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.
Now we've had a weekend of rest.
Let's continue with our reading and discussion of the book, A Woman Rides a
Beast, by Dave Hunt.
We are about midway through this book in the chapter entitled, Blood of the
Martyrs.
And within that chapter, a subtitle, Papal Decrees, we'll begin reading there
near the bottom of the page on page 246.
Regarding Papal Decrees, Dave Hunt writes,
Consider Clement V's rebuke of King Edward II.
Pope Urban II, who reigned from 1088-1099 AD, inspirer of the First Crusade,
decreed that all heretics were to be tortured and killed.
That became a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.
Acclaimed as the quote-unquote angelic doctor, even St. Thomas Aquinas taught
that non-Catholics, or heretics as they were called, could, after a second
warning, be legitimately killed.
His exact words are, quote, They have merited to be excluded from the earth by
death, unquote.
In other words, they've earned their sentence of death by remaining aloof or
opposed to the Roman Catholic Church.
Pope Martin V, from 1417-1431, commanded the King of Poland in 1429 to
exterminate the Hussites, who were sympathizers with the martyr John Huss.
And Martin, or excuse me, this King of Poland then, fought back, or rather,
excuse me, the Hussites had fought back and had routed the Pope's army.
The following, from the Pope's letter to the King of Poland, reinforces what we
know of the evil of papal totalitarianism and tells us why Popes hated the Hussites
and other independent Christians and wanted them destroyed.
Quote, Know that the interests of the Holy See, of those of your crown, make it a
duty to exterminate the Hussites.
Remember that these impious persons dare proclaim principles of equality.
They maintain that all Christians are brethren and that God has not given to
privileged men the right of ruling the nations.
They hold that Christ came on earth to abolish slavery.
They call the people to liberty, that is, the annihilation of kings and
priests.
While there is still time then, turn your forces against Bohemia.
Burn, massacre, make deserts everywhere, for nothing could be more agreeable to God
or more useful to the cause of kings than the extermination of the Hussites.
Now, the Hussites were the followers of Jan Hus, an early Protestant reformer.
He threw off the yoke of the papacy, said he had no legitimate right to rule
over anybody, including the King of Poland and especially the people of Poland.
And the Holy See would not tolerate this type of rebellion against the so-called
Vicar of Christ, so he repeatedly ordered the kings of Poland to exterminate the
Protestants who said that Christ was the King and we had a law within ourselves,
we needed not popes and kings.
And that's true Protestantism.
And Poland went to war against these Bohemians, these followers of Jan Hus.
And they continued their assault against these people.
And Rome has never apologized for her persecution of the Hussites.
It's still the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.
The popes themselves were the authority behind the Inquisitions.
They wielded the power of life and death even over emperors.
Had any pope opposed the Inquisition, he could have stopped it during his papacy
at least.
Where do we read that the popes thundered anathemas against the secular authorities
who imposed so many of such gruesome deaths upon their victims?
Never!
Civil magistrates would have desisted from these loathsome murders in order to save
their own souls.
But papal orders to stop the Inquisitions never came.
On the contrary, the Roman Pontiffs who originated and directed the Inquisitions
threatened excommunication against any who failed to carry out the Inquisitors'
decrees.
Today's Catholic apologists deny the facts of history and accuse those who present
the truth of being unscholarly.
D.
Antonio Gavin, a Roman Catholic priest and eyewitness to the Spanish Inquisition,
tells us, The Roman Catholics believe there is a purgatory and that the souls
suffer more pains in it than in hell.
But I think that the Inquisition is the only purgatory on earth and the Holy
Fathers, the priests and the popes are the judges and the executioners in it.
The reader may form a dreadful idea of the barbarity of that tribunal by what I have
already said, but I am sure it never will come up to what it is in reality,
for it passes all understanding.
In other words, we can have a picture of the cruelty of the Inquisitions,
but we can't have a full concept of its horrors.
Now this dogma, persecution of the heretics, the extirpation and annihilation
of the heretics, remains the official dogma of the Roman Catholic Church today.
Had Rome ever confessed the evil of her ferocious slaughter of millions of those
whom she called heretics, and had she renounced the centuries of plunder and
murder and wiped those doctrines from her books, then we could forget that horror.
That she has not done so, however, requires us to face, no matter how
unpleasant, the facts of history.
Far from expressing shame for the execution of heretics, a popular American
Catholic weekly in 1938 declared, Heresy is an awful crime against God,
and those who start a heresy are more guilty than they who are traitors to the
civil government.
