Bateman on Trial

Bateman on Trial Part 2

FILE: Yong / DATE: Sept-Oct 1995 / CONFERENCE: FidoNet OpenBible

CONTENTS: More of my reply to Korean anti-Catholic Kim Yong (Jae) who re-posted articles from Fundy Charles Bateman titled "Catholicism Evolved" on the supposed origins of the Roman Catholic Church. Some of the background and concluding remarks, more examination of his misuse of sources on the ministerial priesthood and statements taken out of context from the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) which is now available online from the NEW ADVENT Supersite.

===========================================================================

Date: 09-09-95 / From: PHIL PORVAZNIK / To: KIM YONG / Subj: Upon Shifting Sand

===========================================================================

KY> In an effort to assist Charles Bateman, who posted that he had lost his hard drive files within the past few months, and requested that anyone who had any copies of his posts repost them to him so he could recover what he lost, I am posting two of his works to ALL. These present very good facts, which are, more often than not, ignored, and even avoided. These Catholic authors prove that their religious institution is not the church of Christ.

What are you? Are you and Bateman in cahoots? I rejoiced to hear that Bateman's hard drive crashed earlier. Too bad you have saved some of his nonsense. I responded to it a number of months ago and did not hear one peep from that anti-Catholic weirdo.

You won't see me ignoring that stuff. I love stuff like that -- I think it is hilarious. I have saved a lot of his nonsense.

Very good facts? Are you nuts? What church do you attend anyway?

* OLX 2.1 TD * Thou art Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my Church
* Origin: MercOpus * Internet FTP/Archie/News * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/10)

===========================================================================

Date: 09-09-95 / From: PHIL PORVAZNIK / To: KIM YONG / Subj: Upon Shifting Sand

===========================================================================

KY> "There was far MORE EXTENSIVE and CONTINUOUS USE OF SCRIPTURE in the public service of the early Church than there is among us." [Cath. Dic., p. 509]

BTW, Kim, your re-post of Bateman's stuff ended here. I believe I have the whole thing (both parts) of "Catholicism Evolved." If you really want me to take time to research what you are quoting, to check the context of your quotes, and to look further, you need to provide me with better references than that.

Cath. Dic, p. 509. Yeah, that really helps.

WHAT Catholic Dictionary? Author? Copyright date? And please be sure you are understanding what you are quoting and getting the context correct.

I will give you another 12-parter like I did Les Wilcox only if you respond and tell me specifically you want me to answer all this stuff. So if you wish to be obliterated, please say so.....

* OLX 2.1 TD * Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church (1 Tim 3:15)
* Origin: MercOpus * Internet FTP/Archie/News * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/10)

===========================================================================

Date: 09-09-95 / From: WILLIAM PUTNAM / To: PHIL PORVAZNIK / Subj: Bateman thing......

===========================================================================

Found Kim Yong talking to All:

KY> Kim Yong

KY> "If it be not identical in belief, in government, etc, with the primitive Church, THEN IT IS NOT THE CHURCH OF CHRIST" (Catholic Facts, 27)

What is this publication? (Catholic Facts) Never heard of it........

KY> Christians were called "Christians" first at Antioch [Acts of The Apostles 11:26], there were no Catholics mentioned because there were no Catholics there. The disciples were called CHRISTIANS, not Catholics. Christians have existed since Christ called men to follow Him. Catholics EVOLVED!

..........massive abridgement here, ending with a strange tagline below.

Phil,

You have been in this conference a lot longer than I, but this repost of this thing by Charles Bateman has got to be just about the most ridiculous thing I have ever read in this conference. It was re-posted by Kim Yong so that all of us can see it again (as well as give Charles Bateman a chance to restore the thing on his new hard-drive) and I'm wanting to refute it, but methinks this has been done before. I don't want to "re-invent the wheel" so if this has been done, perhaps it should be re-posted as well.

Charles Bateman claims some pretty wild things out of a "Catholic Encyclopedia" that makes me highly suspicious of this work. My 1967 Edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia says no such things as claimed here. Other so called "documents" are similarly suspicious.

Looking forward to your response to this.

(You too, Joe Didde, or other catholic apologists who read this post. Your contributions are also welcomed.)

God bless all of you!

PAX

Bill

KY> ... Christ never venerated his mother; we are to follow His example!

Sure! Why not? I venerate my mother, and she is still alive, as Mary was when Jesus was in His ministry. Jesus also LISTENED to His mother as well. Did he not begin His ministry early because of her insistence at the wedding feast of Cana? At the request of His mother, Jesus performed His first miracle and changed water into wine!

Finally, why did Jesus, while carrying that terrible cross to Calvary, hand over His mother to a loving disciple to care for with the words, "...here is YOUR mother."

Because she was not only that disciples mother, she is ALL OF MANKIND's MOTHER!

[This response is NOT intended for you, Phil! <g> It's for Kim Yong, the originator of the above tagline!]

... Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee;
... Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the
... fruit of thy womb, JESUS.
... Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners,
... now and at the hour of our death. AMEN.

... Now this tagline above is intended for ALL in this conference!

* Origin: The Firehouse BBS (904)-934-8678,(904)-932-0801 (1:3612/240)

===========================================================================

Date: 09-13-95 / From: PHIL PORVAZNIK / To: KIM YONG / Subj: UPON SHIFTING SAND!

===========================================================================

KY> The claims of Catholicism's authorities to be the "church" of Christ are proven to be fraudulent by their own writers.

Nonsense! I responded to Charles Bateman way back in May 1995 and I re-posted that to you. Do you wish to carry on an intelligent dialogue or will you continue to post nonsense to ALL ???

KY> Conclusion: The fact that those two documents are the

Your post cut off right here. Like I said, I believe I have the whole thing originally posted by Bateman the end of April 1995 and originally called "Catholicism Evolved" in two parts.

So again, if you wish to be obliterated, please tell me specifically and I will answer every last detail of Bateman's nonsense.

And I am still waiting to find out from what SECONDARY source you and Bateman are using for your quotes. Will you tell me? Or do you even know you nut! :(

* OLX 2.1 TD * Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church (1 Tim 3:15)

===========================================================================

Date: 09-13-95 / From: PHIL PORVAZNIK To: KIM YONG Subj: UPON SHIFTING SAND!

===========================================================================

KY> [Catholic Dictionary, Addis & Arnold, The Catholic Publication Society, New York, 1884, P. 692]

Thank you. I can now look this up.

1884? Don't you anti-Catholic weirdos read anything current?

If you're into last century books try --

AN ESSAY ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

by John Henry Cardinal Newman (originally published 1845)

"Let them consider, that if they can criticize history, the facts of history certainly can retort upon them. It might, I grant, be clearer on this great subject than it is. This is no great concession. History is not a creed or a catechism, it gives lessons rather than rules; still no one can mistake its general teaching in this matter, whether he accept it or stumble at it. Bold outlines and broad masses of colour rise out of the records of the past. They may be dim, they may be incomplete; but they are definite.

"And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.

"And Protestantism has ever felt it so. I do not mean that every writer on the Protestant side has felt it; for it was the fashion at first, at least as a rhetorical argument against Rome, to appeal to past ages, or to some of them; but Protestantism, as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination already referred to of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put it aside, unless they had despaired of it.

