Good morning.
Welcome to Inquisition Update.
My name is Tom Friess and I'll be your host for the next hour.
You're listening to FirstAmendmentRadio .com.
Thanks for tuning in, everybody.
We'll return to our reading and discussion of the book, A Woman Rides the Beast,
by Dave Hunt.
Yesterday we talked a bit about the so-called first pope, Peter, and
demonstrated the contrast between Peter and the popes of Rome, showing that they
are not the successors of Peter, and that, well, the entire papacy is a
lie.
Now, concluding that portion that we read yesterday for continuity purposes,
beginning with the last full paragraph on page 154, it says later, fearing for his
life, Peter denies, quote, with oaths and curses, unquote, that he knew Christ.
Again, a declaration on, quote, faith and morals, unquote, to the entire
church in denial of Christ himself.
Even if the popes were his successors, Peter could hardly pass on to them
infallibility, which he himself obviously did not possess.
Sorry to be so unflattering about the apostle Peter, but the scriptures record
the truth.
And now we'll continue with the next portion of this chapter, subtitled,
A Biblical Basis for Infallibility?
It said a current leading Catholic theologian, Hans Kuhn, recently pointed
out, quote, the main proof text cited at Vatican Council 1 for papal infallibility,
Luke chapter 22, verse 32, quote, I have prayed for you that your faith may
not fail, unquote, was never used even by medieval canonists to document this dogma,
papal infallibility.
And rightly so.
In this passage, Jesus does not promise Peter freedom from error, but the grace to
persevere in the faith until the end, unquote.
Von Dollinger was in complete agreement.
He said this, quote, Everyone knows the one critical passage of scripture on which
the edifice of papal infallibility has been reared, quote, I have prayed for thee
that thy faith fail not.
And when thou art converted, confirm thy brethren, unquote, Luke chapter 22,
verse 32.
But these words manifestly refer only to Peter personally, to his denial of Christ
and his conversion.
It is directly against the sense of the passage to find in it a promise of future
infallibility to a succession of popes.
No single writer in the end of the seventh century dreamt of such interpretation.
All without exception, and there are 18 of them, explain it simply as a prayer of
Christ that his apostle might not wholly succumb and lose his faith entirely in his
approaching trial, unquote.
Many other leading Catholic historians and theologians could be cited in the same
vein.
Peter de Rosa adds his own insight, quote, According to the church fathers,
Peter as such had no successor.
They see all bishops as succeeding to the apostles, not an individual bishop
succeeding to an individual apostle, in this case, Peter.
They therefore could not possibly have accepted the claim that, quote,
Peter's successor, unquote, had to rule the sea of Rome.
We have seen, too, that all the great doctrinal statements, especially the
creeds, came not from popes, but from councils.
In the early centuries, it never occurred to the bishops of Rome that they could
define doctrine for the whole church, unquote.
How about this so-called rock of the church?
He says, After promising Christ at the Last Supper that he would die rather than
to deny him, Peter does exactly what he said he wouldn't do.
Quote, Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man,
unquote, Matthew 26, 74.
Here is a complete denial of Christ himself, and thus of Christianity in its
entirety.
Peter was a very, very unstable, quote, unquote, rock for Christ to build
his church upon.
His alleged successors, however, were guilty of far worse failings.
We have mentioned a number of these already.
Consider one more brief example.
Pope Julius II, who reigned from 1503 to 1513, syphilitic, an infamous womanizer,
father of a number of bastards.
He bribed his way into the papacy.
At Lent, when good Catholics were on a strict diet, he gorged himself on the
richest fare.
Clad in armor, Julius often led his army to conquer cities and territories in the
expansion of the papal states.
How could he possibly be the, quote, unquote, vicar of Christ, who said his
kingdom was not of this world, and therefore his servants didn't fight?
To say he was mocks Christ and his teachings.
And that's what the papacy is, a mockery of Christ.
It is anti-Christ.
Now, the popes were not sovereigns.
They were successors of the emperors, says history.
Remember that in the early days of the church, papal infallibility was not
attributed to the bishop of Rome, but to his superior, the emperor.
Pope Leo I, who reigned from 440 A.D.
to 461, for example, ascribed to a godless emperor the very infallibility which Pope
Pius IX would persuade the members of Vatican I to declare had always been the
exclusive power of the popes.