If the state has a right to punish treason with death, the principle is the same that
concedes to the spiritual authority, that is the Roman Catholic Church,
the power of life and death over the arch traitor, the heretic.
Infallibility can never admit it was wrong.
As John Fox remembers this in his monumental work, Book of Martyrs,
A church which pretends to be infallible will always seek the destruction of those
who descent from it.
Peter DeRosa points out that Pope John Paul II knows the church was responsible
for persecuting Jews, for the Inquisition, for slaughtering heretics by the thousand,
for reintroducing torture into Europe as part of the judicial process, but he has
to be careful the doctrines responsible for those terrible things still underpin
his position, his papacy.
John Paul II couldn't divorce himself from the facts of history.
He still occupied the office of the papacy responsible for the blood of the martyrs
of Jesus.
The author continues, he says, Disobedience to the Pope became the
epitome of heresy.
Those guilty of it immediately lost any normal human rights and were summarily put
to death.
Consider Pope Urban VIII's 1627 bull entitled Insuena Domini.
Gregory XI had first brought it out in 1372 and Gregory XII confirmed it in 1411
as did Pope Pius V in 1568 who said it was to remain an eternal law in Christendom.
Each Pope added new touches until it was well nigh impossible for an admitted
non-Roman Catholic to exist in Europe.
Much as it will be, listen to what Dave Hunt says, much as it will be worldwide
under Antichrist for any who do not submit totally to him.
Now, this is as much confirmation as I've found so far in this book of Dave Hunt
that he expects the Antichrist this future... remember Dave Hunt is a futurist
he doesn't believe that the papacy all throughout its history was the very office
of Antichrist and that every Pope in succession was the Antichrist he believes
in a future Antichrist but that this future Antichrist will also be a Pope.
Okay?
Listen to what he says.
Each Pope added new touches that is to the Inquisition until it was well nigh
impossible for an admitted non-Roman Catholic to exist in Europe much as it
will be worldwide there is your global government much as it will be worldwide
under Antichrist for any who do not submit totally to him.
The bull, quote, excommunicates and curses all heretics and schismatics as well as
all who favor or defend them including all princes and magistrates unquote.
This bull is still in force today nor could it be otherwise with an ex-cathedral
pronouncement of four infallible Popes behind it.
The absolutism remains even though Rome is not presently able to enforce it so
blatantly The Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law Canon 333 paragraph 3 declares,
quote There is neither appeal nor recourse against the decision or decree of the
Roman Pontiff, unquote.
Vatican Council 2, of course says the same for all of you ecumenists out there who
used to be Protestant.
The woman rides the beast, holding the reins incredible but it happened.
Heresy in the church's eyes was treated as treason against the crown The church
sought out the heretics, found them guilty and then handed them to the civil
authorities for execution The civil authority The government You wonder,
under what authority does the government kill its own people?
Under Roman Catholic Canon Law He says, as its secular arm the state did the
church's bidding in the execution of heretics the confiscations of their
property and the enforcement of the Roman Catholic Church's decrees against them and
their heirs And they use torture Torture is a calling card of the Vatican.
When you see the American government begin to use torture against its supposed
enemies you know where she gets that authority to from the papacy who
authorizes and demands the use of torture against quote-unquote heretics He says,
remember it's not that the woman the whore of Revelation chapter 17 riding the beast
riding and controlling the beast that is the governments of the world He says,
remember it's not the woman's hands are red with blood, but that she is drunk with
the blood of the martyrs Her condition depicts a church that not only kills,
but tortures its pitiful victims for days or even weeks The inquisitors seemed to be
drugged into insensibility until their normal sense of horror and sympathy had
been numbed Indeed to be able to impose the most extreme torture without a twinge
of conscience or compassionate thought became a mark of holiness and fidelity to
the Roman Catholic Church.
To try to imagine being suddenly arrested in the middle of the night and taken to an
unknown location kept secret from family and friends you're not told the charges
brought against you or the identity of your accusers who remain unknown and thus
immune from any examination to discover whether they are telling the truth
Whatever the accusation, it is accepted as fact and you are guilty without trial The
only trial will be by the most ingenious painful torture that continues until you
confess to that unnamed crime or heresy of which you have been accused Imagine the
torment of dislocated joints, torn and seared flesh internal injuries,
broken bones on the rack and other devices, mended by doctors so that they
can be torn asunder again by fresh torture Eventually, you will confess to anything
to end the torment but no matter what you confess, it never fits the secret
accusation so the torture continues until at last you expire from an unbearable
trauma That's the reality of the Inquisitions Hundreds and hundreds of
years of this type of torture imposed upon those who roam determined to be heretics
He says, such was the fate of millions.
