in 1997. He also faces several charges of immigration fraud and obstruction of a proceeding, stemming from lies he is accused of telling United States officials about how he entered the country in March 2005.

But the trial that is scheduled to begin on Monday in federal court in El Paso will go far beyond questions of Mr. Posada’s mendacity under oath. For the first time, American prosecutors will present evidence in open court that Mr. Posada — a man originally trained in explosives by the C.I.A. — played a major role in carrying out bombings in Cuba.

“The C.I.A. trained and unleashed a Frankenstein,” said Peter Kornbluh, an analyst with the National Security Archive who has studied Mr. Posada’s career. “It is long past time he be identified as a terrorist and be held accountable as a terrorist.”

Mr. Posada’s lawyer, Arturo Hernandez, predicted that his client would be acquitted. “He’s innocent of everything,” Mr. Hernandez said.

Mr. Posada, 82, has been free on bond and living with his family in Miami since 2007 in legal limbo. An immigration judge ordered him deported in 2005, but barred him from being sent to Cuba or Venezuela for fear he might face torture. No other country has agreed to accept him.

He was a target in a 2007 investigation by federal agents in New Jersey who were looking into accusations that he had raised money from Cuban exiles in Union City for terrorist attacks. That investigation never led to an indictment.

Instead, the Obama administration has taken the novel approach of charging Mr. Posada with having lied at a deportation hearing about his involvement in the bombings. Some experts on Cuban history say the approach is not unlike indicting Al Capone on tax evasion charges. The penalty could still be stiff: he faces a maximum sentence of five years for each of 10 counts in the indictment, and 10 years on the last count.

But to convince a court that the self-styled Cuban militant committed perjury, prosecutors must prove he participated in the attacks. In court documents, prosecutors have already signaled that they will call two Cuban police officials and present forensic evidence about the 1997 explosions, in which one Italian tourist died. They will also submit tapes and transcripts of interviews of Mr. Posada by a reporter for The New York Times in 1998. In the interviews, he boasted that he had organized the wave of seven bombings at hotels, restaurants and nightclubs.

The trial will be closely watched by officials in Cuba and Venezuela and may be a turning point in relations between the United States and the leftist governments in those countries.
For years, Cuba and Venezuela had been clamoring for Mr. Posada to be extradited to their countries to stand trial. In Venezuela, he remains a prime suspect in the bombing of a Cubana Airlines flight that crashed off the coast of Barbados on Oct. 6, 1976, killing all 73 people aboard. Though he was never convicted, he was imprisoned for nine years in Caracas on charges of conspiring with the bombers. He escaped by bribing a warden and walking out of prison disguised as a priest.

Cuban officials regard him as a terrorist mastermind and have repeatedly accused the United States of harboring “the bin Laden of this hemisphere.” Not only did he say in interviews with The Times that he had orchestrated the Havana bombings in 1997, but he also was convicted in 2000 in Panama of taking part in a plot to assassinate Mr. Castro at a summit meeting. He served four years in prison there before being pardoned by President Mireya Moscoso in her last week in office.

Mr. Posada has long been entwined with American intelligence services, going back to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. He worked directly for the agency until 1967, spying on Cuban exile groups in Miami and running paramilitary training camps, according to declassified documents. He was also a “paid asset” of the agency in Venezuela from 1968 to 1976, according to declassified documents and an unclassified summary of his career in the court record.

“The C.I.A. taught us everything — everything,” he told The Times in 1998. “They taught us explosives, how to kill, bomb trained us in acts of sabotage.”

In 1963, at the C.I.A.’s behest, he enlisted in the United States Army and enrolled in officer school at Fort Benning. He was trained in demolition, propaganda and intelligence, though he quit the military a year later. By March 1965, he was a paid operative for the agency in Miami, making $300 a month, declassified documents show.

Crowds gathered for a march in Havana in 2006 to protest United States policy in dealing with Cuba, including its handling of the Posada case.

Loughner’s Jewish mother? Not so much

By Ron Kampeas · January 12, 2011

I noted the other day that an acquaintance of Jared Lee Loughner, the accused gunman in Gabrielle Giffords shooting in Tucson, believed his mother was Jewish.

Bryce Tierney told Mother Jones that Loughner listed Mein Kampf as a favorite book in part to provoke his Jewish mother.

Nate Bloom, the noted Jewish roots columnist and researcher, has done the legwork -- and pretty much buries this notion.

I'll hand it over to him:

It is appalling how one comment---a friend of Jared Loughner telling a Mother Jones’ reporter that Jared Loughner’s mother is “Jewish”---goes viral in an instant. 

In hours, "this fact" was all over on anti-Semitic sites.  And, of course, there are the “commentators” who love to ‘blame the victim’ via some pop psychology theory that Jared acted out of “Jewish self-hatred.”

I figured that this was the moment to try and get “truth” dressed, and into the public arena a lot faster than usual.  In other words, to use the tools of the internet to determine the veracity of what this friend told Mother Jones.

I cover Jews in popular culture for Jewish newspapers and I know how often famous people are mis-identified as Jewish or mis-identified as not Jewish. I also know that a lot of people are not outright lying about claiming someone is Jewish---they just get it wrong.

So, with my friend Michael, we ran down everything we could from public records on Jared Loughner’s mother’s family background.  It took a lot of “search terms” and databases to find what we did.

Here’s what we found:

Jared Lee Loughner’s mother is Amy Totman Loughner;
Amy Loughner---Known Parentage from Public Records:
Her [Amy’s] parents were Lois May Totman and Laurence Edward Totman.
----Lois M. Totman died in 1999 and Laurence E. Totman died in 2005. Both were registered nurses. Laurence worked at a VA facility in Tucson. We both found this info via google news archives, social security death index.

From 1930 census records
Laurence E. Totman was born in Illinois in 1925.
His (Laurence’s) parents were Laurence A. Totman and his wife, Mary.
Laurence Totman pere (the elder) was born in Kansas to a Pennsylvania father and an Illinois mother. Mary was from Illinois, as were both of her parents.
A sister-in-law named Myrtle M. Brennan is listed as living with them also.
1920/1910 census records---Totman Family:

In 1920, Lawrence Totman, (Jared’s) great-grandfather, is living with his aunt, Rosa Clarke, who was born in illinois to two Irish-born parents.

Rosa is his mother's sister. On the 1910 census, his (Laurence, the elder) maternal grandparents are listed as Irish-born.

Father, Orvie Totman was born in Ohio to Ohio-born parents.
Amy Loughner’s Mother’s Line:

See obit, below, from Arlington (Illinois) Daily Record, June 24, 1999---Obituary of Helen Medernach of Virgil, Illinois. Helen was the sister of Lois M. Totman (the mother of Amy Totman Loughner). Helen was the great aunt of Jared Loughner.

