Inquisition Update 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.
We'll pick up where we left off yesterday, nearing the conclusion of this book.
We're currently in the appendix of this book.
Some valuable information if you've never heard it before.
The book entitled, again, A Woman Rides a Beast by Dave Hunt.
It's been my pleasure to read this book on Inquisition Update.
And I encourage my listeners to get a copy and read it for themselves.
The only caveat was that Dave Hunt was a futurist.
He believed in a future Antichrist, even though he knew so much about the
papacy and its role in the world.
How it could remain confused is only known to God.
But nonetheless, we'll continue.
We were talking yesterday about how Roman Catholicism turns the gospel on its head
by adding to Scripture traditions.
Man's traditions.
Roman Catholicism teaches that it is not the Bible alone, sola scriptura.
But together with the Bible is to be believed the traditions taught by the
Roman Catholic Church.
Which, in most cases, go directly contrary to the Scripture.
Vatican Council 2 reiterated that tradition is on a par with Scripture.
And we read a quote yesterday.
We concluded with a quote from Vatican Council 2.
For continuity purposes, I'll read it again.
It says, Sacred Scripture, this is Vatican Council 2.
It says, Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the
breath of the Holy Spirit.
And tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God, which has been entrusted
to the Apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.
Hence, both Scripture and tradition must be accepted and honored with equal
feelings of devotion and reverence.
Equal feelings of devotion and reverence.
The traditions taught by the Roman Catholic Church are on a par with
Scripture.
They are equivalent to Scripture.
It continues.
It is clear, therefore, that in the supremely wise arrangement of God,
sacred tradition, sacred Scripture, and the magisterium of the Church are so
connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others.
Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the Holy Spirit,
they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.
So, in the Roman Catholic Church, tradition is a salvific issue.
The Bible alone is not the only source for knowledge and wisdom and faith and
practice.
To be saved, you must believe in the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church.
And I don't believe I've stretched the language of this decree at all.
And, historically, we find the Roman Catholic Church issues anathemas and
damnations for those who rebel against the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church.
Even the Council of Trent issued those anathemas to the Protestant Reformers and
all who held the Protestant faith.
And part of what marked the Protestants as differing from the Catholics is that they
rejected the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church as doctrines of men and
doctrines of demons.
And so this is an important issue.
Now, continuing where we left off yesterday, it says...
That's what the Roman Catholic Church says.
Now, it says...
And, obviously, God's word of that era, which continues today and is larger in
volume than the New Testament, had no need of either.
We've seen how thoroughly this Catholic idea that the Bible is insufficient
contradicts what the Bible itself says.
Nor do the problems end there.
Without a tape recording of what is said, it would be obviously impossible to trace
any oral tradition back even 10 years, let alone 1,900 years back to the
Apostles.
Oral statements leave no permanent record that can be verified.
The problem wouldn't be eliminated even if someone early in the 2nd century,
a mere 50 or 100 years after the Apostles, wrote down what he claimed had been their
oral teaching.
For that would still leave a gap of oral transmission without verification.
It is a simple fact that the Roman Catholic Church, for all its talk about
apostolic tradition, cannot prove that even one of its traditions comes from the
Apostles.
Christ quoted from the Scriptures and said that all must be fulfilled.
Mark chapter 14 verse 49, Luke chapter 24 verse 44.
Never once did he quote tradition or suggest that it would be fulfilled.
A strange omission if tradition is an essential part of Scripture.
Paul, the Apostle, assures us that all Scripture is, quote, given by inspiration
of God, unquote.
2nd Timothy 3.16, you compare also 2 Peter chapter 1 verse 20 and 21.
No such assurance is given for tradition.
In fact, the opposite is implied.
Paul tells Timothy to, quote, preach the word, reprove, rebuke, exhort with all
longsuffering and doctrine, unquote.
2nd Timothy 4.2, he never said to preach tradition.
Again, a strange omission if tradition is essential or even valid.