These were real people, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters sons and
daughters, all with hopes and dreams, with passions and feelings and many with a
fate that could not be broken by torture or fire Remember that this terror this
evil of such proportions that it is unimaginable today was carried on for
centuries in the name of Christ by the command of those who claimed to be the
vicars of Christ They are still honored with that title by this church which has
never admitted that the Inquisitions She has not repented or apologized,
and she dares to pose even today as the supreme teacher and example of morals and
truth.
Remember also that the doctrines which supported the Inquisitions remain in force
within the Roman Catholic Church even to the present day.
With all the use of torture, there was no limit to what the accused could confess.
At least one poor creature said he would admit having killed God if his Inquisitors
would stop torturing him.
Women accused of being witches confessed, under torture, to have had sex with Satan
and even to having born him children, children who remained invisible and were
thus all the greater menace to Catholics.
Pope Innocent VIII made such hysterical nonsense official Roman Catholic dogma in
his 1484 bull entitled Summas Deserantis Effectibus.
Conjurations have slain infants, yet in the mother's womb, as also the
offspring of cattle, have blasted the produce of the earth.
Torture was considered to be essential because the church felt duty-bound to
identify from the lips of its victims themselves any deviance from sound
doctrine.
Presumably, the more excruciating the torture, the more likely that the truth
would be wrung from the reluctant lips.
The Inquisitors were determined that it was, quote, better for a hundred innocent
people to die than for one heretic to go free, unquote.
This is where we get the constitutional protection, innocent until proven guilty.
It's a direct answer...
to the Roman Catholic Pontiffs...
and Roman Catholic Canon Law.
He continues, he says, this horrendous doctrine was maintained under every Pope
for the next three centuries.
Will Durant suggests, quote, The Inquisitors appear to have sincerely
believed that torture was a favor to a defendant already accounted guilty,
since it might earn him, by confession, a slighter penalty than otherwise.
Even if he should, after confession, be condemned to death, he could enjoy
priestly absolution to save him from hell, unquote.
That's right, they thought the Inquisition... they counted the
Inquisition as a favor to the accused.
That torture was doing them a favor, it gave them a chance to confess,
or failing all of that, to obtain absolution from a priest, so that they
wouldn't go to hell.
Those days are returning, folks.
The Inquisition is still a bedrock institution in the Roman Catholic Church,
and she still controls the governments of the earth.
Another author, Gerard Dufour, quotes a 1552 book by Samancus,
stating that, quote, the Inquisitors should be more inclined to the use of
torture than regular judges, because the crime of heresy is concealed and very
difficult to prove, unquote.
The openly stated purpose of torture was, quote, to cause the most intense pain to
the prisoner, and for that the Inquisitors exchanged recipes, unquote.
That means torture techniques.
They exchanged torture techniques.
Other authorities of that time are quoted to the effect that torture was not
expected to rescue the accused from his heresy, but its main purpose was to
terrorize the masses, which in fact it did.
Catholic apologists are quick to say that Pope Sixtus IV attempted to stop the
Inquisition, but that is not the truth.
He issued a bull in 1482, declaring that the Inquisitors of Aragon, Spain,
seemed more interested in getting wealthy than defending the faith.
And we'll continue with that quote when we get back from the break.
You're listening to Inquisition Update on FirstAmendmentRadio.com.
Stay tuned.
We'll be right back.
You're listening to FirstAmendmentRadio .com.
Worldwide, freedom is never free.
We need your support today at FirstAmendmentRadio.com.
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 Rocks?
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.
The book of Revelation says the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus Christ.
This is at the very heart of firstamendmentradio.com.
In that spirit, we have created the Prophecy Reality News app for all of your
mobile devices.
Streaming First Amendment Radio 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
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.
Welcome back from the break.
You're listening to the second half hour of Inquisition Update on First Amendment
Radio.
If you'd like to support Inquisition Update, please do so by supporting First
Amendment Radio, who sponsors the program.
Now, Dave Hunt tells us that when accused by Protestants and others about the
horrors of the Holy Roman Catholic Inquisitions, Catholic apologists are
quick to say that Pope Sixtus IV attempted to stop the Inquisition.
