Bread From Heaven Unlimited is an apostolate for educating the public about the Truths of the Catholic Faith using modern media-print and internet. It is our tiny effort to counteract the bad press about the Catholic Church and supplement the catechesis in many modern parishes. This apostolate is dedicated to Holy Mary. And our other patrons are St. Francis de Sales, St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Josemaria Escriva, and John Paul II,

I am a Convert to the Catholic Church (1999) from a zealous Protestantism. I have been married for 32 years and we have seven children. The youngest was six when I converted. There are no Catholics in my family line as far as I know. My husband attends church with us but has not entered the Catholic Church, yet.

“There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church – which is, of course, quite a different thing.”

-Archbishop Fulton Sheen

73 Responses

  1. I like your blog site so far. I will check back often.

  2. How does a Catholic get to heaven? Is it true that you have to do good works, worship Mary and the Saints and do pilgrimages to be saved? What about grace? Is’nt that the whole purpose of Jesus coming to earth? He came to pay for our sins!

  3. Dear Sam,
    Catholics get to Heaven by the power and grace of God. We do not worship Mary that would be an abomination since she is merely a creature like ourselves. The good works that we do are in in obedience to Christ and in order to purify ourselves so that we can become holy as He is holy. But it is all of Grace. We cannot do anything worth while on our own.

  4. Nice blog! I am a Catholic currently attending a Baptist Church. I’m not sure if that makes me a former Catholic but I believe my children will consider themselves Baptists. I believe God has led me down this path for a reason. After 35 years of Catholicism, I could not answer the question of how or if I am going to Heaven. Even when I ask friends and family now that same question (current practicing Catholics), I get answers like “I’m working on it”, “I think so”, “I hope so”, or “no, I’m probably going to hell”. Not ALL Catholic Churches are doing this, but the ones that I and these people have gone to have not delivered the message, the Good News. It took going to another Church and Bible study for me to realize that through faith in Christ and repentance from sin, Heaven is assured. I disagree completely with one of the comments on the blog here, that you can lose your salvation, but we can discuss that another day. I believe that this is the Catholic belief as well (that faith in Christ and God’s grace get you to Heaven), but somewhere that message is being overshadowed by side issues like Purgatory, Mary, Saints, etc. That may be an outcome of the attacks that the Catholic Church has withstood and continues to withstand over the years, I don’t know. I will always consider myself Catholic (although I wonder if they still accept me now that I go to another Church) and have a deep respect for the Pope and the hierarchy. I must, as you seem to be, and we all should, follow the path which God directs for us and allow him to give us a good whack whenever we stray from his path. All of us who believe Christ died for our sins to bridge the gap between God and man so that we can be together with him again in eternity are Christian brothers and sisters. I look forward to the day when we all come together, despite our differences, and worship in spirit in truth, whether that be in this world or the next. Take care and keep blogging!Peace.

    • I cannot understand how any realtively intelligent human can embrace catholic beliefs. You only have to read the Bible to discern that their practices and beliefs are entirely man made and far from what Jesus Christ and the Apostles taught.

      • David,
        You can’t understand b/c you have only been exposed to Protestant teaching. Please prove to us using Scripture your statement:

        You only have to read the Bible to discern that their practices and beliefs are entirely man made and far from what Jesus Christ and the Apostles taught.

    • Gary,
      There are thousands of verses in Scripture that warn against falling away from the faith in various ways. Why would warnings be there if there was no danger of anyone losing their salvation. Just b/c Baptists answer the question about going to Heaven with a “yes” does not make it so. Catholics are more honest and realize they could sin in such a way to lose their salvation. But of course they could revive that through confession. I am sorry you were not taught this but the Catholic Church has been under attack by heretics in the Church for 40 years.

  5. Excellent blog. Thank you!

  6. Hi,
    I didn’t know how to ask a question on a new subject, so I am doing it here.
    What is the Catholic churches teaching on demons or evil spirits in regards to them giving us grief in our lives. I have a friend who is clairavoyant and she sees ghosts all the time. She has even seen small creatures that she says are demons, and they cause mischief. I’ve know her since childhood, and while she’s had the ability to see ghosts at an early age, her ability to see them (and demons) has increased with age (39 yrs old). She has seen a demon touch her husband while he was sleeping once, but she didn’t know what it was doing to him. I had gone to a Pentacostal church for a year, and they spoke of evil spirits attaching themselves to you to cause depression, fear, etc. I have also heard of spirits causing things to go wrong in your house. Are these evil spirits and demons one in the same? Does the Catholic church believe such things exist to cause us problems? I would think so since we believe in the need for exorcism. Thanks for your time and your resource.

    • Hi Cecilia,
      I certainly don’t pretend to be any sort of authority on this issue, but I am acquainted with some. A couple married friends of mine were having similar challenges to this friend of yours. They first sought help through our archdiocesan ‘expert’, and when he determined that an exorcism was not necessary, they subsequently went many other places. I don’t necessarily deny that she saw the evil spirits, or had issues with them, but I’m pretty sure the first priest was right in his diagnosis. We discovered later that she had been using drugs and being unfaithful to her husband the whole time. What she really needed was to accept the grace of repentance.

    • Hi Cecilia,

      Though I might be a late to respond to this since I just found this blog very helpful. ESP are part of Preternatural gifts endowed by God + Supernatural Gifts at the time Adam & Eve did not commit sin. It is when they committed the sin, these gifts are lost (not totally) because preternatural gift has been closed. Demons are fallen angels and from what I read from a book of Fr. Syquia (Philippines – Exorcism) they have this preternatural gifts and since they are spirit they are not bind by time or space. Indeed, demons doesn’t have supernatural gifts.

      What I can say here is that, exorcism in the Catholic Church do exist. I believe the Bishop in your place should decide who will be the Exorcist to assist them in this case.

      Hope you would find this useful.


  7. I don’t really have a comment as much as a question. Why do we celebrate Christmas when we do? Since no one really knows when Christ was born (biblical scholars seem to beleive it was in the spring), why Dec. 25th?

  8. Tim,
    There are two views but I believe that God has allowed His Church to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ on the right day or very close to it. This is not mandatory or a matter of faith, but why doubt it without very good reason?
    Argument for a late December Birth

    The argument for assigning late December as the rightful date of the birth of Yeshua is based on the time Zacharias was told that Elizabeth would conceive a child.

    1. Jesus’ cousin, John the Baptist, was conceived just after Yom Kippur and born 40 weeks later in (June/July).

    * John’s father (Zacharias) was a Levite who was assigned to serve in the temple during the 8th and 34 weeks of the year. If the Angel’s announcement to Zechariah was the 34th week that would have been during the High Holiday of Yom Kippur.
    * It is written that John was conceived shortly after this tour of duty (Luke 1:23-4), and Yom Kippur. Thus, John would have been born around (June/July).

