The Catholic Church is the Road to Hell
Catholicism Teaches Works Salvation!



In the first part of the 5th Century, John Cassianus, Abbot of the Monastery of St. Victor, introduced the false doctrine known as semi-Pelagianism. A few of the errors of semi-Pelagianism are that initial faith is dependent on man's free-will, though God is solely responsible for faith itself and its increase and final perseverance depends on man's own strength, not being a gift of grace.

What is interesting, and still another indication that the Roman Magisterium is inconsistent and surely fallible, is that, while condemning the teachings of John Cassianus as heretical, the RCC refers to him as a good and godly man and holds him in high esteem.

SEMI-PELAGIANISM. The view stressing both the grace of God and the free will of man. Man is seen as contributing with God in salvation. This view is embodied in Roman Catholicism.--Paul Enns, Ed., The Moody Handbook of Theology, (c) 1989 Moody Press, p.647

The early Catholic church struggled against semi-Pelagianism. Semi-Pelagian heresies were condemned by Pope Celestine I in 432. Pope Felix IV, In the year 529, in the Synods of Orange and Valence, both of which were confirmed by Boniface II, also condemned semi-Pelagianism.

I reckon those condemnations never took root, for to this date, the Roman church continues to hold to a form of semi-Pelagianism, or works-based salvation. Just one example of how man is required, in Catholic doctrine, to cooperate with God for his salvation may be seen in the RCC doctrine of baptism as taught in the Catechism:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.--Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed., (c) 1994/1997 United States Catholic Conference, Inc. (Emphasis not in original)

The Roman church teaches that man is, in large measure, responsible for his salvation and eternal state. By contrast, the Holy Bible teaches that:

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.--Ephesians 2:8-10

Noted Catholic educator and theologian, Dr. Ludwig Ott disagrees and clarifies the Roman Catholic position in a textbook used in Roman Catholic seminaries:

According to the teaching of the Reformers, faith, in the sense of fiducial faith, is the sole cause of justification (_sola fide_ doctrine). In opposition to this teaching, the Council of Trent declares that, side by side with faith, other acts of disposition are demanded (Denzinger 819). As such are named: fear of Divine justice; hope in the mercy of God for the sake of the merits of Christ; the beginning of the love of God; hate and detestation of sin; and the purpose of receiving Baptism and of beginning a new life. The Council describes the ordinary psychological course of the process of justification, without thereby defining that all individual acts must be present in the given sequence, and that only these can be present. Just as faith, as the beginning of salvation, must never be absent, so also sorrow for sins committed must never be lacking, as forgiveness is not possible without an inner aversion from sin. Denz 793, cf. Denz 897.--Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, (c) 1962 B. Herder, 1962 pp. 253-4 (Emphasis not in original)

For those who don't get Rome's heretical message, the Council of Trent provided several "incentives," among them:

Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone,[114] meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.--Council of Trent, 6th Session, Canons On Justification (Denzinger 819)

And there you have it; another example of that peculiar Romish idea that the work of Christ on the cross was insufficient to obtain and secure salvation for those called by God to eternal life. Nope, Bubba has gotta to put his back into it and lend that weak Roman Jesus a helping hand if the salvation Rome offers is gonna "take." Reckon I'll put my trust in the Lord God Almighty and His Son, Jesus the Messiah -- and not in the shaky promises of the man-powered Roman church.

Read your Bible. Seek God's truth. You'll see that what Rome says and offers doesn't match up with the Word of God.

Catholics Commit Idolatry by Praying to Dead Saints



Rome teaches that Catholic faithful are to honor and invoke the saints in Heaven, who offer prayers to God for man.

956. "The intercession of the saints. 'Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more firmly in holiness.... They do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus.... So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped.'[LG 49; cf. 1 Tim 2:5 .] …" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, © 1994 United States Catholic Conference, Inc. – Libreria Editrice Vaticana, p. 271)

This is how it works, more or less: The Catholic on earth prays to the spirit of someone the pope (at least in latter times) has declared to have lived an exemplar life of faith and who now resides in heaven. Then, the spirit of the dead saint prays to God on behalf of the earthbound Catholic. It is something like that old kids' game called "Pass It On."

Have you ever wondered how the saint in Heaven can be assured that the person seeking his intercession is playing straight? Or does he just intercede for anyone who asks, even Satanists, atheists, pranksters, etc? Think about it. If a voodoo priestess calls upon the name of John the Baptist – who must surely be residing in Heaven – does John just dash off a quick intercessory prayer for that priestess' intentions? Perhaps there is a Heaven-based private detective agency that does background checks on everyone who seeks help from the Catholic saints.

The Scriptures teach that God is omnipresent – that He exists everywhere all the time (Psalm 139:7-12). That God is omniscient we also know from Scriptures (1 John 3:20). These are some of the attributes of God. I know of no passage in Scripture where I might read that the spirits in Heaven exist everywhere and know everything. Rome, of course, has found a way to twist a passage of Scripture to support her idea that these spirits can keep abreast of events on earth.