Listen to this quote.
By the Holy Spirit's inspiration, the emperor needs no human instruction and
is incapable of doctrinal error, unquote.
The following extravagant praise, which sounds like that given to popes
today, is from a speech by Eusebius honoring the pagan emperor Constantine
after he had assumed leadership of the church.
Quote, Let then our emperor be declared alone worthy, who alone is free above the
thirst of wealth, superior to sexual desire, who has gained the victory over
those passions which overmaster the rest of men, whose character is formed after
the divine original of the supreme sovereign, and whose mind reflects,
as in a mirror, the radiance of his virtues.
Hence is our emperor, not the pope, hence is our emperor perfect in prudence,
in goodness, in justice, in courage, in piety, in devotion to God, unquote.
That this praise was to the emperor alone placed him above the bishop of Rome,
who was subservient to him.
Thus Constantine called himself bishop of bishops.
Today's popes who bear Constantine's titles and wear his regalia are his
successors, not Peter's.
Historian Will Durant points out that, quote, Throughout his reign, he,
Emperor Constantine, treated the bishops as his political aides.
He summoned them, presided over their councils, and agreed to enforce whatever
opinion their majority should formulate, unquote.
Doctrine meant absolutely nothing to Constantine, only that the bishops should
agree for the sake of imperial unity.
De Rosa quotes a 4th century bishop that, quote, The church at the time was part of
the state, unquote.
He goes on to explain, quote, Even the bishop of Rome, not to be called the pope
for many centuries, was in comparison to Constantine a non-entity.
In civic terms, he was vassal of the emperor.
In spiritual terms, he was, compared with Constantine, a second-class bishop.
Not the pope, but he, Constantine, like Emperor Charlemagne later,
was the head of the church, its source of unity, before whom the bishops of Rome had
to prostrate themselves and pledge his loyalty.
All bishops agreed that he, the emperor, was, quote, The inspired oracle,
the apostle of church wisdom, unquote.
It was therefore Constantine, not the bishop of Rome, who dictated the time and
place of church synods, and even how the votes were cast.
Without his approval, they could not pass into law.
He alone was legislator of the empire, unquote.
So what about the pope's pagan heritage?
Dave Hunt writes, The very idea of a church council was intervened by
Constantine, who, in spite of his professed conversion to Christ,
remained a pagan.
He never renounced his loyalty to the many pagan gods.
He abolished neither the pagan altar of victory in the Senate, nor the Vestal
Virgins.
And the sun god, not Christ, continued to be honored on the imperial coins.
He was not baptized until just before his death, and that by a heretical Arian
priest, Eusebius.
Durant reminds us that throughout his, quote, Christian life, Constantine used
pagan as well as Christian rites, and continued to rely upon, quote,
pagan magic formulas to protect crops and heal disease, unquote.
That Constantine murdered those who might have had a claim to his throne,
notably his son Crispus, a nephew, and a brother-in-law, is further evidence
that his quote-unquote conversion to Christianity was, as historians have
suggested, a clever political maneuver only.
Historian Philip Hughes, himself a Roman Catholic priest, reminds us, quote,
in his manners he, Constantine, remained to the very end very much the
pagan of his early life.
His furious tempers, the cruelty which once aroused, spared not the lives even of
his wife and son, are an unpleasing witness to the imperfection of his
conversion, unquote.
The three so-called Christian sons of Constantine, Constantine II, Constantius
II, and Constans, secured after their father's death their separate regions of
the Empire by a merciless family massacre.
They then took the so-called Christianization of the Empire to new
heights.
Such, not Peter, were the forerunners of today's posts.
As already mentioned, Constantine convened, set the agenda for, gave the
opening address at, and played a dominant part in the first ecumenical council of
the Church, the Council of Nicaea, and a number of other councils as well,
as would Charlemagne 500 years later.
Inasmuch as the emperors called the councils, it is not surprising that no
council for the first thousand years acknowledged the Bishop of Rome as the
head of the church.
Christ exemplified humility and service to others.
He told his disciples, quote, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them,
but ye shall not be so.
But he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger.
And he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
Luke chapter 22 verse 25 and 26.
Forgetting that admonition, the popes emulated the pagan emperors from whom they
inherited their position and power.
Christ also condemned the authoritarian position which had been taken by the
rabbis in his day.
