Bankers Demand We Obey Them

by Henry Makow Ph.D. – May 19, 2006

Letter from "your globalist friend"

A spine-chilling letter has surfaced on the Internet that dispels any illusions that we are free humans beings living in a benevolent democracy. The letter from "your globalist friend" advises citizens of the world "you are our property" and must accept servitude for "your own good."

"The days of putting a stop to us have long since past," he writes sounding like Big Brother.

"We have full control of the earth and its finance, along with the major media propaganda, and there is simply no way any nation or power can defeat us... We can send American or European troops to wherever we like, whenever we like, and for whatever purpose we like, and you dutifully go about our business...How much more evidence do you need? ...Does it not seem reasonable that you simply obey and serve us?"

I know I promised to lighten up this summer but this is too important to ignore. I warn you this material can induce a kind of schizophrenia because it provides a vision of reality so different from the one we are given by the mass media.

The six-page letter was written in the autumn of 1999 but didn't receive broad circulation. An anonymous reader sent it to Greg Szymanski Monday and he posted it on his web site www.arcticbeacon.com . I present the highlights here but urge you to read it in full. I also urge you to send a donation to Greg who is one of the most courageous and prolific writers on the net. He operates on a shoestring.

The letter could be a hoax but I believe it is authentic. It is consistent with what many conspiracy researchers have discovered independently, yet more vivid and insightful than anything they could fabricate.

Whether or not it is authentic, the really important question is: Does it describe reality for you?

The Letter

Our globalist friend says he wants to explain political reality to us so we " might know how to behave in the New Order now taking shape on the earth."

He exults in the fact that he represents a secret force that controls the world yet is invisible to all.

"We run everything, yet, you do not know who to attack. I must say this hidden hand is wonderfully devised and without any known historical precedent on this scale. We rule the world and the world cannot even find out who is ruling them. This is truly a wonderful thing. In our media we present before you exactly what it is we want you to do. Then, as if in a flash, our little servants obey."

But he does identify himself. He clearly represents the central bankers: "Your own money has served to forge the chains we bind you with, since we are in control of all money."

As I have said, the central banking cartel is the mainspring of the New World Order. By giving foreign private interests the power to create money based on our credit, our predecessors wrote the epitaph of Western Civilization. These private interests naturally bought control of everything and everyone and they now want to institutionalize their control globally. This is the essence of the "war on terror."

"Our kingdom is the kingdom of money," our globalist friend writes. "We have given you a piece of paper or some numbers on a computer screen that we have termed 'money.' It is backed up by nothing and proven by nothing but what we say it is. We create it from nothing, we print it, we loan it, we give it its value, and we take its value away. All things that have to do with money are in our hands."

Our globalist friend reveals that the bankers have a symbiotic relationship with us. We produce profits by borrowing from them.

"We want you to be in the system. When you are buying a house, we not only receive the tax revenue to use for our purposes, but we gain large increases from the interest on the loan. You may pay for your house two or three times over from the interest alone. The interest is also taxed which is again placed for use in those sectors of influence we choose. We do not want you to escape free and that is why we have made it as we have."

One of those "sectors of influence" is education. He says our taxes pay for "the indoctrination of your children in the public schools we have set up. We want them to grow up well trained into the system of our thinking. Your children will learn what we want them to learn, when we want them to learn it, and you pay for it."

"You are our property. We will not permit you to buy or sell unless you submit to our mark of authority. If you go to court against us, we will wear you out there and in the end you will lose. If you use violence, we will end up having you in one of our labor camps, more specifically called prison industries. You need our money, our entertainments, our fuel, and our utilities to function and if you don't have them, you feel deprived. By this, you are made to yield to our will."

Our Leaders

Our political leaders are chosen from the ranks of criminals and perverts because they can be made to obey using blackmail. Exposing President Clinton's depravity was "very helpful in adjusting the moral habits of the youth downward."

He scoffs at attempts to impeach Clinton: "He is useful to us and he will not be removed by anyone until we are ready to have him removed...the leader we set up will be there until it serves us to have another. At that time we place our proposed leader before you and you vote for what we want. In that way we give you the vain voting exercise in the belief you had something to do with placing your president in office."

He cites Sadaam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic as leaders who refuse to obey. "There is only glory in following our purposes and doing what we say. If one does not, there will be such a sad and tragic result. I would really have you spared of such an end."