"That the saints know something of what passes on earth and can sympathize with us, may be inferred from what our Savior says in St. Matthew (xxii, 30), that the saints "shall be as the Angels of God in Heaven," and from what He says in St. Luke (xv, 7, 10), "I say unto you, there shall be joy before the Angels of God upon one sinner doing penance." If the Angels see a sinner doing penance, the saints who are like Angels of God can do the same." (C. F. Donovan, Our Faith and the Facts, Patrick L. Baine:Chicago (1927), p. 322: w/Nihil Obstat and Imprimitur)

There you go. To support prayers to saints, one RCC theologian takes a proof text out of context and forces it to match his need. Then he misquotes or mistranslates another passage and then bends it to his will as well. Finally, he draws a false parallel between angels and the souls of the dead. One more example of Roman Catholic eisegesis.

Let's break it down and see if the Scriptures indeed do support Father Donovan's arguments. The verse from Matthew, in context, reads as follows in the KJV:

Matthew 22:23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,

Matthew 22:24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

Matthew 22:25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:

Matthew 22:26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.

Matthew 22:27 And last of all the woman died also.

Matthew 22:28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Matthew 22:31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

Matthew 22:32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

Matthew 22:33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

Jesus was having one of THOSE days. First, the Pharisees had sent their disciples to try to trick Him into making a declaration that would be considered treasonous by Roman authorities. That didn't work. Then the Sadducees thought to snare Him with a trick question – and that is what the above passage records. When reading the passage, one should bear in mind that the Sadducees did not believe in things supernatural; things like the resurrection of the dead and the existence of angels.

The loaded question is detailed in verses 25-28. I suppose the cunning Sadducees figured they'd chivvy Jesus into a situation where He would be forced to admit there is no resurrection of the dead. Didn't work, as we see in the succeeding verses.

Jesus slammed them hard in verse 29, when He told them the premise upon which their question was based was flawed. And the reason for their error? Crystal clear. "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God." And this is, of course, the same charge that can be laid against Father Donovan, whose teaching on this issue is certified to contain nothing contrary to Roman Catholic doctrine.

Jesus, being the perfect Teacher, went on to explain their error to the Sadducees – and to us. In the process, He exposes another of their false beliefs. Angels are deathless creatures, who do not propagate and therefore have no need for marriage. In the resurrection, the saints will have those same characteristics.

The proof text cited by Donovan in no way supports the saints "know something of what passes on earth and can sympathize with us." Roman Catholic eisegesis of a verse taken out of context.

But what about the proof texts from Luke? Let's first read them, again in context.

Luke 15:1 Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.

Luke 15:2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.

Luke 15:3 And he spake this parable unto them, saying,

Luke 15:4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?

Luke 15:5 And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.

Luke 15:6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.

Luke 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Luke 15:8 Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it?

Luke 15:9 And when she hath found it, she calleth her friends and her neighbours together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost.

Luke 15:10 Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.

Did you notice? There is no mention of anyone doing penance in either verse 7 or verse 10. I went to the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible, the New Testament of which was "Translated from the Latin Vulgate and diligently compared with the original Greek" back in 1582. There, I found these renderings for verses 7 and 10:

7 I say to you, that even so there shall be joy in heaven upon one sinner that doth penance, more than upon ninety-nine just who need not penance.

10 So I say to you, there shall be joy before the angels of God upon one sinner doing penance.

Wow! Now we're talking penance. Let's see now. The translations in the KJV were made from available Greek texts. The Rheims New Testament was translated from the Latin Vulgate, which was translated from Greek texts, and then was compared with whatever Greek texts were available in Rheims in 1582.

I don't read Latin, so it would serve no useful purpose for me to look at the verses in that version. I did go to the 21st edition of Eberhard Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece to see how the verses read in that document. Since this BBS does not support a Greek alphabet, I shall simply provide a literal, word-for-word translation, in the original word order.

Luke 15:7 I tell you that thus joy in – heaven will be over one sinner repenting than over ninety-nine just men who no need have of repentance.

Luke 15:10 So I tell you there is joy before the angels - of God over one sinner repenting.

Oops! Sure seems as though those folks who worked on the Rheims New Testament were not terribly diligent when comparing their translation of the Vulgate with the original Greek. Tsk. Tsk.

For a more detailed examination of these passages, I invite the reader to Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, Volume II, pages 204-7; Baker Book House edition. But for now, back to Father Donovan's teaching:

The verses from Luke cited by Donovan are drawn from a larger account of Jesus reproaching the Pharisees. The high and mighty Pharisees were increasingly upset by the popularity of Jesus' message with the tax collectors and outcasts of society. Jesus was aware of their grumbling, so He used parables to rebuke them for their pious self-righteousness.

In verse 4, He describes how God takes the initiative in seeking sinners. This was the opposite of what rabbis were teaching: that God would receive sinners who sought His forgiveness with sufficient earnestness (Sounds a lot like what the RCC teaches, doesn't it?). Verse 7 and verse 10 speak to joy over the return of the lost.

The "joy in Heaven" mentioned in verse 7 refers to the joy of God Himself. On earth, the Pharisees were complaining (see verse 2), but in Heaven there was great joy with God and among the angels. The heavenly joy resulted from the repentance of those sinners who responded to Jesus' message, as opposed to those who think themselves righteous and have no need to repent.

Look again at verse 6. The shepherd is the one who is joyful at the recovery of his lost sheep and it is the shepherd who calls his friends to share his good news with them. In verse 9, it is the woman who found her lost coin who is filled with joy and who gathers her friends and neighbors to tell them of her good news. In neither parable do the friends and neighbors have any reason to be joyful until they are informed of the good fortune of one who recovered what was lost. Think about the teaching. Who is symbolized by the shepherd and the woman and who are the lost? It is fallen man who has strayed from the fold and it is the Lord God Who feels joy when one of His lost ones returns. The angels in Heaven are like the friends and neighbors in the parables; until the Lord shares His joy with them, there is no reason to believe they have any idea what is going on with the lost.