"It is shown by the long neglect of ecclesiastical history in England, which prevails even in the English Church. Our popular religion scarcely recognizes the fact of the twelve long ages which lie between the Councils of Nicaea and Trent, except as affording one or two passages to illustrate its wild interpretations of certain prophesies of St. Paul and St. John. It is melancholy to say it, but the chief, perhaps the only English writer who has any claim to be considered an ecclesiatical historian, is the unbeliever Gibbon.

"TO BE DEEP IN HISTORY IS TO CEASE TO BE A PROTESTANT."

(Essay, p. 7-8, written when Cardinal Newman was still an Anglican)

Kim,

If you want a standard Protestant source on early church history and doctrine find the work by J.N.D. Kelly titled EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES (orig 1958 and paperback published in 1985).

This will help you a lot and certainly cure your Catholic bashing.

See ya you nut! :(

* OLX 2.1 TD * Errors die hard, especially Protestant fictions--Chapman

===========================================================================

Date: 09-14-95 / From: KIM YONG / To: PHIL PORVAZNIK / Subj: UPON SHIFTING SAND!

===========================================================================

Phil Porvaznik to Kim Yong-Jae

PP> So again, if you wish to be obliterated, please tell me specifically and I will answer every last detail of Bateman's nonsense. And I am still waiting to find out from what SECONDARY source you and Bateman are using for your quotes. Will you tell me?

PP> Or do you even know you nut! :(

Name-calling is juvenile and intelligence does not require it. The ability to quote books is not an exhibition of intelligence. We are able to exhibit intelligence, how about you?

The quotes I submit are from Catholic authorities, publications housed in a personal library to which I have access. The "SECONDARY" source is personal discovery. The majority of the primary sources from which I quote are available through public and university libraries, and possibly all may be acquired from those contacts.

You are welcomed to offer any answers you wish, realizing two limitations: You are not authorized to officially speak for the hierarchy who have published the things I quote, and your opinions are just that, your opinions.

If I quote authorized Catholic publications which expose the internal contradictions of Roman Catholic statements, and you quote contradictions to what I quote, you substantiate and sustain my exposure of internal contradictions within Roman Catholicism.

PP> Errors die hard, especially Protestant fictions--Chapman

The term "Roman Catholic" and the term "protestant" are found nowhere in scripture, and are merely compliments of each other's attempts at fabricating authenticity.

Christ's Church is not built upon "tale," "fable," or "myth," because it is not built upon quile.

It was Roman Catholic fiction (lies) that set all precedents in falsifications, and forgeries.

Roman Catholic fiction existed centuries before the term "protestant" was ever conceived. Catholic authorities admit that many of their own so-called "saints" are based upon "myths" and are, therefore, the inventions of men...outright lies! Furthermore, their legends of "saints" were many times the products of absorbing the pagan "gods" of those who would not otherwise "convert."

In the following publication it is plainly admitted that one should believe God, Himself, approves of the legends of fictitious so-called "saints," because the lies upon which they are built were produced by circumstances which "furnished... occasions for coming into existence." This is irrefutable evidence of the lengths to which Roman Catholicicism, of necessity, is absolutely disassociated from Christainity. It fully exemplifies and admits that Roman Catholicism is built upon every deceit necessary to accomplish whatever end it determines.

That is why Roman Catholic education produces profressional, political and religious rhetorititions who spout descriptions and explanations which are easily shifted to either side of what they determine to be the "truth." "Truth" becomes a thing of no real solidity, no absolutes, merely gray, rather than clearly black and white, and "history-revisionists" rise from the halls of Roman Catholic education to re-write what former Roman Catholic educators have already written, because it must be "bent" to fit the times. While changing from decade to decade, if necessary to enslave nations and gain political power over men, their education or their ignorance (to dispense either as it sees fit), the institution of popery claims that it remains "always the same." And, again, Roman Catholicism exemplifies gross internal contradiction, all the while denying it.

As to the "devotions" which Catholics are taught to give to falsehoods misnamed "saints," every Roman Catholic needs to realize the extent of the deceit by which they are controlled. Roman Catholics are required to believe lies, because that is the foundation of their religion. Imagine the hundreds of millions of people who have died trusting "saint" Christopher, only to realize their trust was worthless. The reason is explaied as follows:

{example one}

"Of course the lives of all the saints are not history in the strictest sense of the word. But what has that to do with the Communion of Saints? If simplicity and naivety have woven around some names an unlikely tale, fable or a myth, it requires some effort to see how that could effect their standing with God, or their disposition to help us in our needs."

{it is a simple matter, requiring absolutely no effort at all, "to see how that could effect their standing with God, or their disposition to help us in our needs," when we realize that they are no more than "tale, fable, or a myth," as "saint" Christopher and others} {trusting in "the little man who wasn't there" is the product of being deceived, the product of being swindled}

{example two}

"Devotions are not based on historical facts, although in certain facts, events or happenings, REAL OR ALLEGED {emphasis mine}, they may have been furnished with occasions for coming into existence. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THESE FACTS IS NOT GUARANTEED BY THE DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH, BUT SHE MAY, AND DOES, APPROVE THE DEVOTIONS THAT SPRING THEREFROM {this includes devotions to the so-called "virgin Mary" and others - emphasis mine}. INDEPENDENTLY OF THE TRUTH of private and individual revelations, visions and miracles, which she investigates as to their probability, SHE MAKES SURE THAT THERE IS NOTHING CONTRARY TO THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH AND MORALS, AND THEN SHE GIVES THESE DEVOTIONS THE STAMP OF HER APPROVAL AS A SECURITY TO THE FAITHFUL WHO WISH TO PRACTICE THEM."

{she gives no guarantee of authentic fact; she approves things INDEPENDENTLY OF THE TRUTH; she declairs that such actions are NOTHING CONTRARY TO THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH AND MORALS, to which she GIVES THESE DEVOTIONS THE STAMP OF APPROVAL AS A SECURITY TO THE FAITHFUL...there is no security in shifting sand that changes after trust is placed in it to be secure}

Documentation: [Explanation of Catholic Morals {what an appropriate title}, John H. Stapleton, Benziger Brothers, New York, 1904, pp. 115-116]

So the faithful are taught to trust in that which is not solid, but moveable, and in the midst of their faith based upon lies, tales, fables and myths, the poor duped people are told by her that the "saint" they have trusted is not a "saint" at all. Her slaves are too brainwashed to even believe it when it is shown them, because they have learned to think INDEPENDENTLY OF THE TRUTH; so they will be lead by NOTHING CONTRARY TO FAITH AND MORALS, but which may shift right out from under their feet tomorrow and bring their false hopes crashing down as a house built UPON SHIFTING SAND! It will fall, and its fall will be great.

According to Roman Catholic authority, Roman Catholic faith and morals are not based upon truth, but upon tales, fables, and myths.

... To profess infallibility in the light of so complete a denial
... of such profession is not infallibility at all, but fraud!

* Origin: Open your KJBIBLE and READ it. (1:375/1611.0)

===========================================================================

Date: 09-20-95 / From: CHARLES BATEMAN / To: KIM YONG-JAE / Subj: UPON SHIFTING SAND!