As for smaller fry, he says rebellion will merely serve as an excuse for more repressive laws. They can tie dissenters up in court, which they also control. They can destroy people like David Koresh and discredit them at the same time. "The more you wiggle, the more we squeeze."

He says Liberals and Conservatives "serve with the stamp of our approval but they are not allowed to present the real issues. By creating controversy on all levels, no one knows what to do. So, in all of this confusion, we go ahead and accomplish what we want with no hindrance."

He says the media occupy the masses with sex and violence so the masses are programmed to fight mindlessly and "do not have the integrity or brain power to deal with the really important matters which are left entirely in our hands."

China and Russia do not present a challenge: "We have no fear of Russia or China for we are already in full control of their system of things. China knows that we can freeze any number of its corporations in America and all of its capital at the stroke of a pen."

Conclusion

We are taught that society is participating in an age of enlightenment and progress but this is a ruse. In fact a grotesque claw reaches out of the past to clutch humanity in its sharp talons.

Sooner or later we will have to recognize that central bankers and their allies have organized a diabolical conspiracy against mankind. Human events make sense when we realize disciples of Lucifer are establishing a New World Order to serve their evil god. I know this sounds too bizarre to be true. They count on that.

The "Letter from Your Globalist Friend" is consistent with the other great revelations of the invisible government: the Harold Rosenthal Interview; the House Report; the Svali Disclosures; Quiet Weapons for Silent Wars; The Report from Iron Mountain; The Red Symphony and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Most of these can all be accessed through Google or my site www.savethemales.ca

I don’t have space to discuss the Jewish role here. I have discussed it elsewhere.

I'm afraid totalitarian excesses of the past are a harbinger of the future. Right now, we are pampered slaves living in a fool's paradise. But if we rebel, our globalist friend says our comfortable illusion will suffer a rude awakening.

Will we sacrifice our principles for the sake of survival? That is the question we must increasingly ask. Our globalist friend makes clear that they cannot rule unless they dupe us into performing their will and paying for it to boot. Who will we obey and serve?

North American Union Would Trump U.S. Supreme Court

by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted Jun 19, 2006

The Bush Administration is pushing to create a North American Union out of the work on-going in the Department of Commerce under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America in the NAFTA office headed by Geri Word. A key part of the plan is to expand the NAFTA tribunals into a North American Union court system that would have supremacy over all U.S. law, even over the U.S. Supreme Court, in any matter related to the trilateral political and economic integration of the United States, Canada and Mexico.

Right now, Chapter 11 of the NAFTA agreement allows a private NAFTA foreign investor to sue the U.S. government if the investor believes a state or federal law damages the investor’s NAFTA business.

Under Chapter 11, NAFTA establishes a tribunal that conducts a behind closed-doors “trial” to decide the case according to the legal principals established by either the World Bank’s International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes or the UN’s Commission for International Trade Law. If the decision is adverse to the U.S., the NAFTA tribunal can impose its decision as final, trumping U.S. law, even as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. laws can be effectively overturned and the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunal can impose millions or billions of dollars in fines on the U.S. government, to be paid ultimately by the U.S. taxpayer.

On Aug. 9, 2005, a three-member NAFTA tribunal dismissed a $970 million claim filed by Methanex Corp., a Canadian methanol producer challenging California laws that regulate against the gasoline additive MTBE. The additive MTBE was introduced into gasoline to reduce air pollution from motor vehicle emissions. California regulations restricted the use of MTBE after the additive was found to contaminate drinking water and produce a health hazard. Had the case been decided differently, California’s MTBE regulations would have been overturned and U.S. taxpayers forced to pay Methanex millions in damages.

While this case was decided favorably to U.S. laws, we can rest assured that sooner or later a U.S. law will be overruled by the NAFTA Chapter 11 adjudicative procedure, as long as the determinant law adjudicated by the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunals continues to derive from World Court or UN law. Once a North American Union court structure is in place can almost certainly predict that a 2nd Amendment challenge to the right to bear arms is as inevitable under a North American Union court structure as is a challenge to our 1st Amendment free speech laws. Citizens of both Canada and Mexico cannot freely own firearms. Nor can Canadians or Mexicans speak out freely without worrying about “hate crimes” legislation or other political restrictions on what they may choose to say.