As you can see, Helen’s funeral (mass) was held at a Catholic church. Helen (and Lois) were the children of Anton Bleifuss and Jessie Bleifuss (nee Anderson).  Lois M. Totman died just days after her sister, Helen.

According to the census records, Anton Bleifuss was born in Bremen, Germany, to German parents. Jessie Anderson Bleifuss was born in Illinois to a father born in Denmark and a mother born in Illinois.

Conclusion---It is exceedingly unlikely that Amy Loughner has any Jewish ancestry. The only “line” not traced his Amy’s father’s mother’s family. The other three lines (Amy’s father’s father, Amy’s mother’s father, and Amy’s mother mother)---show, to all but the most obtuse, that these were/are not Jewish families. Moreover, it is quite clear that Amy’s mother, Lois Bleifuss Trotman, came from a Catholic family.

At OpEd News, Rob Kall interviews Rabbi Stephanie Aaron of Giffords' shul, Congregation Chaverim, she dispenses with any notion that the Loughner's were in any way associated with the community:

 "We had a meeting of the Tucson Board of Rabbis. We all looked at our rosters from many years back. No one has ever heard of the family -- him, his parents, any of them. I can say with absolute certainty that we do not know him in pretty much the entire affiliated community." 

I would add this: Bleifuss may be a Jewish name. (The noted investigative journalist, Joel Bleifuss, is Jewish.) Anton Bleifuss, Jared Lee Loughner's great-grandfather, might then have been Jewish -- but not so committed that he didn't defer to his wife when it came to raising the children as Roman Catholics.

As I noted in my earlier posting, Jared Loughner is not the most reliable of reporters, and Tierney's recollection was added as an aside. Mix into this the fact that Amy Loughner's brother is Anton Totman -- apparently named for his mother's father.

Loughner's family was in no way Jewish, nor was his mother -- but she might have mentioned her Jewish grandfather, beloved enough to live on in her brother's name, with pride or interest. Under those circumstances Loughner, who sought "chaos" according to Tierney, might have sought to provoke his mother and his uncle by pretending to admire (or actually admiring) Adolph Hitler. He might have told Tierney that his mother was Jewish as a shorthand, or might have seen her as Jewish -- like I said, not the most reliable reporter. Or he might have explained the lineage, and Tierney might understandably have conflated it as "mother Jewish."

It sets up a fascinating contrast: Gabrielle Giffords, who plunges into public service when she is 30, just the same age she delves into her father's Judaism and chooses to embrace it; and Jared Loughner, who learns of a distant Jewish connection deep in his family's past -- and reviles it as he retreats into madness.
An obituary for Loughman's great aunt, Helen Medernach, is after the jump.


Date: June 24, 1999
Section: Business
Edition: Cook
Page: 10
Column: Obituaries
Helen Medernach of Virgil
A funeral Mass for Helen Medernach, 77, will be held at 10:30 a.m. Friday, at S.S. Peter & Paul Church. Fr. Aloysius Neumann will officiate.

Born Sept. 21, 1921, in Sycamore, the daughter of Anton and Jessie (nee Anderson) Bleifuss, she passed away peacefully Sunday, June 20, 1999, at Bethany Care Center in Sycamore, where she had made her home since May. Interment will be in S.S. Peter and Paul Cemetery, Virgil.

Helen grew up in Sycamore and graduated from Sycamore High School, class of 1939. She went on to take business courses which shortly landed her a job at Anaconda Wire Company in Sycamore. She went to California with her sister, Lois, and was employed in a business office for a few years before returning to work in Chicago. The last 20 years of her working career were spent in the business office at the Duplex Company in Sycamore.

She was united in marriage to William H. `Willie' Medernach on May 16, 1959.

They made their home in Sycamore for a short time before moving to Virgil where they lived across the street from the church for many years.

Survivors include her sisters, Virginia Stran of DeKalb, Irene Luty of Covina, Calif., Lois (Lawrence) Totman of Tucson, Ariz. and Dorothy (`Trig') Troeger of Sycamore; several nieces and nephews; and a family of dear friends. In addition, she leaves the quiet, simple legacy of one who cared. Her many thoughtful words of thanks, encouragement and friendship were patiently penned into countless cards that found their way into the hearts of many friends and neighbors through the years.

She was preceded in death by her parents; her husband in 1997; and brothers, Albert, Lyle, Leslie and Donald Bleifuss.

Friends may call from 4 to 8 p.m. today, at Conley Funeral Home, 116 W. Pierce St., Elburn, and from 9:30 a.m. until the time of the Mass Friday, at the church.

Memorials in her name may be made to Masses in her memory.

Former Army Intelligence officer fatally shoots two teen children she said were 'mouthy'

(Watch the extremely sad video of Julie Schenecker being taken away by police here. Caution: very disturbing)

Julie Powers Schenecker kills her own two teen age children. Had been struggling with depression.  Schenecker's husband, Parker Schenecker, is an Army colonel stationed at the headquarters of U.S. Central Command at MacDill Air Force Base and is an NSA officer. "I'm COL Schenecker, the Deputy NSA rep to CENTCOM in Tampa..." Source

"Parker Schenecker met Julie Powers in Munich, Germany, where they were both stationed in the late '80s and early '90s.

She worked as a Russian linguist for the Army, collecting intelligence for European agencies by interviewing refugees coming from the Eastern Bloc, said Tim Fredrikson, who served with her.

He was a rising intelligence officer who had graduated cum laude with a French degree from Washington and Lee University in Virginia, where the school yearbook is named the "Calyx."

In Munich, Julie organized and coached a volleyball team of officers, said K.C. Dreller, another intelligence officer who worked with her.

"She was super good at it," said Dreller, 49. "I imagine she was super good at everything she did. Anybody that was in that field was a Type A personality."

The couple married and had two children, Calyx in Germany and Powers, who went by "Beau," in Honolulu.

The military family moved a lot, and Parker Schenecker studied at several military schools, including the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College and the U.S. Army War College, according to a 2010 bulletin on distinguished alumni, published on his high school's website.

The newsletter also said he became a colonel in 2006 and was mainly responsible for the National Security Agency's support to military operations.

About three years ago the family landed in Tampa.

Parker is assigned to U.S. Central Command's intelligence directorate and has worked for CentCom for more than two years, said Lt. Col. Mike Lawhorn, a spokesman. He was on a temporary duty assignment overseas the past few days.

Julie Schenecker, no longer in the Army, stayed home with their children. She took shifts driving in the neighborhood's King High School car pool and often referred to the struggles of parenting in seemingly light-hearted Facebook posts.

On May 7, a friend wrote, "Happy Mother's/Hallmark day to all the mothers. You are more brave than I. Not sure how you do it, but glad you do."

Julie responded: "some days, not sure how we do it, either!! :-)"

On Sept. 23, a friend posted on his profile: "Hold yourself to a higher standard than anybody else expects of you."