===========================================================================

First, let me thank you for your kindness in keeping up with posts I previously made, and for allowing me to get a copy of two of them by posting them in this echo. When my hard drive failed I lost all my posts, with a few exceptions. Now I keep them on 3.5 disks. Thank you again. I am glad to see that you have benefited from them.

Second, Phil Porvaznik uses the psychological tactic of personal attack, in an effort to absorb his target's full attention, and distract them from their intended goal through engaging them in defending themselves against his personal attacks. Either that, which requires a limited amount of intelligence, or he just likes the juvenile activity of name-calling, and quoting material from his own "SECONDARY source," to use his own words.

Continue to challenge Catholicism from the oldest existing record of the Christian Faith - the full 27 documents of the New Testament. No Catholic can successfully account for why their religion is not in those documents.

The Grace Of Our Lord Jesus Christ Be With You All. Amen.

... Scripture Alone Defines The Christian Faith, Rejecting Tradition!

* Origin: Open your KJBIBLE and READ it. (1:375/1611.0)

===========================================================================

Date: 09-21-95 / From: WILLIAM PUTNAM / To: PHIL PORVAZNIK / Subj: Bateman on Trial 1

===========================================================================

Found Phil Porvaznik talking to Kim Yong:

PP> CHARLES BATEMAN ON TRIAL

PP> An Examination of Darwin's Theory of Catholicism

PP> "Catholics, with their religion, EVOLVED."

Phil,

Every bit of this went into a floppy labeled "Phil Porvaznik."

I've just scanned it, and I like what I see. I am going to follow this thread closely, and where reinforcements are called for, I'll join in, but in the meantime and as they say in the military, you are the "on-scene commander" of this battle!

I see we have another detractor joining in, no doubt encouraged by the Kim Yong post. This is gonna get good!..............

Good work, Phil!

God Bless!

Bill

... Laudate Dominum.

* Origin: The Firehouse BBS (904)-934-8678,(904)-932-0801 (1:3612/240)

===========================================================================

Date: 09-22-95 / From: KIM YONG-JAE / To: PHIL PORVAZNIK / Subj: Bateman on Trial 1

===========================================================================

Why not address the person to whom you, by name, post your comments, in the *first* person, rather than referring to that individual (i.e. me - Kim Yong-Jae) in the third person! Is that exemplary of a total disregard and contempt for other people of other races, and/or other knowledge of Roman Catholicism? Is your commenting to someone unseen, rather than man-to-man comments directly to me, a racially motivated display, or an example of the Roman Catholic religion's attitude which discounts those who disagree as worthless (contradictary to the claim to be so concerned for "human rights) - to the point that you must direct your comments into the air? Are you not intelligent enough to know to whom you are posting comments?

PP> CHARLES BATEMAN ON TRIAL

PP> An Examination of Darwin's Theory of Catholicism

PP> "Catholics, with their religion, EVOLVED."

PP> When asked from what SECONDARY source Bateman/Yong were getting their material and quotes, Kim Yong responded to me on 9/14/95 --

KY> The quotes I submit are from Catholic authorities, publications housed in a personal library to which I have access. The "SECONDARY" source is personal discovery. The majority of the primary sources from which I quote are available through public and university libraries, and possibly all may be acquired from those contacts.

PP> The "primary sources" which were quoted could very well be acquired from my public library through inter-library loan. However, it would take me about 3-4 weeks to get the books and I would need authors and dates which were not provided for all the sources used in the Bateman/Yong posts.

Instant results would be nice for everyone, especially when one is looking to refute false claims, but time is required all too often. I have been digging for eighteen years, and you want to be able to offer instant refutation, expecting others to believe you, just because you think they will? Childish impatience results in no knowledge, but many pitfalls.

You name the publication; I will give you authors and dates.

PP> There was one reference given for the "Catholic Dictionary" by Addis & Arnold and dated 1884.

KY> [Catholic Dictionary, Addis & Arnold, The Catholic Publication Society, New York, 1884, P. 692]

PP> This might be hard to locate even through inter-library loan due to the date. Has it been re-printed recently (within last 30 years) ?

Is that an excuse to keep from looking? As for it being "reprinted recently," no, not to my knowledge. I own a copy, for which I paid $50.00. Rare book search-services are also available for those who are determined to seek and find.

PP> I would need the rest -- "Catholic Facts" ? "Catholic Encyclopedia" ?

[Catholic Facts, John Francis Knoll, Our Sunday Visitor Press, Huntington, IN, 1927]

[Catholic Encyclopedia, Special Edition - published under the auspices of the Knights of Columbus Catholic Truth Society in 15 volumes, The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., New York, 1913] There is a set of this encyclopedia at Auburn University At Montgomery, Montgomery, AL, and they may xerox sections for you to confirm quotations. You will have to contact them. (Library Reference Department, Auburn University At Montgomery, 7300 University Drive, Montgomery, AL 36117; phone; 1-334-244-3649)

PP> According to Kim Yong, the "SECONDARY" source is "personal discovery." I tend to doubt this. I have found EVERY ONE of the quotes used in the Bateman/Yong posts in a rabidly ANTI-Catholic book titled CATHOLICISM AGAINST ITSELF by O.C. Lambert (originally published in 1963 and re-printed in 1976 -- there is also an expanded version in 2 volumes). The quotes in the Lambert book and in the Bateman/Yong posts are identical -- including the quote, reference and page number.

No reason for you to doubt "personal discovery." You need to try it yourself, instead of relying so heavily on secondary sources. And verification of secondary sources also constitutes "personal discovery."

If O.C. Lambert quotes the same Catholic publications, same editions, same date of publication, same page, what else could any moderately-educated, intelligent person expect. You're right, the quotes will be identical, just like when you quote from the same page, same statement of the "Catechism of the Catholic Church," authorized by Cardinal Ratzinger (Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; so named since 1965 - called the Holy Office in 1908, and originally named the OFFICE OF THE INQUISITION in 1542 - it still exists)...when anyone else quotes from that same publication titled "Catechism of the Catholic Church," Liguori Publications, English translation 1994, ISBN0-89243-565-8, on page 419, part II, section 1684, the first four words will always be "The Christian funeral confers..."

If I quote the "Catechism," and you quote the "Catechism," how is it that we copy each others work - explain that irrational concept.

PP> This is a SECONDARY source and, as far as I am concerned, it is WORTHLESS for discovering the true teachings of Catholicism and the reasons why Catholics believe what they believe. The author was deliberately trying to create "contradictions" much like one Gail Riplinger has done in her book defending KJV Onlyism.

Of course it is worthless to you; it completely contradicts what you have been taught about Catholicism. If you refuse to face it, by lying, misrepresenting the actual facts, denouncing its authenticity, that is another matter which in no wise diminishes the contradictions published by Roman Catholic approval, and Roman Catholic authorship.

PP> The quotes found in the Lambert book (and in the Bateman/Yong posts) are passage bites from supposedly "official Catholic sources" dated early this century or even last century. I doubt that Bateman or Yong HAVE the original sources (since their quotations are taken right out of Lambert's anti-Catholic book) and therefore they have no knowledge of the context of the statements quoted, nor do they really understand what is being said in the passage bites.