Like it or not, NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunals already empower foreign NAFTA investors and corporations to challenge the sovereignty of U.S. law in the United States. Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) has been quoted as saying, “When we debated NAFTA, not a single word was uttered in discussing Chapter 11. Why? Because we didn’t know how this provision would play out. No one really knew just how high the stakes would get.” Again, we have abundant proof that Congress is unbelievably lax when it comes to something as fundamental as reading or understanding the complex laws our elected legislators typically pass.

Under the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) plan expressed in May 2005 for building NAFTA into a North American Union, the stakes are about to get even higher. A task force report titled “Building a North American Community” was written to provide a blueprint for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America agreement signed by President Bush in his meeting with President Fox and Canada’s then-Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Tex., on March 23, 2005.

The CFR plan clearly calls for the establishment of a “permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution” as part of the new regional North American Union (NAU) governmental structure that is proposed to go into place in 2010. As the CFR report details on page 22:

The current NAFTA dispute-resolution process is founded on ad hoc panels that are not capable of building institutional memory or establishing precedent, may be subject to conflicts of interest, and are appointed by authorities who may have an incentive to delay a given proceeding. As demonstrated by the efficiency of the World Trade Organization (WTO) appeal process, a permanent tribunal would likely encourage faster, more consistent and more predictable resolution of disputes. In addition, there is a need to review the workings of NAFTA’s dispute-settlement mechanism to make it more efficient, transparent, and effective.

Robert Pastor of American University, the vice chairman of the CFR task force report, provided much of the intellectual justification for the formation of the North American Union. He has repeatedly argued for the creation of a North American Union “Permanent Tribunal on Trade and Investment.” Pastor understands that a “permanent court would permit the accumulation of precedent and lay the groundwork for North American business law.” Notice, Pastor says nothing about U.S. business law or the U.S. Supreme Court. In the view of the globalists pushing toward the formation of the North American Union, the U.S. is a partisan nation-state whose limitations of economic protectionism and provincial self-interest are outdated and as such must be transcended, even if the price involves sacrificing U.S. national sovereignty.

When it comes to the question of illegal immigrants, Pastor’s solution is to erase our borders with Mexico and Canada so we can issue North American Union passports to all citizens. In his testimony to the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 9, 2005, Pastor made this exact argument: “Instead of stopping North Americans on the borders, we ought to provide them with a secure, biometric Border Pass that would ease transit across the border like an E-Z pass permits our cars to speed though toll booths.”

Even Pastor worries about the potential for North American Unions to overturn U.S. laws that he likes. Regarding environmental laws, Pastor’s testimony to the Trilateral Commission in November 2002 was clear on this point: “Some narrowing or clarification of the scope of Chapter 11 panels on foreign investment is also needed to permit the erosion of environmental rules.” Evidently it did not occur to Pastor that the way to achieve the protection he sought was to leave the sovereignty of U.S. and the supremacy of the U.S. Supreme Court intact.

The executive branch under the Bush Administration is quietly putting in place a behind-the-scenes trilateral regulatory scheme, evidently without any direct congressional input, that should provide the rules by which any NAFTA or NAU court would examine when adjudicating NAU trade disputes. The June 2005 report by the SPP working groups organized in the U.S. Department of Commerce, clearly states the goal:

We will develop a trilateral Regulatory Cooperative Framework by 2007 to support and enhance existing, as well as encourage new cooperation among regulators, including at the outset of the regulatory process.

We wonder if the Bush Administration intends to present the Trilateral Regulatory Cooperative Framework now being constructed by SPP.gov to Congress for review in 2007, or will the administration simply continue along the path of knitting together the new NAU regional governmental structure behind closed doors by executive fiat? Ms. Word affirms that the membership of the various SPP working group committees has not been published. Nor have the many memorandums of understanding and other trilateral agreements created by these SPP working groups been published, not even on the Internet.

The Bible verses Catholic Tradition

Who is Trustworthy?

I imagine that just about everyone reading here is aware that, as far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, the Word of God includes both the Sacred Scriptures and Tradition, as interpreted by the Teaching Authority of the Church.

95. "'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 one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.'[DV 10 # 3.]"

97. "'Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God' [DV 10] in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, © 1994 United States Catholic Conference, Inc. – Libreria Editrice Vaticana, pp. 34, 35)

The RCC claims Tradition originates with God and, in fact, some certainly may. However, it does seem that a great deal of Rome’s Tradition – with a capital “T” – wells up out of the minds of men. Surely, it can be easily demonstrated that the men, the church fathers, so frequently referenced by modern Catholic apologists and wannabe apologists took different views of issues at different times in their careers.