Now, many of you may have already run across Catholics, Catholic apologists,
who would like to soften your understanding of the Roman Catholic Church
by saying that one of their Popes, one of them, Pope Sixtus IV, attempted to
stop the Inquisition.
Listen to what Dave Hunt says.
He says, that is not true.
Pope Sixtus IV issued a bull in 1482, declaring that the Inquisitors in Aragon,
Spain, we're talking about Aragon, Spain, seemed more interested in getting
wealthy than defending the faith, and accusing them of imprisoning,
torturing, and burning faithful Roman Catholics on the basis of false
accusations from their enemies or slaves.
He decreed, Pope Innocent IV decreed, that a representative of the local bishop
must always be present at the Inquisition, that the accused must know the names of
the accusers, and that appeals to the Holy See ought to be allowed.
Now these were all forbidden everywhere else except Aragon, Spain.
Everywhere else, the Inquisition carried on normally.
You were not told who your accusers were, or what you were being accused of.
You had no advocate at all.
You were simply tortured until you confessed, and confessed, and confessed.
You would confess to anything if they would just relieve the tortures.
Now this bull, however, was only for Aragon.
And when King Ferdinand defied it, Sixtus backed off, and five months later
suspended it.
Okay?
So it's no argument at all that Sixtus IV tried to stop the Inquisition.
That's just how intellectually dishonest Roman Catholic apologists are about the
Inquisition.
It says, in the meantime, he was taking money for granting dispensations and
absolutions, which the Inquisitors never honored from the sentences of the
Inquisition in Aragon.
Nor did he give any refunds.
If the Pope had been seriously concerned for justice rather than money,
he would have forced the King to comply and have made the bull effective elsewhere
instead of only in Aragon.
You see, the Inquisition was out of control in Aragon.
They were even levying false accusations against members of the Church.
And Sixtus tried to put an end to it.
And even then, it was rescinded after only a few months.
That is how ruthless the Inquisition was.
Now, what's the modus operandi?
It says, when the Inquisitors swept into town, an edict of faith was issued
requiring everyone to reveal any heresy of which they had knowledge.
Those who concealed a heretic came under the curse of the Church and the
Inquisitors' wrath.
Informants would approach the Inquisitors' lodgings under cover of night and were
rewarded for information.
No one arrested was ever acquitted.
If you were arrested, that was the end of you.
Heretics were committed to the flames because the Popes believed that the Bible
forbade Christians to shed blood.
The victims of the Inquisition exceeded by hundreds of thousands the numbers of
Christians and Jews who had suffered under pagan Roman emperors.
You can see there is nothing holy about the so-called Holy Roman Empire.
The Inquisition, established and repeatedly blessed by the Popes,
was an open assault upon truth and justice and basic human rights.
You hear the Popes all the time talking about human rights.
What consideration did the papacy have all throughout history for the human rights of
even its own people?
What hypocrisy!
The world sits before the televisions and watches the Pope or listens to him on the
radio talk about human rights as if he had any any thought whatsoever for human
rights.
He says it was the perfect setup.
The Inquisition was the perfect setup for bigots, villains, enemies and crazies with
overworked imaginations to seek revenge, to rid themselves of a rival or to gain
personal satisfaction of having become important to the church.
These were the types of people that would arrive at the Inquisition late at night.
Those who were seeking revenge.
Wanted to do away with a rival.
Maybe a rival in business or a rival for a woman or any other thing.
And the church took them in.
The Inquisition took them in.
Heard their accusations and then went and arrested the accused.
And tortured them.
And once they had killed them, confiscated all their property.
And some of that property went to the accuser.
Unbelievable.
And that's what's going to happen in this country.
He says it was the perfect setup for bigots, villains, enemies and crazies with
overworked imaginations to seek revenge, to rid themselves of a rival or to gain
personal satisfaction of having become important to the church.
De Rosa writes, quote, Conditions were said to be indescribable for more than six
centuries without a break.
The papacy was the sworn enemy of elementary justice.
Unquote.
There's your authority for the Pope when he speaks about human rights.
Absolutely none.
No moral authority at all to speak of human rights in this world.
He says the property of heretics was confiscated and divided between the
Inquisitors and the Popes.
That the corpse of Pope Formosus had been twice disinterred, condemned and
excommunicated set a pattern.