His words to the Jewish religious leaders are quite appropriate for the Roman
Catholic hierarchy.
Quote, They love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the
synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called by men, Rabbi,
Rabbi.
But be ye not called Rabbi, for one is your master, even Christ, and all ye are
brethren.
And call no man your father upon the earth, for one is your father,
which is in heaven.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
For ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward,
but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness, wherein ye are
full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
Matthew chapter 23 verses 6-9 verse 27 and 28.
Truly, the papacy is the fulfillment of Bible prophecy.
Christ described the papacy.
Satan's last vicar on the earth.
And we are to recognize him for what he is.
The biblical, historical, and prophetic antichrist.
And we are to protest his rule over us.
That's part of Christianity too.
Yes, we love Christ.
We preach Christ.
We preach his gospel.
But we don't leave the world ignorant as to who his antichrist is.
Who his counterfeit is.
And how he deceives the whole world.
That's part of our commission too.
Now, having concluded chapter 11, we'll continue now with chapter 12 of the
book entitled, Unholy Mother.
And it begins like all chapters with some quotes.
This one from Revelation chapter 17 verse 5.
It's abbreviated.
Upon her forehead was a name written.
Mother of harlots and abominations.
Describing the Roman Catholic Church, obviously.
And from the book, Peter DeRosa's Vicars of Christ.
Quote, the history of celibacy makes for readings so black.
A large part of it is the story of the degradation of women.
Ivo of Charters, who reigned from 1040 to 1115.
Tells of whole convents with inmates who were nuns only in name.
But were really prostitutes.
And finally, a quote from an ex-nun, Patricia Nolan Savus.
It was recorded in USA Today.
She says, the recent disclosures of widespread sexual misconduct on the part
of certain members of the Roman Catholic clergy.
Comes as no surprise to most of us who were once priests or nuns.
Now, beginning with the chapter.
It says, let therefore be no misunderstanding.
We are not suggesting that Roman Catholic popes, priests and nuns are inherently
more prone to promiscuity than the rest of mankind.
Our hearts are all the same.
Many of these tragic individuals no doubt began with high moral and spiritual
aspirations.
And in that spirit, set out upon what they sincerely intended to be.
A life of purity and devotion to Christ.
It was the system of hierarchical privilege, power and authority over the
laity.
Which perverted and destroyed them.
That system as we have seen gathered momentum through the centuries by the lust
and greed of popes.
Whose natural propensity for evil innate in all of us.
Found occasion through the unusual opportunities afforded by their office.
To enhance their power, they issued a host of false documents.
Which purported to be the writings of the early church fathers and decrees of early
synods.
One self-serving theme of these forgeries was the claim that the popes had inherited
innocence and sanctity from Peter.
And could not be judged by any man.
Historian Von Dolinger writes, quote, A saying ascribed to Constantine at
the Council of Nice, in a legend recorded by Rufinus, was amplified till it was
fashioned into a perfect mine of high-flying pretensions.
Constantine, according to this fable, when the written accusations of bishops
against each other were laid before him, burned them, saying that the bishops were
gods and no man could dare to judge them.
Unquote.
If one is on the level of the gods, what privileges could not one claim?
Gods are above the law.
No wonder then that the popes began to declare openly that they had power over
kings and kingdoms and all persons.
A power to behave like tyrants.
The added pretense of infallibility only made matters worse.
Each priest and nun, by association, shares, though to a lesser extent,
this same corrupting absolutism and elevation above lay persons.
Add to this pretended god-like authority the unnatural rule of celibacy,
an intolerable burden, which only an unnatural rule of... excuse me,
let me start over here.
Each priest and nun, by association, shares, though to a lesser extent,
this same corrupting absolutism and elevation above lay persons.
Add to this pretended god-like authority the unnatural rule of celibacy,
an intolerable burden, which only a very small minority of persons could possibly
bear, and the stage is set for all manner of evil.
A sincere Catholic historian writes, quote, The fact is that priestly celibacy
has hardly ever worked.
In the view of some historians, it has probably done more harm to morals
than any other institution in the West, including prostitution.
The proof of the harm done by celibacy comes not from bigoted anti-Catholic
sources.
On the contrary, it includes papal and conciliar documents and letters of
reforming saints.