To this day, Romish apologists can be shown to be influenced by their own prejudices in matters of foundational importance. One example might be drawn from the response of a well-respected RCC apologist, writing in Catholic Digest, to a question concerning Jesus’ siblings.

“If anyone without doctrinal background and awareness of Christian tradition would simply pick up the Gospels and read these references to the brothers and sisters of Jesus, I suppose he would take for granted that they were the children of Mary and Joseph. But it is a remarkable thing that none of the early Fathers or writers of the Church – except possibly Tertullian, who was a heretic – ever thought of considering these brethren as children of Mary. Some took it for granted that they were children of Joseph by an earlier marriage, but there was always a firm and constant doctrinal tradition that Mary had remained a virgin all her life. Origin and St. Basil are particularly strong in pointing this out.” (J. D. Conway, What the Church Teaches, Harper & Brothers:New York (1962), p. 87; w/Nihil Obstat and Imprimitur)

Just a single paragraph lifted from a longer study, yet so many errors and so many untruths. I do not accuse Monsignor Conway of deliberately lying, though I do believe him to have accepted as true many lies that originated in the infallible Teaching Authority of the RCC. Let us examine in detail a few points made by Conway.

“But it is a remarkable thing that none of the early Fathers or writers of the Church – except possibly Tertullian… ever thought of considering these brethren as children of Mary.” That is patently not true, as I demonstrated in some detail in my article Mary – Eternally Virgin? . In that article, the reader will discover that Saint Jerome, Doctor of the Church and an early writer of the Church, apparently indeed did have such thoughts:

"There is a letter in which this same Clement writing to JAMES THE LORD'S BROTHER, gives an account of the death of Peter, and says that he has left him as his successor, as ruler and teacher of the church;. . . But it is time that we should pay attention to the beginning of Clement's own narrative, which he addresses to James the Lord's brother. " (Philip Schaff, Ed. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers," Vol. 3, Jerome, The Preface to the Books of Recognitions of St. Clement, p. 1135-6) (Emphasis not in original)

The Clement Jerome refers to – who addressed his own narrative to James the Lord’s Brother – was a Bishop of Rome, a pope, if you will. Surely his writings, while not infallible in this case, merit some consideration.

Moving right along, I offer the words of another early Church Father, writer and Doctor of the Church, Cyril of Jerusalem, who also appears to have given some thought to the subject:

"But now is Christ risen from the dead, the first fruits of them that are asleep; — And He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve; (for if thou believe not the one witness, thou hast twelve witnesses;) then He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; (if they disbelieve the twelve, let them admit the five hundred;) after that He was seen of JAMES, HIS OWN BROTHER, and first Bishop of this diocese. Seeing then that such a Bishop originally saw Christ Jesus when risen, do not thou, his disciple, disbelieve him. But thou sayest that His brother James was a partial witness; afterwards He was seen also of me Paul, His enemy; and what testimony is doubted, when an enemy proclaims it? "I, who was before a persecutor, now preach the glad tidings of the Resurrection." (Philip Schaff, Ed., The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 7, S. Cyril, Archibishop of Jerusalem, Lecture 14, P. 269) (Emphasis not in original)

Did you notice Cyril's clear statement, "He was seen of James, HIS OWN BROTHER?" Can any words be more clear? Can there be any legitimate understanding of these words other than what they plainly say? From Cyril’s words alone, one can argue that some of the early Church Fathers not only gave the thought some consideration but actually believed it to be true.

Leo the Great, another early Church Father, writer, pope and Doctor of the Church, penned these words, thereby manifesting that he not only had considered the idea but also believed it to be true:

“it is evident that after the incarnation of the Lord no one can be saved, even of those who hold His faith, who have not the life of faith; since it is written, They acknowledge that they know God, but in deeds they deny Him (Titus 1:16). And John says, He that saith that he knows Him, and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar (1 John 2:4). JAMES ALSO, THE BROTHER OF THE LORD, writes saying, Faith without works is dead (James 2:20). If, then, believers now are not saved without good works, while the unbelieving and reprobate without good action were saved by our Lord descending into hell, then the lot of those who never saw the incarnation of the Lord was better than that of these who have been born after the mystery of His incarnation." (Philip Schaff, Ed., The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, Vol. 12, The Letters and Sermons of Leo the Great, Epistle 15, pp. 919-20) (Emphasis not in the original)