There is no Old Testament Jewish tradition which existed from Moses or David or
Isaiah and which was to be observed in addition to God's word.
Christ had nothing good to say about Jewish tradition, but denounced it as
having perverted and rendered ineffective God's word.
See Matthew chapter 15 verse 1 through 9.
He surely wouldn't require the church to depend upon easily perverted oral
tradition, but would give her as he gave Israel all the instructions she needed in
writing.
Now under the subtitle Scripture References to Tradition, Dave says the
words tradition or traditions occur 14 times in the New Testament.
8 references from Matthew chapter 15 verses 2, 3 and 6, Mark chapter 7 verse 3,
5, 8, 9 and 13 are Christ's statements in the Gospels and all of these are
derogatory of Jewish traditions as noted above.
Paul makes 5 references, 2 of which are clearly derogatory.
See Colossians chapter 2 verse 8, Galatians chapter 1 verse 14.
Peter's 1 reference in 1 Peter chapter 1 verse 18 is also derogatory of tradition.
That leaves 3 favorable references by Paul.
Here are the quotes.
Now I praise you brethren that you remember me in all things and keep the
traditions as I delivered them unto you.
1 Corinthians chapter 11 verse 2.
Another one quote.
Therefore brethren stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught
whether by our word or our epistle.
Now we command you brethren in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ that you withdraw
yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly and not after the tradition
which he received from us.
2 Thessalonians chapter 2 verse 15 and chapter 3 verse 6.
Upon these latter 3 verses Roman Catholicism's entire case for tradition
rests.
Yet none of these verses refers to Roman Catholic tradition as it has developed
through the centuries since the days of the apostles.
Paul was obviously speaking of things that he and or the other apostles had already
personally taught.
He was not referring to traditions that might develop under the influence of
unknown church leaders at some time in the future.
Therefore unless it can be demonstrated that present Roman Catholic tradition was
first taught by the apostles and has remained pure to this day, no support for
it can be found in these verses.
And we've already shown that it is impossible to trace any present tradition
back to the apostles.
Moreover Roman Catholic traditions contradict the clear teaching of scripture
and thus could not possibly have been taught by the apostles.
There are even contradictions within Roman Catholic traditions themselves.
In his work on the study of sacred scripture, Pope Leo XIII, who reigned from
1823 to 1829, wrote that the church fathers, quote, have sometimes expressed
the idea of their own times and thus made statements which in these days have been
abandoned as incorrect, unquote.
We've seen too that false decretals were manufactured and that they became the
basis of much of what is known as tradition in the Roman Catholic Church
today and even Roman Catholic canon law that remains the law of the church to this
day.
Now what about oral traditions as a temporary expedient for the Roman Catholic
Church?
Now we're getting to the nitty-gritty here.
While the New Testament was in the process of being written, there was obviously a
time when the early church relied upon the oral teachings of the apostles.
We have every reason to believe, however, that whatever teaching the Holy
Spirit inspired, which was intended for all believers down throughout history,
would have been put into writing.
This is true for the reasons already outlined.
Number one, there was no oral tradition passed down from the Old Testament times
from Moses, David, Samuel, et al.
for Israel.
So why would there be for the church today?
Number two, Christ condemned all oral tradition developed by the rabbis as
having perverted the word of God.
So why would he want the church to have the same corrupting influence today?
Number three, it is impossible either to trace oral tradition back to its source or
to be certain of its accuracy.
Number four, oral teaching must inevitably be corrupted in the process of
transmission from one generation to the next.
Number five, not everything that Paul or the other apostles ever said was on the
level of Scripture and intended for the believers in all ages.
And the only sure way to make a distinction would be to put permanent
teachings into writing.
And that's what they did.
And that's why God's people are admonished to read the Scriptures, to know the
Scriptures, and never add to or take away from the Scriptures such as traditions do.