    2. Jesus was conceived in (Mar/Apr), six months after John the Baptist (Luke 1:24-27, 36) near Passover, and born 40 weeks later during late December.

    Luke 1:36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month.

    3. Circumstantial Evidences:

    o Church history since the time of the late first century has attested to a late December birth. Hippolytus, in the second century AD, argued that this was Christ’s birthday. In the fourth century,

    John Chrysostom (347-407) argued that December 25th was the correct date. Chrysostom taught that Zechariah received the message about John’s birth on the Day of Atonement and John the Baptist was born sometime in June or July, and the birth of Jesus took place six months later, in late December (or early January). There was never a question about the period of Jesus’ birth either in the East or in the West; only in the recent years this date was challenged.
    Early Jewish sources suggest that the sheep around Bethlehem were outside year-round. In the normal traffic of shepherds they move around and come near Bethlehem from November to March of the year. But then these were a special class of Levitical shepherds who kept the sacrificial lambs. They do not move around because they supply the lambs for daily sacrifice from whom people bought their approved lambs, which are blemishless. The fact that the Angels announced the arrival of the perfect sacrificial lamb to these shepherds indicates this. The climate near Bethlehem is more like Southern California, it is after all Mediterranian. It is not a Canadian or Russian climate.

    Alfred Edersheim, a Messianic Jew, wrote, “There is no adequate reason for questioning the historical accuracy of this date. The objections generally made rest on grounds which seem to me historically untenable.”

    Edersheim notes that Megillot Taanit states that the 9th of Tevet is considered the day of Christ’s birth, and that puts the birth of Yeshua sometime during late December.

    If Zacharias served during Yom Kippur and Elizabeth conceived shortly thereafter, we can place the date of Jesus’ birth during the month of Tevet, in late December.

    Both views can be seen HERE

  9. Hello Sweet Friend,

    Thought you might enjoy this(I put it on TBC, too so you may have already seen it!)

    It is amazing and I pray it blesses you today!

    🙂 Ally

  10. Hi,

    I’ve read about your story of conversion and I hope you’ve had a fruitful decade of being a Catholic. Would just like to say that it’s odd for me to hear/read of people converting into Catholicism as opposed to those who choose to leave. I came about your blog during a time of personal trials. I thank God that I’ve stumbled upon your works and I must say, they answered some of my own questions. I was born a Catholic, studied in a Catholic school for 12 years and have still become doubtful at times. But somehow I cannot see myself shifting to another denomination.

    Keep up the good work and may God bless you always.

  11. I’m so happy I found your blog. I had to search Catholic to find it as Catholics don’t seem to be in the religion section-just angry atheists..which…really drain a person.

    Nice blog:)

  12. sorry, but if anyone preached a gospel to me , thats not in bible, they are a false church, catholic or any other cult, lets stop kidding on here , pope, and they teaching is lies, and half truths ,please if you are in a catholic church, get out, because a true catholic will never see heaven, and lies,mixed in with a little truth, add on works program for salvation , sorry people pointed hats and looking holy will not cut it, only christ, only christ, he died, not mary or pope on the cross, listen all catholics out there, your church is giving you mostly lies, so you can stay or leave,

  13. Dear George,

    Did you know that your assertion that if it is “not in the Bible, they are a false church, catholic or any other cult, ” is a tradition of men begun by Martin Luther.

    There is no scripture that teaches what you are asserting. The fact is that you and many other good Protestants have been taught lies, half truths, and distortions of what the Catholic Church teaches.

    For example: the “add on works program for salvation” Is one of those Protestant traditions. The Catholic Church does not believe that we can earn our salvation. Our salvation was accomplished by Jesus not by our good deeds.

  14. Hi,

    I’ve spent at least two hours on your site reading your posts and discussions in order to better understand how you view faith. I became interested in learning about Catholicism after reading the comments to a Time article about female priests.
    I was seriously disturbed by the posts that people made to this article and in attack of these women. I was struck by how deeply committed people were to the idea that if the Pope said it, then it must be law.
    Even now I don’t understand it. I get that the Pope is a representation of Christ and is the head of the Catholic church. But to me, he is obviously NOT the ultimate representation of God’s word.
    If these women feel that they are being called by God to serve Him and to proclaim His name, isn’t it a greater sin to command them to deny the will of God and to submit to the laws set by man. Of course, there is the chance that they are not being called by God, but isn’t that up to them? If anyone says that God is calling their name, it should be up to them to follow that path. Who are we to decide otherwise?

  15. Dear Joey,
    Thank you for your question. We believe that Jesus instituted the office of the Pope, when He made Peter the head of His church. We do believe that the Pope is guarded by the Holy Spirit to teach no error to the Church. You may not accept that as true. You have that freedom. Jesus did NOT ordain any women to the office of priest or bishop. If He wanted to do so, surely he would have ordained his mother, Holy and Immaculate Mary. But He did not. Therefore, the Pope cannot do so either. It has nothing to do with interpreting the Bible.

    The Church does not stop women from attempting to be ordained. They do it anyway. Of course it would be a sin to block the will of God but on what grounds can anyone be CERTAIN that it is God’s will to ordain women? Pride can insinuate itself into the life of the most devout people and make shipwreck of their lives. My question is:

    Why do these women want to be ordained to the Catholic Priesthood when they could seek much greater honor by seeking to be a Saint. Men and women can be declared Saints. This is the highest honor in the Catholic Church, even higher than the Pope. But, it is much, much easier to study and get ordained than to live authentic holiness day in and day out without any reins of power and authority.
    I cannot help but be suspicious of the purity of their intent.

  16. Do Catholics believe that protistants will not go to heaven? Also, would I be right in assuming that as a life long protistant, from a cathlic perspective, no communion I have ever taken has been an actual communion honored by God?

  17. Dear Liana,
    Protestants are not barred from Heaven.

    All people will be judged by God. He is merciful and just. You will be judged on what you knew and how well you lived what was pleasing to God. We will not be judged on what we never knew. For instance, all the people living in North America for thousands of years before Christianity touched these shores. We do not believe they are all going to Hell just because they were not Christians.

    Likewise every Catholic is not necessarily going to Heaven. We must die in friendship with God without mortal sin on our souls. But Catholics have the fullness of the teachings of Christianity and all of the sacramental channels of Grace to strengthen our souls for battle with Our Enemy.

    All Protestant communion is merely symbolic. It is a pleasant ritual but the Real Presence of Jesus, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is not received by the communicant.

    Therefore Protestants deny what Jesus said in John 6

    51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”……
    53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

  18. Women priests? A lot of people think that the pope or church is given too much power to decide who can or cannot be priest. Far from the truth. The fact is that the pope or church is powerless to change God’s law even if she wants to. Unlike most if not all the Protestant churches which think that they can change moral and faith matters by a popular vote, the Catholic Church cannot betray her Master who is the only reason for her existence. That’s why she also stands alone defending life (abortion, euthanasia), marriages (between a man and woman, and divorces), etc. The Church is in the world, but not of the world.