Context. Context. Context.

Donovan provides another pseudo-biblical support for the idea that saints are aware of happenings on earth.

"Moses, when with God on the mountain, far away and out of sight, was allowed to know that his people had fallen into idolatry. He could see what was passing elsewhere and could pray to God for them. It is only natural to suppose the saints can do the same. Those blessed souls in Heaven, who are bound to us by ties of nature and grace, must have a sincere desire to help us in our necessities. We believe that the Blessed Virgin and the Saints enjoy the power of interceding for us with God, a privilege bestowed upon them by Jesus Christ." (Donovan, Op. cit.)

Wrong again. Donovan informs his Catholic readers that Moses, while up on the mountain top with God, was empowered to see what was happening down below. He then builds on the basis of this "power" of Moses by claiming it is "natural to suppose the saints can do the same." I confess that for me it is not "natural to suppose" any such thing.

The biblical account of Moses' visit with the Lord God atop Mt. Horeb is long and complex and one that I had to refresh myself on. So, I carefully read again Exodus chapters 19 through 32 to see whether the priest was correct. I found nothing to support the idea that Moses was able to see "what was passing elsewhere." What I did find was that God TOLD Moses what was passing elsewhere. And that is very much different from the Catholic teaching Donovan provides.

Exodus 32:7 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves:

Exodus 32:8 They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

I checked the Douay-Rheims Old Testament and Exodus 32:7,8 read essentially the same as my KJV. Donovan's book carries the Nihil Obstat and Imprimitur, so we are assured that it has been reviewed by ecclesiastical authorities and was determined to contain nothing contrary to Roman Catholic doctrine. This must be an assurance that what Donovan wrote above at least parallels official RCC doctrine. If this is so, then Rome is wrong. Period.

The arguments and Scriptures the RCC uses to support the fantasy that the spirits of dead know what is going on – to some degree at least – and are available to intercede on behalf of the Catholic faithful still living on earth don't work. The premise is false.

Believers don't need to make contact with spirits of the dead to seek their intercession with God Almighty. As children of God, members of His family, we have the right to go boldly before the Throne of Grace with our petitions. We can appeal to our heavenly Father directly.

Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Hebrews 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Filthy Hands On The Body Of Christ


It seems not a month goes by that one does not read of some new revelation concerning the conduct of one or another Roman Catholic priest. Recently, the Diocese of Dallas was financially wrecked by the award of $120 million dollars to victims of convicted pedophile priest Rudy Kos. All told, the number of offenses alleged against Kos came to 1350 over an 11 year period.

Shortly after Kos' trial, the Archbishop of San Antonio made a public plea for funds to help the Archdiocese of San Antonio pay penalties and compensation awarded by local courts to the victims of two pedophile priests.

These are not isolated incidents. Within the past 20 months or so, the Diocese of Bridgeport (CT), was successfully sued by two victims of priestly child abuse in separate cases. A New Haven (CT) priest was successfully sued for sexually abusing a child. A diocese in Alabama and another in Springfield, (IL) and individual priests also were taken to court.

Jody Ericson, writing in the April 3, 1998 edition of the Providence Phoenix , reported the likely imminent ouster of long-time Rhode Island bishop Louis Gelineau in the wake of mounting sexual abuse scandals. Ericson reported that "some 40 rape and molestation suits have been filed against 13 priests in Rhode Island."

"Okay," say those inclined to turn a blind eye to such symptoms of depravity in the clergy and hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, "there are bound to be a few bad apples who evade the close scrutiny of the the bishops and manage to get through seminary and be ordained to the priesthood. Their corrupt behavior should be viewed as the failings of individual men and not of the Catholic Church as a whole." On the surface, that sounds pretty good. On the surface.

Do officials of the RCC seek to "cover up" the aberrant sexual behavior of its priests? Let us examine the manner in which the various ordinaries are said to have dealt with the allegations and charges laid against priests under their authority. In San Antonio, claims surfaced that the Archdiocese was aware of the vile sexual preferences and behavior of at least one of the convicted priests but that rather than acting to protect children and others of the RCC faithful, simply transferred the offender to another parish.

Defrocked priest Rudy Kos claims he tried for years to tell officials something was wrong with him and that he needed help. He says he was told he was on his own. When he was 16, Kos was sent to a juvenile facility for deviant bevahior. He claims to have seen a number of psychiatrists who either could not or would not help him. He said he entered the priesthood seeking a refuge from homosexual feelings he had been having. Kos blames the RCC hierarchy, which he says betrayed him.