They all point to one direction.
Far from being a candle in a naughty world, priestly celibacy has been more
often than not a stain on the name of Christianity.
Unquote.
What about the roots and the fruits of celibacy?
Dave Hunt says, One must understand that mandatory celibacy is not taught in the
Bible, nor was it practiced by the apostles.
This teaching developed as an integral part of the evolving papal system and
gradually became essential to it.
The concern was not the morality, for celibacy proved to be a veritable
cornucopia of evil.
In fact, the rule of celibacy was not the prohibition of sex, but of marriage.
This is a point that is often missed by listeners of the program and other people
dealing with these subjects.
You must understand that celibacy is the forbidding to marry.
It's a doctrine of demons, forbidding to marry.
And that's all celibacy relates to.
It has nothing to do with chastity, as we are about to see.
Pope Alexander II, who reigned from 1061 to 1073, for example, refused to
discipline a priest who had committed adultery with his father's second wife,
because he hadn't committed the sin of matrimony.
That was the great evil which had to be eliminated for the priesthood to be
totally devoted to the church.
This is how the Roman Catholic Church controls the priesthood, and they have an
ulterior motive to maintain the wealth of the church.
All down through history, not only priests and prelates, but popes as well,
had their mistresses and visited prostitutes.
Many were homosexuals.
Yes, homosexuality, and let's use the proper term, sodomy, which reflects God's
judgment already upon this aberration.
Sodomy is an historical problem with the papacy.
It's not just a modern phenomenon.
The priests and nuns and popes and prelates of the Roman Catholic Church have
always been sodomites.
And there's a scriptural explanation for this, and you'll find it in Romans chapter
1.
Just read it for yourselves.
The language is plain and clear.
While celibacy may exacerbate the problem, the problem is idolatry.
But we won't dwell on that today.
We'll stay to the business of the chapter as Dave Hunt presents it when we come back
from the break.
You're listening to Inquisition Update on First Amendment Radio.
Stay tuned.
We'll be right back.
Hear it first on firstamendmentradio.com and firstamendmentradio.net
Available for your Apple, Android device, and smartphone.
Absolutely free.
Get the Prophecy Reality News app installed today so you can listen to First
Amendment Radio wherever you are.
The Prophecy Reality News app.
Get it now.
The program you are listening to is 100% sponsored by you, the listener,
on this First Amendment rights media channel.
You will notice that there are few commercials on this radio network.
There's a good reason for that.
Corporate advertising dollars come with strings that limit program content.
So without your help, these programs cannot continue on satellite, internet,
or our several affiliates.
If you benefit by the educational law programs, we ask you to give.
If you are admonished or nurtured by the Bible and ministry programs, we ask you to
give.
If some voice a cause that you are passionate about, we ask you to give.
If you believe in any of these, we ask you to support them as you would a
missionary on a continual basis.
As if giving a tithe for missionary radio.
These programs are not commercially viable and must be supported by those faithful to
the cause of truth.
Look for the button to sponsor your favorite programs at our listen and
schedule pages on the internet.
We will also give you unlimited archive access to all of our programs.
We're asking you to give much less than a tithe, so that you may also send support
directly to a particular program host, cause, and anywhere else the spirit may
lead you.
Do all to the glory of our God and creator, for his holy nation, the only
kingdom that will last forever.
Thank you for listening.
You're listening to firstamendmentradio .com worldwide.
Freedom is never free.
We need your support today at firstamendmentradio.com Come back to the
second half hour of Inquisition Update.
Before we continue reading the book, I'll make further reference to my
proposition at the end of the first half, regarding chapter one of Romans.
If you will carefully read it as written, in plain language, what you will find
there is a cause and effect relationship between idolatry and sodomy.
And I know that's not taught in the churches, but that's what the scriptures
teach.
Now I'm not saying that celibacy doesn't contribute to the sexual immorality of the
priests and nuns and prelates and popes of the Roman Catholic Church.
But the cause of sodomy is directly related to their idolatry.
God said so in his book, in clear and unmistakable language.
And I propose that since the current Pope Francis I, a Jesuit priest by the way,
is preparing to deal with the sexual immorality of the priesthood of the Roman
Catholic Church by possibly even opening the option of them to marry, will do very
little to reduce the cases of sodomy within the church.