Julie commented: "i needed that advice today — have a 16 yr old daughter!"  Source

The following are comments I have found on the Internet in regards to the possible anti-depressant medications she may have been taking.

Keith Green Catholic Chronicles

Red Mass Info Red Mass Pics Jesuit Nazis Jesuit Arabs Jesuit Holocaust Jesuit Assassins Picture Positive Jesuit Links Waco Truth Testimony

Email Me**Home

Videos Audios Alberto Rivera Keith Green 9/11 Videos Myspace Riggs Bank Bush Family Inquisitions NWO

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web www.spirituallysmart.com

A Conversation with Last Days Ministries (Keith Green's Ministry) about why they stopped publishing the "Catholic Chronicles". Keith Green - Your Love Broke Through Keith Green "Asleep in the Light" 11 year old Keith Green on “I've Got A Secret!” Testimony of Ex-CIA, High Satanic Priestess who said the CIA Assassinated Keith. The CIA is totally controlled by the Jesuits.

Link to the Website where I found this work

I want to put the "Conclusion" of this work first being that it is usually edited out. This will show how really dangerous Keith Green was to Rome.

"Conclusion"
It is obvious by even this brief glimpse into the doctrines of mortal and venial sins, confession, penance, and purgatory, that the Roman Catholic Church has constructed one of the most unbiblical doctrinal systems that has ever been considered "Christian". The fear, anguish, and religious bondage that such a system of "reward and punishment" creates, has tormented millions of lives for centuries, and continues to prey on those who are ignorant of the biblical way of salvation.

To merely call such a system "a cult", would be to throw it into the vast category of religions and quasi-religions that are currently making the rounds of our college campuses and city streets, snatching up many an unsuspecting youth. No, the Roman Church is not a cult. It's an empire!

With its own ruler, its own laws, and its own subjects! The empire has no borders, it encompasses the globe with its eye on every person who does not vow allegiance. It calls the members of other faiths "separated brethren" (The term used by Vatican II to describe the members of Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant churches.) and has as its goal the eventual bringing together of everyone under its flag.

I know that many will not be convinced or moved by this article (or any of the others) to make such a conclusion. They are impressed by what they've heard about recent stirrings among the Catholics in the "charismatic renewal". Many evangelicals (especially Charismatics) have been thrilled by the reports of Catholics speaking in tongues, dancing in the Spirit, having nights of joy and praise, even attending "charismatic masses".

Mouths that used to speak out boldly against the Church of Rome have been quieted by the times. It no longer is in vogue to speak of the pope as "the antichrist" (Although the following people unhesitatingly did: Martin Luther, John Bunyan, John Huss, John Wycliffe, John Calvin, William Tyndale, John Knox, Thomas Bacon, John Wesley, Samuel Cooper, John Cotton, and Jonathan Edwards.) or the Catholic Church as the "whore of Babylon". Now Protestants unwittingly believe that "our differences are not so great". Ah, that is just what She needs us to think!

I've never completely understood why God led me to write these articles. But it becomes more clear with each day of study, and each page of research. Never has something so black and wicked, gotten away with appearing so holy and mysteriously beautiful . . . for so long!

---

Part 1. The Holy Eucharist - Eating the Flesh of Deity.

One might wonder why, in a scriptural look at the doctrines of the Catholic Church, I would choose this subject - The Roman Interpretation of the Lord's Supper (more commonly known as "Communion") for the first of the "Catholic Chronicles." Most Protestants (1) would expect me to deal with what they might consider the more obvious departures from biblical foundation - such as the worship of and prayers to the Virgin Mary, the infallibility of the pope, purgatory and prayers for the dead, or the history of the torture and burning of accused "heretics" and such like that.

But for this first article I believe that we should get right to the root, before we begin exploring the branches of Roman doctrine and practice. And any Catholic who has even a small knowledge of his church knows that the central focus of each gathering (known as the "Mass") is the Holy Eucharist.

The Eucharist

The word "Eucharist" is a Greek word that means "thanksgiving." In the gospel accounts of the Last Supper, Jesus is described as "giving thanks" before breaking the bread (Luke 22:19), and so this word became a proper name for the Lord's Supper in the early Catholic Church. Today, it is more commonly associated with the elements in communion, especially the host or "wafer," although the ceremony itself is still called "The Holy Eucharist."

Now, you might be wondering why I'm taking so much time and effort to explain something as harmless as the ceremony known around the world as communion. If you've probably taken part in a communion service. So why make all this fuss about bread and wine? Why? Because that's where the similarity between evangelical communion services and the Roman Catholic Mass ends - at the bread and the wine!

Transubstantiation

That 18-letter word above is a complete theological statement . . . and the name of a doctrine, out of which springs the most astounding set of beliefs and practices that has ever been taught in the name of religion. Very, very few people know what the Catholic Church actually believes and teaches concerning this subject, and I am convinced that even fewer Catholics realize themselves what they are taking part in. From earliest childhood, "This is the body of Christ" is all they've ever heard when the priest gingerly placed the wafer on their tongue. And as they grew up, it was such a natural and normal part of religious life, that their minds never even questioned the fact that Jesus Christ, Himself, was actually in their mouth!

It might be hard for you to believe, but that's exactly, literally, what "transubstantiation" means. The Roman Catholic Church teaches their flocks that the bread and the wine used in the Mass actually, physically, turn into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ after the priest blesses them during the liturgy (ceremony). Although this in itself might shock you, it is really only the beginning. For the implications and practical conclusions of this doctrine are absolutely mind-boggling.

Exclusive Authority

For example, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that since their priests are the only ones who have the authority from God (2) to pronounce the blessing which changes the elements of communion into the actual body and blood of Jesus, that they are the only church where Jesus "physically resides" even now! Let me quote a letter written to one of the girls in our ministry from a devoted Catholic:

"To explain the Catholic Church would take volumes, but basically the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ when He was here on earth. It is the ONLY church founded by Jesus. The greatest asset of our church is that we have Jesus present in the Holy Eucharist - He is really here, body, soul and divinity. He is God and in His omnipotence can do anything He wishes, and He decided to remain with us until the end of the world in the form of the host in Holy Communion."

If you think this is just the isolated opinion of someone on the fringe of the church, or that the Catholic Church as a whole does not really believe or teach this, I beg you to read on. For not only is this the official teaching of Rome, but according to irreversible church decree (called dogma), anyone who does not hold to this belief, in the most explicit detail, is accursed and damned forever!

The Council of Trent

When Europe was electrified by the eloquent preaching of the sixteenth century reformation, the Roman Catholic hierarchy gathered together her theologians who worked for three decades on the preparation of a statement of faith concerning the doctrine of transubstantiation. This document remains, to this day, the standard of Catholic doctrine.