In 680 A.D., the 6th General Council decreed that even dead heretics could be
tried and condemned.
That's right.
If once you've been dispatched by the Inquisition, if they gain new evidence
against you as a heretic, they can dig up your rotting bones and try you once again
condemn you once again dismember you once again and do whatever they want with the
corpse and then issue new orders for confiscation of whatever property still
remains in the hands of your heirs and confiscate it for the church.
He says corpses that had lain in the grave for decades were dug up, tried and found
guilty.
At that point, the past assets of the deceased were confiscated causing their
heirs to lose everything, including in many cases, all civil rights.
That's right.
If you're a family member of a heretic, you too lose your civil rights.
And the next time when you see the Pope stand in front of a camera, you hear his
diabolical voice talking to the people and the governments of the world about human
rights.
Remember what Dave Hunt says of history about the Pope's true views of human
rights.
He says Roman Catholic apologists pass off the Inquisition as a necessity at the time
to keep the church doctrinally pure.
Always trying to dress up the Inquisition.
Always trying to give it a benevolent face.
Listen to this.
Roman Catholic apologists pass off the Inquisition as a necessity at the time to
keep the church doctrinally pure.
You know, they even changed the name of this bloody, holy office of the
Inquisition to this long-winded title called the Congregation for the
Preservation of the Doctrine of the Faith.
Yeah, we're all told it has to do with preserving the doctrines of the Roman
Catholic faith.
But how do they preserve the doctrines of the faith?
By killing heretics.
Anyone who believes differently than the official teaching of the church.
Nothing's changed.
Just the title.
And Roman Catholics still defend their church.
They pass off the Inquisitions as a necessity at that time to keep the church
doctrinally pure.
They suggest that any excesses were the work of overly patriotic Spaniards who
were concerned that many quote-unquote converted Moors and Jews were not really
loyal to the church.
Seemingly forgotten is the quote-unquote barbaric cruelty of the pious priestly
inquisitors in Italy, France, Germany, and the Low Countries, England,
and the Scandinavian lands, unquote.
Besides the Spanish Inquisition, which is all we ever hear about.
Besides the Spanish Inquisition, there were the Roman Inquisition and the
medieval Inquisitions as well.
Emmett McLaughlin, who spent years researching relevant historical records in
the New World, writes, quote, There were no Moors and few Jews in Peru,
where I saw the Hall of the Inquisition, the Dungeons of Imprisonment, and the
gorgeously carved door with an opening made at mouth height so that the witness
could testify against the accused heretic without being seen or identified.
Anonymous accusers, walking up to that door, putting their mouth in front of the
hole of that door, and making accusations against Moors and Jews.
That's why there were no Moors and Jews in Peru.
As an eyewitness in the early 18th century in Spain, Gavin tells us, quote,
This tribunal is composed of three inquisitors, who are absolute judges.
From their judgment there is no appeal.
The first inquisitor is a divine.
The second, a casuist.
And the third, a civilian.
The first and second are always Roman Catholic priests.
The third, sometimes, is not a priest.
The inquisitors have a despotic power to command every living soul, and no excuse
is to be given, nor contradiction to be made to their orders.
Unquote.
These inquisitors were all powerful.
I mean, the earth trembled beneath their feet.
And you must know that to save their lives, people would attempt to ingratiate
themselves to the Inquisition and the Roman Catholic Church by making,
even if necessary, false accusations against somebody else.
Now, under the subtitle, The Pilgrim Church, he says, Catholic apologists admit
that the church, quote, made some mistakes, unquote, but insist that Rome
couldn't be the whore of Revelation chapter 17.
Why?
Because Christ promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against the Roman
Catholic Church.
See, Matthew chapter 16, verse 18, and Roman Catholicism was THE church.
Even many evangelicals are deceived by this argument.
Why?
Because the history of the Roman Catholic Church and the Inquisitions and the crimes
and the unutterable atrocities of the Roman Catholic Church have been simply
swept from our schools, swept from our libraries, swept even from our Protestant
churches.
And now we're taught that the Roman Catholic Church is a Christian church.
As a matter of fact, she's the mother of all Christian churches.
Even evangelicals are deceived by this argument.
And when they see the longevity of the Roman Catholic Church, they're convinced
the gates of hell have not prevailed against this church.
Never stopping to realize that that church is the very gates of hell itself.
He says the truth is that Roman Catholicism did not represent Christ and
was not his church.