As long as the Roman Catholic Church is an idolatrous church, it will remain a
sodomite church.
The natural inclination is, if celibacy is a contributor, why don't the priests seek
out women for their sexual release?
Why do they seek out men and little boys?
You'll find the answer in Romans chapter 1.
And when they are permitted to marry, if and when the priests of Rome are
permitted to marry, the cases of sodomy will only be superficially influenced by
this new rule.
And I have someone else on the line.
Is somebody else there?
Please mute your mic if you will.
Okay.
Now, we'll continue with reading the book.
If any of my listeners have any questions or want clarification on anything that
I've just said, please email me at tom at cwaves.us and I'll do my best.
Now, continuing, it says here, that was the great evil which had to be
eliminated for the priesthood to be totally devoted to the church.
Marriage had to be eliminated.
Because the priests, if they had wives and children, their hearts would be for their
families.
And also, upon time of death, the priests would wish to bequeath their wealth to
their families, their wives and their children.
And not to allow their assets to remain in the ownership of the church.
And in many cases in the early Roman Catholic Church history, the popes and
priests literally stole from the church and enriched their families.
And Rome has recognized from early on that the priests were the cause of the
pilferage of the church.
So, Rome took care of that.
Priests were not allowed to marry.
Well, it was a great opportunity for the Roman Catholic Church to maintain its
assets.
And that's what it's all about.
It's a doctrine of demons described that way in the Bible.
And that's exactly what it is.
Now, continuing, it says, all down through history, not only priests and prelates,
but popes as well, had their mistresses and visited prostitutes.
Many were homosexuals, for the reasons that I've outlined in Romans chapter 1.
No member of the clergy was ever excommunicated for having sex.
But thousands have been put out of the priesthood for the scandal of getting
married.
Why then the strict insistence upon celibacy, forbidding to marry,
even to the present day, if it really doesn't mean abstinence from sex?
It is because the rule of celibacy has a very practical and lucrative result for
the church.
It leaves priests, and especially bishops and popes, without families to whom to
bequeath property, and thereby impoverish the church.
The clergy must have no heirs.
Pope Gregory VII, bemoaning the difficulty in stamping out marriage among the
priests, declared, The church cannot escape from the clutches of the laity
unless priests first escape the clutches of their wives.
Here's another vital reason for celibacy.
To create a priesthood without the encumbrance and the loving loyalties of
wives and children.
Thus, fornication and adultery, though forbidden in theory, were
preferable to a marriage relationship.
Nineteenth-century historian R.
W.
Thompson explains, It was considered absolutely necessary to the perfect
working of the papal system that there should be organized a compact body of
ecclesiastics, destitute of all those generous sympathies which grow alone out
of the family relation, that they might be the better fitted to do the works of the
popes.
And you hear all the time, the Roman Catholic Church upholding the family.
The basic human entity, the family, the most necessary to be protected in a
society.
The family.
It's all about the family.
The Roman Catholic Church has done more than any other institution in the world to
destroy the family.
And I could go into the rest of the program touching on that subject and never
reach the conclusion of it before the end of the half hour.
So I'll just leave it to my listeners to do their own research into the matter.
But the Roman Catholic Church is the destroyer of families.
And no more so is it demonstrated than in this celibate condition for the priest.
The requirement of celibacy for the priests and the popes of the church.
It says, though married men in those early days were allowed to enter the priesthood,
they were required to live celibate lives.
Imagine being married and not allowed to touch your wife.
Pope Leo I, who reigned from 440 to 461, decreed that married clergy were to treat
their wives, quote, as sisters, unquote.
And many of them did.
They raped their sisters.
It says, few if any Catholics realized that as late as the reign of Pope Gregory
VII in 1073 to 1085, it was accepted for priests to be married and supposedly live
in celibacy with their wives.
Such a requirement was both unnatural and unrealistic.
Who could keep such a rule?
All over Italy, the clerics openly had large families and no discipline was
enacted against them.
After all, many of the popes had large families as well and sometimes made no
secret of it.
Jesuit priest De Rosa comments, quote, This theological confusion in an
age of depravity led the clergy in the 5th century Rome, in particular, to become a
byword for everything that was gross and perverted.
When Pope Sixtus III, who reigned from 432 to 440 AD, was put on trial for seducing a
nun, he ably defended himself by quoting Christ's words, quote, Let him who is
without fault among you throw the first stone, unquote.