O.C. Lambert may have quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, but Lambert never told you where you could find the Catholic Encyclopedia he cites, now, did he. So how do you account for my first-hand knowledge of it, including the address and phone number of its whereabouts?

PP> In addition, much that WAS quoted is completely irrelevant to Catholic claims.

Imagine the sandy foundation of any institution which claims such infallibility, yet teaches its members to call its own publications "completely irrelevant to Catholic claims." That is clear proof of the contradictions which exist. That which was authorized for publication yesterday is contradicted today, by the same institution.

PP> * OLX 2.1 TD * "Rome has spoken; the case is closed." St. Augustine

Rome has spoken, changed its double-mind, published contradictory lists of popes, de-canonized "saints" formerly trusted for centuries by poor people who were infallibly misdirected, forged documents, stolen land, admited it, denied it, installed popes, excommunicated popes, condemned as heretical the works of those who knew centuries ago what is scientifically correct today (Galileo as one example) only to turn around and change its infallibly double-mind centuries later, all this and more while claiming to remain "always the same." It is truly always the same - shifting sand.

The only "Title Deed" it can lay claim to is in the mind of its deluded slaves. If they knew all it had published, it would not matter to them, because they cannot trust Christ for themselves; they are bound by Canon Law to remain bound to the dictates of that internally-self-contradictory machine. The Church of Christ Jesus has but one Head - Himself (Ephesians 1:18), and His Church is bound to trust Him, not Canon Law.

... Rome's word changes as shifting sand, but the word of God ... endures forever.

* Origen: Open your KJBIBLE and READ it. (1:375/1611.0)

===========================================================================

Date: 09-24-95 / From: PHIL PORVAZNIK / To: KIM YONG-JAE / Subj: Bateman on Trial 1

===========================================================================

KY> Why not address the person to whom you, by name, post your comments, in the *first* person, rather than referring to that individual (i.e. me - Kim Yong-Jae) in the third person!

Okay, I will address you directly. BTW, I addressed in the third person when I thought appropriate since this is a public echo and everybody gets to read the stuff.

I did address you by name also throughout the 11 part posts.

I just sent a post from the Longbow BBS regarding your comments on sources. Thank you for providing more references. I will try to locate a few.

Also, could you please keep each post under 100 lines. When I read this one in it got cut off at line 150 or so.

I was able to get the whole thing by calling the Longbow BBS since Mercury Opus BBS here cuts messages off at 100 lines.

I will continue with Bateman on Trial part 12 in a few days.

Everything will be answered. No stone will be left unturned.

The Church will be vindicated. The Gates of Hell shall not prevail.

See ya!

* OLX 2.1 TD * You cannot have God for Father if Church is not Mother

===========================================================================

Date: 09-24-95 / From: PHIL PORVAZNIK / To: KIM YONG-JAE / Subj: Bateman on Trial 1

===========================================================================

Hello, Kim. Just a short response.

I got the message regarding sources. Okay, you gave me some authors, titles, and publishers for your sources. Great! Now I can look some of this up.

In answer to the question -- how did you know the full reference for the "Catholic Encyclopedia" that was quoted since the reference is not found in Lambert's abridged work of 136 pages --

Well, I am aware there is an expanded version of Lambert's work in 2 volumes -- each 294 pages. I assume Lambert does give full references there. Okay, maybe you HAVE checked out some of his sources.

However, the fact is in the posts of Bateman originally titled "Catholicism Evolved" and re-posted by you titled "Upon Shifting Sand" the quotes are identical to quotes found in Lambert's abridged work CATHOLICISM AGAINST ITSELF of 136 pages. And when I say "identical" I mean identical -- including the elipses "...." and where the quote starts and ends and all the abbreviations for the sources used, and the page numbers, volume numbers. This cannot be just a coincidence since I have found EVERY one of the quotes in Lambert's abridged work. I will demonstrate this beginning in Bateman on Trial 12.

And please hold off on any more accusations of the Catholic Church.

A one-liner from you would sometimes require 1000 lines from me for a complete reply. And I am capable of doing that if you wish.

The changes in the lists of Popes I have completely answered for Mick James in a 2-part post titled "Case of the Missing Pope" regarding Pope Donus II. Regarding some of the Saints that have been "de-canonized" the answer is simple. Just read some of the articles on canonization of Saints in the New Catholic Encyclopedia or any scholarly Catholic reference. There have always been pious customs of various Saints in certain lands that have eventually become recognized as local Saints and such. In later centuries when the Church investigates some of these it is discovered there is not sufficient evidence to warrent the pious custom. We would have to look at specific examples. You have brought up St. Christopher in a previous post and I planned on covering that under Bateman on Trial when I talked about "forgeries" "frauds" and such.

No need to go bonkers and say everything is LIES and stuff. You have got to be one of the funnier anti-Catholics I have come across here but I still like you, Kim. I hope I don't get too mad. I'll try to be nice and just stick with the facts of the case. Bye!

Look for Bateman on Trial part 12 in a few days.

===========================================================================

Date: 10-01-95 / From: SEAN M. BROOKS / To: PHIL PORVAZNIK / Subj: Bateman on Trial 19

===========================================================================

=> Quoting Phil Porvaznik to Kim Yong-Jae <=-

PP> BATEMAN ON TRIAL 19 RESEND -- MINOR CORRECTIONS MADE

Hi, Phil. Hope you're ok. The verdict of this juror is: I vote to acquit the Catholic Church of the crime of allegedly usurping the role of Our Lord the Spirit by affirming that St. Peter IS the first Pope and Vicar of Christ. I enjoyed reading the "Bateman on Trial" posts. I can see how hard you worked at them. I approve of how you gave sources for everything you said in the debate. That's how debates should be conducted, not by the vague, slipshod, mudslinging methods a la "Mick James." I also enjoyed the "trial" format you used, rather than the essayis-tic format most of us would have used. It was an entertaining way of pre-senting your arguments in a way that would not be too ponderous and heavy handed. I just hope Kim Yong-Jae is willing to at least learn from his mistakes. Btw, I'm still not sure whether Kim is male or female. His given name belongs to that group of names which are gender ambiguous in English (like Robin, Hilary, and Lee).

Pax vobiscum. Sean

... He's got Blue Wave fever and it's spreading through the message bases! --- Blue Wave/Max v2.12

* Origin: Merr.ValleyUsersGroupBBS No.Andover,Ma.(508)682-6263 (1:324/117)

===========================================================================

Date: 10-03-95 / From: JOHN WILSON / To: PHIL PORVAZNIK / Subj: Bateman on Trial 19

===========================================================================

Interesting posts....y'know, I think that Peter died in Rome....:)

... I wouldn't recognize subtlety if it hit me on the head. --- Blue Wave/Max v2.12

* Origin: The Brit Abroad Bulletin Board, BC. Canada. (1:153/8009)

===========================================================================

Date: 10-24-95 / From: CHARLES BATEMAN / To: ALL JURORS / Subj: Your Trial

===========================================================================

Your Trial

Your trial is yet to come...the one where you answer to God for trying to perpetuate the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the sins of the living and the dead, and therein exhibit your complete rejection of the finished work of Jesus Christ, the only sacrifice for sins ever provided, for "there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins" (Hebrews 10:26). Of course, the wonderful VATICANUS Roman Catholic manuscript does not contain chapter 10 of Hebrews, for obvious reasons.