For at least a thousand years before the Protestant Reformation, the true church
was composed of multitudes of simple Christians who were not part of the Roman
system.
We've read about them right here on Inquisition Update.
The Waldenses, the Albigenses, the Huguenots, the Hussites, and many
others who simply would never submit to the Roman Catholic Church or her priests
or her system.
He said that such believers existed, refused to be called Catholics,
and worshipped independently of the Roman hierarchy is history.
It is a fact that they were pursued to imprisonment and death since at least the
end of the 4th century.
Among the evidence in ancient records stands the Edict of the Emperors,
Gratian, Valentinian II, and Theodorus I of September 27, 380, which established
Roman Catholicism as a state religion.
In part it said, quote, we order those who follow this doctrine to receive the title
of Catholic Christian.
You know, I've been criticized for not referring to the true body of Christ as
Catholic Christians.
Catholic meaning universal.
Some have even implied that the Apostolic Church in the 1st century referred to
themselves as Catholics.
But here it says, we order those who follow this doctrine to receive the title
of Catholic Christians.
But others we judge to be mad and raving and worthy of incurring the disgrace of
heretical teaching.
Nor are their assemblies to receive the name of churches.
They are to be punished not only by divine retribution, but also by their own
measures, which we have decided in accordance with the divine inspiration.
Catholic, I never mix the term with God's people.
I qualify Catholic to be Roman Catholic only to make sure my listeners realize
that the Catholic Church is a foreign power based in Rome.
But my use of the word Catholic is never in relationship to true Christians.
And I'll just let my critics continue to criticize me.
I will never refer to the body of Christ as Catholic.
I don't want to confuse anybody.
When I use the term Catholic or Roman Catholic, it always refers to the Roman
Catholic Church.
The synagogue of Satan.
And I refer to God's people either as God's people, or the body of Christ,
or Bible-believing Christians, or simply Christians.
Because they are the only ones worthy of the title.
And they should shed any, anyone trying to refer to them as Catholic.
Now he says, these non-Catholic Christians,
Concerning them, Bishop Alvaro Palaio, an official of the Curia in Avignon,
wrote grudgingly,
So here we have even an official from the Roman Catholic Church itself.
It's no wonder they call it the Whore of Babylon.
It commits whoredoms.
They have to admit the truth.
And they have repeatedly throughout history.
We have read many examples just like this.
Officials, high-ranking prelates of the Roman Catholic Church saying, This is
either the Church of Jesus Christ, or it is the Church of Antichrist.
Or words to that same effect.
He continues, he says, And increasing, they are often called Albigenses.
And had intimate connections with the brethren.
Whether called Waldenses, or poor men of lions, Bogomils, or otherwise.
In the surrounding countries where churches spread among the various peoples.
In 1209 A.D., Pope Innocent III proclaimed a crusade against them.
Indulgences such as been given to the Holy Land Crusaders were now offered to all who
would partake.
In the easier work of destroying the most fruitful provinces of France.
This, and the prospect of booty and license of every kind.
Attracted hundreds of thousands of men.
Under the precedence of high clerical dignitaries.
And led by Simon de Montfort.
A military leader of great ability.
The most beautiful and cultivated part of Europe at that time.
Was ravaged.
It was ravaged.
They persecuted these non-Roman Catholic Christians.
To such an extent that they depopulated their lands.
And reduced their nations to poverty.
There was no one left to till the ground.
That is ruthlessness beyond anything our history books ever admit.
He says these simple believers were burned at the stake or slain with the sword.
And most of their records were destroyed.
When their towns and villages were razed by the papal armies.
Catholic apologists falsely accused them of heresies and abominable practice which
they denied.
The accounts we have of their trials reveal that they held beliefs similar to
evangelicals of today.
Except, obviously, they didn't think the pope was a...
Christian.
Or...
A prime moral authority in the world.
No, they knew what he was.
The Antichrist.
They had beliefs diametrically opposed to evangelicals today.
Those who deserve the term ecumenical evangelicals.
Who would have us all suffer the same fate as the Waldenses, the Valdois,
the Albigenses, the Huguenots, the Hussites.
And they are to be condemned for their ecumenism.
We'll continue on the program tomorrow.
Thanks for listening.
You've been listening to Inquisition Update on FirstAmendmentRadio.com.
See you next time.
Inquisition Update on FirstAmendmentRadio .com
Inquisition Update
on FirstAmendmentRadio.com 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, 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.