Roving monks were proving to be a social menace.
There were long periods when many monasteries were nothing but houses of ill
repute.
The Second Council of Tours in the year 567 publicly admitted there was hardly a
cleric anywhere without his wife or mistress, unquote.
It was a system built for prostitution, says Dave Hunt.
For centuries, the Roman Catholic priesthood was largely hereditary.
In other words, nepotism.
The offices of the popes and the priests and the prelates were passed down to their
kin, okay?
How can that be if they were all celibate, right?
Not married.
Well, they had kin.
They weren't prohibited from having sex.
And they did.
Lots of it.
And they produced lots of bastard children, who literally ran the church.
He says, for centuries, the priesthood was largely hereditary.
Most priests were the sons of other priests and bishops.
More than one pope was the illegitimate son of a previous and supposedly celibate
pope.
For example, Pope Silvarius, who reigned from 536 to 537 AD, was fathered by Pope
Ormistus, who reigned from 514 to 523.
And John XI, who reigned from 931 to 935, was born by Julius III, who reigned from
904 to 911, of his favorite mistress, Morosia, to whom we referred earlier.
Among the other bastards who ruled the church were Popes Boniface I, Galatius,
Agapitus, and Theodore.
There were more.
Adrian IV was the son of a priest.
No wonder Pope Pius II said Rome was, quote, the only city run by bastards,
unquote.
Pius himself admitted to fathering at least two illegitimate children by
different women, one of them married at the time.
The rule of celibacy literally created prostitutes, making Rome the, quote,
mother of harlots, unquote, as the apostle John foresaw.
Now, I don't want to belabor this too much, but clearly what the scripture is
talking about is the spiritual fornication of the Roman Catholic Church.
And her harlotry is described as, well, worshipping the other gods.
That's why Israel was always condemned for whoring around with pagan gods.
And this is what defines the Roman Catholic Church.
Now, it has a natural fulfillment, too.
And so it's not inappropriate to say what Dave Hunt is saying here, but her
description as mother of harlots is directed more towards spiritual harlotry
than anything else.
And it shouldn't surprise anybody that being a spiritual harlot, that the Roman
Catholic Church would produce harlots as a matter of course.
And it does, and it has, and it always will.
Now, in his fiery sermons, Savonarola of Florence, Italy, soon to be martyred,
called Rome, quote, a harlot ready to sell her favors for coin, unquote, and accused
the Roman Catholic priests of bringing, quote, spiritual death upon all.
Their piety consists in spending their nights with harlots, unquote.
He cried, quote, 1,000, 10,000, 14,000 harlots are few for Rome,
for there both men and women are made harlots, unquote.
Pope Alexander VI threatened, quote, to lay interdict upon Florence,
unquote, if it did not silence Savonarola.
The city rulers obeyed for fear, as a result of the interdict, all the
Florentine merchants in Rome would be thrown into jail, unquote.
The popes wanted Savonarola brought to Rome for trial as a heretic, but the
signory of Florence wanted to execute him themselves.
After signing confessions that had been wrung out of them by the cruelest of
torture, Savonarola and two Conrad friars were hanged and burned to ashes.
Yet this man who preached against the church's leaders' immorality and was slain
by Roman Catholics is now celebrated by the Vatican as, quote, a giant of our
faith, martyred on May 23, 1498, unquote.
What revision of history!
Visiting Germany in the 8th century, St. Boniface found that none of the clergy
honored their vows of celibacy.
He wrote to Pope Zachary in 741-752, quote, Young men who spent their youth in
rape and adultery were rising in the ranks of the clergy.
They were spending their nights in bed with four or five women, then getting up
in the morning to celebrate mass, unquote.
Bishop Rathurio complained that if he excommunicated unchaste priests,
quote, there would be none left to administer the sacrament except boys.
If he excluded bastards, as canon law demands, not even boys would be left,
unquote.
Even idealists became unprincipled rogues because the priesthood was one of the
surest and fastest ways to wealth and power, and afforded unique opportunities
for the most profligate pleasure.
Today's Pope, Pope John Paul II, in his recent encyclical Veritas Splendor,
that is, Splendor of Truth, foundly condemns promiscuity.
Imagine that!