How will you answer at *your* trial? You have no attorney; He is the one you have rejected, and the Court will not appoint you another.

Will your mocking get you an acquittal at that trial? Will you all stand to testify on each other's behalf as character witnesses, as if you think the Judge does not already know your character, or the things you do in the dark that you think no one sees?

Will you have Phil Porvaznik stand to represent you, when he cannot even act in that Court in his own defense, much less procecute?

That is the *real* issue. Are you clever enough to not be found guilty, and sentenced to death in that Court where the Judge and Jury are One and the Same, and where the Defense for Christians will be the Procecutor of Roman Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, Assemblies of God, Church of God, Church of God of Prophecy, ...and every man-made organization in which men have put their faith while rejecting Christ in one way or another.

You obviously cannot repent, and you will sadly learn that penance will not gain you privilege or indulgence with the Judge. You cannot buy your way out at your trial.

Nevertheless, you will remember the four words I tell you now:

I TOLD YOU SO!

... No priest but CHRIST, No Sacrifice Remaining, No time but NOW!

>>> REPENT!

* Origin: Open your KJBIBLE and READ it. (1:375/1611.0)

===========================================================================

Date: 10-24-95 / From: JOE DIDDE / To: SEAN M. BROOKS / Subj: Bateman on Trial 32

===========================================================================

SB> To my fellow jurors: I read Nos. 20-31 of "Bateman on Trial"

SB> I vote to find Bateman\Yong\Jae\Lambert GUILTY of being dishonest, destructive, misleading, etc., in their use of sources. I vote to find the GUILTY of abusing and misusing the 1913 CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA.

I agree to this assessment and verdict.

---JOE---

* RM 1.3 02230 * In disagreements fight fairly, no name calling.

* Origin: The Lotta-Bull BBS, Flora Vista NM (1:15/26)

===========================================================================

Date: 10-25-95 / From: PHIL PORVAZNIK / To: WILLIAM PUTNAM / Subj: Catholicism Evolved

===========================================================================

WP> Page 408 of what? Mad magazine? (Just as well!)

WP> Yong, if you believe all of this, then you also believe in the Tooth Fairy, Aladdin and his lamp, and that Oswald did not assassinate President Kennedy. Don't you know that the KGB and the KKK worked together to commit this dastardly deed, and that Oswald was set-up to take the fall for it?

No, it was the Jesuits who assassinated Abraham Lincoln and JFK.

Don't you keep up with the latest Jack Chick comic books?

WP> Methinks you drink the wrong brand of chinese tea!

Actually, I think he said he was Korean. So was Pak who lasted about a week with his unique definition of Jesuit.

I'm wondering how many Kim Yongs are out there who actually believe this stuff?

WP> References please! Someone told me that Elvis is alive and well, but I remained silent, knowing full well that I was dealing with a kook. That means that Elvis is alive and well, right?

Yes, and Elvis was secretly ordained a Jesuit in 1992.

He lives in Kalamazoo Michigan in a VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER!

Sorry, a little Saturday Night Live humor that only David Goforth and perhaps Jeff Doles will understand.

Documented in Chick Comic #45747398. Yeah, those kooky Jesuits.

* OLX 2.1 TD * Yugo -- what a grand car! -- St Joseph of Isuzu

===========================================================================

Date: 10-25-95 / From: PHIL PORVAZNIK / To: WILLIAM PUTNAM / Subj: Catholicism Evolved

===========================================================================

KYJ> Here it is incontrovertible that the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic religion knew all too well that there was actually a female pope. Here it is documented by Catholic authorities that of an entire "Council" NO ONE OFFERED TO QUESTION THE FACT OF HER EXISTENCE." Her existence is documented as, not a myth, not a fable, but a "FACT."

WP> Total nonsense! See my references from the 1965 Catholic Encyclopedia. Why do they differ so much from what you quote, (or mis-quote) Yang?

The problem with Ying Yang Yong is that what is fable he sees as fact and what is fact he sees as fable -- for example, the fact that all the earliest Christians were Catholics he sees as fable.

But give us Pope Joan whoever, and yeah, that is a fact.

WP> This is an easy one, Yang, because she IS a fable, and nothing more!

You got that right, tough guy. I didn't bother checking out his quotes since he won't acknowledge the nonsense in Charles Bateman's posts. I have heard of Pope Joan and there was an interesting TV movie on her. However, it is total fiction.

Bateman did post something to "All Jurors." Maybe you saw it?

At least perhaps he read the work I have done in answering him.

* OLX 2.1 TD * "Rome has spoken; the case is closed." St. Augustine

===========================================================================

Date: 10-25-95 / From: SEAN M. BROOKS / To: JOE DIDDE / Subj: Bateman on Trial 32

===========================================================================

=> Quoting Joe Didde to Sean M. Brooks <=-

JD> I agree to this assessment and verdict.

Hi, Joe. Hope you're well. Thanks for your supportive note. It's been too long since we last "met."

Re the above: I hope our fellow jurors also let us know what their verdicts are.

Pax vobiscum. Sean (aka "Little Rivers")

... Go straight to the docs. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200! --- Blue Wave/Max v2.12

* Origin: Merr.ValleyUsersGroupBBS No.Andover,Ma.(508)682-6263 (1:324/117)

===========================================================================

Date: 10-24-95 / From: YONG JAE KIM / To: PHIL PORVAZNIK / Subj: Catholicism Evolved

===========================================================================

-=> Quoting Phil Porvaznik to Yong Jae Kim <=-

PP> * OLX 2.1 TD * "Rome has spoken; the case is closed." St. Augustine

Interesting quote! Where is it found, Phil?

=> Quoting Phil Porvaznik to Scott A. Mcclare <=

PP> Hi there. "Rome has spoken; the case is closed" is a summary of St. Augustine from Sermons 131:10.

Phil,

Are you telling us all that you are not able to find that statement you put in quote marks and attribute to Augustine? Are you telling us that it is not actually written in Augustine's work? Oh how shocking, to see you do the very thing you accuse others of doing.

You exemplify Roman Catholic duplicity excellently. You are guilty, yourself, of doing the very thing you take such pride in mocking and accusing others of doing. Yet, in your confused mind, it is all right for you to do it, but not all right for others.

How are you above quilt, when you take such liberties. By what stretch of the imagination do you justify yourself in doing what you condemn in others?

Therein you prove that you apply to yourself, and other Roman Catholics, a standard which you refuse to apply to those who are not Roman Catholic. That is always the case anyway. Nevertheless you set forth a very clear public example.

Roman Catholicism teaches you to redefine *everything* to justify yourself and condemn "outsiders" in the same thing you approve in your own actions. A tremendous double-standard.