Now, that apostolic oral traditions, which were intended for all time,
were put in writing, as indicated by the apostles themselves, we have such evidence
in Paul's writings, and in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 23, he states that he is
presenting in writing what he had previously taught them orally,
quote, that which also I delivered unto you, unquote.
In other words, proving that Paul in his letter was only reiterating in writing
what he had already taught them orally, in person.
Again, in 2 Thessalonians, chapter 2, verse 5, Paul states the same thing,
quote, Remember ye not that when I was with you, I told you these things,
unquote.
He was giving them and us, in writing, what he had previously told them orally.
And at the same time, he was elaborating upon it and providing further
understanding.
The same thing is true of the tradition to which he refers in 2 Thessalonians,
chapter 3, verse 6.
Again, he points out, quote, when we were with you, this same thing we commanded you
orally, verse 10.
Peter says the same, quote, Moreover, I will endeavor that ye be able after my
decease, that is, after my passing and death, to have these things always in
remembrance.
2 Peter, chapter 1, verse 15.
In other words, he put in writing what he had earlier taught them orally so that
they wouldn't forget or corrupt it after his death.
Paul was deeply concerned about false doctrine.
Much of his writing was to correct heresy.
He warned the Ephesian elders, quote, For I know this, that after my
departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away
disciples for themselves.
Acts, chapter 20, verse 29 and 30.
It would be unreasonable, then, to imagine that Paul would not put into
writing all that the Holy Spirit had inspired him to teach.
If men would even pervert the written truth, which we know the Roman Catholic
Church has done and is still doing today, how much easier to pervert what was oral,
as memories failed and new generations came which had never heard the original
teaching.
Now, what about written tradition?
The written tradition in Roman Catholicism comes from works of the so-called Church
Fathers.
Unfortunately, a great deal of fraud is mixed in and is often indistinguishable
from fact.
These frauds become the source of ideas that remain as established dogmas today,
such as the saying attributed in the Isidorean Decretals to Pope Julius about
338 A.D.
that, the Church of Rome, by a singular privilege, has the right of opening and
shutting the gates of heaven to whom she will, and that the Popes inherit,
innocence and sanctity from Peter, and are therefore holy and infallible,
and all Christendom must tremble before them.
Such statements are clearly not biblical.
From his exhaustive studies of the original historic documents, historian Von
Dollinger informs us, quote, Toward the end of the 5th and the beginning of the
6th century, the process of forgeries and fictions in the interests of Rome was
actively carried on there.
Then began the compilation of spurious acts of Roman martyrs, which was continued
for some centuries, and which modern criticism, even at Rome, has been obliged
to give up.
In other words, Rome has acknowledged forgeries and has been forced to give them
up.
Continuing the quote, it says, While this tendency to forging documents
was so strong in Rome, it is remarkable that for a thousand years no attempt was
made there to form a collection of canons.
More than twenty synods had been held in Rome since 313 A.D., but there were no
records of them to be found.
Unquote.
Meaning that in order to make up the history of the Roman Catholic Church,
so as to prove the line of apostolic succession all the way back to Peter the
Apostle, it simply had to be manufactured.
And that's what they did.
And they're called the Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals.
And what's interesting to note is the Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals.
These admitted forgeries, if you read them, simply bolster the Papacy's claim to
infallibility, and to immunity from the civil laws, and to increase the Pope's
judicial jurisdiction all over the world.
To make his government global.
And these Pseudo-Isidoreans are still the very foundation, these manufactured
documents, are the foundation upon which is built the New World Order.
The global government, the global religion, the global economic and the
global social structure, that the world is kowtowing to.
This isn't about efficiency in government.
Common sense dictates that the only good government is local.
And the more local, the better.
Representation of the people, right where the people live.
But Rome says no.
Rome says the best government is a papal government, a centralized government from
the Papacy.
And that the whole world must obey his laws, for us to survive, to be saved,
as it were.
That's the New World Order.
And it's a virtual image of the Old World Order during the Middle Ages, when the
Pope controlled the kings of the earth, and people were held in superstition and
ignorance.