One might respect such a treatise if he would admit that his predecessors in the
papacy had been some of the worst offenders, that the clergy, because they
can't marry, have been more prone to illicit relationships than the laity,
and that promiscuity is still widespread among the Roman Catholic clergy.
Otherwise, Splendor of Truth has a hollow sound.
No, it's hypocrisy is what it is.
It's the church of hypocrisy.
Look, the Roman Catholic Church does not have the moral authority to preach to
anyone about anything.
And this is why we read books like this on Inquisition Update, to prove that there is
no moral foundation.
Now, clearly, we make it clear that there is no spiritual foundation for the church,
for the papacy, and for his hierarchy and his priesthood, but there is no moral
authority either.
She is not the vicar of Christ, either over spirituals or temporals.
And this church is nothing but a pariah in the world.
And until we rout it out, until we expose it for what it is, until we rebel against
it, and put the papacy back in its box, like the Protestant Reformers did,
simply by telling the truth about it, we will continue to be dominated by it,
both in spiritual and in temporal matters.
And that is the New World Order.
The very foundation of the New World Order is papal authority over the churches and
over the governments of the world.
And the New World Order is a done deal.
If there is any hope for the world, it has to put the papacy back in its box.
And I maintain that the only thing that ever worked, the only weapon that ever
worked against the papacy, the only power on earth that ever liberated the world
from papal tyranny, papal abuse, papal sin, papal idolatry, papal simony
and sodomy, and all the other errors of Rome was the Protestant Reformation.
And what brought about the Protestant Reformation was the King James Bible.
The scriptures.
And isn't it interesting?
The Roman Catholic Church did just what Satan did when he tempted Jesus in the
desert.
Twisted the scriptures.
And all Jesus had to do was straighten them back out and quote them back to him.
Satan walked away.
And that is the only weapon that is going to make the papacy succumb.
Is a weapon against which he has no defense.
That is the gospel truth as written in the Bible.
Until we make a spiritual conversion, complete and total, giving over our lives
to Christ, it's not hardly possible that the Pope will even feel our influence in
the world.
The spiritual conversion must come before any temporal conversion in the world,
just as occurred during the Protestant Reformation.
Once the people were spiritually liberated from the knowledge of what Christ was to
them, as preached in the Bible, not from the pulpits of the Roman Catholic
Church, then temporal liberty followed.
Spiritual liberty came first, then temporal liberty.
Now, many of my listeners are focused on the temporal enslavement of the people of
the world, particularly here in the United States.
But our emphasis must be on spiritual liberty, the truth, the scriptures.
And that can't come until we recognize who is the biblical, historical, and prophetic
antichrist in the world.
Who is it that brings about all the woes of the world?
We must understand who God was speaking about in the scriptures.
And you can't learn about that by going to a 501c3 ecumenical evangelical church with
a Jesuit-trained seminarian behind the pulpit wearing a masonic ring.
It ain't gonna happen.
So come out of the church and tell the truth.
Come out of the church and be free to tell the truth.
And tell it to anybody who will listen.
Now, continuing, Dave Hunt prefaces the next portion of the chapter with
subtitles.
John XII, who reigned from 955-964, to whom we referred earlier, became Pope
at age 16, ran a harem in the Lateran Palace, and lived a life of evil that
passes imagination, even toasting the devil in front of St. Peter's altar.
Spiritual leader of the church for eight years, Pope John XII, slept with his
mother and any other woman he could get his hands on.
Women were warned not to venture into St. John Lateran Church.
Of this man, Luke Prine wrote in his journal, Pope John is the enemy of all
things.
The palace of the Lateran that once sheltered saints and is now a harlot's
brothel will never forget his union with his father's wench, the sister of the
other concubine, Stephania.
Women feared to come and pray at the threshold of the holy apostles,
for they have heard how John, a little time ago, took women pilgrims by force to
his bed, wives, widows, and virgins alike.
Unquote.
Pope John, one of the so-called vicars of Christ, one who is regarded to be the very
voice of God on the earth, debauched his own mother.
That's the history of Rome.
Acknowledged by Roman historians, St. Peter Danian's 11th century record of
the incredible evils caused by the pledge of celibacy made such scandalous reading
that the pope with whom he shared it preserved it in the papal archives.
In fact, it, quote, proves that profligacy among the clergy of the time was
universal.