As the Second Vatican Council commenced in 1963, Pope John XXIII declared, "I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent." What did the Council of Trent decide and declare? Some of the first sections are as follows:

CANON I - "If anyone shall deny that the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore entire Christ, are truly, really, and substantially contained in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist; and shall say that He is only in it as a sign, or in a figure - let him be accursed!"

CANON II - "If anyone shall say that the substance of the bread and wine remains in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist, together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ - let him be accursed!"

CANON VI - "If anyone shall say that Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, even with the open worship of Latria, and therefore not to be venerated with any peculiar festal celebrity, not to be solemnly carried about in processions according to the praiseworthy and universal rites and customs of the Holy Church, and that He is not to be publicly set before the people to be adored, and that His adorers are idolators, - let him be accursed!"

The Worship Of The Host

"Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image (4)...Thou shall not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them" The Second Commandment (Ex.20:4-5)

"God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." (John 4:23)

In Canon VI, a rite of worship called "Latria" was spoken of. This is not just an "ancient custom," it is thoroughly practiced today in many Masses. After the bread has been supposedly "changed" into the Christ by the priest, it is placed in a holder called a monstrance. And before this monstrance the Catholic must bow and worship (this act is called genuflecting) the little wafer as God! Sometimes they have processions where they solemnly march, as the congregation bows and offers praise and worship - to this piece of bread!

The Roman teaching that Jesus Christ is physically present in each morsel of bread creates many other doctrinal and practical problems. For instance, when the service is over, what happens to all those leftover wafers that have been "changed into Christ?" Do they change back into bread again when the priest goes home? I'm afraid not. For according to Canon IV of the Council of Trent, they stay flesh! And don't think that 400 year-old decree is just some dusty old manuscript in a museum case somewhere - it still is completely adhered to and passionately practiced. As an example, here is a passage from an official Catholic home instruction book, copyrighted 1978:

"Jesus Christ does not cease to exist under the appearances of bread and wine after the Mass is over. Furthermore, some hosts are usually kept in all Catholic churches. In these hosts, Jesus is physically and truly present, as long as the appearances of bread remain. Catholics therefore have the praiseworthy practice of `making visits' to our Lord present in their churches to offer Him their thanks, their adoration, to ask for help and forgiveness: in a word, to make Him the center around which they live their daily lives."

That is an incredible interpretation of how to make Jesus the center of your daily life!

When Did This Teaching Begin?

The teaching of transubstantiation does not date back to the Last Supper as most Catholics suppose. It was a controversial topic for many centuries before officially becoming an article of faith (which means that it is essential to salvation according to Rome). The idea of a physical presence was vaguely held by some, such as Ambrose, but it was not until 831 A.D. that Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine Monk, published a treatise openly advocating the doctrine. Even then, for almost another four centuries, theological was was waged over this teaching by bishops and people alike, until at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D., it was officially defined and canonized as a dogma (a teaching or doctrine that can never be reversed or repealed. It is equal in authority to the Bible.) by Pope Innocent III.

Church historians tell us that when this doctrine first began to be taught, the priests took great care that no crumb should fall - lest the body of Jesus be hurt, or even eaten by a mouse or a dog! There were quite serious discussions as to what should be done if a person were to vomit after receiving the sacrament. At the Council of Constance, it was argued that if a communicant spilled some of the blood on his beard, both beard and the man should be destroyed by burning!

How Rome Views the Bible

Before we proceed to look at what the Bible has to say on this subject, it is important to understand the official Catholic view of the Scriptures. According to unquestionable decree, they hold that "Church tradition has equal authority with the Bible." This is not just a theological view, but it was made an article of faith by the same Council of Trent in 1546! And again, this view is completely held by the Church today:

"The teachings of the Church will always be in keeping with the teachings of the Scripture...and it is through the teaching of the Church that we understand more fully truths of sacred Scripture. To the Catholic Church belongs the final word in the understanding and meaning of the Holy Spirit in the words of the Bible."

And explaining the premise used in interpreting the Bible:" "...usually, the meaning of the Scriptures is sought out by those who are specially trained for this purpose. And in their conclusions, they know that no explanation of the Scriptures which contradicts the truths constantly taught by the infallible Church can be true." (10)

Anyone can see how such a mode of interpretation can be dangerously used to manipulate Scripture to mean absolutely anything at all! Who has not observed this of the various cults? The Moonies, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses all back up their false teachings with "new revelations" and "inspired interpretations" of the Scriptures - each claiming that the Holy Spirit revealed these new truths to their founders. One opens themselves to all kinds of deception when they judge the Bible by what their church or pastor teaches, instead of judging what their church or pastor teaches by the Bible!

Catholic Proof-Texts Explained

With this in mind, we will briefly discuss the two main passages of Scripture that the Roman Church uses while trying to show that Jesus Himself taught transubstantiation.

John 6:54-55: "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life; and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink."

Catholics are taught here, that Jesus is explaining how He is literally offering them His flesh and blood, so that they may have eternal life by physically eating Him. With just a little study of the whole passage (verses 27-71), it is clear that Jesus was not talking about physical, but spiritual food and drink.

Food is eaten to satisfy hunger. And in verse 35 Jesus says, "He who cometh to Me shall never hunger." Now, Jesus is not promising eternal relief from physical hunger pains. He is, of course, speaking of the spiritual hunger in man for righteousness and salvation, And He promises to those who will "come to Him" that He will satisfy their hunger for these things forever - therefore, to come to Him is to "eat"! (See also Matt. 5:6, 11:28; Jn. 4:31-34.)

We drink also to satisfy thirst, and again in verse 35 Jesus tells us, "He that believeth on Me shall never thirst." Therefore, to believe on Him is to "drink"! (See also John 4:13-14.) No one can say that Jesus was here establishing the eating and drinking of His literal flesh and blood to give eternal life, for in verse 63 He says, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." Thus Jesus makes clear what we should be eating and drinking to have eternal life! Matt. 26:26 and 28: "This is My body...this is My blood." (See also Matt. 4:4.)

Catholics base their whole religious system on their interpretation of these tow verses. They adamantly teach that right here, Jesus is pronouncing the first priestly blessing that mysteriously changes the bread and wine into His body and blood. The absolute folly of such a conclusion is proved by this one observation: He was literally still there before, during, and after they had partaken of the bread and the cup! He was not changed into some liquid and bread - His flesh was still on His bones, and His blood still in His veins. He had not vanished away to reappear in the form of a piece of bread or a cup of wine!

Let's look closer at His words. No one can deny that here we have figurative language. Jesus did not say TOUTO GIGNETAI ("this has become" or "is turned into"), but TOUTO ESTI ("this is," i.e., "signifies," "represents" or "stands for"). (11) It is obvious that Jesus' meaning was not literal but symbolic! And He wasn't the first in the Bible to claim figuratively that a glass of liquid was really "blood."