Of the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913, it is very plain that the "summary" of Volume XII, pages 406 to 423, which covers the "priest" and "priesthood," and "priests," is expressed in the words "THE PRIESTHOOD EVOLVED." If you are permitted to take the license to "summarize" why deny that license to others.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) is clear that the priesthood of Roman Catholicism evolved, even to the point that a term developed (sacerdos) artificially conconcted by those who wanted glory for themselves, and the original meaning of the scripture term (prebuteros, or "presbyter") was ignored, producing a term "FROM WHICH NO SUBSTANTIVE HAS BEEN FORMED IN VARIOUS MODERN LANGUAGES (English, French, German)." [emphasis mine] "...the term presbyter soon lost its primitive meaning of "ancient" and was applied only to the minister of worship (hence our priest)." [p. 406]

"Presbyter" was NOT a term "applied only to the minister of worship (hence our priest)." That is proven to be a lie by other statements which follow in the same article, in the same Encyclopedia (1913). No wonder Roman Catholics are so confused.

It was those who perverted the gospel who changed the meaning of the word "presbyter," and concocted a justification for it. Yet the facts are still clear in the Encyclopedia (1913). It plainly states that there were those who were prebyters who were not ordained as "priests." "Priests" and "presbyters" are admittedly different. Nowhere in the New Testament is "sacerdos" applied to the office of the Christian ministry! The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) further admits:

"THAT THERE COULD BE, AND ACTUALLY WERE, PRESBYTERS WHO WERE NOT PRIESTS, IS SEEN FROM CANONS 43-47 OF HIPPOLYTUS..."

The fact that there were presbyters who were NOT priests proves that "priest" and "presbyter" are not the same term. Your institution is an evolution of one deceit after another that goes back to the frauds who tried to pass themselves off as Christs disciples in the first century, and who are still trying to do so. That is why they use terms not found in the New Testament. Then they blatantly lie about the use of those terms.

Roman Catholicism is a MASS OF EVOLUTIONARY FORGERIES!

>> REPENT

Yong Jae Kim (Korean arrangement: Kim Yong Jae)

... May the Lord God have mercy upon you and grant you repentance.

* Origin: Open your KJBIBLE and READ it. (1:375/1611.0)

===========================================================================

Date: 10-26-95 / From: PHIL PORVAZNIK / To: YONG JAE KIM / Subj: Catholicism Evolved

===========================================================================

Hey there, Kim. Nice try there tough guy. "Rome has spoken; the case is closed" is a summary of St. Augustine Sermons 131:10. It is Augustine's view concerning the Pelagian heresy.

The original quote reads in translation --

" [On this matter of the Pelagians] two Councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [Rome]; and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error [of the Pelagians] too might sometime be at an end! "

Jurgens, THE FAITH OF THE EARLY FATHERS, Volume 3, p. 28

The original Latin reads -- Causa finita est: utinam aliquando finiatur error! Again, get the Joe Gallegos files PAPACY.ZIP and PAPACY1.ZIP. It explains the context of the quote in great detail. Even the Protestant volumes by Eerdmans admit the summary "Rome has spoken; the case is closed" is a proper summary of Augustine's words.

You bring up the distinction between presbyter and priest. I grant the terms were not interchangable until later centuries. But the fact is the sacramental priesthood comes from Christ as do the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist. Stop buying into every conspiracy theory that comes down the pike and begin studying the books I have mentioned. Get some real scholarly material and drop the nonsense you have believed for apparently eighteen years.

See ya! Just a little comment on the fly. You are nuts, Yong, but I still like you!

* Origin: Longbow BBS! Tampa, FL (813)961-3653 USR V.34+ DS (1:377/77)

===========================================================================

Date: 10-27-95 / From: PHIL PORVAZNIK / To: YONG JAE KIM / Subj: Priesthood Debate 1

===========================================================================

YJK> Of the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913, it is very plain that the "summary" of Volume XII, pages 406 to 423, which covers the "priest" and "priesthood," and "priests," is expressed in the words "THE PRIESTHOOD EVOLVED."

Neither you nor Charles Bateman have ever defined "evolved."

I explained quite clearly the Catholic understanding of the development of doctrine. I will post again the first 11 parts of Bateman on Trial. You need to read them again CAREFULLY.

I have already proven the made-up quote "THE PRIESTHOOD EVOLVED" was stolen from the rabidly anti-Catholic book by O.C. Lambert. You did not get this "QUOTE" from The Catholic Encyclopedia since it does not appear anywhere in that reference. As Augustine has said, -causa finita est- = the case is closed.

Please refute the evidence I have presented on your invented quote.

YJK> The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) is clear that the priesthood of Roman Catholicism evolved, even to the point that a term developed (sacerdos) artificially conconcted by those who wanted glory for themselves, and the original meaning of the scripture term (prebuteros, or "presbyter") was ignored, producing a term "FROM WHICH NO SUBSTANTIVE HAS BEEN FORMED IN VARIOUS MODERN LANGUAGES (English, French, German)." [emphasis mine]

And now for what THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA really says in context --

"PRIEST --

"This word (etymologically "elder", from -presbuteros- presbyter) has taken the meaning of "sacerdos" [in Latin], from which no substantive has been formed in various modern languages (English, French, German). The priest is the minister of Divine worship, and especially of the highest act of worship, sacrifice."

(volume 12, page 406)

The word "SUBSTANTIVE" simply means (in older grammars) a word or phrase used as a noun or noun equivalent. All the above is saying is that the LATIN word -sacerdos- has no direct equivalent noun in either English, French, or German. The English term "priest" is derived from the Greek term "presbuteros."

There is no lying, fraud, or deceit going on here, Kim. You need to understand where terms come from and that language indeed changes. The Latin word "sacerdos" forms the root of many English words and Catholic terms such as sacerdotal. The Encyclopedia later states --

"PRIESTHOOD --

"The word priest (Germ. -Priester-; Fr. pretre; Ital. prete) is derived from the Greek -presbuteros- (the elder, as distinguished from -neoteros-, the younger), and is in the hieratical sense, EQUIVALENT to the Latin -sacerdos-, the Greek -hiereus-, and the Hebrew [Hebrew term given]."

(volume 12, page 409)

YJK> Nowhere in the New Testament is "sacerdos" applied to the office of the Christian ministry!

Of course the term "sacerdos" is LATIN. The NT was written in Greek. Do you have something against the ancient language of the Christian church? The Protestant Reformers sure didn't. Does -sola scriptura- and -sola fide- ring any bells? See R.C. Sproul's latest book titled FAITH ALONE (Baker Books, 1995) where he gives a Latin glossary at end.

Now if you mean the Greek term "hiereus" check out Romans 15:15-16 discussed in Bateman on Trial part 24. These are cognates of hiereus.

* OLX 2.1 TD * "Rome has spoken; the case is closed." St. Augustine

===========================================================================

Date: 10-27-95 / From: PHIL PORVAZNIK / To: YONG JAE KIM / Subj: Priesthood Debate 2

===========================================================================

YJK> "...the term presbyter soon lost its primitive meaning of "ancient" and was applied only to the minister of worship (hence our priest)." [p. 406]

YJK> The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) further admits:

YJK> "THAT THERE COULD BE, AND ACTUALLY WERE, PRESBYTERS WHO WERE NOT PRIESTS, IS SEEN FROM CANONS 43-47 OF HIPPOLYTUS..."