Well, the foregoing sources were but men and, as even a Catholic apologist will admit, fallible. How about an ecumenical council of the Church? These words from one such council clearly show that, as late as A.D. 695, there was a strong body of belief that Jesus of Nazareth had at least one sibling:

". . . For also JAMES, THE BROTHER, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, OF CHRIST OUR GOD, to whom the throne of the church of Jerusalem first was entrusted, and Basil, the Archbishop of the Church of Caesarea, whose glory has spread through all the world, when they delivered to us directions for the mystical sacrifice in writing, declared that the holy chalice is consecrated in the Divine Liturgy with water and wine. And the holy Fathers who assembled at Carthage provided in these express terms: "That in the holy Mysteries nothing besides the body and blood of the Lord be offered, as the Lord himself laid down, that is bread and wine mixed with water." Therefore if any bishop or presbyter shall not perform the holy action according to what has been handed down by the Apostles, and shall not offer the sacrifice with wine mixed with water, let him be deposed, as imperfectly shewing forth the mystery and innovating on the things which have been handed down" (Philip Schaff, Ed., The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, Vol. 14; The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, The Canons of the Council in Trullo; Often Called The Quinisext Council, A.D. 692, Canon 32, p.716) (Emphasis not in original)

There are other proofs that Monsignor Conway was talking through his hat when he claims that NONE of the early Church Fathers or writers, except perhaps Tertullian, ever considered that Christ had siblings, but interested readers can read their words on the linked page.

Conway lays a label on Tertullian, whom he called a heretic. Well, history certainly records that Tertullian was the most important of the converts to Montanism.

“[Montanism’s] greatest conquest was the gifted and fiery, but eccentric and rigoristic Tertullian. He became in the year 201 or 202, from ascetic sympathies, a most energetic and influential advocate of Montanism, and helped its dark feeling towards a twilight of philosophy, without, however, formally seceding from the Catholic Church, whose doctrines he continued to defend against the heretics. At all events, he was not excommunicated, and his orthodox writings were always esteemed.” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. II, Ante-Nicene Christianity, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company:Grand Rapids (1987), p.420)

In as much as Tertullian held to Montanism, Conway’s assertion that the man was a heretic clearly holds water. Yet other Catholic writers, including Pope John Paul II, are not put off from using Tertullian’s teachings to support their doctrinal arguments. In the encyclical Fides et Ratio, John Paul II uses Tertullian’s words to support his arguments concerning the distinction between theology and philosophy. And isn’t this something we often see with Catholic theologians and apologists? A source is a heretic or mighty man of God, depending upon how his words are to be used. This is one of the major failings of reliance on Tradition for dogma and doctrine.

After discounting Tertullian’s opinions as those of a heretic, Monsignor Conway then calls upon another Doctor of the Church, early church father and writer – Saint Basil – to support the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Interestingly, Conway also points to Origin to lend strength to the dogma of Mary’s unrelenting virginity. This calling upon the work of Origen is particularly interesting when one considers Conway’s scathing use of the label HERETIC in reference to Tertullian (whose position on the issue apparently ran contrary to that of the Monsignor). Tertullian was not excommunicated, but Origen was in fact anathematized by a Church council.

If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and [if anyone does not equally anathematize] all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema. Medieval Sourcebook: Fifth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople II, 553, Canon 11 [Denzinger 223])

An ecumenical council anthematized Origen and his writings, yet Conway – and any number of other Catholic theologians and apologists draw support for their positions from his writings. Once again, proof that a figure, ancient or modern, can be either a dog or a goat, depending upon the purpose of the Catholic writer. This is Tradition. And it is utterly unreliable as a source of doctrinal truth.

One final comment on Conway’s words quoted above. The opening sentence carries very heavy elitist overtones. The inference is that “anyone without doctrinal background and awareness of Christian tradition” is unequipped to understand or grasp biblical truth. Yet, as I have shown, Conway – an apologist who surely must have had both a doctrinal background and an awareness of Christian (read Catholic) tradition – manifested his own inability, or unwillingness, to understand biblical truth.

God’s truth is in the Sacred Scriptures. Look for it there, not in the self-serving utterances of men with axes to grind. When presented with doctrinal statements or issues of a theological nature – even on this board – I urge the reader not to accept them at face value. Rather, open the Scriptures and prayerfully search to see what the Lord God had to say on the issue at hand.