  19. Dear Pam

    I enjoyed reading your testimony very much. It reminds me of my own experiences during the last several years.

    I became a Christian in 1981 at a conference in Chicago where I met a man named Josh McDowell. He gave me a book he had written called, More Than a Carpenter. After I finished reading the book I prayed a prayer and accepted Christ as my Savior.

    Over the years I have read the Bible extensively and have easily read over 300 books written by Christian authors. I felt pretty comfortable with what I believed until someone challenged me about the doctrine known as “once saved, always saved.”

    I did an extensive, indepth two year study of the Bible and to my dismay discovered that the Bible does not actually teach this doctrine. Therefore, I rejected it.

    As you know, once a person rejects the doctrine of once saved, always saved their salvation becomes suspect in the mind of many people.

    I have come to see that John Calvin, (no offense intended) was a confused man. Once a person truly understands Calvin the absurdities become ever more apparent. If Calvin’s teaching on salvation were actually true it would not even be possible to know whether or not you are even saved. It has become apparent to me that the biggest barrier between Catholics and Protestants revolves around what each believes about how salvation is obtained.

    At present I am not attending any church because I do not believe the Bible teaches predestinaton or even once saved, always saved.

    I was taught from the moment I became a Christian that Catholicism is dangerous and evil so even the thought of becoming Catholic scares me. Ironically, I have discovered over the last few years that some of my favorite authors are Catholic. For example, Avery Cardinal Dulles wrote a great book called A History of Apologetics. I did find his middle name a little unusual. I later read his book called a Testimonial to Grace. I love Avery Dulles but continued to hate the Catholic Church. I reasoned he must be some kind of exception.

    I am currently in a very confused state. My mind tells me that Catholicism might be true. But my emotions find it difficult to reconcile all of the terrible sin committed by Catholics over the centuries.

    I continue to study and pray and I am determined to discover the truth. I am finding I am not as brave as I thought. Even the thought of telling people of my search for truth scares me. I have not had the courage to tell anyone of my search. Becoming Catholic is the scariest thing I can of.

    A few months ago, by pure chance, I found myself at a place called Holy Hill inside the National Shrine of Mary. For some reason my wife suddenly wanted to go there. (She is not Catholic) That night I had a dream about the Virgin Mary. In my dream, Mary was inside of a large mansion and I went to her and told her that she had no right to be there. She excused herself for a moment and came back with a deed to the mansion. During the dream she never spoke, she just looked at me and let me examine the deed. The dream ended with me just staring at the deed and wondering how she acquired it.

    Two nights later I had a dream about the Pope. I have always despised the Pope. I have always believed the Catholic Popes are corrupt. In my dream the Pope was walking up a hill and a large crowd was following him. I was watching all of this from a distance and then suddenly he focused his attention on me. We both prostrated ourself and ended up having a conversation while lying on the ground. He began talking to me and I apologized for not being a Catholic but he advised me to keep studying and to hear both sides of the argument before making a decision. I think that was the last thing I expected to hear him say.

    I could never share these dreams with anyone that I know. I wish I knew what these dreams meant. In particular, I don’t understand what the dream about Mary meant.

    This is my story. I was compelled to write after reading your testimony. Many of the things you said were very insightful and thought provoking.

    Best wishes


  20. I read your “Praying to Mary” blog and have received that explanation from Catholics. There is one additional piece to it, though, not answered and it’s the main piece that keeps me from accepting that ‘asking Mary and the saints’ to pray for us is ok. I understand and agree that Mary and the saints are alive with our Lord in heaven, as well as the idea of the strength of communal prayer. What I don’t get is that in order for Mary and the saints to hear all of our simultaneous prayers coming from all over the world at the same time, they would have to be both omniscient and omnipresent, both attributes ONLY God has. Therefore, we are making them mini-gods by assuming they can hear, process and react to all these prayers at the same time. How does the Catholic Church explain or answer this so as not to be mistakenly treating Mary and the saints of having powers that only God has? Until I understand this piece, I cannot accept that praying to them is anything but a violation of the first commandment… Thanks!!

    • Dear Sarah,
      The Catholic Church teaches that Mary and the Saints are human creatures only. They are not omnipresent or omniscient. They are not mini-gods. That is how the Catholic Church explains it.

      The Catholic Church can not explain anything in such a way as to prevent people from taking things wrong. That is why there are heresies. The fact that fallen creatures make mistakes about Catholic Doctrine is not the fault of the Church but the fault of our fallen sinful natures.

      How the Saints are able to hear and respond to our requests for intercessory prayer is a mystery. But, we do know that all things are possible with God. And we do know that it is by the power of God that they are enabled to intercede for us. How is this humanely possible? I don’t know. How is it possible for God to be man? Some things just require faith.

      I went on a Carmelite retreat last weekend and the priest told us that Satan has only one trick….Create doubt.

  21. Pam,
    My step-dad, Charlie Pinder, told me of your blog. I am enjoying reading it, and thank you for your learned research, and the sharing of what you have learned. Dad told me he spoke to you yesterday after Mass of me, and he suggested to me that I contact you.
    Debra Horton
    Winston-Salem, NC

    • Dear Debra, I just read all the posts on your blog. I was so touched. It is bittersweet. You seem so at peace and at least on the sweet side of bitter now….sigh…Blessed be God and Blessed be His Holy Name. He is your Father and He did rescue you. I must remember to pray for you as you journey towards the Easter Vigil. XOXOXO

      Peace Be With You, Pam Forrester bfhu.wordpress.com

  22. This is certainly an intriguing blog, especially as I am in fact a practicing protestant. I appreciate the fervor and passion you show in defending Catholic beliefs and reasoning through the Catholic doctrine. I don’t wish to start an argument, but I thought it important you know that I feel you’re slighting protestants and sweeping us with a stereotypical brush. Statements like:

    “This why [protestants] are constantly judging each other…”
    “There is only contradictory Protestant teaching and interpretation…”
    “Protestants never think of this…”
    “You can’t understand b/c you have only been exposed to Protestant teaching.”
    “Absolutely WRONG.”

    both frustrate and hurt me. I understand that you are very familiar with protestant beliefs (I read your conversion story) and don’t want to spend this time convincing you of any error in your arguments, just that the way you argue comes across harshly and not altogether kind. I hope that this isn’t the way you intend; writing on the internet often comes across in ways we never meant. I do want to learn more about the defense of the Catholic church, but the fashion in which it’s presented here causes me to instinctively become defensive.

    I will continue reading your blog and, really, thank you for the effort you’ve put into trying to counteract the Catholic Church’s bad press. Even this protestant appreciates it.