The fact is Protestants do not use the term -presbuteros- as meaning simply "an old man" or "elder" (which is what the term actually means, see for example VINE'S EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY OF BIBLICAL WORDS, p. 195f) but also apply the term to the minister of worship just as the NT does (James 5:14-15; Acts 15:2,23; Titus 1:5; etc...) Catholics do the same thing. The English "priest" is derived from the Greek -presbuteros-.

Here is what THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA (1913) actually says --

"As the [Latin] word -sacerdos- was applicable to both bishops and priests, and one became a presbyter only by sacerdotal ordination, the word presbyter soon lost its primitive meaning of 'ancient' and was applied only to the minister of worship and of the sacrifice (hence our -priest-).

"Originally, however, the -prebyteri- were the members of the high council which, under the presidency of the bishop, administered the affairs of the local church. Doubtless in general these members entered the presbyterate only by the imposition of hands [cf. 1 Tim 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim 1:6] which made them priests; however, that there could be, and actually were -presbyteri- who were not priests, is seen from canons 43-47 of Hippolytus (cf. Duchesne, "Origines du culte chretian", append.), which show that some of those who had confessed the Faith before the tribunals were admitted into the -presbyterium- without ordination.

"THESE EXCEPTIONS WERE, HOWEVER, MERELY ISOLATED INSTANCES, and from immemorial ordination has been the SOLE manner of recruiting the presbyteral order. The documents of antiquity show us the priests as the permanent council, the auxiliaries of the bishop, whom they surround and aid in the solemn functions of Divine Worship.

"When the bishop is absent, he is replaced by a priest, who presides in his name over the liturgical assembly. The priests replace him especially in the different parts of the diocese, where they are stationed by him; here they provide for the Divine Service, as the bishop does in the episcopal city, except that certain functions are reserved to the latter, and the others are performed with less liturgical solemnity."

And so on..... (volume 12, page 406)

Kim,

You need to start dealing honestly with the Catholic material you are quoting and try hard to understand what you are quoting. Please get the books I have referred to in Bateman on Trial. Begin with an Anglican source like EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES by J.N.D. Kelly. It should be readily available in any major university or seminary library.

Also get John Henry Cardinal Newman's classic AN ESSAY ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE written when Newman was still a Protestant. The logic of this book made Newman become a Catholic.

Also order through inter-library loan the two volumes by Anglican scholar Darwell Stone A HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST (Longman's Green and Co, 1909).

Also order through inter-library loan the two volumes by Oscar D. Watkins (I believe he is a Catholic) titled A HISTORY OF PENANCE (NY: Burt Franklin, 1961, orig 1920).

These books are massively documented to the hilt from the Bible and primary historical source material. No lying, deceit, fraud, or forgery here. Only sound scholarship with overwhelming evidence for the truthfulness of the Catholic teaching.

Kim, I don't believe you are a dummy as your posts make it clear to me that you can think. However, I do believe you have bought into a lot of crazy conspiracies from the likes of Jack Chick, Alexander Hislop, Ralph Woodrow, and Edmund Paris. I remember seeing you post some of Paris' material. Complete nonsense that is blown away by the above works of scholarship.

Get the books I have mentioned and study them. Then get back to us here in a few months. Bye for now.

* OLX 2.1 TD * You cannot have God for Father if Church is not Mother

===========================================================================

Date: 10-28-95 / From: JOE DIDDE / To: YONG JAE KIM / Subj: Catholicism Evolved

===========================================================================

YJK> Are you telling us all that you are not able to find that statement you put in quote marks and attribute to Augustine? Are you telling us that it is not actually written in Augustine's work? Oh how shocking, to see you do the very thing you accuse others of doing.

"[On this matter of the Pelagians] two Councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See; and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end, would that the error too might sometime be at an end." (St. Augustine of Hippo, Sermons, 131,10)

The two councils were held at Carthage and Milevis respectively, their proceedings being found in the corpus of Augustine's letters, nos. 175 and 176. The Rescripts from Rome, from Pope Innocent I, are likewise found in the same corpus, letters nos. 181 and 182. (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Jurgens)

Let's see here, St. Augustine says two rescripts were sent to the Apostolic See and the Apostolic See is shown to be Rome where Pope Innocent I resides. Then he says the matter is at an end. Sounds exactly like what Phil said. Phil was quoting someone else who paraphrased St. Augustine so the quotes were quite appropriate and the statement is accurate so I suggest you GET A LIFE!

---JOE

* RM 1.3 02230 * "Rome has spoken; the case is closed." St. Augustine
* Origin: The Lotta-Bull BBS, Flora Vista NM (1:15/26)

===========================================================================

Date: 10-26-95 / From: YONG JAE KIM / To: SEAN M. BROOKS / Subj: "Love?"

===========================================================================

=> Quoting Sean M. Brooks to KJV Onlyites <=

SMB> I have noticed over the last couple of weeks how unsatisfactorily the members of the KJV Onlyite faction have been behaving on OPEN BIBLE. I desire to bring to their attention a text from Scripture which is applicable to all of us. The text is 1 Corinthians 13.1-13: "If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.

SMB> I would like to ask the KJV Onlyites whether they are living up to these exhortations of St. Paul. Do you KJV Onlyites truly and actually believe you have been behaving with patience and love over the last couple of weeks in particular? Instead, isn't it possible you KJV Onlyites have been behaving hatefully, maliciously, spitefully, and viciously towards those who don't agree with you?

SMB> I think it would be good if you KJV Onlyites (and everyone else, of course) would examine your consciences and think over whether or not you have been behaving justly on OPEN BIBLE. Naturally, this applies to all the rest of us.

SMB> I'm asking people like Doug Snead, Ralph Stokes, John Prewett, Steve Adair, and Bob Harris to think over the above carefully. Since Bob Harris has not been posting recently, I hope that's because he may have been examining his conscience.

SMB> Pax vobiscum. Sean M. Brooks

Here is the problem with that:

SMB> ...isn't it possible you KJV Onlyites have been behaving hatefully, maliciously, spitefully, and viciously towards those who don't agree with you?

"...behaving "hatefully," "maliciously," "spitefully," "and VICIOUSLY TOWARDS THOSE WHO DON'T AGREE WITH YOU?"

Let's consider this question, Sean

That is so typically Roman Catholic. You suppose the wonderfully "loving" Roman Catholic's who butchered the non-Roman Catholics in Paris in 1572 at the St. Bartholomew MASSACRE would have known all that wonderful "love" stuff you try so deceitfully to divert attention to? Certain your papal religion's institution should demonstrate that "love" in perpetuity to show all of us ignorant souls how it works. But then the Roman Catholic Adolf Hitler who lead the Nazi movement trying to wipe out humanity for the papal repligion would have had to forgo the whole matter. The "loving" Croatians, under the leadship of the Roman Catholic Ante Povelic (fully supported by Cardinal Stepinac) would not have been able to butcher 2,000,000 Serbians through the bloody work of the Roman Catholic Ustashi (counterpart to the Roman Catholic SS - the requirement to be a member of each was that the person must be a Roman Catholic). What about the Roman Catholic (Ngo Dah Diem) President of South Viet Nam's bloody persecution of the Buddhists, or the Roman Catholic "Pole Pott" (intentionally misspelled) in Cambodia and his mountains of skulls of the bloody persecution he perpetrated for his "mother" - the Mother of Harlots and abomination of the earth - Revelation 17 - the so-called "holy mother" - so-called by all these "loving" exhibitors of that precious "love."