The Authority of the Catholic Church

Who's Guiding Whom?

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. (John 16:13)

This is a favored passage used by Roman Catholic apologists in their efforts to convince others that their church is without error.

I am astonished that people can even consider using this verse to validate the teaching authority the Catholic Church has arrogated to herself. Where does the Lord mention that the Holy Spirit will come to guide only the Magisterium to all truth? This is another of those RCC teachings that did not originate with God, but was created within the dark chambers of that benighted cult.

I do not understand the process whereby the RCC concludes that God the Holy Spirit provides special insights and guidance only to members of the august body known as the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic church, while withholding that guidance from the hoi poloi of Christendom. For the purposes of this post, my use of the term "Magisterium" subsumes those parallel particularly-anointed assemblies in other religious communions. This peculiar arrogance of church hierarchies to proclaim that only they are able to accurately interpret God's Word to the masses seems not to conform to the Scriptural teaching concerning His role in the lives of believers.

In John 7:37-39, Christ speaks of the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit that will be imparted to all who believe on Him. No mention there of baptism, nor is there a mention of limiting that power to the benefit of only those within a particular assembly. In fact, it should be borne in mind that there was NO Christian church when Jesus made this statement.

In John 14:16,17, Messiah promises that the Father will send the Holy Spirit to indwell those who believe. Again, He makes no mention that only those who believe and are members of a Magisterium are to be hosts for the indwelling Spirit.

In the course of sharing Passover with His disciples, Jesus told them of the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit. He ate this meal with His closest followers, promising them that the Holy Spirit would teach them "all things" (John 14:26). But there is no indication that the Spirit, Whom we already have been informed would indwell all believers, would restrict His teaching to just those present with Jesus at the Seder.

The Roman Catholic Church knows this to be true, or at least the guy who wrote paragraph 91 of the official Catechism did:

91. "All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth. They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them[Cf. 1Jn 2:20, 27 .] and guides them into all truth.[Cf. .Jn 16:13 .]" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, © 1994 United States Catholic Conference, Inc. – Libreria Editrice Vaticana, p. 33)

Please read again these clear and truthful words, declared as trustworthy by Pope John Paul II: "They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them and guides them into all truth." If this is true, and even John Paul II says it is, then why does Rome so steadfastly declare that the Magisterium alone has a special ability to interpret to the masses what God really meant to say in the Scriptures?

100. "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, © 1994 United States Catholic Conference, Inc. – Libreria Editrice Vaticana, pp. 37-38)

Is the message here that, while it is true that the Holy Spirit instructs believers and guides them "into all truth," He guides the members of the Magisterium into more or better truth?

The membership of the Magisterium is comprised of men, fallible men. How is it that Catholic faithful can be seduced into rejecting the idea that fallible men can, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, discover God's truth in the Scriptures, yet blindly accept that other fallible men can? A clear example of the blind leading the blind.

Again, I cannot comprehend the reasoning that leads some to argue that ordinary believers, indwelled with the Holy Spirit, are unable to properly understand the Word of God, while turning to other ordinary men for their interpretation of Scripture. Like the Pharisees, I reckon, they believe that only an elite few are empowered to fully understand what God has revealed to us in His Word.

Do you not wonder how many Pharisees are walking the streets of Heaven?

Catholicism's Ever-Changing Doctrine
What Is The Dogma Of The Day?


It is fascinating to study the dogma and doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. The fascination lies not in the dogma themselves but, rather, in their imaginative origins and the incredible lengths taken to substantiate them. It is also incredibly interesting to look back over the years at how Catholic dogma, which supposedly are immutable, seem to defy the RCC's definition and mutate anyway.

One wonderful dogma, defined by popes and councils, holds that:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation, thus membership in the Church is necessary." (Adam S. Miller, The Final Word, Tower of David Publications:Gaithersburg (1997), p. 16)

That seems clear to me. According to this dogma, one must be a member of the Roman Catholic Church if he is to be saved. Stated another way, the dogma reads: Extra ecclesia nulla salus.

Some modern Catholics might ask who is Adam S. Miller and what authority does he have to define RCC dogma? Valid questions. The answer, of course, is that Miller did not define this dogma but merely included it in his little book of more than 110 defined dogmas of the Roman cult. A dogma, for those who might has slept through catechism class, is a teaching that every Roman Catholic must believe as a matter of faith - that is, without reservation - lest he lose his salvation.