They were bereft of any knowledge from the Bible, and what truth they got from the
Scriptures, they only got from the Roman Catholic priests, and you can about
imagine how much truth that was.
What they got in the church was simply more and more and more pressure to assent
to whatever the Papacy said, and to obey him and his laws, as though he were Christ
himself on the earth.
The world was bereft of any knowledge of the Gospel.
Only those who could read the Latin, the dead languages that the Bible was
printed in in those days, knew anything about truth.
And they were few and far between.
That's why ignorance defined the Dark Ages.
And we're returning to those days.
Now Dave continues...
Spurious tradition was manufactured, and eventually became the basis for almost
the entire papal system, and much of canon law.
It was these false decretals, revised and elaborated upon century after century,
which formulated Roman Catholicism as it is today.
Von Dallager informs us further, Gregory VII regarded himself not merely as
the reformer of the church, but as the divinely commissioned founder of a whole
new order.
And we've come upon the break.
We'll continue with this quote when we get back.
You've been listening to Inquisition Update on First Amendment Radio.
Stay tuned.
We'll be right back after this.
You're listening to FirstAmendmentRadio .com.
Worldwide, freedom is never free.
We need your support today at FirstAmendmentRadio.com.
Visit CrossTheBorder.org C-R-O-S-S CrossTheBorder.org to get your print,
epub, 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 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.
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.
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 the program, please support the sponsor of Inquisition
Update, First Amendment Radio.
Now, we were quoting Von Dollinger, the historian, describing for us,
in a quote, these false decretals, these forgeries of the Roman Catholic
Church establishing the papacy's supremacy as vicar of Christ on the earth,
his right to rule the world.
It says, Gregory VII, Pope Gregory VII, regarded himself not merely as the
reformer of the church, but as the divinely commissioned, he thought God
commissioned him, but as the divinely commissioned founder of a whole new order.
Gregory collected about him, by degrees, the right men for elaborating his system
of church law.
Anselm may be called the founder of the new Gregorian system of church law,
first by extracting and putting into convenient working shape everything in the
Isidorean forgeries serviceable for papal absolutism.
Next, by altering the law of the church through a tissue of fresh inventions and
interpolations.
Clearly and cautiously, as the Gregorian party went to work, they lived in a world
of dreams and illusions about the past, and about remote centuries.
They could not escape the imperative necessity of demonstrating their new
system to have been the constant practice of the church, and it is difficult,
if not impossible, to distinguish where involuntary delusion merged into conscious
deceit.
Whatever present exigencies required was selected from the mythical stores at their
command hastily and recklessly.
Then fresh inventions were added, and soon every claim of Rome could be
shown to have a legitimate foundation in existing, or rather fraudulent,
records and decrees.
So Rome made up her whole history, from the time of about the 6th century
back, in order to prove apostolic succession, and its claim to divine right
to rule the world, to be the judge of every man, and that no man may judge the
Pope.
And simply, when anything is questioned about the papacy's authority, and its
jurisdiction, and his immunity to the civil laws, the laws of God, and the laws
of the land, the papacy can simply refer back to these manufactured documents to
establish its claim, fraudulent claim.
And this is not a new assertion.
These assertions were made by Roman Catholic historians, who went poring over
the canon law and these Isidorean decretals, and discovered and announced to
the world that they weren't just forgeries, they were clumsy forgeries at
best.
And they're not regarded as official, but by those who simply are willfully
deceived, and hope to prop up this papacy, and to bring about his global governance.
It's an incredible comedy of error.
And the whole world follows after forgeries.
He says the decretals were used to build up fictitious sayings of the Popes,
which thereafter became the law of the church, and to put tradition, the false
tradition at that, on a par with scripture.
Moreover, unlike the Bible, which is already available in one volume,
the tradition as taught by the Roman Catholic Church is contained in many
volumes of alleged writings of the church fathers, and the decrees of councils.