Now, we do not blame you for the bloody history your papal religion has written (with the blood of the saints and with the martyrs of Jesus Christ), but we do blame you for being a lying scoundrel - as long as you intentionally ignore your papal religion's road of "DEATH TO HERETICS"...the road it still walks in the twentieth century.

Just a note: The slaughter in Waco was carried out by the Roman Catholic infiltrator Robert Rodriquez of the BATF, and the Roman Catholic-lead FBI.

We hold you fully accountable before God - and the trial will be held, and you will not even have a case to present the Court.

So go learn what "love" is before you try to tell others about it. Go get the MOUNTAIN out of your eye before you try to tell us that we have specs of dust in ours.

Get your pope to renounce Temporal Power to prove his fraudently apology! But the papacy's religion of wafer worship is a political masterpiece of deception because it holds in mental-reservation the original meaning of "apology" - "TO DEFEND." Thereby the pope speaks "apology," and the world thinks one thing, while the papal proliferator of profound prevarication thinks something exactly the opposite.

Forsake that bloodthirsty machine or perish with it. Those are your only options.

Telling you this hard, harsh, cruel truth, without reserve, is the most loving thing anyone could ever do for you!

... No priest but CHRIST...No Sacrifice but CALVARY...No hope in the pope!

* Origin: Open your KJBIBLE and READ it. (1:375/1611.0)

===========================================================================

Date: 10-27-95 / From: WILLIAM PUTNAM / To: PHIL PORVAZNIK / Subj: Our Friend Yong

===========================================================================

Phil, Following this post are my latest answers to Yong Jae Kim, your bosom buddy!

As you will note, he is still quoting from that 1913 Edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia. You did some research into that Edition, I think. Take a look at my replies to Jong in my posts to him and perhaps you can add your two cents.

You and I both know that a lot of out-of-context twisting seems to be going on here, and the fact that the 1913 edition is used is such a convenience for them in that it makes it hard to refute.

Be at liberty to add anything you like to what Jong charges here. Perhaps the guy should go to Hollywood and make a movie on this "Popess Joan." <g>

See Ya! (And God Bless you, BTW)

Bill

... Laudate Dominum. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

* Origin: Serendipity BBS (1:3612/63.0)

===========================================================================

Date: 10-30-95 / From: YONG JAE KIM / To: SCOTT A. MCCLARE / Subj: "Love?"

===========================================================================

SAM> On the last exciting episode of ""Love?"," our hero Yong Jae Kim said to Sean M. Brooks . . .

YJK> Here is the problem with that:

SMB> ...isn't it possible you KJV Onlyites have been behaving hatefully, maliciously, spitefully, and viciously towards those who don't agree with you?

YJK> "...behaving "hatefully," "maliciously," "spitefully," "and VICIOUSLY TOWARDS THOSE WHO DON'T AGREE WITH YOU?"

YJK> Let's consider this question, Sean

YJK> That is so typically Roman Catholic.

SAM> No it isn't. I'm not Catholic and I agree with Sean wholeheartedly.

SAM> You should learn something about Christian charity from your Catholic brothers here on OPEN_BIBLE. God knows you're not getting a lot of it from wherever you are now.

SAM> =Scott=

Scott,

You need to learn the definition of "love"; so you will not confuse it with the act of letting people believe lies taught to them by their priests.

A Roman Catholic is one who thinks like a Roman Catholic. Do you do that? The pope has devout servants everywhere; so does Christ. They are not the same. Just as the pope is different from Christ, so the pope's servants are different from Christians.

You either know nothing about Roman Catholicism, or you know nothing about the scriptures. That is not a "loving" thing to hear, is it? Nevertheless, "love" does not have anything to do with warm, joyous feelings.

The martyrs burned by Roman Catholics over the centuries all loved the Roman Catholics and tried to turn them to the Christ of scripture, rather than the wafer-god the Roman Catholics were forced to worship, bow down to and pray to.

Which was the unloving act; Roman Catholics burning people who preached the Christ of scripture, or the act of preaching the Christ of scripture to turn souls from idolatry?

You should know that Roman Catholicism is as much a bondage to idols as it ever was. The unloving thing is to not know enough about it to be able to tell the difference between it and faith in Christ. And to want others to be ignorant also. Is that what you want?

Do you believe that Christ finished all work necessary for our salvation, or do you believe that Christ left the perpetuation of His sacrifice in the hands of priests, who continue to offer Him as a victim of an unbloody sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead. One of those two is the Christian faith, the other is the Roman Catholic faith. They are not the same; neither are they compatible.

According to God (as stressed in scripture) the loving thing is to tell people the difference, not mix lies with the gospel. The reason for this confrontation, wherein God has established His Church which opposes souls being deceived, is because that opposition is the very act in which He has ordained that His people prove their faith and love for Him. For where a man does not love God enough to confront the lies of priestcraft, that man does not love others either.

It is the ultimate rejection of God's love to compromise the truth of the gospel with the lies of Roman Catholicism for the sake of not offending anyone. Are you so ashamed of Christ that you will not oppose those who misrepresent Him and His gospel? You stood up to oppose me! Then exercise that opposition FOR the Christ of scripture, rather than for the pseudo-christ-wafer Rome offers its deceived subjects.

To call a person "unloving", who, in the Name of Jesus Christ, opposes souls being deceived by those who want the power and glory for themselves is absolutely contrary to the gospel.

What basis for calling themself "a Christian" does anyone have who opposes the proclaiming of the truth of scripture against the deceit of priestcraft?

If you do not care about the difference, you are not a Christian. If you are a Christian, you cannot ignore the difference. And if you do not know the difference, then God is giving you that opportunity through what we expose to you.

When Christ said "Preach the gospel to every creature," He did not say "be careful you don't offend anyone," or "be sure you prepare the soil before you sow the seed."

Rather, He speaks to us through Jude, warning of deceivers, and telling His servants to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints," not to be absorbed into some all-accepting diluted product of mixture, compromise, and deceit mislabeled "love."

First, we must love God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves. We certainly would not consider our neighbor to be very loving if he, knowing that we were being conned, just kept his mouth shut and let us alone so he wouldn't offend us by saying something to us about our being conned. That attitude of "don't get personal; don't be pickie" is the attitude of "DON'T DARE PREACH THE NAME OF CHRIST!" Whereas, preaching the Name of Christ cannot be done without being "personal and pickie!"

May the Lord Jesus Christ cause you to see what His definition of love is.

... Faith in anything but Christ is NOT the Christian Faith.

* Origin: Open your KJBIBLE and READ it. (1:375/1611.0)

For the series on Peter in Rome, see Was St. Peter Ever in Rome?

Back to Apologetics Articles

Back to Home Page