In this age of easy-believism, both Catholic and non-Catholic, no doubt there will be some who who might chuckle at such a strict interpretation of an ancient rule of faith. And it is ancient, going back at least as far as the Athanasian Creed (ca. 400 AD), wherein one might read:

"Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and entire, he will without a doubt perish in eternity. . . This is the Catholic faith' unless everyone believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved." (Denzinger 39, 30)

Some of the Church Fathers, who were not Catholic because there was as yet no Roman Catholic Church, wrote of the necessity of belonging to the Church. They were, of course, referring to membership in the True Church, which is the Body of Christ and whose membership is comprised of all those who are truly saved by God's unmerited grace, through faith alone in Christ alone. That the Roman cult appropriated their words and twisted their meanings to require membership in the RCC as a prerequisite for salvation should come as no surprise to those who are familiar with the Magisterium's peculiar and self-serving theology. These words of Origen, written in the third century, make no mention of the Roman cult in this formal declaration:

"Outside the Church nobody will be saved. (Extra ecclesiam nemo salvatur)" (Origen, In Jesu Nave hom. 3,5)

Cyprian, another third century Church Father, wrote something similar:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation." (Salus extra ecclesiam non est)" (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 73, To Iubaianus, n.21, Migne: Patrologiae Cursus completus. Series prima Latina, Parisiis; 1844)

The fourth Lateran Council declared, in 1215, that:

"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved . . ." (Lateran IV, The Catholic Faith, Chap. 1; Denzinger 430)

The bishops assembled at Lateran IV cited the above words of Cyprian as support for their position that outside the Church no one can be saved. They did not look to the inspired Word of God as found in the sacred Scriptures for their support, but to the words of a man and then changed their meaning to point to the Roman cult and not the True Church as was Cyprian's intention.

There no doubt are some Catholics who might reject the words of Origen, Cyprian and the Athanasian Creed as not be binding on the church in that they were not formally defined according to the criteria established by the First Vatican Council. I don't know that ex post facto dogma are any more valid for the Roman Catholic Church than are ex post facto laws valid under the United States Constitution. Just to be certain, however, let us search for a definition of this dogma that would satisfy even the criteria of Vatican I. In 1302, Pope Boniface VIII promulgated the Bull Unam Sanctam, wherein these defining words might be found:

"With faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sin . . . Furthermore, we declare, say, define and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Denzinger 468-69)

Now there's a definition of a dogma if ever I saw one. Here is another:

"It (Roman Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Council of Florence (1441), Pope Eugenius, Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino; Denzinger 714)

Can there be any doubt that it is a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, defined by two ecumenical councils and confirmed by two reigning popes, that salvation is not possible outside the RCC? It is further specified that one cannot be saved, "even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ," unless he is in the very bosom of the Catholic Church. What does it mean to "be in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church?" This points to another dogma; another link in a chain of such teachings built link by link, drawing from one another and supporting one another in an endless circle.

"The members of the Church are those who have validly received the Sacrament of Baptism and who are not separated from the unity of the confession of the Faith, and from the unity of the lawful communion of the Church. (Sent. Cert.)" (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Tan Books and Publishers:Rockford (1974), p. 309; w/Nihil Obstat and Imprimitur)

Pius XII made it crystal clear as to just what it takes to be a member of the Roman Catholic Church:



"Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith, and have not, to their misfortune, separated themselves from the structure of the Body, or for very serious sins have not been excluded by lawful authority." (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, encyclical, June 29, 1943; Denzinger 2286)

A highly respected Catholic theologian and teacher explains what the Pope said in these terms:

"According to this declaration three conditions are to be demanded for membership of the Church: a) The valid reception of the Sacrament of Baptism. B) The profession of the true Faith. C) Participation in the Communion of the Church. By the fulfilment of these three conditions one subjects oneself to the threefold office of the Church, the sacerdotal office (Baptism), the teaching office (Confession of Faith), and the pastoral office (obedience to Church authority)." (Ludwig Ott, Op. Cit.)