One time, David's friends heard him express a strong desire for water from the well of Bethlehem. In spite of extreme danger, these men broke through the enemy lines of the Philistines and brought the water to him. When David found out that these men had risked their lives in this way, he refused to drink the water, exclaiming, "Is not this the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives?" (2 Sam. 23:17)

Throughout the gospels we find similar metaphorical language: Jesus referring to Himself as "the Door," "the Vine," "the Light," "the Root," "the Rock," "the Bright and Morning Star," as well as "the Bread." The passage is written with such common language that it is plain to any observant reader that the Lord's Supper was intended primarily as a memorial and in no sense a literal sacrifice. "Do this in remembrance of Me." (Luke 22:19)

True Pagan Origins

Where did this teaching and practice really come from? Like many of the beliefs and rites of Romanism, transubstantiation was first practiced by pagan religions. The noted historian Durant said that belief in transubstantiation as practiced by the priests of the Roman Catholic system is "one of the oldest ceremonies of primitive religion." (12) The syncretism and mysticism of the Middle East were great factors in influencing the West, particularly Italy. (13) In Egypt, priests would consecrate mest cakes which were supposed to become the flesh of Osiris. (14) The idea of transubstantiation was also characteristic of the religion of Mithra whose sacraments of cakes and haoma drink closely parallel Catholic Eucharist rites. (15)

The idea of eating the flesh of deity was most popular among the people of Mexico and Central America long before they ever heard of Christ; and when Spanish missionaries first landed in those countries, "their surprise was heightened, when they witnessed a religious rite which reminded them of communion...an image made of flour...and after consecration by priests, was distributed among the people who ate it...declaring it was the flesh of deity..." (16)

So Why Do They Teach It?

Before concluding our first chronicle, the question needs to be asked, "Why does the Roman Catholic Church need to have such a doctrine - why do they think that Jesus wants them to physically eat Him?" That is what truly puzzled me as I read astounded through the catechism and doctrinal instruction books. But the answer to that question is a sad one. As I said before, the implications and practical conclusions of the teaching of transubstantiation are substantially worse than the doctrine itself - and like a great web spun by an industrious spider, Rome's teachings spiral out from this central hub like the spokes of a wheel.

In Catholic Chronicle II we will look intently at the next direct result of transubstantiation in official Catholic systematic theology: "The Sacrifice of the Mass."

Footnotes:
1] - Today, Protestants are considered to be members of any church or church-group outside the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches.
2] - Passed down through "Apostolic Succession" from Peter the apostle-the supposed "first pope."
3] - The "wafer."
4] - NASB reads, "You shall not make for yourself an idol."
5] - This act is called "genuflecting."
6] - "The Spirit of Jesus" Catholic Home Study Instruction Course. Book #3, p.92.
7] - A "Dogma" is a teaching or doctrine that can never be reversed or repealed. It is equal in authority to the Bible.
8] - The Other Side of Rome, p.21.
9] - By the end of the eleventh century, lest someone should spill God's blood, some in the church began to hold back the cup from the people, and finally in 1415, the Council of Constance officially denied the cup to laymen. Although today, by decree of the Vatican, churches may now offer the cup optionally to communicants.
10] - "The Spirit of Jesus," pp.94-95.
11] - If I held up a picture of my son and said, "This is my son," I am certainly not saying that the actual picture is literally my son.
12] - The Story of Civilization, p.741.
13] - Roman Society From Nero to Marcus Aurelius, by Dill.
14] - An ancient Egyptian god of the lower world and judge of the dead - Encyclopedia of Religions, Vol.2, p.76.
15] - Ibid.
16] - Prescott's Mexico, Vol. 3.

The Sacrafice of the Mass - What Does it Mean?

In Chronicle I, we thoroughly examined the doctrine of transubstantiation - its history, practice, and real meaning. But we have waited for this second article to answer the question: WHY? Why must there be present in the Mass the literal body and blood of Jesus? What purpose does it serve?

The answer is found in the startling words: "The sacrifice of the Mass is the same sacrifice of the cross, for there is the same priest, the same victim, and the same offering." (1)

And in the words of Pope Pius IV....

"I profess likewise that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory (2) sacrifice for the living and the dead." (From the fifth article of the creed of Pope Pius IV.)

That is the incredible truth! The Roman Catholic Church believes and teaches that in every Mass, in every church, throughout the world (estimated at up to 200,000 Masses a day) that Jesus Christ is being offered up again, physically, as a sacrifice for sin (benefiting not only those alive, but the dead (3) as well!) Every Roman Mass is a re-creation of Jesus' death for the sins of the world. NOT A SYMBOLIC RE-CREATION - but a literal, actual offering of the flesh and blood of the Lord to make daily atonement for all the sins that have been daily committed since Jesus was crucified almost 2,000 years ago. (4)

That's why the bread and wine must become physically Jesus' body and blood, so that they can be once again offered for sin: "The Holy Eucharist is the perpetual continuation of this act of sacrifice and surrender of our Lord. When the Lord's Supper is celebrated, Christ again presents Himself in His act of total surrender to the Father in death." (5)

"He offers Himself continually to the Father, in the same eternal act of offering that began on the cross and will NEVER CEASE." (6)

"The Mass is identical to Calvary - it is a sacrifice for sin - it must be perpetuated to take away sin." (7)

The catechism of the Council of Trent required all pastors to explain that not only did the elements of the Mass contain flesh, bones and nerves as a part of Christ, "But also a WHOLE CHRIST." (8) Thus it is referred to as "the sacrifice of the Mass" and as "a RENEWAL of the sacrifice of the cross." (9)

The Council Of Trent On "The Sacrifice Of The Mass"

As we shared in Chronicle I, the Council of Trent was called to clarify and standardize Catholic doctrine in response to the challenges of the Reformation. The canons on this subject (passed in Session XXII. Cap II.) are as follows:

1. "If anyone shall say, that in the Mass there is not offered to God a true and proper sacrifice, or that what is offered is nothing else than Christ given to be eaten, let him be anathema." (10)

2. "If anyone shall say that in these words, 'This do in remembrance of Me,' Christ did not make the apostles priests, or did not ordain that they themselves and other priests should offer His body and blood, let him be anathema."

3. "If anyone shall say that the sacrifice of the Mass is only of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice performed on the cross, but not propitiatory; or that it is of benefit only to the person who takes it, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead fro sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be accursed."

4. "If anyone shall say that a blasphemy is ascribed to the most holy sacrifice of Christ performed on the cross by the sacrifice of the Mass - let him be accursed."

But Is This The Belief Of Rome Today?

If any be in doubt as to the modern Roman position, we shall quote the recent (1963-1965) Second Vatican Council:

"At the Last Supper...our Saviour instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of His body and blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross..." p. 154, THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II, Walter M. Abbott, S.J.