After six centuries of strenuous efforts to impose celibacy, the clergy were a
menace to the wives and young women of the parishes to which they were sent.
Unquote.
And you have to know that they were likewise debauchees of men and boys.
And it's just simply not mentioned because it's too filthy to mention.
Pope Innocent IV, who reigned from 1243 to 1254, forced to leave Rome by the emperor
Frederick II, took refuge along with his curia in Lyons, France.
Upon the pope's return to Rome after Frederick's death, Cardinal Hugo wrote a
letter thanking the people of Lyons.
He reminded them that they also owed a debt to the pope and his court.
His remarks provided a glimpse of the shameless depravity of the papal court.
Quote, During our residence in your city, we, the Roman Catholic Curia, have been of
very charitable assistance to you.
On our arrival, we found scarcely three or four purchasable sisters of love
prostituted, whilst at our departure we leave you, so to say, one brothel that
extends from the western to the eastern gate.
Unquote.
So that's the thanks that the city owed to the Roman Catholic hierarchy that when
they arrived, there were only two or three prostitutes.
But when they left, the whole city was a house of ill repute.
That's the legacy of the papacy.
That's the real history of the Roman Catholic Church.
Now, they enforced celibacy on the priesthood.
It says, Celibacy was hardly known in England before it was at last enforced by
innocent to forth in about 1250 A.D.
Most priests there were married and practiced a practice long accepted by the
church.
But Rome determined that it had to end all familial devotion for priests and nuns.
Their loyalty must now be given solely to the mother church.
And we'll continue on the program tomorrow with a quote from R.W.
Thompson in these regards.
The program
you are listening to is 100% sponsored by you the listener on this First Amendment
rights media channel.
You will notice that there are few commercials on this radio network.
There's a good reason for that.
Corporate advertising dollars come with strings that limit program content.
So without your help, these programs cannot continue on satellite internet.
Or are several affiliates.
If you benefit by the educational law programs, we ask you to give.
If you are admonished or nurtured by the Bible and ministry programs, we ask you to
give.
If some voice a cause that you are passionate about, we ask you to give.
If you believe in any of these, we ask you to support them as you would a
missionary on a continual basis.
As if giving a tithe for missionary radio.
These programs are not commercially viable and must be supported by those faithful to
the cause of truth.
Look for the button to sponsor your favorite programs at our listen and
schedule pages on the internet.
We will also give you unlimited archive access to all of our programs.
We're asking you to give much less than a tithe.
So that you may also send support directly to a particular program host, cause,
and anywhere else the spirit may lead you.
Do all to the glory of our God and creator.
For his holy nation.
The only kingdom that will last forever.
Thank you for listening.
Visit crosstheborder.org C-R-O-S-S crosstheborder.org To get your print,
e-pub, or PDF version of Nicholas Arthur's new book titled, When the Third Temple is
Built.
That's crosstheborder.org When it comes to prophecy today, much of the evangelical
Christian world has their eyes on Israel.
Waiting and watching to see when the third temple will begin to be built.
The plans are drawn.
The Jewish people are eager.
Most evangelical Christians today believe that the rapture will happen before the
third temple is built.
Hi, I'm Michael Eugene.
I was taught that Daniel's 70th week was in the future.
Is that really what the Bible teaches?
Have we searched the scriptures and found this to be true?
Why is it so important for a re-established Israel to build a third
temple in Jerusalem?
Is it necessary to build a temple on the same location already occupied by the Dome
of the Rock?
Is it necessary for sacrifices to take place in the temple on Temple Mount?
Is there really a rapture followed by seven years of tribulation?
What is the New Testament temple?
Can we identify history and prophecy?
Who is the first beast in Revelation chapter 13?
Who are the seven kings in Revelation 17?
I have asked all these questions and I have found Nicholas Arthur's new book,
When the Third Temple is Built, answers all these questions and more using
scripture to interpret scripture.
The Bible says that no prophecy of scripture is of any private
interpretation.
Nicholas shows us in his new book, When the Third Temple is Built,
how the Bible interprets prophecy and not man's private interpretation.
Visit CrossTheBorder.org to get your print, e-pub, or PDF version of Nicholas
Arthur's new book titled, When the Third Temple is Built.
That's CrossTheBorder.org.