Voluminous and not accessible to the average person, it consists of,
quote, at least thirty-five volumes of Greek and Latin church fathers,
usually ending with Gregory I in A.D.
604, another thirty-five volumes of church council decrees, about twenty-five volumes
of the Pope's sayings and decrees, about fifty-five volumes of the alleged
sayings and decrees of the saints, and some one hundred and fifty volumes in
all.
Where is it?
Some place in the Bible it says the reading of many books is wearisome,
reminding us that the sole purpose of man is to obey God and keep his commandments.
Is this not what the apostle of God, the prophet of God, was speaking about?
We have the Bible, that's all we need.
We don't need a library full of forged documents to dictate our faith and
practice, especially when they contradict the scriptures.
Now, Richard Bennett, former Roman Catholic priest and an occasional guest
even here on Inquisition Update, further explains, quote, The ordinary
Roman Catholic bishop or priest, let alone the ordinary Catholic,
can never find all of his tradition or read it, since it is in many dead and
foreign languages.
Even if all were available in translation, a person could never master one hundred
and fifty volumes in such a way as to be one with the Bible.
To declare, therefore, that the Bible plus sacred tradition forms a single deposit of
scripture is absurd.
Unquote.
That's Richard Bennett, a reformed Roman Catholic priest, a wonderful source for
information about the errors of the Roman Catholic Church.
And you can't label him, as many people do me, a rabid anti-Roman Catholic bigot.
He is much more congenial to Roman Catholics than am I.
He loves Roman Catholics and wants to see them come out of that church.
Having been a priest of the Roman Catholic Church for many years, twenty some odd
years, and came to the light of the gospel and the truth of Jesus Christ,
and the horror that he acknowledged that Revelation chapter 17, the woman riding
the beast, was speaking of none other than his church.
God opened his eyes, his heart, and his ears, and he started a ministry to
Roman Catholics.
To free them from the bondage of the Roman Catholic Church.
To bring them to the light of the gospel and the salvation of Jesus Christ.
Having received that same salvation himself, liberating Roman Catholics.
What a wonderful ministry and a wonderful man.
I highly recommend his work.
I highly recommend his website.
And I am always pleased when he is a guest here on Inquisition Update.
God bless Richard Bennett.
Now clearly, by its sheer volume, Roman Catholic sacred tradition,
as it is called, far outweighs the Bible.
By 150 to 1.
Thus the average Roman Catholic doesn't have access to the greater part of what
the Roman Catholic Church calls the Word of God.
They simply don't have access to it.
Now if it's the Word of God, shouldn't it be in the libraries of every Roman
Catholic?
And if it's not in the libraries of every Roman Catholic, and every Roman Catholic
has read it and understood it, then the Roman Catholic Church can teach
whatever it wants under the veil of tradition.
And force it upon Roman Catholics to be believed and adhered to unquestioningly.
That's not the gospel.
The gospel of Jesus Christ is written so that children can understand it and
believe it.
This is not the church of Jesus Christ.
It's the church of Antichrist.
He says, moreover, unlike the Bible, which much of it contradicts, that is,
sacred scripture of the Roman Catholic Church contradicts the scripture,
written tradition and official dogma of the Roman Catholic Church have frequently
changed, even propounding contrary ideas to such important events and topics as
abortion.
Most Catholics are not aware that the infallible church, as it is called,
and Popes have changed their minds several times on this topic.
Unthinkable from today's perspective, where we're all taught to believe that the
Pope is infallible and cannot change his mind?
I change not!
From the 5th century onward, Aristotle's view that the embryo goes through stages
from vegetable to animal to spiritual was accepted.
Only in the final stage was it human.
Thus, Pope Gregory VI, who cared nothing for the gospel, in 1045 and 1046 said,
quote, he is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the
body.
Unquote.
In other words, he didn't believe the gospel.
He believed Aristotle.
And how convenient was that for the Roman Catholic Church when the nuns were having
the priests' babies?
The celibate priests were having babies by the nuns and by other men's wives.