A suit against the Bridgeport (CT) Diocese was allowed to go to jury in spite of the abuse victim's age because there was an issue of fact as to whether the Diocese had fraudulently concealed the cause of the action. The Diocese was also ordered to pay $33,195 in sanctions for withholding evidence. (Martinelli v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocese. No. 3:93 CV 1482 (Arterton, J.) U.S.D.C. , New Haven, August 26, 1997

In a recent Alabama case, a woman claimed, in a suit against a priest and the catholic diocese, that her parish priest sexually abused her as a child, and that one of his female followers raped her. The case was dismissed on a technicality involving the statute of limitations. (Alabama, Doe v. Roman Catholic Church , 656 So.2d 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1995)

One can only wonder how such monsters can become priests. However, once the pedophiles, fornicators and carousers within the "celibate" priesthood are identified, why does the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church appear to protect them, rather than separate them from the innocents they are charged to shepherd? Why does the RCC hierarchy appear to do nothing, or very little, to help them. Sending a depraved priest on a retreat to the "mother house" of his order, seems hardly enough. Certainly, merely transferring such a person to a different parish does nothing more than expose other innocents to his predatory behavior.

Perhaps one reason is that Catholicism does not require impeccability of its priests. In itself, of course, this is not unusual, for who can live a sin-free life? Certainly not this writer and, as we have seen over the past several years, not some who would preach from a Protestant pulpit. What makes a difference within the RCC is its failure or refusal to adhere to its own doctrine and laws. Scripture is quite clear as to God's opinion of those who willingly participate in deviant sexual behavior:





Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

There may be those who would argue that priestly pedophilia is not quite the same thing as homosexuality. I would agree. It is worse. In any case, the Lord God Almighty admits to no weaseling:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

The Lord has provided a golden parachute for those who turn aside from the reprobate life.

1 Corinthians 6:11-13, "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body."

God forgives those who respond to His call and covers theirs sins with the shed blood of Christ, but He holds in low esteem those who, knowing Him turn back to their evil ways:

2 Peter 2:9-15, "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;"

The RCC, which is a law unto itself, has much to say concerning those to whom it accords the authority and power (according to her own dogma), to call Jesus Christ down from Heaven to reside in eucharistic wafers. To whom it calls alter Christus, or "another Christ." Compare the public behavior of the Roman Catholic hierarchy with the Canons of its own Law.

Can. 1395 §1 Apart from the case mentioned in can. 1394, a cleric living in concubinage, and a cleric who continues in some other external sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue which causes scandal, is to be punished with suspension. To this, other penalties can progressively be added if after a warning he persists in the offence, until eventually he can be dismissed from the clerical state.

Whoa! Just what does this mean? In the Catholic reckoning of the Decalogue, which conforms to the Augustinian model, the Sixth Commandment is: Thou shalt not commit adultery. Now, according to the Catholic understanding of adultery, it must involve sexual relations with a married person. Clearly, a 10-year-old altar boy is not likely to be married so, I suppose, according to the strict letter of the canon law, pedophilia involving a priest and such a child would not strictly be considered adultery.

Adultery is defined as carnal connection between a married person and one unmarried, or between a married person and the spouse of another. It is seen to differ from fornication in that it supposes the marriage of one or both of the agents. Nor is it necessary that this marriage be already consummated; it need only be what theologians call matrimonium ratum. Sexual commerce with one engaged to another does not, it is most generally held, constitute adultery. Again, adultery, as the definition declares, is committed in carnal intercourse. Nevertheless immodest actions indulged in between a married person and another not the lawful spouse, while not of the same degree of, guilt, are of the same character of malice as adultery (Sanchez, De Mat., L. IX. Disp. XLVI, n. 17). It must be added, however, that St. A1phonsus Liguori, with most theologians, declares that even between lawful man and wife adultery is committed when their intercourse takes the form of sodomy (S. Liguori L. III, n. 446). (Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright © 1913 by the Encyclopedia Press, Inc. Electronic version copyright © 1997 by New Advent, Inc. )

Continuing to read in Canon 1395:

§2 A cleric who has offended in other ways against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, if the crime was committed by force, or by threats, or in public, or with a minor under the age of sixteen years, is to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants.

I suppose the questions here must be 1) is it adultery when a priest sexually abuses an altar boy; and 2) if it is, what would be a "just penalty"? Perhaps another question should be: If it isn't adultery, is it not still wrong?

Well, "Mother Church" has a sort of catchall canon to cover those ecclesiastical crimes not addressed specifically in the canon law. When you read the following, please give particular notice to under what conditions this law might be invoked.

Can. 1399 Besides the cases prescribed in this or in other laws, the external violation of divine or canon law can be punished, and with a just penalty, only when the special gravity of the violation requires it and necessity demands that scandals be prevented or repaired

In other words, take action as necessary to protect the RCC from unfavorable media attention.

Is the Roman Church unaware of the evil nature of the predatory actions of its pedophile priests against the children who serve at the altar? I think not, for in the Catholic Catechism, we read:

ARTICLE 4 - THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS 1749 Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men").

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

How can a pedophile or other sexual predator officiate at the Catholic Mass? How can a priest who, by even the Roman Catholic concept of justification, clearly has fallen out of grace be permitted to invoke priestly powers to call Christ down from Heaven to be offered yet again in the Eucharistic sacrifice? How can a priest who has fouled his soul with sexual sin take in his hands the consecrated wafer which is, according to RCC dogma, the real and substantial body, blood, soul and divinity of the Second Person of the Trinity? How can the Catholic faithful take this bread from his tainted hands?

Does not Scripture warn that those who partake of the Lord's Supper unworthily will incur God's wrath?

1 Corinthians 11:26-31, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged."

Catholic canon law holds to a similar position:

Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.