The catechism books teach that the reason the Mass is the same sacrifice as that of Calvary is because the victim in each case was Jesus Christ. (11) In fact, they refer to the bread of the Eucharist as the "host," which is the Latin word HOSTIA which literally means "VICTIM." (12)

But Why "The Sacrifice" Of The Mass?

We will now quote the church's own contemporary literature to fully answer this question (taken from the book, THIS IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, published by the Catholic Information Service, Knights of Columbus, Imprimatur: (13)  Most Reverend John F. Whealon, Archbishop of Hartford:

"Sacrifice is the very essence of religion. And it is only through sacrifice that union with the Creator can be perfectly acquired. It was through sacrifice that Christ Himself was able to achieve this for man. IT IS ONLY THROUGH THE PERPETUATION OF THAT SACRIFICE THAT THIS UNION MAY BE MAINTAINED.

"What makes the Mass the most exalted of all sacrifices is the nature of the victim, Christ Himself. For the Mass is the continuation of Christ's sacrifice which He offered through His life and Christ was not only the priest of this sacrifice (of the Cross), He was also the victim, the very object itself of this sacrifice.

The Mass is thus the same as the sacrifice of the cross. No matter how many times it is offered, nor in how many places at one time, it is the same sacrifice of Christ. Christ is forever offering Himself in the Mass." (14)

But Jesus Said "It Is Finished!"

Every true believer loves the sound of these words: "It is finished!" (John 19:30). For it is the wonderful exclamation that the Lord's suffering was finally over - He had fulfilled His mission! Jesus had lived a Life of Sorrow, bearing the burden of a world gone mad. He had been rejected by everyone, even His closest friends. He had lived a perfect life before men and God, and His reward on earth was to be laughed at, spat upon, beaten beyond recognition, and finally nailed to a cross. But He had submitted willingly, because it was the will of His Father to offer Him as the satisfaction of the penalty for all the sin in the world - past, present and future!

But here, in the words of a Roman Catholic priest, is the "true meaning" of the words "it is finished!" "These words do not declare that His sacrifice was finished, but that He had finished His former, normal, earthly life and was now fixed in the state of a victim...He then began His everlasting career as the perpetual sacrifice of the new law." (15) Hence, according to Rome, Jesus must be forever "perpetually"dying for sin.

Have you ever wondered why in every Catholic Church they still have Jesus up on the cross? Every crucifix with Jesus portrayed as nailed to it, tells the whole Catholic story - Jesus is still dying for the sins of the world! But that's a lie! We need only look to the Scriptures to see the truth.

Back To The Book

The epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the "once for all" sacrifice of Christ on the cross, not a daily sacrifice on altars. The Bible repeatedly affirms in the clearest and most positive terms that Christ's sacrifice on Calvary was complete in that one offering. And that it was never to be repeated is set forth explicitly in Hebrews, chapters 7, 9 and 10:

"Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: For this He did once, when He offered up Himself" (7:27). "...by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us" (9:12). "Nor yet that He should offer Himself often..but now once in the end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself..so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation" (9:25-28). "...we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but this man, after He had offered one sacrifice for the sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God...for by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified" (10:10-14).

Notice that throughout these verses occurs the statement "once for all" which shows how perfect, complete and final Jesus' sacrifice was! His work on the cross constituted one historic event which need never be repeated and which in fact cannot be repeated. As Paul say, "Christ, being raised from the dead dieth no more" (Romans 6:9). Any pretense of a continuous offering for sin is worse than vain, it is blasphemy and true fulfillment of the Scripture, "Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame." (Heb. 6:6).

Jesus - The Only Priest

Jesus not only became the perfect sacrifice for sin, but after being accepted by God as having totally fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant, He became "the mediator of a better covenant" (Heb.8:6). That means that Jesus is the high priest of every true believer! "There is one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ" (ITim.2:5).

The Bible teaches that the priesthood of Jesus Christ is unique: "Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek" (17) "...because He abides forever (He) holds His priesthood permanently" This means that it cannot be transferred to another! (Heb.7:17,24).

But Roman Catholicism teaches that the apostles were ordained by Jesus Himself (at the Last Supper) to perpetuate the coming sacrifice He would make on the cross. And that this ordination has been handed down through the centuries to the current generation of priests. Therefore, Rome teaches that her priests actually operate and discharge the priesthood of Jesus Christ, and that they are called "other Christs" (alter Christus). (16)

This explains the great adulation and honor heaped upon the Roman priest. The French Catholic Saint J.M.B. Vianney said that "Where there is no priest there is no sacrifice, and where there is no sacrifice there is no religion...without the priest the death and passion of our Lord would be of no avail to us... see the power of the priest! By one word from his lips, he changes a piece of bread into a God! A greater feat than the creation of a world." He also said, "If I were to meet a priest and an angel, I would salute the priest before saluting the angel. The angel is a friend of God, but the priest holds the place of God...nest to God Himself, the priest is everything!" What humiliation for Jesus Christ, the One who has been given a name "above all other names!"

But Isn't Rome Changing?

Today, many are expressing hope that Rome is turning toward scriptural Christianity. They point to the many reforms of Vatican II (17) and also to the ever-widening charismatic renewal. True, these things appear to be a positive sign of change, and many are thrilled by them, but most fail to realize that these changes are only superficial. For Rome could never reject the sacrifice of the Mass - just streamline it enough to keep the truth of its meaning hidden. Pope John XXIII made it clear that His Church is bound "to all the teachings of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the act of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council..." (18)

It is clear that the whole of Roman teaching and belief is founded on this premise of the continual sacrifice of Christ for sin: Again, Catholic writings declare:

"It should be easy to see why the Mass holds such an important place in the Church's life. The Mass is the very essence of the Church. Within it the Church's life, and the Church's very existence is centered. If there were no Mass, there could be no Catholic Church. The Mass is our act of worship, an act which we know to be really worthy of God, because it is the sacrifice of God's own Son.

"What the sacrifices of the old law were unable to accomplish - the Mass performs: Perfect atonement is made for sin.

"The souls of men yet unborn, together with those now living and those who have come into existence since Christ's sacrifice, all have need of the salvation which Christ has won for us. It is through the Mass as well as through the other sacraments that the effects of Christ's salvation are applied to the souls of men." (19)

It is made thoroughly clear that Rome will forever put its faith in the Mass for the eternal forgiveness of sins. To remove this belief from her system of theology, would be like knocking our the pillars of a great edifice - the whole building would come tumbling down!

Paul's Extreme Warning

As I sat stunned, reading all the "Let them be accursed" threats of the Council of Trent, I could not help but think how their curses would only fall back on their own heads - for the words of our brother Paul call out across the centuries:

"But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed!" (Gal. 1:8).

Not only does Paul warn that an authentic angel from heaven should not be heeded while preaching "different doctrine," but he gives the ultimate warning -"...even though we!" Paul strictly warned the Galatians, not even to listen to him - the chief apostle and master of true doctrine - if he should reverse himself on any of the fundamental teachings of the gospel. How much more then, should we reject the appalling traditions and practices of a system that is not only unbiblical, but is actually steeped in mysticism, bordering dangerously on the occult!

Conclusion

As far as I can see from the Bible, a person is only in danger of being grouped with "false brethren" by tampering with three very basic issues of biblical truth. (20)

1) Who Jesus is - Son of God, God the Son, Creator of the universe.

2) What He came to do - to die once for all, for the sins of mankind, then raise from the dead as the eternal high priest of all true believers.

3) How a person directly benefits from Christ's death for sin - he is accounted as righteous through a total faith and rest in the finished work of Christ, and becomes the possessor of God's free gift - eternal life (salvation).

The Roman Catholic Church has been considered a true Christian faith, mainly because it is generally known that their theology is quite orthodox on point #1. But as we have pointed out in these two chronicles, they are perilously shaky on the atonement - Christ's substitutionary death for sinners - #2. But if there is any doubt left at all, as to whether or not the Roman Church is authentically and biblically Christian, there is a complete and thorough study of the Roman view on how one obtains salvation in our third installment of The Catholic Chronicles - "Salvation According To Rome."

Footnotes:
1] The Roman Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass, by Bartholomew F. Brewer, Ph.D.
2] Propitiatory - conciliatory, to soothe the anger of, to win or regain the goodwill of, to appease, placate or make friendly, to reconcile - Webster's New World Dictionary and Harper's Bible Dictionary.
3] "It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment"(Heb.9:27).
4] The Catholic Home Instruction Book #3, p.90.
5] the Spirit of Jesus pp.89-90, Imprimatur: John Joseph CardinalCarberry, Archbishop of St.Louis.
6] Sons of God in Christ Book 4, p.117.
7] For Them Also, pp.289-299.
8] Encyclopedia of Religions, Vol.2, p.77.
9] "A Catholic Word List" p.45.
10] Anathema - The strongest denunciaiton of a person that can be made in the ancient Greek (the original language of the New Testament). Literal meaning: "devoted to death." A thing or person accursed or damned - Webster's New World Dictionary and Harper's Bible Dictionary.
11] "The New Baltimore Catechism" #3, Question 931.
12] Webster's New World Dictionary.
13] Imprimatur - Sanction or approval. Specifically, permission to print or publish a book or article containing nothing contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church - Webster's New World Dictionary.
14] pp.20-24
15] The Sacrifice of Christ by Richard W.Grace.
16]  In Latin.
17] i.e., Such as Masses performed in the common language rather than exclusively in Latin, the relaxation of taboos such as eating meat on Friday, etc.
18] The Documents of Vatican II, Abbot,S.J.
20] This Is The Catholic Church pp.24-25.
21] These are greatly condensed for this example.

Part 3. Salvation According to Rome.

"...the free gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord!"- Rom. 6:23

How blessed it is to know Jesus! His love, His mercy, His righteousness, His forgiveness! He has promised to "cast all our sins into the depths of the sea" (Mic. 7:19) and to separate us from our sins "as far as the east is from the west!" (Ps. 103:12).This is the good news! (That's the literal meaning of the word "gospel" - good news!) That is what the true church of our God has the privilege of proclaiming..."liberty to the captives!!" (Lk. 4:18).

The reason I begin this article on the Roman Catholic view of salvation with such rejoicing in my Saviour, is because I have just finished reading a mountain of official (Roman) church literature on the subject, and I can honestly say, I have never had such joy in my heart of hearts about the finished work of Christ. As I scoured each page and read of penance, confession, venial and mortal sins, indulgences, purgatory, etc., I then had the infinite pleasure of searching the Scriptures to see what they had to say on these fundamental Catholic doctrines.

Oh what relief my soul found in the Scriptures! What holy joy! What clarity of light I saw, as the simple brilliance of God's mercy shown into my mind. If there is anything more beautiful than God's love and patience with man, it has never been revealed to mortals!

All this to say that I am bogged down with the information I have accumulated, and I will probably have to cover it all in this, Chronicle III, briefly touching on each subject, while always coming back to the main question: "According to Rome, how can a man or woman be saved from the consequences of his sinful nature and actions, and how can they gain assurance that they are in a right standing before God?"

The Catholic Teaching On Sin

Before we can understand what Catholics are taught about salvation, we must first see what they are taught they need to be saved from. In Matt. 1, the angel of the Lord speaks to Joseph in a dream about his bethrothed, Mary, saying "she will bear a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins" (vs. 21).

Today, many evangelicals toss around the term "saved" without much thought. "When did you get saved?" someone might ask. It's almost like a title, or a badge that a person wears to prove that he's become part of the club - the "saved" club. Others are under the impression that when a person talks of being "saved", they are talking about being saved from many different things - sickness, death, the devil, hell, etc. But when the angel of the Lord used that precious word to prophesy that Jesus would fulfill all the predictions of the prophets, he made very clear what Jesus was coming to save His people from...their sins!

In official Roman Catholic theology, this too is the main thing that people are taught they need to be saved from - their sins. But the only thing that Catholic and evangelical teachings have in common on the subject of sin...is the spelling! For when a Catholic talks about his "sins", you must find out first if he is talking about "mortal" sins, or "venial" sins. And then you must ask him "how do you get rid of them?" The answer given will likely confound a non-Catholic. For words like "faith", "repentance", even "Jesus" will usually be missing in the answer. Instead, a whole new list of other words will have to be learned, defined, and understood before the evangelical can fully grasp how a Catholic is taught his sins (and the penalty due them) can be canceled out.

Mortal and Venial Sins

The first of these unfamiliar words are the names of the two groups Rome has separated all sins into. Now if you're a Catholic, you might be wondering why I'm making such a big deal - for the dividing of sins into two distinct categories (each with their own set of consequences and remedies) has been part of Catholic doctrine for a long, long time.

According to Rome's definition, mortal sin is described as "any great offense against the law of God" and is so named because "it is deadly, killing the soul and subjecting it to eternal punishment." Venial (1) sins, on the other hand, are "small and pardonable offenses against God, and our neighbor." Unlike mortal sins, benial sins are not thought to damn a soul to hell, but with the committing of each venial sin, a person increase his need for a longer stay in the purifying fires of a place called "purgatory." (Look that word up in your Bible dictionary - you'll find it right next to "venial"!)

Now, there is no agreement among the priests as to which sins are mortal and which are venial, but they all proceed on the assumption that such a distinction does exist. The method of classification is purely arbitrary. What is venial according to one may be mortal according to another.

According to Rome, the pope is infallible in matters of faith and doctrine.  He should then be able to settle this important matter by accurately cataloging those sins which are mortal as distinguished from those which are venial. However, there are some definites in the "mortal" category: blatantly breaking one of the ten commandments, practically all sexual offenses (whether in word, thought or deed) and a long list of transgressions which have changed throughout the centuries.

For instance, until Vatican II  it was a mortal sin to attend a Protestant church, to own or read a Protestant Bible, or to eat meat on Friday! Oh, and it's still a mortal sin to "miss Mass on Sunday morning (2) without a good excuse" (which means that considerably more than half of the claimed Roman Catholic membership throughout the world is constantly in mortal sin!) Venial sins include things like thinking bad thoughts, having wrong motives, losing your temper, etc. - things that do not necessarily "lead into actual sin" but still, nevertheless, are sins that need to be eradicated in some way.

What Does the Bible Say?

The Bible makes no distinction between mortal and venial sins. There is in fact, no such thing as a venial sin. ALL SIN IS MORTAL! It is true that some sin are worse than others, but it is also true that all sins if not forgiven bring death to the soul. The Bible simply says: "The wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23). And Ezekial says: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die" (18:4).

James says that "whosoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all" (2:10). He meant, not that the person who commits one sin is guilty of all other kinds of sin, but that even one sin unatoned for, shuts a person completely out of heaven and subjects him to punishment, just as surely as one misstep by the mountain climber plunges him to destruction in the canyon below.

We know how quick human nature is to grasp at any excuse for sin. Rome seems to be saying "these sins are really bad! But those? Well...you can get away with a few of them and not really suffer too much." Speaking of "getting away" with something, let's get right down to how Rome teaches you can "get rid of" your sins.

Confession

The Catholic system starts to get real complicated when we begin to look at the ways one can erase both their mortal and venial sins. "Two kinds of punishment are due to mortal sin: eternal (in hell forever), and temporal (in purgatory). Eternal punishment is canceled by either baptism (3) or confession to a priest." (4)

The Baltimore Catechism defines confession as follows: "Confession is the telling of our sins to an authorized priest for the purpose of attaining forgiveness." The important words here are "authorized priest." And to be genuine, a confession must be heard, judged, and followed by obedience to the authorized priest as he assigns a penance, such as good works, prayers, fastings, abstinence form certain pleasures, et. A penance may be defined as "a punishment undergone in token of repentance for sin, as assigned by the priest" - usually a very light penalty.

The New York Catechism says, "I must tell my sins to the priest so that he will give me absolution. (5) A person who knowingly keeps back a mortal sin in confession commits a dreadful sacrilege, and he must repeat his confession."

The Priest's Role

Canon law 888 says: "The priest has to remember that in hearing confession he is a judge." And the book, Instructions for Non-Catholics (6) says: "A priest does not have to ask God to forgive your sins. The priest himself has the power to do so in Christ's name. Your sins are forgiven by the priest the same as if you knelt before Jesus Christ and told them to Christ Himself." (7)

The priest forgives the guilt of mortal sins which save the penitent form going to hell, but he cannot remit the penalty due for those sins, and so the penitent must atone for them by performance of good works which he prescribes. The penitent may be, and usually is, interrogated by the priest so that he or she may make a full and proper confession. Stress is placed on the fact that any sin not confessed is not forgiven, any mortal sin not confessed in detail is not forgiven, and that the omission of even one sin (mortal) may invalidate the whole confession. Every loyal Roman Catholic is required under pain of mortal sin to go to confession at least once a year, although monthly confession is said to be more satisfactory. But even after a penitent has received pardon, a large, but unknown amount of punishment remains to be suffered in purgatory." (8) The doctrine of purgatory rests on the assumption that, while God forgives sin, His justice nevertheless demands that the sinner must suffer the full punishment due to him for his sin before he will be allowed to enter heaven.

Technically, venial sins need not be confessed since they are comparatively light and can be canceled by good works, prayers, extreme unction. (9) etc., but the terms are quite elastic and permit considerable leeway on the part of the priest. It is generally advised that it is safer to confess supposed venial sins also since the priest alone is able to judge accurately which are mortal and which are mortal and which are venial. The Baltimore Catechism says: "When we have committed no mortal sins since our last confession, we should confess our venial sins or some sin told in a previous confession for which we are again sorry, in order that the priest may give us absolution. (10) What chance has a poor sinner against such a system as that?

As an example, a minister friend of mine who was brought up in the Catholic Church, tells the story of how his older brother went to confession every single week and confessed the same sin to the same priest and was given the same penance in order to receive absolution. This went on week after week, year after year. One day, while on a trip from home, he decided that he would not break his pattern of going to weekly confession, so he went to another Catholic Church in the city he was visiting. He went into the confession box and confessed the same sin to a different priest. He began with "forgive me Father for I have sinned," and then began confessing the sin once again, but this time he was shocked when the priest said: "But my son, that's not a sin!" My friend's brother got up, and hurried out the door, and from that day on he has never stepped foot in any church again.

Historical Development

We search in vain in the Bible for any word supporting the doctrine of "auricular confession." (11) It is equally impossible to find any authorization or general practice of it during the first 1000 years of the Christian era. Not a word is found in the writings of the early church fathers about confessing sins to a priest or to anyone except God alone. Auricular confession is not mentioned once in the writings of Augustine, Origen, Nestorius, Tertullian, Jerome, Chrysostem, or Athanasius - all of these and many others apparently lived and died without ever thinking of going to confession. No one other than God was thought to be worthy to hear confessions or to grant forgiveness.

Confession was first introduced into the church on a voluntary basis in the fifth century by the authority of Leo the Great. But it was not until the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 under Pope Innocent III that private auricular confession was make compulsory and all Roman Catholic people were required to confess and to seek absolution from a priest at least once a year. If they did not obey this command, they were pronounced guilty of mortal sin and damned for eternity to hell. (12)

Can A Priest Forgive Sins?

The Scriptures teach that "only God can forgive sins" (Mark 2:7). "The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Matt. 9:6). Dr. Zachello tells of his experience as a priest in the confessional before leaving the Roman Church, in these words: "Where my doubts were really troubling me was inside the confessional box. People coming to me, kneeling down in front of me, confessing their sins to me. And I, with the sign of the cross, was promising that I had the power to forgive their sins. I, a sinner, a man, was taking God's place. It was God's laws they were breaking, not mine. To God, therefore, they must make confession; and to God alone they must pray for forgiveness." (13)

In fact, the only word in the Bible about confessing sins to anyone other than God, is found in James: "Confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed" (5:16).

Personal Comment: Keith Green was the biggest name in Christian music and at the height of his ministry his plane went down over his property in 1982. At the time of his death he was issuing "The Catholic Chronicles" Think about the damage this would do to a post-Vatican II council Catholic Church who were behind and pushing the ecumenical movement.

I believe the Vatican had him murdered through their CIA. Just like they have done with so many truth-sayers before him.

The Vatican is described perfectly by the Lord Himself here,

“And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.” Revelation 18:2