And in order not to embarrass the church, they wanted abortion.
So they found an excuse.
Aristotle said that an embryo is not a human being.
It's a vegetable.
Then, later on, it becomes an animal.
And only at the end does it become spiritual.
And so it's no sin to kill a vegetable or an animal.
It's no sin to kill an embryo until it breathes life.
So there you get late-term abortion.
It was taught by the Roman Catholic Church.
The Roman Catholic Church, who the world believes is opposed to abortion,
is literally where we got abortion.
Unquote, he says, he is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is
in the body.
Gregory XIII, who reigned from 1572 to 1585, said it was not homicide to kill an
embryo of less than 40 days since it wasn't yet human.
His successor, Pope Sixtus V, who rewrote the Bible as we recently discussed,
he disagreed, this infallible pope, disagreed with another infallible pope.
He says his bull of 1588 made all abortions, for any reason, homicide and
cause for excommunication.
His successor, Gregory XIV, reversed that decree.
Again, infallible popes disagreeing with one another.
In 1621, the Vatican issued another pastoral directive permitting abortion up
to 40 days.
As late as the 18th century, the Church's greatest moral theologian, St. Alphonsus
de Liguri, still denied that the soul was infused at conception and allowed for
flexibility, especially when the mother's life was in danger.
Finally, in 1869, Pope Pius IX declared that any destruction of any embryo was an
abortion and merited excommunication, a view that remains to this day.
And how many priests would there yet be in the world, if they were all
excommunicated, for ordering or assisting in the abortions of their illegitimate
children?
If they went by Roman Catholic canon law and were not hypocrites.
And there's something else you might take into account.
All the issues that remain... and all of the... what's the word I want to say?
The entire issue, the entire debate about abortion, that is carried on on a daily
basis in the world today, is all framed within the construct of these popes.
The entire discussion and every permutation of belief on the abortion
issue comes from these popes.
I think God is a greater authority, since he is the author of life,
and the author and the finisher of our faith.
He should be the authority over that subject.
And that's where I'll leave it.
We've come to the conclusion of the book, but there are, in addition, some terms in
the glossary, in the back of this book, that I wish to read for your education.
You've heard me use many of these terms.
Sometimes people don't understand, because I don't always take the time to
define those terms.
Terms that, if you're new to this subject, you've never heard before, and you need
further clarification.
The first word is anathema.
Anathema.
It's a word used by the Roman Catholic Church to issue a damnation to somebody.
It is defined as excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church, pronounced upon
heretics or gross sinners.
The consequence is eternal damnation, unless the one anathematized, or damned,
repents and returns to the Roman Catholic Church.
The Council of Trent pronounced the anathema, or the damnation, of more than
100 times upon those who accepted the beliefs of the Protestant Reformers.
Vatican Council II confirmed those anathemas, those damnations, and added one
of its own.
And thus, Roman Catholicism damns to eternal hell all evangelical Christians
today.
And the Pope doesn't care if you're ecumenical or not.
You are ipso facto excommunicated from the Church.
You are damned to an eternal hell because you are not a baptized,
sacrament-participating member of the Roman Catholic Church.
That's the hideous reality.
All of these evangelical churches that are signing documents of capitulation to the
Vatican, Rome hasn't retracted any of her damnations and anathemas against these
churches.
And while they are helping to bolster the strength and political power and clout in
control of our government, by adding to their numbers, which now constitutes a
mandate, a political mandate, so much so that the Archbishop of New York can walk
into the halls of power in this country and make demands upon our government.
Saying that we now not only represent the Catholics, the card-carrying baptized
Catholics, but we represent all these ecumenical evangelicals too, that have
come weeping on their knees in repentance to Vatican Council II.
And we're going to control this government.
We're going to make the laws.
And we're going to demand, as history proves, that the civil government,
the government of this country, will enforce those rules and laws.