    • No, I do not mean to offend. Perhaps I should say, “When I was a Protestant….” instead of “Protestants” b/c of course not all Protestants are alike. I apologize. I do try very hard to be even handed but sometimes I am responding to the tone of the commenter. You are welcome to point out my offenses in the future.

  23. Dilon,

    Do not blame the converts, it is probably a remnant of Protestantism. Unlike cradle catholics, Protestants like to argue about the faith. However keep in mind, Pam is a great defender of the Church of the ages

  24. I am so pleased to be on your blog this morning. Thank you for the great work.

  25. Hey there.
    I’ve been told (by non-catholics) that we aren’t supposed to eat seafood and pork because it was a sin to do so in the times of Moses, why are we allowed to eat it now? Also, Moses allowed his people to divorce, so why does the Church forbid it now? As a Catholic myself, i feel so uninformed… could you help me?

    • Dear Hannah,
      God gave the Jews dietary laws about eating shell fish and pork. They could eat fish. But the dietary laws were made obsolete with the coming of Christ. Peter saw a vision of unclean food and God told him in the vision to kill and eat. There are other verses and the history of Christianity in which the dietary laws of the Jews are not observed in Christianity. But, no doubt there are Protestant sects in which they would follow the Jewish dietary laws because they believe in Sola Scriptura and believe they are bound to follow them because they are in the Old Testament and there is nothing explicit enough in the New Testament to convince them that they are no longer bound by the Jewish dietary laws.

      The Church does not forbid divorce. In fact, in some cases it may be the wisest thing to do, especially if there is danger to the wife or children by staying in the marriage and home. The divorce would be the legal way of settling finances. However, remarriage is what the Church proscribes unless the first marriage was in fact not a sacramental marriage. But, this must be determined and the marriage declared null before a person may contract a marriage after a divorce. Jesus told us this:

      Matthew 19:8-9 8 He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery .”

      Mark 10:11-12 And He *said to them, “ Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her;and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.”

      Luke 16:18 Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.

      Many Protestants believe that it is permitted to remarry if one of the partners commits adultery first b/c this breaks the covenant of marriage. And they base this on the Matthew passage. But that is not what the passage means. For a better explanation of why remarriage is not permitted read my post–>Did Jesus Say Adultery Is Grounds for Divorce?

  26. Let me say from the outset, that I have nothing but a deep love and respect for the Catholic Church, although I am not a member myself. Being Orthodox Christian, indeed I have nothing but love for all my brethren in Christ. It pains me to see the overreactive criticism against the Catholic Church. One must remember in all humility that “A crime within the Church is not of the church but against the Church”. Objectively speaking, the level of criticism levelled is hugely disproportionate and unfair to say the least. One must be remember and grateful for the Catholic Church’s contribution, regarding the building of Churches, Universities, Schools and Health Care around the world, which has enormously benefited society at large. Considering that some protestant churches have gone so liberal as to change not simply the meaning, but scripture itself to suit the fashions of secular society and be accepted by the culture of the day, the Catholic Church along with its fellow Orthodox and Conservative Protestants have stayed firm in the biblical values that are under attack from both secular and spiritual forces. Let us look for common ground, as a Catholic priest once said “In order to become one we must learn to love one another. In order to love one another we must first know one another”

    May the love of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit grant you a spirit of humility, peace, mercy and love on this most beautiful of occasions when our beloved Lord Jesus Christ was born.

  27. @ Terry: Hey, this may be the ideal place (“About’) for us instead of jamming up the “My Conversion” thread with OT’s.

    @ photographymemoirs: I checked out your site and appreciated very much your “world of view” from photographs and the art. You’ve captured such wonderful sights. I just graduated from a Sony NEX 5K to the 5R recently, but have to disclaim that I’m definitely not a pro like you.

    Thank you for sharing the goodwill and kind words. Yes, the Catholic Church is already alone as a bastion of orthodoxy as an institution. Many Christians (incl. some misguided Catholics) think that the Church is old-fashioned and out-dated; what they don’t understand is that she must remain faithful to her Master and cannot change the absolute truths by adapting them to the world. It’s very wonderful for individual orthodox Christians like yourself to join with the Church as a unified witness to a world which has grown cold and (the West) hostile to its Judeo-Christian heritage. Please share more of your experience and thoughts.

  28. @ Terry:

    “Benemerenti” is not a person. It is a Latin word meaning “To a well-deserving person” and the medal is a recognition of the great service to the Church of God from the Pope.

  29. Hi there, I appreciate your zeal for Christ. I was born and raised in the catholic church (aka, a cradle catholic). As a convert you understand core teachings that the majority of those that were raised in the faith do not. My whole family are PRACTISING cradle catholics – unfortunately, they have NO fruits… the reality is they don’t understand the gospel message. They don’t understand God’s standard and our failure to live up to His standard and that this is the reason that we need a savior. I’m not telling you this to argue with you theologically… I’m just telling you that the core of christianity is often not preached clearly in the RCC and to warn you (although perhaps not for yourself and your own children since you seem to have a wonderfully deep knowledge of the faith) but for the future of your family when they become cradle catholics and you are no longer around to guide them and make sure that they know the basics. Thanks and all the best to you and your family,


    • Dear Kristen,

      What you say is very true unfortunately. The last 50 years the Catholic Church has been through a period of poor catechesis and upheaval since the 2nd Vatican Council. But the good ship is righting itself slowly.

      • NONSENSE. Logic applies in all life. Therefore, all people can know the basic principles in life. Everything starts with a foundation. And those things that are strong and true will have a strong foundation. One that isn’t cracked. But the Catholic Church started with a cracked foundation. And only a fool would pass it off as something legitimate years down the road. If a foundation is bad, the only solution is to tear it down and rebuild!! But that will not happen. Because the mentality of the church is like the tower of Babel. It will require GOD to take care of the problem. And He will indeed!! The RCC is false. Always has been. Always will be. And if you ignore its history, then you you are walking in LIES. You are rejecting TRUTH. And that means you are rejecting SALVATION.


    People wonder why there is “no clear evidence of GOD”. Well there is if you look for it. But I can tell you this. There is clear evidence of where the Catholic Church came from. It came from SUN WORSHIP. And it has spread from the church over into mainstream cultures around the world.

    The Catholics have perverted the written Word to suit their evil agenda. History clearly shows the ties between sun worship, the pagan romans, and the forced assimilations of the Christians at the time. We ended up with a false Christianity. But thankfully, there were some “real” saints in this world that risked their lives to get us the TRUTH. You cannot look upon a “church” that has a long laundry list of crimes that is still being written to this day. Jesus never left such a stinky trail. And neither did his disciples. But the romans have been evil from the beginning. And they still are. Because they worship a false god. This is ongoing. Nothing has changed. It has been foretold!!

