The faith of millions, you say? I'd better convert then. Mere thousands -- yea, even tens of thousands -- can be wrong. But once a religion's over the million mark, God preserves them from error.

I mean, Scripture can be twisted to mean anything, absolutely anything. Which leaves us with no other way to ascertain truth save by the most objective method possible... a head-count.
Tom R | 06.01.04 - 1:28 am | #

I can't believe I spent almost 7 years studying Protestant and Catholic theology before being received into the Catholic Church, and didn't think of any of the arguments this guy is making.

My hope for salvation from the Pope is totally in shambles now.
Ron Belgau | Homepage | 06.01.04 - 1:31 am | #

Have you ever noticed that those who think the world is being controlled by corporations, shadow governments, or the church actually cannot control their own world, and so imagine some sinister force doing it for them?
Jonathan | 06.01.04 - 2:09 am | #

"It is necessary to salvation that every man should submit to the Pope." (Boniface VIII Unum Sanctum, 1303.)

"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." Ephesians 2:8, 9.

Even ignoring the question of whether all Catholics MUST believe the first claim, these aren't "two totally contradictory statements."

The first says that if you are saved, then you will submit to the Pope. [Necessary conditions are the consequent of a conditional, not the antecedent.] It is necessary to being a dog that the thing is a mammal, and we read that, "if it is a dog, then it is a mammal".

The second does not say, by any stretch of the imagination, that "it is not the case that 'if you are saved, then you will submit to the pope'". It makes no claims about the Pope at all, for that matter. It says that works don't CAUSE salvation, but God's grace does. The quotation from Unum Sanctum doesn't say anything about what causes salvation.

The mistake is in thinking that the first statement provides a causal, sufficient condition for salvation; namely, that if you submit to the Pope, then you will be saved -- whereas it claims that submitting to the Pope is a necessary condition for salvation; put otherwise, if you are saved, then you will submit to the Pope.

Thus, no contradiction.
Tim P. | 06.01.04 - 2:49 am | #

Thanks for that, Tim. Substitute "do good works" for "submit to the Pope" and you'll see why other Protestants quickly calmed Martin Luther down and explained to him there was no contradiction between Hebrews and Romans after all.
Tom R | 06.01.04 - 8:09 am | #

Sameold sameold. Same rants. Same I Got The Inside Scoop tone. Boooooring.
Gerard E. | 06.01.04 - 8:30 am | #

"the enemy of the bible"? Is it just me, or is that just a bit... idolotrous sounding?
Francois | 06.01.04 - 9:20 am | #

Please! Who does he think has spent the last 2000 years defending the divinity of Christ and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity?

What a maroon!
Franklin Jennings | 06.01.04 - 9:23 am | #

Sheesh! The least he could do is come up with something original instead of the same old junk arguments.
Mark Windsor | Homepage | 06.01.04 - 9:23 am | #

Francois, I ran into a group of people a few years ago who interpreted John 1:1 as referring to the Bible. At that point, you just throw your hands in the air.

BTW, what's with Samuel Gipps' "...the Apocryphal books, fourteen books..."? What are the other seven?
Karen Howard | 06.01.04 - 10:05 am | #

Yawn! Same ole, same ole! KJV only "real and true" Bible, "evil old Catholic Church" responsible for everything since Eden, etc., etc., etc. Major bore. I wish these sad people would at least come up with some new material and some new scripts. You read one conspiracy ranting and you've read them all.
Bret | 06.01.04 - 10:18 am | #

Grrrrrrr ... set Aslan loose on this idiot! Oh, wait ... Gipp is too dumb to be worth eating. Same old s...t, tiresome, boring, yadda yadda yadda ... Yawn ...
Patricia Gonzalez | 06.01.04 - 11:11 am | #

I don't know. As an illustrious Ph.D. candidate working for a university, I have been told seveal times by Jesuit Illuminati that if I taught about the thousands of true "born again" Christians laboring in the Middle Ages againt the tyranny of Rome, then the consequences would be heavy. Since then, I can't teach the truth, but I would keep my eyes on teh numbers of those "saved from Romanism" after all of these facts get out.

I could be wrong.
Jamie | 06.01.04 - 11:46 am | #

He's still on the Jesuit horse? I thought Opus Dei was the villain now...
JonathanR. | 06.01.04 - 2:19 pm | #

My mistake, they were Opus Dei disguised as Jesuits. The Infernal Eye never closes you know.

I could be wrong.
Jamie | 06.01.04 - 2:34 pm | #

Where's James White when you need him to slap down the KJV-Onlyists?
Tom R | 06.01.04 - 3:29 pm | #

Hon. Dr. Rev. White is busy masking his high blood pressure. I think he realized how alientaing his increasingly off-the-handle replies were becoming, so he has, it sounds to me, aimed to sound more moderate. The KJV-onlys was mere target practice for the stringent doctor. He's deadset on taking out the only thing worthy of his devotion to Christ -- and anyone that dares give Her the least slack.
Geistesweisheit | Homepage | 06.02.04 - 11:15 am | #

Jamie,

Small world. I just had to knife a sneering albino Jesuit (with a Masonic patch over one eye) in a dark alley on my way home from work this evening. Good thing I had my silver stiletto (the one I anointed with a Calvinist's blood, like you're supposed to). He was about to blow up a small Protestant church and then eviscerate a pregnant woman (all before heading to the Far East to assassinate a handful of political leaders). If the Jezzies ever turn up the heat, my advice to you is always go for the knees: they're tender as baby butts from never praying, dontchaknow.

Geistesweisheit | Homepage | 06.02.04 - 11:20 am | #