Now, it says the only remedy, the only remedy is repentance of evangelical
doctrines, which are regarded as heresies to the Roman Catholic Church, entrance
into the Roman Catholic Church, and submission to her decrees,
even if they're forgeries, right?
Thus, all quote-unquote dialogue or cooperation between Catholics and
evangelicals must, by very definition in Roman Catholicism, lead to the
evangelicals ultimately joining the Roman Catholic Church, for their own salvation,
of course.
Now you know what an anathema is.
I'll skip papal bull, code of canon law, we've recently talked about.
Here's one, concordat.
Concordat, a word that I use occasionally and don't define as often as I should,
probably.
Here's the definition of a concordat.
A treaty or agreement defining relationships and duties between the
Vatican and the secular governments of the world.
This is only possible because Vatican City, unlike any other city on the earth,
is recognized as a state on a par with the secular nations of the world, and thus
able to enter into political-religious agreements and exchange ambassadors with
them.
This is what makes the Roman Catholic Church unique in all the so-called
Christian world.
It's both a city and a state and a church, and the Bible talks about it voluminously,
confirming that it reigns over the kings of the earth.
And how does it do it?
Through concordat, binding contractual agreements between one nation,
Vatican City, and the nations of the world.
That's how Rome controls a government.
And many would argue with me, they say the United States does not have a concordat
with the Vatican.
I assert that if there is not an approvable written concordat with the
Vatican, as much control and protection that the Roman Catholic Church has and its
priests enjoy in this country, their pedophile priests enjoy in this
country, there must be at least an oral concordat between the government of the
United States and the Vatican.
Otherwise, civil law would be hunting these priests, these pedophiles,
every day, all day long, 24-7-365.
But they go scot-free.
When non-Roman Catholics, who are falsely accused of the same crimes, are given 175
years in prison, the parents of the children in the ministry are stripped of
their parental rights, their children are put in the Roman schools, and their
property is auctioned off to the highest bidder.
And their lives are completely destroyed.
Such is the case of Toni Lama Christian Ministries in Falk, Arkansas.
They don't have a concordat with the government of the United States.
Next encyclical, a letter written by a Pope expressing the official view of the
Church on a certain matter of importance.
This is how the Pope speaks to the world through his encyclicals.
They are important readings.
And one of the main reasons why I have occasionally Richard Bennett on the
program, because he understands Pope speak better than anybody I know.
And you would not believe what is contained in these encyclicals and what
they bode for once-Protestant USA.
Not nearly enough attention is given by God's people to the diabolical encyclicals
of the papacy.
If we paid attention to them, we'd know precisely what the papacy has in store for
us.
Eucharist, we've talked about that many, many times.
I don't think I need to go through that again.
Transubstantiation and all that.
A sacrifice, you know, Jesus' sacrifice wasn't enough.
You have to participate in the Mass, the sacrifice of the Eucharist.
Indulgences, we talk about that in the book.
Interdict is a penalty imposed by the Popes upon a city or even an entire
nation, prohibiting the practice of the Roman Catholic religion.
And to make this brief, it simply is a denial of baptism, of participation in the
sacraments.
All those things whereby Roman Catholics are saved are denied to Roman Catholics as
a motivation to overthrow the governments of their countries.
Or to get the Roman Catholics of the nation to respond to whatever the Pope
wants at that particular time.
And it normally amounts to overthrowing the government.
What happens to a Roman Catholic who believes that he's not saved unless he
participates in the Mass and the sacraments?
What happens to a Roman Catholic that believes that if he's not buried in a
Roman Catholic ceremony, he's going to purgatory or hell?
These people are religiously motivated, their salvation is at stake, and they do
whatever the Pope wants them to do when he issues an interdict against them.
And that's what they intend to do here in the United States of America.
It's going to happen.
It has happened so many times in history, it must be expected that it's going to
happen here in the United States when the New World Order comes into full fruition.
An interdict.
The beginning of the end of the United States of America.
All right, that's it for this book.
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 are 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 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 a 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