    Wake yourselves up. This website, like others, is leading people astray. And do you really think GOD will overlook it??

  31. It’s inspiring to know of your conversion to the Catholic faith. I hope you remain a Catholic.
    The Catholic Church is now undergoing a crisis. I think it was G. Chesterton who said that this is all the more treason to love the Church and stand by her in her our of need than to abandon her.
    In future comments I’ll try to explain the nature of this crisis and why we should stand up to defend – not abandon her.

  32. Greetings
    I Sarfraz Tomas from pakistan. I have studied your web site, and I found it the most wonderful site to get right to the True Word of God. My suggestion for you is to create your material in my language of Urdu, Punjabi, Hindi, Pashto, Sindhi, Sraiki, and Balochi also. It will bring lots of blessings of the Word of God for the Pakistani and Indian Urdu and Punjabi and other local languages speaking people. For that purpose, I as a translator will bring your material into my languages and into Indian language as well. I will be printing and distributing your material to my people around me. Although it will take your low expenses as well, as fund for the Word of God to reach out to the deserving people. I my self, work on a local radio station also. Many times it becomes difficult for us to keep doing this because of being minorities and because of the lack of the financial resources. I will wait for your response.
    Sincerely yours
    Sarfraz Tomas

  33. Hello,
    I could not find another way to contact you. I am currently trying to erase parts of my “online footprint” and a comment from 2007 I made on your blog shows up in search engines. Would you be able to delete this comment? This is the link:
    God Bless!

  34. I deleted your email and name. Is that good?

  35. Sorry to intrude on your web site as I was looking up something else and decided to read what you have to say. Yes I agree that the Catholic Church was formally established by Constantine, but Paul established other churches other than the Roman church headed by Peter. I think it is more important to consider that Peter confessed “you are the Christ” and this was the reason he is the rock- his confession. If the Catholic church is the true church it certainly has a bloody history which I don’t think Peter would approve of. This does not leave out the Protestants either as their history is just as bloody and yes started by men.. Now I have read how people try to justify these murders due to the political climate of the time, but I wish for once both would acknowledge this wrong doing instead of justifying it. This in my view breaks the chain of Popes. There is also something still on the books of the Catholic church about the Inquisition to this day but it is called something else now. Instead of trying to argue who is right why don’t you try to do something constructive instead of dividing. That goes for the Protestants also.

  36. To assert that the Catholic Church was “formally established” by Constantine is sadly just a folklore invented by very sinful and ignorant Protestants which is passing on bad information, misinformation or even a deliberate lie without examination. It is sad when someone won’t read a good history book instead of burying one’s head in anti-Catholic propaganda. Is that being Christian, honestly? Why not cast aside trashy literature and try reading a solid scholarly book like “The Apostasy that Wasn’t” by Rod Bennett?

    One of the fundamental rules about reading Scripture is taking its literal sense first before resorting to all sort of contorted ways to explain it away. In Mt 16:18, our Lord said: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.” What is the plain meaning of that verse? Christ was addressing Peter directly and it is very plain that He was saying that the Church would be built on Peter, the rock. Need more convincing? Our Lord was the one who changed the name “Simon” to “Peter”, and if one doesn’t know Aramaic (“Kepha” transliterated as “Cephas” is translated into English as Peter or Rock), the language spoken by Christ and the Apostles, let the last honest sola scripturalist at least believe Scripture when it even spells out most plainly: “You will be called Cephas (which means Rock)” (Jn 1:42).

    Most of us wonder about the Unpardonable Sin. Don’t get deceived by so readily accept the untruths and lies of the Evil One either directly and indirectly, and thus risk blaspheming the Spirit of Truth.

    • Most scholars agree that Mat 16:18 is a interpolation or a latter addition not related to what Christ said.Also as eminent biblical scholar Raymond Brown pointed out,Peter was no pope & the apostles were not bishops.I^m catholic or to be precise Roman Catholic.Catholic was given to the Christian church in general in the first millenium where there was no papal primacy over the whole church

  37. To Kim Albertini: Now that’s (sorry) silly for the outright dishonesty. Maybe it’s just ignorance but what should be accurately reported is that all the disquiet speculation from mostly anti-Catholic polemicists that Matthew 16 contained interpolations in contrast to Mark 8 and Luke 9 versions of the same story has had been discredited a long time ago because all the ancient manuscripts included the fuller version of Matthew 16 faithfully.

    As you must already know, it’s not uncommon to find many parallel incidents where the different gospels offer a variant account or even omitted some completely. I won’t go into the reasons here. Suffice to say that there’s consensus that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew to the first Jewish Christians and that it’s generally and (I think) very reasonably assumed that it’s because of Peter’s humility and modesty that he didn’t want Mark, his companion, to repeat or trumpeting the “triumphant” commission of governance and authority since it was already clearly stated in Matthew. Also, Mark’s intended gentile audience, unfamiliar with monarchical and cultural Jewish terms, would likely fail to connect the “keys” to Isa 22:22 for the significance of the event. And Luke was surely gentile too and whose goal was to “write an orderly account for (Theophilus).”

    The irony, as I see, is that someone like Kim is now actually questioning the inerrancy of Scripture itself. I guess that I shouldn’t be surprised when a Protestant already pedestalizes private judgment above Authority.

    • Theres nothing wrong with private judgement provided that its well formed. In the first millenium there was no papal primacy because the church in general did not view what was written in Mathew as something involving a papacy ruling over the whole church,that is historical fact. Raymond Brown a pre-eminent Catholic scholar respected by the hierarchy stated based on historical fact—Peter was no pope or bishop or priest & neither were the rest of the apostles.Thats historical reality. What you quote is simply a interpolation,all this came latter. Now you do have a good argument for the papacy as in the spirit of peter based on the fact he died in Rome. However this is not to be understood as what the pope says,is what Peter would say.We^ve had popes hail slavery as morally licit,sex in marriage a necessary evil tainted with sin,charging interest on a loan always immoral,unbaptized children going to hell,democracy condemned etc. All this has changed because the people,who are the church as well,rejected this nonsense & eventually change took place

  38. To Kim Albertini: You know the answer already and there’s plenty wrong with your private judgment since it is very badly formed.

    Mt 16:18-19 doesn’t stand on its own. We look at the the rest of Scripture like Lk 22:32 and Jn 21:15-17 for affirmation. We can also clearly see in Scripture how Peter was the leader of the Apostles and the unique role he played in the early Church. What are you really expecting from the “first millenium” Church? It was a time of great persecution of Christians who had to worship secretly in catacombs and a springtime of church planting and germinating of faith from its mustard-seed beginning. Peter had to use coded word “Babylon” for Rome for his safety. They also killed all the first 33 popes in martyrdom (Peter, Linus, Anacletus, Clement I, Evaristus, Alexander I, etc.). In any case, you cannot be more presumptuous about the no-show of Petrine Office in the early Church. In Acts 15, Peter “spoke and all the assembly kept silence.” In AD 70, Pope Clement I had to exercise his authority from Rome to correct an apostolic community at Corinth (Yes, the same factious and licentious Corinthian Christians reprimanded by Paul earlier). In fact, John the Apostle was still alive (and closer to Corinth) so he could have but didn’t “protest” papal intervention if he objected. So many other examples to cite but you, Kim, have to take time to research them for yourself.