This appears to cover those who continue to practice grave sins such as fornication, pedophilia, and the like, but what about the officiating priest? What about the man whom Catholics love to refer to as alter Christus? Does he not only call Christ down from His seat at the right side of the Father to become a communion wafer but actually partake of that wafer, that so-called body of Christ, in the Eucharistic sacrifice? Can someone guilty of persistent grave sin be qualified to do these things? Canon law states:

Can. 916 Anyone who is conscious of grave sin may not celebrate Mass or receive the Body of the Lord without previously having been to sacramental confession, unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, which includes the resolve to go to confession as soon as possible.

I am not prepared to address whether a "sacramental confession" of persistent and continuing grave sin qualifies a person to be another Christ. Nor will I address the issue of the validity of such a confession when the confessing sinner has every intention of continuing to sin in the same way. Let Rome's canon lawyers dispute over that. Suffice it that the Council of Trent addressed the effect of grave sin on one's standing with the grace of Christ:

Against the subtle wits of some also, who by pleasing speeches and good words seduce the hearts of the innocent, it must be maintained that the grace of justification once received is lost not only by infidelity, whereby also faith itself is lost, but also by every other mortal sin, though in this case faith is not lost; thus defending the teaching of the divine law which excludes from the kingdom of God not only unbelievers, but also the faithful [who are] fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, liars with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners, and all others who commit deadly sins, from which with the help of divine grace they can refrain, and on account of which they are cut off from the grace of Christ. (Council of Trent, 6th Session, January 13, 1547, Decree Concerning Justification, Chapter XV)

Making the question as clear as possible, can a priest who is cut off from the grace of Christ because of persistent sexual sin truly celebrate the Eucharistic sacrifice that is the very heart of the Mass? Trent says he can and, moreover, that his standing with the Lord has no effect on the sacraments he confers or effects. Hard to believe, hunh?

Canon 12. If anyone says that a minister who is in mortal sin, though he observes all the essentials that pertain to the effecting or conferring of a sacrament, neither effects nor confers a sacrament, let him be anathema (Council of Trent, 7th Session, March 3, 1547, Decree Concerning the Sacraments, Canons on the Sacraments in General)

Those of you who in silence read the postings on this site, I entreat to search your hearts. Can you believe that Christ would choose to permit Himself to be controlled by the priestly incantations of a man guilty of such vile and persistent sin as pedophilia? Do you honestly believe that Christ, who is pure and holy, would submit to being handled and broken, when in cookie form, by the sinful hands of a depraved priest? When you take the consecrated host from the hands of the priestly celebrant of the Mass, can you be sure that those hands are spiritually clean? The canon law of the Roman Church requires that all Catholics diligently seek the truth in matters which concern God and His church.

Can. 748 §1 All are bound to seek the truth in the matters which concern God and his Church; when they have found it, then by divine law they are bound, and they have the right, to embrace and keep it



The Word of God makes the same charge to the faithful:

2 Timothy 2:15, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

Priestly Porn

I ask those of you who are parents to carefully consider this question: Would you entrust your children to a daycare center that is known to not only employ child abusers to work with children entrusted to their care but to actually nurture and protect such people?

I ask all who read this to carefully consider this question: Would you entrust your hopes for eternity to a shepherd who habitually violates his vows to his church and to his god?

Those in the Roman hierarchy who fashion the rules and exceptions that govern that cult surely are neither ingenuous nor blind to the reality of the corruption and perversion that infects the priestly class. Certainly, this awareness must have been a factor that led them to create ways to make priestly perversions to have virtually no effect on their suitability to continue to perform priestly duties.

I have posted several articles concerning predatory priests who prey upon those they claim to shepherd. The sexual and emotion horrors perpetrated by Roman Catholic priests, nuns and monks against children throughout Canada were detailed in my paper on the Duplessis Orphans. I recalled some of the terrible crimes committed by former rulers of the Catholic cult in a paper titled Would You Buy A Used Car From One Of These Guys. And in another paper called Celibacy and Pedophile Priests I examined how the Roman Catholic princely hierarchy watches over her wayward priests and protects them from the long arm of the law.

For a time following publication of such articles, I receive a lot of email from Catholic apologists and others who deny the truth of what they have read. The writers sometimes go to great lengths to play down the crimes of the Catholic priesthood and are quick to point out that it is the individual priest or nun who violates the laws of God and man. According to their reasoning, that entity known as the Roman Catholic Church continues pure as the driven snow, her soul, if you will, unsullied by the deeds of her priestly class. A convenient, if invalid, response that recalls the words and actions of Pontius Pilate as he attempted to evade responsibility for the execution of Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 27:24). Just as Pilate could not evade his responsibility by claiming he was not to blame, so cannot the Roman Catholic cult hide from the accusing finger of reality.

Not that the Roman cult does not act against priests when forced to do so. Canon 290 of the Code of Canon Law declares that, while a priest is ordained for life, he can be deprived of his clerical state. The next canon adds that the priest thus chastised is not released from his vow of celibacy.

In worst case situations, the offending priest may be recalled to his mother house, where he will spend the remainder of his days tending the rose garden or working in the library. I suspect many who teach in Catholic seminaries might be priests who have been deprived of their clerical state. I suppose that, to some pervert priests, such punishmentsmight be tantamount to B'rer Rabbit's being thrown into the briar patch.

So, what does the RCC leadership do to protect her billion or so faithful from the sexual appetites of predatory priests? In most cases, I suspect, it does nothing. Oh, when there are complaints, the diocese might move a priestly pervert to another parish or, in some cases, even trade him off to another diocese.

Not all Catholics are blind to priestly perversions. My next door neighbor, for example, has told me that his parish priest prohibits all fund-raising activities in his church. His reason? Every time the archdiocese is sued due to the sexual activities of a predatory priest, the chancery draws down the savings of the parish churches to settle the lawsuit. This priest told his parishioners that he could not in conscience call upon them to pay the financial costs of the sexual sins of Catholic priests.

Some would argue that sexually predatory priests like Rudy Kos are rare. These folks cannot, of course, support their claim from any veriable source. The priestly pervert acts in secret, for the most part, and the very nature of his actions militates hiding them from public scrutiny. One must look elsewhere for information. In the USA, insurance companies do not protect Catholic parishes from liability suits resulting from priestly perversions. Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself. Ask your parish priest or the Chancery for the name of the insurance company that provides such protection. Bet they can't.

You could go to the Web for information. Make it easy. Choose the Alta Vista search engine and search for "Rudy Kos". You will get pages and pages of URLs for sites detailing not only his sex crimes but those of a lot of other Catholic priests.

The Survivors of Clergy Crimes operate a web site that offers an enormous amount of information on the crimes of Catholic clergy. I challenge anyone who would deny the reality that many of those to whom they look for spiritual guidance are far from holy in their everyday lives to spend time reading in the files of this site.

The Survivors are, or were, Catholic. A Protestant ministry provides more information of priestly crimes. On this site, you can read also some of the attempts by Catholic officials and laymen to discount the truth and the seriousness of charges of priestly perversion.

Perhaps the most damning evidence of the corruption tht seems to be rampant within the ranks of Roman Catholic religious was provided by a Web site and mail list operated by and for homosexual Roman Catholic priests, nuns and laymen. That site was ordered closed by the bishop of the diocese where its founding priest works. Though the site and mail list may now be closed, much of the material, correspondence and photographs they once held were preserved by a ministry operated by Catholic layment and guided by responsible Catholic priests.

Before providing the link to that site, however, I think it important that the interested reader first read another page in order to get an overview of what is to come. When reading under the heading "Maine" on this page, pay special attention to the fact that Father Harris acknowledged that he was the author of an "expletive-filled" sent in response to a communication from a responsible priest.

The text of Harris' email and the email that triggered it are available on the web site operated by a group called Roman Catholic Faithful. When you go there, I think it important to first read "A Few Blunt Words To Catholics" to get a feel for what is coming.

After digesting the information in that opening statement from Catholic to Catholic, the next step is to click on the link to "St. Sebastian's Angels." WARNING! This section is not for the sensitive nor those easily shocked. This is the page with the pictures, emails, articles and dating information provided by actively homosexual CAtholic priests and at least one bishop. Some of the articles and photographs are definitely X-RATED. To their credit, the RCF provide plenty of warnings of what is to come. You will never stumble blindly into pornography. After visiting this site, keep in mind what you saw there as you read again these words from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2354. "Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials. " (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, (c) 1994 United States Catholic Conference, Inc. -- Libreria Editrice Vaticana, p. 624)

The Leadership of the Roman cult acknowledge that pornography is a "grave offense." In paragraph 2357, the Catechism defines homosexualilty and, in addressing homosexual acts, declares that "Under no circumstances can they be approved."

So here we have it. The RCC does not approve of pornograpy, homosexuality, violation of vows of celibacy, etc., yet on the other hand, known sexual deiates within the priesthood are sheltered and permitted to continue to shepherd innocents entrusted to their care. How can this be? Why, the Roman hierarchy calls upon its sacrament of Holy Orders to defend the perverts among her religious.

1550. "This presence of Christ in the minister is not to be understood as if the latter were preserved from all human weaknesses, the spirit of domination, error, even sin. The power of the Holy Spirit does not guarantee all acts of ministers in the same way. While this guarantee extends to the sacraments, so that even the minister's sin cannot impede the fruit of grace, in many other acts the minister leaves human traces that are not always signs of fidelity to the Gospel and consequently can harm the apostolic fruitfulness of the Church. " (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, (c) 1994 United States Catholic Conference, Inc. -- Libreria Editrice Vaticana, p. 624)

I call upon the Catholic readers of this article to think upon what you have read when you next attend Mass. As the priest places what you believe to be the body, blood soul and divinity of Christ into your hands or on your tongue, will you wonder where those hands have been?

Catholic Tradition



82. As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, 'does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.' [DV 9.]--Catechism of the Catholic Church, (C) 1994/1997 United States Catholic Conference, Inc.

As Roman Catholic apologists like to point out, the RCC is not guided only by the Sacred Scriptures, but also by Holy Tradition. Like so many other aspects of the Catholic cult, this unwillingness to accept God's Word as sufficient shares many characteristics with those other religions and cults which the Roman church absorbed in order to gain control over their devotees.

In the Book of Exodus, we read the account of Moses' mountaintop encounter with the Lord God Almighty. When Moses came down the mountain with the tablets containing the Decalogue, Ten Commandments, this was the beginning of the process Jews call Matan Torah, the giving of the Torah.

All in all, there are 613 laws in Torah. Why did God write but ten "utterances" on the stone tablets? Rabbis and biblical scholars tell us that the Ten Commandments are but general headings and that each of the other 603 laws can be assigned to one of these ten categories. The laws God provided, if kept in the spirit, were adequate to cover all aspects of community and personal living. God is all-wise. Surely He provided the perfect number of perfectly written rules to protect and guide His chosen people.

Originally, the Law was in the hands of the prophets (nevi'im) and the priests (Levites). This changed under Persian rule, when Ezra returned to the Jewish homeland. From this time on, religious teaching and leadership was in the hands of scholars, who were referred to as scribes (soferim). You know what happens when lawyers or academicians get their hands on anything.

It is not in man's nature, apparently, to leave perfection alone. Priests and scribes began adding to God's perfect collection of laws. It was not plain enough that God commanded against eating blood (Leviticus 17:11); these deep thinkers determined it was necessary to supplement God's law with a complex set of rules for slaughtering animals and preparing food in the "kosher" manner. Over the centuries, hundreds, nay! Thousands, of rules, comments, codicils, interpretations, etc., were added to the growing collecting of oral "tradition" concerning the Law given by God in Torah.

In the rabbinical era, folks began gathering all this multitude of "traditions" into some semblance of order. And thus were born the six orders of the Mishna. Today, Orthodox Jews are guided by Torah and tradition. And here it can get really confusing.

The Gemara is an addition to the Mishna. The gemara do not adhere closely to the text, but offer instead an enormous amount of addition material only loosely connected to the Mishna. They supplement the Mishna with Jewish literature and exposition of Scripture. As such, they are excelient historical references.

Actually, though there is but one Mishna, there are two Gemaras, each developed by rabbis over centuries. The gemara developed in Israel is called the Yerushalmi and the one that came out of Babylon is the Bavli. The gemara are NEVER printed alone, but always with the Mishna. Thus, if you have the Israeli gemara and the Mishna bound together, you have the Yerushalmi Talmud. The combination of Babylonian Gemara and Mishna is known as the Bavri Talmud.

The Talmud, supreme sourcebook of Jewish Law, sometimes is referred to as the Shas. The word Shas is a shortened form of Shisha Sedarim (six orders), which is a reference to the six orders of the Mishna. Actually, there are two distinct versions of the Talmud: the Yerushalmi (Jerusalem) Talmud and the Bavli (Babylonian) Talmud. Of the two, the Bavli Talmud enjoys greater popularity and authority, and it is to this version the generic term Talmud refers.

Orthodox rabbis may devote a lifetime to studying the Talmud, which describes how to apply the laws in Torah to different life situations. Talmud is not a legal code, but it provides the material used to decide all issues of Jewish law (Halakha).

Conservative Rabbis also consider the Halakha as binding, but they do not accept the most recent and strict opinions as absolutely binding. Instead, they use the Talmud as did the rabbis of old, which is also a rarely used option for the Orthodox.

The more liberal Reformed and Reconstructionist Jews don't even teach Talmud in their Hebrew schools, though it still is taught in seminary. They refer to Torah in their research on points of Torah law, but also consider the times and parallels in other societies.

Since the closing of the Talmud, Jews have continued to develop the Law in areas of practical application, though always honoring the opinions of the Talmudic rabbis. Modern rabbis are free to interpret, but never to contradict the findings of those who developed the Talmud.

There is a sharp division between Torah Law and Rabbinic Law. Torah Law is drawn directly from prohibitions in the Written or Oral Torah. Rabbinical Law was developed to provide a buffer to prevent Jews from inadvertantly violating Torah Law. For example, God provided for a penalty to be administered to the loser in a striving between two men: forty lashes — no more. That was the Torah Law. Rabbinical Law provided that such punishments were to be 40-minus-one, so that should a person miscount he would not violate God's law.

Torah Law: Deuteronomy 25:1 -3, "If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked. And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by a certain number. Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee." Rabbinical Law: 2 Corinthians 11:24, "Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one."

Here is an example of how such oral and written traditions can get all mixed up. It is extracted from the soc.culture.jewish FAQ: Torah and Halachic Authority

"Often, a false distinction is made by uninformed posters between 'Torah' (meaning Written) Law and Oral Law---in normative Judaism, the two stand together in distinction to Rabbinic Law. Example: the Written Law says an eye for an eye'. The Oral Law says (and historical documents from the Second Temple era confirm) that this was _never_ intended literally, but rather means measured and just (monetary) compensation for damages inflicted'. The Rabbinic Law upholds this principle, but might still command a man to forego the monetary damages in certain cases so as not to even come close to transgressing some other Torah prohibition, such as exacting interest on a debt, or causing baseless hatred. The first two are Torah, the last is not. But all are binding on Jews worldwide. (A still lower level of 'law', called minhag, or 'custom', is post-Talmudic and usually has force only within particular communities.)"

Then, there is the Tosafot , which are supplemental commentaries on the Talmud written by various Rabbis. Sometimes, the Gemara will quote a legal source external to the Mishna. This is a citation of a Baraita (external teaching), which can be any authoritative legal material which was not included in the Mishna. Everything in the Tosefta is, by definition, Baraita.

At the end of the Bavli Talmud, there are a number of tractates which address such issues as dying, mourning, engagement, marriage, sex, modesty, self-examination, etc.

And then we come to Midrash, which is a term referring to exegesis, a compilation of the results of exegesis, or to the interpretation of a particular verse or passage to search out the fullness of God's Word. As is to be expected, there are two basic approaches to Midrash. One is that the wording of Scripture was inspired by God and every word is important — even repetitions, apparent errors and peculiar word orders. The other school argues that language is a human thing and subject to all the ordinary flaws of human communication.

All these "authoritative" sources of rules and legislation. All but one of them are the products of man's ingenuity, yet all are considered to have the force of religious law, even the Law given by God Himself, within the community of Judaism. Who can know all these things? What Jew can live his life so well that he never falls into lawbreaking? I would submit that the only Jew ever to live in such a manner was the Jew Jesus of Nazareth. In the days of Temple worship, there was provision in the Law for atoning sacrifices. There has been no Temple, no altar, wherein Jews might sacrifice since the since the Roman sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD. There is no hope of forgiveness for any Jew outside of Messiah.

As I have shown, I hope. God provided His chosen people a complete compendium of laws which, if followed perfectly in the spirit would have made their living comfortable and assured them of spending eternity with their God. Of course, God knew they would not be able to do that. The Law stands, even today, as given, for it is through the Law that we came to know sin.

Now, what has the RCC done with God's Law? Well, among other things they diluted it, as did the Jews, by declaring tradition to be co-equal with Scripture in determining doctrine. One big difference between the way Jews handle their multiplicity of sources and Rome's way is that any Jewish scholar, or even serious lay student, can find the books of tradition and search them. This is because the sources have been identified, compiled and published.

I have never discovered, nor even heard of an authoritative compilation of what Catholicism calls "Sacred Tradition." I suppose the nearest comparison to the Talmud would be found in the Code of Canon Law and, perhaps, the Catechism of the Catholic Church would approximate the Midrash.

Then, there are all the writings of the Early Church Fathers which, depending upon the needs of the Catholic apologists, may be either authoritative or merely informational. At times, the writings of a particular father can be both authoritative (when they support the RCC position) and only informational (when they oppose the RCC position).

To this growing pile of sometimes authoritative sources of tradition, we might add the writings of the Doctors of the Church, which include some really off-the-wall mystical stuff from such folks as the Little Flower. Popes tend to write a lot and what they write to the whole church is not only authoritative but some are considered infallible declarations of God's will (they claim), unless it suits the needs of some apologist to declare that a particular papal utterance failed to meet the conditions for infallibility. This is so even when what one pope declares infallibly is then countermanded by another, also infallible, pope or some equally infallible church council. So, too, are the rules of the 21 infallible church councils considered infallibly authoritative. And we have the pronouncements of such historical and current RCC agencies as the Inquisition, the Sacred Congregation of the Faith, the Penitentiary, the Curia, etc., all of which have the authority of law within the RCC.

The Roman Catholic church explains the mutability of tradition by declaring there actually are two types of tradition: there is Tradition with a capital 'T' and tradition with a small 'T'

83. "The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

"Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.

"The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church."--Catechism of the Catholic Church, Op. cit

I love that one phrase, "In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned.. ." Ha!

Enter the Magisterium. This is the mighty Teaching Authority of the Roman Catholic church. Ultimately, all religious legislation seems to fall under the control of the Magisterium. The Magisterium is defined as:

"The Church's teaching authority, instituted by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit, which seeks to safeguard and explain the truths of the faith. The Magisterium is exercised in two ways: 'extraordinary', when the Pope and ecumenical councils infallibly define a truth of faith or morals that is necessary for one's salvation and that has been constantly taught and held by the Church; 'ordinary,' when the Church infallibly defines truths of the faith: 1) taught universally and without dissent, 2) which must be taught or the Magisterium would be failing in its duty, 3) connected with a grave matter of faith or morals, and 4) which is taught authoritatively. Not everything taught by the Magisterium is done so infallibly; however, the exercise of the Magisterium is faithful to Christ and what He taught.--Peter J.M. Stravinskas, Ed., The Catholic Dictionary, Our Sunday Visitor, (1993), p.316)

Just how much clout does the Magisterium enjoy? Well, the Magisterium has declared that the Magisterium is the sole agency authorized to interpret the Word of God (CCC, Logia 100). In fact, the Magisterium has declared that the Magisterium is co-equal in authority with the Word of God and Sacred Tradition (Big 'T'). Since the Magisterium has declared the Magisterium to be infallible in such matters, then it must be true. Right?

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.]--Ibid..

So, for Roman Catholics, all one really needs to know about God's will is what the infallible Magisterium infallibly determines to infallibly declare, since only she is empowered by Christ with the authority to do so (CCC, Logia 88). And what the Magisterium infallibly declares to be the will of God is authoritative, for her declarations are "under the action of the Holy Spirit." Which is just as well, for there is no authoritative compendium of Sacred Tradition for Catholics that I am aware of, unless it is written in Latin and resides in the basement of St. Peter's.

Knowing God's Law is a lot easier for the Bible-believing Christian. We have His revealed Word as our sole authoritative document on matters of doctrine and faith. Sure, there are commentaries, creeds and constitutions, but these are intended as aids to understanding the Bible, not as authoritative rules and laws extrapolated from Scripture. Granted, there are legalists among Bible believers, but their writings and pronouncements have no more authority than any other commentary or creed.

2 Peter 1:20-2 1, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

Revelation 22:18-19, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."