To recap, it is a defined dogma of the RCC that not only is salvation impossible outside the Church but that to be saved one must be baptized in the RCC, profess the Catholic faith and participate in the Communion of the RCC. We have this from at least two ecumenical councils and three popes. As frosting on the cake, let us add the words of another pope, who declared it to be error to believe that;

"In the worship of any religion whatever, men can find the way toi eternal salvation, and can attain eternal salvation." (Pius IX, "Syllabus," or Collection of Modern Errors, Section III; Denzinger 1716)

"We must have at least good hope concerning the eternal salvation of all those who in no wise are in the true Church of Christ." (Pius IX, "Syllabus," or Collection of Modern Errors, Section III; Denzinger 1717)

One of the boasts of the Roman cult, a motto if you will, is that it is Semper Eadem, always the same. That this applies to dogma of the RCC was made clear by Pope Paul VI:

"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful--who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk. 22:32)--he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.[42] For that reason his definitions are rightly said to be irreformable by their very nature and not by reason of the assent of the Church, is as much as they were made with the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to him in the person of blessed Peter himself; and as a consequence they are in no way in need of the approval of others, and do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal." (Paul VI, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), November 21, 1964)

Another Romish theologian helps us to understand that dogma, once defined, are immutable. He then goes on to explain that when dogma change, it is not because they have been re-defined, but that they simply have been clarified. Classic RCC doublespeak.

"Dogmas, as divine truths revealed by God, are eternal and unchangeable. That is why a dogma can never be "re-defined." Yet, in this work you will notice that most of these dogmas have been solemnly defined and/or pronounced more than once. These are not "re-definitions." Rather, they are further definitions and/or clarifications which buttress aspects of a dogma that have come under some form of denial or attack. The content of these denials/attacks was often not anticipated in the preceding pronouncements. Hence, each further definition is a MORE PRECISE definition of the dogma. It is never the opposite. It is never an expansion or widening, and thus changing, of what the dogma holds. It is never an evolution as to the content and substance of a dogma. The reason this is so is, again, because dogmas are immutable. Truth cannot change." (Adam S. Miller, Op. Cit., p. 3)

That's the RCC's position on dogmas. Dogmas, being divinely-revealed truth, are immutable. They cannot be changed because truth cannot change. They cannot be re-defined, only clarrified or made more precise. They can never be made to say something opposite to what they originally said. Keeping this in mind, look again at the words used by Pope Boniface VIII to define the necessity of membership in the RCC and submission to the pope for salvation:

"With faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sin . . . Furthermore, we declare, say, define and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Denzinger 468-69)

And to this clear declaration of a dogma, add the clarifying definition of Pope Eugenius,

"It (Roman Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life . . .and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Council of Florence (1441), Pope Eugenius, Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino; Denzinger 714)

Now let us turn our attention to the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, which informs catechumins that:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation."

846. "How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body. . .

847. "This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. " (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, © 1994, United States Catholic Conference, Inc. - Libreria Editrice Vaticana, p. 244 w/Imprimi Potest of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger)

O my! Looks as though the CCC has done a bit of clarification here. And it would appear that this clarification has so modified the dogma as pronounced by Boniface VIII and Eugenius as to now make it possible that people who have never even heard of Jesus Christ or the Roman Catholic Church might be saved. If I had not been told differently by Paul VI and Adam S. Miller, I would have thought this amounted to a reversal of the earlier defined dogma. Clearly, I do not understand how declaring that people outside the RCC who never heard of the RCC or Jesus Christ are not to be considered when accepting as a matter of faith that "Outside the Church there is no salvation." Maybe I can find a more clear understanding by looking deeper into the CCC.

"1258. "The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of Blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament." (CCC, Op. Cit., p. 352)

Whoa! This seems to be another clarification that appears to run opposite to the earlier definition of the dogma, in particular the words of Pope Eugenius, who declared:

". . .no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Council of Florence (1441), Pope Eugenius, Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino; Denzinger 714)

When I was Catholic, I never worried about dogmas and definitions. In fact, I do not recall having heard either word from the priest during his homily or from the catechists in their teaching. Probably a good idea, given that immutable dogmas indeed do mutate, in contradiction of the RCC's teaching that they are irreformable.

Why does the Roman Catholic Church teach one thing and then deliberately act in contravention of its own teaching? That is a no-brainer. It is because the dogmas, doctrines, rules, practices and disciplines of the Roman Catholic Church all have their origins in the inconstant minds of men. Men change, cultures change, the dogmas and processes of the Roman Catholic Church change. What does not change is the revealed Word of God, as recorded by inspired men in the Holy Scriptures. Seek truth in the Bible, not the imaginative and inconsistent ramblings of the Magisterium.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)