    Another of your obvious flawed “private judgment” is posturing that the early Church already had all her theological languages fully developed. You cannot have missed say all the fierce Christological debates in the first centuries of Christianity. As Christians, we believe that a truth is always a truth in eternity and thus the definition of Trinity or Papal Infallibility are merely a growth in the understanding with more theological precision and exactness of something that’s already truth. The fact that the doctrine of the Trinity was defined a few hundred years after the birth of Christianity didn’t negate the eternal truth that we have a triune God. The fact that Petrine Office took awhile to be fulfilled and fully implemented doesn’t negate this truth that it was established and prophesied in Mt 16:18-19.

    • Buddy get private judgement out of your head.It was the private judgement of laity that sent teachings condemning usury,democracy,freedom of the press,male/female children being taught in the same class etc, all out the window.After the Council Of Nicae,as Cardinal Newman pointed out in his consulting the laity in matters of doctrine,that most Bishops embraced the arian heresy that Christ was created.Pope Liberius signed the Arian confession.It was the laity that resisted under jail,torture,imprisonment before their belief that Christ was true God prevailed. As far as Peter goes,he was not different than the other apostles in the New Testament church.James made the final decision in the council of jerusalem & Paul resisted him when he wanted to impose circumcision on adult gentile converts. Are you forgetting what Christ said to Peter….”stay behind me satan.” As far as clement went,when he sent that letter to corinth,he made no claim to any special priveledge or authority from rome.He had to rely on persuasion & exhortation, & rhetoric simply because he knew he could not claim any primacy or special status.As far as rome went at that time,there was scattered small house churches, scattered throughout the city with presbyters residing,clement being one of them with no monarchical bishop.He acted as with the other presbyters in rome as a kind of foreign minister,not its bishop

  39. To Kim Albetini: Will you care to show me plainly in the bible or otherwise where it teaches what you termed “usury, democracy, freedom of the press, male/felmale children being taught in the same class, etc.”? No, Pope Liberius was not an Arian and did not sign any Arian Confession so study your history more diligently. I think that you owe Blessed John Cardinal Newman an apology for misquoting him. So when did Paul ever resist Peter because he, Peter, wanted to impose circumcision? I think that you mis-read Acts 15. and anyway, wasn’t it Paul who had Timothy circumcised instead? So what does it mean when Christ said “Get behind me, Satan”? I will treat the rest of your reply as unresponsive.

  40. Galatians 2:11====Paul resisted Peter to his face because he was clearly wrong
    Condemnation Of Usury Neh 5:10
    PS 15:5 EZ 18:3 18:17 22:12
    Condemned by councils Nicae Lateran,2nd council of Lyon,Vienne

    Yes read Newman^s Consulting the faithful on matters of Doctrine,Liberius DID sign the Arian confession,just like the 3rd Council of Constantinople condemned Pope honorius for heresy

    No Paul didn^t get timothy circumcized,he preached against circumcision.It was not needed anymore.

    Mathew 16 vs 23 Jesus to Peter “get behind me satan,you are a stumbling block to me”

    Look i support the papacy & there are legitimate ways to defend it but claiming Peter was a pope is not historically sound

  41. To Kim Albertini: I really think that you need to posit your objection(s) better. The examples you gave are irrelevant to the OP discussion of papal primacy. It seems that you oftentimes confused it with the doctrine of papal infallibility and other times, of the concupiscence which we all experienced in general.

    Nevertheless, I will briefly answer you …

    1) Gal 2:11. What of Paul’s rebuff? I see here Paul’s own failure to follow the biblical prescription of fraternal correction in a private setting in accordance with Jn 21:15-17. Even then, I’m not so sure that that Peter did anything wrong by trying not to scandalize or present the possibility of causing someone “to stumble …(because) of what we eat … meat or drink wine or do anything” even for the Judaizers (Rom 14:21). We should read Gal 2 with 1 Cor 8 to better appreciate the delicate situation of the infusion of Gentile Christians during this earliest period of Christianity (BTW, the “Cephas” may even be a mistaken identity of another disciple of the Seventy!).

    2) Condemnation of Usury. While it is correct that the Church has had consistently condemned usury in the most official way, we must still need to interpret her decrees properly. Neh 5:10 cannot be taken in isolation (text proofing) without considering Deut 23:19-21 or our Lord’s own words in the parable of the Talents (Mt 25:27) where He chided the lazy servant for failing to receive any return on his master’s money: “You ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest.” Thus there is not intrinsic immorality and blanket condemnation of “interest taking.” The Church urges us to be good stewards in lending especially to the poor in justice, mercy and the love of God.

    3) You have misread Popes Liberius and Honorius completely. Maybe a topic for another time.

    4) Yes, Paul did cause Timothy to be circumcised (See Acts 16:3).

    5) Yes, Peter was trying to dissuade our Lord in his peccable human way. Again, this has nothing to do with the doctrine of papal primacy.

    • 1)No scholar would agree with what you say for explanation one
      2)The Vatican Bank charges usury today,basically that was one of many church teachings that got thrown out because the people saw nothing wrong in a economic society to charge a little interest
      3)No Pope Honorius is mentioned & condemned in the 3rd Council Of Constantinople. St Athanasius who defended Christ as True God was excommunicated by Liberius
      4) Paul like Peter erred,wow their human after all,but Peter wanted to maintain this after Paul realized it had nothing to do with faith
      5) Neither does Mathew 16 reveal papal primacy.We see Peter not showing primacy over the other apostles & it was not practised in the first 1,000 years of Christianity over the whole church,

      Yes I do believe in papal primacy placed in the context of Collegiality that the Second Vatican council tried to do.A first amongst equals for the pope.Instead popes after rejected collegiality & continued to rule as autocrats

  42. To Kim Albertini:

    1) If that’s the case, why are you so work up about reconstruction theology?

    2) You’re not reading what I wrote. Are you calling Christ a liar? The Church didn’t change her teachings on usury. What she did was to define usury to make it clearer in a modern world of changing economics, etc.

    3) You need to investigate more yourself. It’s pathetic and even embarrassing to hold such a view today.

    4) If you insist to bury your head in the sand, so be it.

    5) You’re blind biblical and historically. What can I say?

    6) I’m beginning to really feel sorry for you. Maybe you should find another place where you can have better company. Be blissful in your ignorance.

    Sorry, I can’t help someone who doesn’t want to be helped. What are you doing in a Catholic blog anyway?

  43. Here’s what I wrote on another blog the other day …

    About Pope Honorius.

    It was a time of much intense Christology debates in the early Church. Christian orthodoxy taught that Christ has a divine will and a human will. Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople had privately consulted Pope Honorius about his difficulty that Christ’s human will can “oppose” the divine will by proposing that there should be only the one divine will in Christ’s dual nature. It’s now a matter of correctly interpreting Pope Honorius’ reply. Apparently from the extant Greek translation of the content of correspondences, it can be reasonably deduced that Pope Honorius had responded to only address the specific concern of the human will of Christ with the implied agreement of its pre-existence. Pope Honorius explained that Christ only assumed the type of human will before Adam’s fall, that is without the concupiscence and thus proper to speculate on the theological possibility that the peaked faultless human will of Christ cannot oppose his divine will or the Father’s. So when Pope Honorius spoke of the “one will” of Christ, he was alluding to the two wills experienced by humanity: one before the Fall and the other inherited “vitiata natura” after the Fall (which can possibility “oppose” the divine will due to concupiscence). This is further clarified by Pope Honorius’ second letter which more clearly explained his orthodoxy in the belief of the dual human and divine will of Christ.

    In his days, Pope Honorius was much respected and his reputation was unsullied. His successor, Pope John IV (AD 640), also rightly commented that “Sergius had asked only about the presence of two opposing wills … and Honorius had answered accordingly, speaking only of the human and not also of the divine nature.” Meanwhile, the opportunistic proponents of the heresy of Monothelitism had seized and decontextualized Pope Honorius’s innocuous statement of “one will” to rally their cause that Christ had no human will. When the Third Council of Constantinople convened, Pope Honorius was not implicated in the heresy with Sergio and the Monthelites. It was only in the 13th session that the council added the condemnation of Pope Honorius. Pope Agatho died before the end of the Council. His successor, Pope Leo II, confirmed the Council but further explained that his predecessor, Pope Honorius, was not guilty of material heresy: “With Honorius, who did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence.”

    So it is very clear that Pope Honorius never taught privately or dogmatically nor promulgated a heresy. His critics were only dissatisfied that he had failed to use his Office to more forcefully suppress or squelch the rise of a heresy during his pontificate. His act of omission (ironically, the failure to publish authoritatively or spoke “ex cathedra” in the more modern language) should never impact and indeed, irrelevant to the discussion of Papal Infallibility. All this should end the saga of Pope Honorius but polemicists would continue to abuse and distort history to protest the formulation of the doctrine of Infallibility and/or to attempt to diminish the Petrine Office.

    Infallibility does not mean a Pope always has the absolute best way to deal with every problem. In Ronald Knox’s letter to Arnold Lunn: “To the best of his human wisdom, (Honorius) thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled for the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was an inopportunist. We, wise after the event, say that he was wrong. But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine.”

    Just like the popes are not impeccable, the conduct of an Ecumenical Council is not beyond reproach too. In my opinion and many others, the Third Council of Constantinople (also called the Sixth Ecumenical Council) was imprudent for not defending Pope Honorius. While it did distinguish Pope Honorius only as heretical “not in intention but fact” (meaning without necessarily involving his consent and understanding) for his inaction, it has had also allowed unscrupulous people like Dollinger to attempt to use the harsh old language of “anathema” of a sixth century Council to confuse and confound a modern reader’s sensibility.

    As pointed out already, Dollinger is unreliable. If interested, you may want to seek out Blessed John Cardinal Newman who wrote about Infallibility, the exercise of Rationcination and folly of his contemporary, Dollinger (See http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/11/dollingers-liberal-old-catholics-and.html). Closer to Pope Honorius I, you can find his contemporaries, Sts. Bellarmine and Maximus, who also wrote extensively in defending his orthodoxy.

    I hope that I’ve at least present another plausible explanation of Pope Honorius for your consideration. Much God’s blessings on your honesty and integrity of wanting to do the Father’s will more perfectly. But while still on this side of the veil, we should learn humility by allowing Mother Church to teach and illumine through her ancient wisdom because, unlike our Lord, we have concupiscence.

  44. Yes it did change the teaching.How did we go to excommunication,heresy, & refusal for christian burial for anyone who charged usury to the vatican bank charging usury & millions upon millions of Catholics recieving it in bank acoounts,investments & statements . Your simply denying historical facts. Subsequent Popes after Constantinople III affirmed Honorius^s condemnation

    Christ did not institute the papacy,thats why if popes interefered in another Bishop^s office,they were told to bugger off. Read up on history

  45. To Kim Albertini: It’s a very heavy responsibility to assert one’s private judgment with moral and theological certitude against the Church. Since you cannot produce anything to support your view (Sorry, making spurious statements and citing suspect sources – which you obviously never read for yourself – will not do here), I will not reply to you again unless you have something important which you want me to clarify for you. I wish you the best in your quest for truth. Much blessings,

  46. your not providing anything to support yours.Give me one statement in the first 7 ecumenical councils or one example of a pope assserting primacy over the first 1,000 years Look up the council of vienne,lyons ii in their condemnation of usury.Any usury was unnaceptable. give me an example of peter asserting primacy over the apostles historical reality from a church that has changed & will continue to change

  47. To Kim Albertini:

    1) Papal primacy. There are overwhelming evidences like …

    A rogue Council disciplined and nullified by a Pope. The Second Council of Ephesus in AD 449 (with characteristics of being “Ecumenical” status except for its failure, as noted below, to be ratified by papal authority for legitimacy and thus binding on the whole Church) attempted to affirm the Monophysite heresy and condemn its opponents. The papal legate Hilarius protested “Contradicitur!” Subsequently, Pope Leo used his papal authority to reject the Council (now called the “Robber Council”) as invalid and nullified, a decision accepted by the whole Church. At the following Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in AD 451, Pope Leo’s “tome” affirming the Petrine ministry and orthodoxy would be read into record by exclamation: “Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles.” Also notable was the attempt at Chalcedon to introduce a “innovative” canonical insertion to elevate the ecclesiastical status of Constantinople to be “second place after Rome.” After the Council concluded and when its canonical actions were sent to Pope Leo for ratification, he struck down Canon 28 as violating the prerogatives of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem and being contrary to the Council of Nicaea earlier. With that, Pope Leo exercised his authority to undo and remove Canon 28. Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople also wrote a letter of apology to the Pope for this incident.

    2) Usury. Again, the practice is not intrinsically evil like what you want to believe (Otherwise, Christ would be teaching errors with the Parable of the Talents). This is not a faith doctrinal and moral issue but a social teaching which did indeed change to adapt to the modern economic system with a clearer theological definition of usury. As far as I know, the Vatican Bank does not make personal loans so I don’t know what’s your gripe about it? Yes, it is still sinful to take advantage of the poor but it’s no sin to place a reasonable time value on money (Yes, I’ve personally lend quite a bit of monies to friends – and who are/were not even destitute – but never charge any interest on them. Yes, some have had taken advantage and never even repay the loans) in modern banking practices. Again, you can do a fuller research yourself if you want to know more about the development of this social teaching by the Catholic Church.

  48. Leo^s Tome was submitted to a commitee before approval.When it was approved they said Peter spoke thru Leo just like Peter spoke thru Cyril a Bishop Of Alexandria. As far as Ephesus goes it was called(like the other coucils by the Emperor,popes were subordinate to emperors then. The second council of Ephesus is NOT Ecumenical. Popes played roles at councils but there was no recognition of a special status or primacy.Rome was a apostolic see like Constantinople & Alexandria.

    Your talking about the poor ? I^m talking about Catholics having bank accounts,GIC^s,mutual funds collecting interest.Business borrowing money with interest on loan to expand.This was all condemned.Now its part of economic life.Yes its bad to rip off the poor,that is to be condemned.But church authority condemned even a business or well off individual lending money on interest in order to make money. yes the vatican bank lends money with interest & priests retirement funds collect usury

  49. 1) Sorry, I’ve no time to rewrite history like you …. Here’s the full affirmation of the Tome:

    “Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe.”

    It seems abundantly clear to me: Peter has spoken through Pope Leo. Cyril has also taught in agreement with Pope Leo. But Peter has NOT spoken through Cyril.

    Please also read this “Justinian Contex”, an aggregation of existing laws compiled under the sponsorship of Julinian I, ruler and emperor of the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire.

    “With honor to the Apostolic See … we have exerted Ourselves to unite all the priests of the East and subject them to the See of Your Holiness … are constantly firmly observed and preached by all priests because you are the head of all the Holy Churches, for We shall exert Ourselves in every way (as has already been stated), to increase the honor and authority of your See.”

    So you can believe all you want of the supremacy of a secular power over the temporal and spiritual matters. The Emperors did not agree with you …

    Sorry, the Second Council of Ephesus would be a valid heretical Ecumenical Council if Pope Leo did not nullify it. You can argue with history as much as you want.

    2) Let it be known that from today’s onward, Kim Albertini will not have an interest bearing account with any bank, credit union, fraternity and other institution. Nor will she own a debit or credit card, a student loan, or a mortgage or car payment loan since she does not want to participate in any such scheme which can incur a charge (profit for the business) for using the convenience of it. Let Kim Albertini also not patronize any shop or business which is for profit. This is your private decision and is very commendable indeed.

    Take care,

  50. Obviously they weren^t concerned about Peter speaking when they condemned pope Honorius at the 3rd Council Of Constantinople. Truth is they reviewed what Leo said before they spoke,since Leo hailed Jesus was true God & True man,it confirmed an apostolic belief.If however leo wrote the opposite thay would not say that.By saying Cyril did teach as with Leo back in Ephesus,Cyril too was being confirmed as peter speaking,if judged to be of apostolic faith.Obviously very few church teachings are apostolic in the true sense

    Who called & confirmed Councils—-The Emperor period. If he wanted to dissolve one he could & no pope could stop him. Ephesus was called by Emperor with his approval

    Your statement for # 2 is incomprehensible. But yes the catholic church condemned all that at one time,get out of your plastic bubble. are you saying you have no money or investments collecting interest. Slavery too was sanctioned by the church,Pius the IX clearly stated it is not against natural law

  51. To Kim Albertini:

    Actually, you cannot be more wrong to think that only the Emperor called and confirmed Church Councils. It’s an absurdity and nonsense that doesn’t even merit a response from me.

    And you find #2 incomprehensible because you don’t even have a clue what you’re objecting about. I guess that I gave you too much credit to think that you want to be a heroic virtuous person by vowing to not take any type of return on your monies and investments. So what you want to do is screaming usury and criticizing Catholics for just opening an interest-bearing bank account and then never thinking that you may be bound by the same standards? What pharisaical hypocrisy!

    Anyway, I’ve already answer all your questions very adequately. I don’t think that you are serious about find truth so this is wishing you much luck in forming all your private judgments wisely. Bye.

    • Yes they called the councils in the first milleniam—strike one again
      Your thinking of the second millenium but dont forget the Council of Constance ascerted councils had authority over the pope.Of course popes were part of a council.

      You are out to lunch sir,the church condemned harshly interest-bearing of any kind. My point was its your conscience that rules supreme not the pope.Provided it is informed & upright.As Cardinak Newman once said,”I drink to the pope but conscience first”

      Its not private judgement,its historical reality

  52. To Kim Albertini:

    Don’t congratulate yourself so quickly. Your original statement “Who CALLED and CONFIRMED Councils—-The Emperor period” is what’s so preposterous.

    Don’t pervert history. Yes, the emperor (usually after consulting a Pope) would call a council for Pax Romana and stability of the empire due to seditious heretics and unsettled theological questions. All the early Councils were called in the East and each would have remain a local or regional Council with no application for the universal Church until it was ratified by a Pope. A Pope didn’t even have to be present or be represented by legates at the Council.

    1. Council of Nicaea (325)
    Ratified by Pope St. Sylvester I (314 – 335 pontificate)

    2. First Council of Constantinople (381)
    It was a local council of the East. Its Creed revision not received by the Latin Church until Chalcedon (451).

    3. Council of Ephesus (431)
    Ratified by Pope Celestine I (421-432 Pontificate)

    4. Council of Chalcedon (451)
    Ratified by Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461 Pontificate)

    5. Council of Constantinople II (553)
    Ratified by Pope Vigilius (537-555 Pontificate)

    Have you ever wonder why the EO haven’t been able to call an Ecumenical Council for a thousand years since the schism? No such problem with the Catholic Church which is in communion with the successors of Peter!

    I only replied again because I don’t want you to think that you are right and so mislead other readers with your bad information. You have a serious deficit with reading comprehension and retention particularly of history. A faculty for critical thinking is also needed for theological discussions.

    Peace of Christ,

    • Once again,Emperors called councils ONLY not popes.Cite where a pope called a Ecumenical Council & everybody else followed in the first 1,000 years.A pope rartifying it, is no different from other bishops at the time rarifying it.Rome was just another apostolic see like Constantinople,Alexandria etc

      The Eastern Orthodox church hasnT called a Ecumeniocal Council because for it to be Ecumenical,it must include THE WHOLE OF CHRISTENDOM(thats the reason they give ). Its is a farce to call any Council after Nicae II as Ecumenical.The Eastern church(who are no less Catholic) are following what has always been understood to be Ecumenical & what is not. Your living a life in deception

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: