Typical Exchange Between An Anti-Catholic And A Catholic Apologist

Here is most of the exchange between me and a fellow who can't be bothered by facts in his dealings with members of the Roman Catholic Church. I may be missing a couple e-mails. I only edited this exchange to alleviate the reader of repetitious postings. Per this person's request, I have removed his last name and e-mail address from this exchange. I don't blame him for requesting that, since I would have asked the same judging by his ignorant responses and obvious bigotry. If you would like his name and address, let me know and I will send your address and request to him.

My email address ("ddrchurch@usaor.net") in this exchange is old. You can currently reach me at (" ").

I challenge you to play a little game with this information. See if you can find any place where Gary ever gives a fact, Scripture verse (in context), or logical argument to defend his immature tirades against the Church Christ founded. If you find any that I have missed (which would equal any over the number zero), let me know. But, since I played this same game a couple years ago with another religious intolerant, I ended this one relatively quickly.

Since this exchange, I've had a few others. One of them was worth putting on the site. You can get to it by clicking here.

The way this all started is that I went onto this gentleman's web site and found a supposed quotation from a papal document entitled Unam Sanctam. I noticed that in this persons eagerness to post something that he thought was damning to the Church, he could not take the time to verify whether the quotation was accurate or not. I think this picks up after my first e-mail to him asking him where he got the quotation from:

Subject: Unam Sanctum
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:31:07 -0500
From: g***@***.net (Gary ***)
Organization: Tentmaker
To: "'ddrchurch@usaor.net'" <ddrchurch@usaor.net>

I copied the quote out of a book entitled "Romanism and the Reformation" by Grattan Guinness. I am searching to see whether the quote was a paraphrase or a direct quote from the Pope's own words. Regardless, the words in my quote are clear reflections of the voices of many Popes including Bonifice. One can read the arrogance and pride even in your version of "Unam Sanctum." You speak of the salvation of my soul. Sir, your blood-stained church nor any of your greedy dark-minded popes can purchase my salvation. It is not in their hands to do so. The blood of Christ purchased my salvation and even the salvation of the whole world. "And I if I am lifted up from the earth will draw (drag in the original Greek) all mankind unto Myself." John 12:32 Jesus Christ has already saved all mankind, although all the heretic popes deny this. Salvation is from God alone through the act of Jesus Christ, not some power driven man.

I too have gone to many churches looking for truth, but one of the last places in the world one would truly find Truth would be in the ROMAN Catholic church. Surely your search has been a most careless one.


Subject:
RE: Unam Sanctum
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 16:30:25 -0500
From: g***@***.net (Gary ***)
Organization: Tentmaker
To: "'Don Ross'" <ddrchurch@usaor.net>

-----Original Message-----
From:  Don Ross [SMTP:ddrchurch@usaor.net]
Sent:  Wednesday, October 15, 1997 4:14 PM
To:    Gary ***
Subject:       Re: Unam Sanctum

Gary,

How sad it is that some people are so blinded by their desire to have a religion of convenience rather than that which Christ established for us.

It is also sad that someone who seems as intelligent as you would say such absurd things about men and a faith which is the only one that can be traced back to Christ. You, my friend, have been disillusioned and lied to. Your church cannot trace its existence any further back than Luther (or some heretical sects a few centuries before Luther).
[Gary ***] I only know one body of Christ and it is not denominational in any form whether "Roman" Catholic or Protestant. So you err regarding my church affiliation. I do not hold Luther in any higher regard than your Popes, both camps are quite arrogant and blind. I have a little publication entitled "Martin Luther-Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor" much of which I put in audio form which you might be interested in. I'll gladly send you a copy if you like. Anyway, I have no more regard for Protestantism than Romanism.

I would love to have the opportunity to help you understand your faulty understanding of Christianity.
[Gary ***] You "ass"ume my understanding of Christianity is faulty. You do not know what I have read nor my involvement or lack of involvement in the Catholic Church. It would seem appropriate for you to get to know me a little before "ass"uming I don't already know what you are going to say.

But, in order to do that, we would have to first establish some basics which I am sure you ahev not delved into very deeply. One of the basics is the origin of the Bible. You are very quick to quote from Holy Scripture, and yet you do not acknowledge its origin. Were you to do such, you would invariably have to come to a conclusion that is obviously abhorent to you, and that is that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded. I say it is abhorent to you not because you have come to an understanding of the Catholic Church from study, but because you are predisposed to hate the Catholic Church and everything that you mistakenly believe it is.
[Gary ***] The origin of the Bible is neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant. The Bible is from the Jews, both the New and the Old Testament. Paul, Peter, James, Matthew...none of them were Roman Catholics, they ALL were Jews and contrary to your Unam Sanctum, salvation is not of the Popes, nor their institution, nor her tradition...the Roman Catholic Bible tells us that salvation is of the Jews!!!" And so is the Bible.

Please let me know if you have the courage to take the challenge to look into the Truth. I have no fear, and I do not have to resort to unsubstantiated accusations as you did in your most recent post. I have Christ's Church on my side. And, I have am blessed to know that I have the communion of Saints, Mary and and Joseph to support me and my Church.
[Gary ***] Again you make many assumptions. When was the last time Joseph and Mary personally spoke with you? When was the last time Jesus Christ of Nazareth spoke to you? You base all your assumptions upon tradition, not Scripture nor direct revelation.

God bless you and I look forward to hearing from you,
Don

ps, I would ask that you eliminate the faulty quoatation if you have any interest in presenting an honest picture of the Catholic Church on your web site. However, if this is not your intention, then by all means keep such silliness on your site - it is a beacon to all honest Catholics of your
ignorance of Christ's Church.
[Gary ***] I am searching the matter out and if I misquoted the Unam Sanctum, I will certainly correct it. Either one shows the arrogance of the Pope. And since you got me stirred, I will add a few more "Roman" Catholic documents like Pope Pius IX Syllabus. Here's another site you may want to correct. This one also has quite a few anti-Pope articles. http://www.vabch.com/tigger/cathin.htm

Gary *** wrote:

> I copied the quote out of a book entitled "Romanism and the Reformation"
by...< (I have edited the following text, it is nothing more than the above e-mail at the beginning of this page.)

Subject: RE: Unam Sanctum
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 18:42:43 -0500
From: g***@***.net (Gary ***)
Organization: Tentmaker
To: "'Don Ross'" <ddrchurch@usaor.net>

It's quite apparent we are not going to get anywhere. You consider your "traditions" as truth. I consider your traditions as simply that... "You have made the word of God of no effect by your traditions." Furthermore, you do not know what I believe and yet you judge AND quite incorrectly. I can go to your "traditions" and tell you what you believe, but you do not know me. You say that I have appointed myself "reverend." The Bible clearly teaches men not to call themselves blasphemies such as "Vicar of Christ, Father, Teacher, or reverend. I did an article on that subject. I do not call myself "reverend" but you bow down to a host of demons who love
to be called by all sorts of abominable names.

The body of Christ does not have to be "organized" into a denominational structure of the hideous proportions of the Roman Catholic church. The early Christians met in homes and did not secumb to man-made titles like Pope and Cardinal until the church fell into darkness. The early church taught the salvation of all mankind. It did not believe in a God who delights in torturing most of mankind. The early Christians knew this awful kind of teaching as pagan. It was not until the Catholic Church became "Romanized" that the church began to teach and practice the same pagan rituals and traditions as the pagan tribes of Europe. The word Catholic merely means Universal. I have no problem with the Catholic Church, but the Roman Catholic church is far from the pristine Catholic Church of the early few centuries. The Roman Catholic church is nothing but the conglomeration of all the foul and wicked practices of all the pagan traditions of Egypt, Germany, Babylon, and the Druids.

The visible "church" does not have to have buildings and all sorts of extra-biblical traditions to be a "light on a hill." The Roman Catholic church has burned many true Christians on hills. There you will see the true Christians and their light, lit by Roman Catholic priests, those whom the Catholic church has sought to snuff out over the last 1600 years and still continues to do so.

Your god is so hideous, that you have to hide Him behind Mary (which means bitter in Hebrew.) I have met and spoken with countless Roman Catholics, even as early as yesterday who were told not to read the Bible, who were told to go to Mary because God the Father and His son were too angry to deal with. I talked to Catholics even yesterday who told me of some of the abominable things that go on in confessions. No, Don, your religion is hideous and demonic and I want nothing to do with it. It goes against love and everything that is good. It's cruel and its god is a tyrant. Your history is black as coal and the future your religion paints is dark. Why, none of you have assurance of your salvation even though you are members of your own church. No you have nothing but gross darkness to offer. Salvation is surely not in the Roman Catholic Church. I was an atheist for 37 years. If I only had a choice of going back to atheism or Roman Catholicism, I would surely pick atheism. No God is much better than your god who is a fiend.

But enough of this talk. It's obvious we will get nowhere in our discussions. Your traditions have completely blinded you and I am obviously not the person who has the power to open your eyes. It will take someone far greater than I to heal you of your disease. My Savior was loving and powerful enough to deliver me from atheism. I'm sure He is powerful and loving enough to one day deliver you from a poison greater than atheism...Roman Catholicism. As a matter of fact, it was the nuns and priests I was taught by as a little boy who drove me to atheism. Thank God, eventually the Good Shepherd left heaven to bring me into His kingdom, despite the cruel ways those who claim to be His shepherds treat little children. Good by. I leave you in the Hands of our Maker who will one day restore your soul and deliver you from the darkness of Romanism. In Him,
Gary

-----Original Message-----
From:  Don Ross [SMTP:ddrchurch@usaor.net]
Sent:  Wednesday, October 15, 1997 5:52 PM
To:    Gary ***
Subject:       Re: Unam Sanctum

Gary, please find my comments below:

Gary *** wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From:  Don Ross [SMTP:ddrchurch@usaor.net]
> Sent:  Wednesday, October 15, 1997 4:14 PM
> To:    Gary ***
> Subject:       Re: Unam Sanctum
>
> Gary,
>
> How sad it is that some people are so blinded by their desire to have a
> religion of convenience rather than that which Christ established for us.
>
> It is also sad that someone who seems as intelligent as you would say such
> absurd things about men and a faith which is the only one that can be traced
> back to Christ. You, my friend, have been disillusioned and lied to. Your
> church cannot trace its existence any further back than Luther (or some
> heretical sects a few centuries before Luther).
> [Gary ***] I only know one body of Christ and it is not
> denominational in any form whether "Roman" Catholic or Protestant. So you
> err regarding my church affiliation. I do not hold Luther in any higher
> regard than your Popes, both camps are quite arrogant and blind. I have a
> little publication entitled "Martin Luther-Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor"
> much of which I put in audio form which you might be interested in. I'll
> gladly send you a copy if you like. Anyway, I have no more regard for
> Protestantism than Romanism.

[Don Ross] The body of Christ you speak of comes from whom? What is the visible church which you claim to be the church of Christ? We are told in Scripture that the Church will be as a light on a hill. We are taught that it will be recognizable as the Church of Christ. So, where is this Church? And your statement about your regard for neither "Protestantism" nor "Romanism" (whatever that is supposed to mean) is interesting. So, in essense you are saying that all of the teachings of these two bodies is wrong and that what you teach is right. Hmm, talk about presumptious arrogance (sort of what you claim the Popes have)

> I would love to have the opportunity to help you understand your faulty
> understanding of Christianity.
> [Gary ***] You "ass"ume my understanding of Christianity is faulty.
> You do not know what I have read nor my involvement or lack of involvement
> in the Catholic Church. It would seem appropriate for you to get to know
> me a little before "ass"uming I don't already know what you are going to
> say.

[Don Ross] I'm not quite sure why you feel it necessary to resort to veiled vulgarities. I guess that at the least it will help me to understand any further comments I receive from you. And, if you already know what I am going to say, then perhaps we can forego unnecessary typing. I will give you a few topics and you can tell me what I was going to say about them, OK? We'll start with:1) The origin of the Bible. 2) The Catholic teaching of salvation. 3) The Catholic teaching of the priesthood. That should be enough to get us started. I look forward to your illumination.

>  But, in order to do that, we would have to
> first establish some basics which I am sure you ahev not delved into very
> deeply. One of the basics is the origin of the Bible. You are very quick
> to quote from Holy Scripture, and yet you do not acknowledge its origin. Were
> you to do such, you would invariably have to come to a conclusion that is
> obviously abhorent to you, and that is that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ
> founded. I say it is abhorent to you not because you have come to an
> understanding of the Catholic Church from study, but because you are
> predispoed to hate the Catholic Church and everything that you mistakenly
> believe it is.
> [Gary ***] The origin of the Bible is neither Roman Catholic nor
> Protestant. The Bible is from the Jews, both the New and the Old
> Testament. Paul, Peter, James, Matthew...none of them were Roman
> Catholics, they ALL were Jews and contrary to your Unam Sanctum, salvation
> is not of the Popes, nor their institution, nor her tradition...the Roman
> Catholic Bible tells us that "salvation is of the Jews!!!" And so is the
> Bible.

[Don Ross] If the Bible is from the Jews, then why are you not Jewish? Why do you not hold to ALL of the commands in the OT? Jesus came to FULFILL the Law, not to do away with it. Besides, your comments are nothing more than a poor attempt to avoid the real point, and that is that there is no other Church that can trace itself back to Christ than the Catholic Church. Envious wannabes can cry what they like, but the Truth is the Truth. Oh, and the Unam Sanctam is not MINE - it is the Church's. And only your ignorance of history, ecclesialogy and christianity would make Unam Sanctam mean what you want it mean.After I sent you the last e-mail, I realized something about what you said. You made the point that it did not matter what Unam Sanctam REALLY said. All that mattered was that you could get enough anti-Catholic mileage out of it as you could. Interestingly, you are forced to approach the Bible the same way. You are forced to enter the Holy Scripture with your pre-conceived notion of what it SHOULD mean, not what it does mean. You see, if you took as much energy doing a competent exegetical approach to the Bible, you would see the failure of your (and your Protestant forefather's) theology. Only ignorant eisegesis will yield from the Bible what you want it to.

> Please let me know if you have the courage to take the challenge to look into
> the Truth. I have no fear, and I do not have to resort to unsubstantiated
> accusations as you did in your most recent post. I have Christ's Church on
> my side. And, I have am blessed to know that I have the communion of Saints,
> Mary and and Joseph to support me and my Church.
> [Gary ***] Again you make many assumptions. When was the last time
> Joseph and Mary personally spoke with you? When was the last time Jesus
> Christ of Nazareth spoke to you? You base all your assumptions upon
> tradition, not Scripture nor direct revelation.

[Don Ross] Not surprisingly, you are forced to put words into my mouth to attack my position. If you take a second to read what I wrote (not what you want to beleive I wrote) you will see that I never once even intimated that I had personal locutions from any member of the Holy Family. And, yes, just as all of the Apostles did, I base much of my Faith on Sacred Tradition. I would much rather be in the company of their kind than in the company of those who must accept the traditions of men to remain in their faith (sola scriptura, sola fide, once saved always saved, etc.) And if our exchange is going to be nothing more than me presenting my side and you saying "nuh-huh, that's just assumption", then maybe this will go nowhere. Unless you are willing to defend your position against the Catholic Church, then you are little more than a clanging gong full of stuff and nonsense. But if you do not, I will simply add you to the long list of people who have been unable to defend their side against the Church Christ founded.

In these sites, you might find some useful information:
http://198.5.212.8/~answers/index.html
http://www.csn.net/advent/
And this one is one on which some of my articles and classes can be found:
http://www.cobweb.net/~dkeene/

> God bless you and I look forward to hearing from you,
> Don
>
> ps, I would ask that you eliminate the faulty quoatation if you have any
> interest in presenting an honest picture of the Catholic Church on your web
> site. However, if this is not your intention, then by all means keep such
> silliness on your site - it is a beacon to all honest Catholics of your
> ignorance of Christ's Church.
> [Gary ***] I am searching the matter out and if I misquoted the Unam
> Sanctum, I will certainly correct it. Either one shows the arrogance of
> the Pope. And since you got me stirred, I will add a few more "Roman"
> Catholic documents like Pope Pius IX Syllabus. Here's another site you may
> want to correct. This one also has quite a few anti-Pope articles.
> http://www.vabch.com/tigger/cathin.htm

[Don Ross] This site is no surprise to me. I have been on many other bigotted sites. Each one of the tracts are easy enough to refute. Oh, and I did not intend to "get you stirred" (whatever that means). And it really does not matter to you if you misquoted it, does it. You admitted that in your previous e-mail. And I assume by your reluctance to offer any topics that you are not able or willing to discuss something in a mature manner. I can understand that, it is difficult to refute Truth, and my goal is not to embarass you, especially if you have appointed yourself as a Reverend (which, I might add, is totally unscriptural).

> Gary *** wrote:
>
> > I copied the quote out of a book entitled "Romanism and the Reformation"
>> by Grattan Guinness. I am searching to see whether the quote was a paraphrase
> > or a direct quote from the Pope's own words. Regardless, the words in my
> > quote are clear reflections of the voices of many Popes including Bonifice.
> > One can read the arrogance and pride even in your version of "Unam
> > Sanctum." You speak of the salvation of my soul. Sir, your blood-stained
> > church nor any of your greedy dark-minded popes can purchase my salvation.
> > It is not in their hands to do so. The blood of Christ purchased my
> > salvation and even the salvation of the whole world. "And I if I am lifted
> > up from the earth will draw (drag in the original Greek) all mankind unto
> > Myself." John 12:32 Jesus Christ has already saved all mankind, although
> > all the heretic popes deny this. Salvation is from God alone through the
> > act of Jesus Christ, not some power driven man.
> >
> > I too have gone to many churches looking for truth, but one of the last
> > places in the world one would truly find Truth would be in the ROMAN
> > Catholic church. Surely your search has been a most careless one.


Subject: RE: Tradtion explained
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:14:25 -0500
From: g***@***.net (Gary ***)
Organization: Tentmaker
To: "'Don Ross'" <ddrchurch@usaor.net>

I'm not an evangelical, so don't bother quoting to me how they err. I have my own list.

-----Original Message-----
From:  Don Ross [SMTP:ddrchurch@usaor.net]
Sent:  Wednesday, October 15, 1997 7:31 PM
To:    Gary ***
Subject:       Tradtion explained

Gary, here is a good article on tradition - something that I'm not certain you fully understand from the Catholic (and Christian - since Jesus) understanding. Sorry it's a bit long. But, as you may know, Truth does not always fit neatly on a bumper sticker. If you choose not to read this, I will understand. Most of the other "Christians" who are on my list of no-shows claimed to be too busy to read things like this, as well.

When Evangelicals Treat Catholic Tradition Like Revelation

Mark P. Shea

(Ed. Note: Mark P. Shea, a former Evangelical and now a Catholic, here recounts his thought processes when he was an Evangelical considering the role of tradition, which Evangelicals supposedly reject, in Evangelical belief and practice. The following article is adapted with permission from Shea's book <By What Authority? An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition>, published this month by Our Sunday Visitor Books (800-348-2440). In the book he examines five areas where Evangelicals unknowingly treat Catholic tradition like authoritative revelation. In this article he discusses three of them.)

I wondered: Is it really true that we Evangelicals never treat extra-biblical tradition as authoritative revelation? Is it really the case that <all> Evangelical belief is derived from the clear and unambiguous teaching of the Bible alone? Do we <really> speak forth only what Scripture speaks, keep silent where Scripture is silent, and never bind the conscience of the believer on those questions in which Scripture permits different interpretations?

To find out, I decided to try an experiment. I would look at Evangelical-not Catholic-belief and practice to see if there were any evidence of tradition being treated like revelation. I would see if there were any rock-bottom, non-negotiable, can't-do- without-'em beliefs that were not attested (or very weakly attested) in the Bible, yet which we orthodox Evangelicals treated like revelation. If I found such things, and if they had an ancient pedigree, it seemed to me this would tee very strong evidence that the apostolic tradition not only <was> larger than the Bible alone, but had -somehow-been handed down to the present.

** Another of my editings. Although I posted the entire article for Gary's consumption - though he never took a bite, I am not going to print the entire thing here. I strongly recommend reading it, though. It is, as is Mark Shea's style - fabulous. He is one of my favorite apologetics writers. You can see the entire document in the EWTN library by clicking here.**

Subject: RE: More on Tradition
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:38:49 -0500
From: g***@***.net (Gary ***)
Organization: Tentmaker
To: "'Don Ross'" <ddrchurch@usaor.net>

Good grief man, the traditions which Paul taught are quite different from the tradition which the Roman Catholic church has added over the last 2000 years. Paul clearly changed the picture in a very radical way so one could say he "changed" traditions. However, if we look at what Paul left after he was through the 613 commandments of the Old Covenant were reduced to only two, Faith and Love. ( See "The Pillar Laws of the New Covenant" under books at http://www.tentmaker.org) Go and read the Canon of the Roman Catholic Church. It makes the Talmud of the Jews look like a digest, both being man's attempt to putting their own law around God's Law. I have nothing against tradition. I traditionally wipe myself everytime I go to the bathroom, but I won't make the ritual an act of worship as Roman Catholics make traditions out of thousands of all sorts of nonsenses. I live near a city which contains a Roman Catholic site offering (for an offering of course) miracle water. A monk went to Lourds France (supposedly) got a bucket of the water from there, put it in a well here at Starkensburg, and now we have miracle water here. Wonderful!!! The things monks dream up to fleece dumb sheep!

You "ass"ume again that I believe in "Sola Scriptura." I do not. Like I told you, I am not an evangelical. You like to lump every non-Catholic believer into simple little boxes (like coffins) but I don't fit into these things. I don't go around collecting bones, hair, straw, wood, and claim they have healing power. I don't promise to pray for people if they give to my monastery. I don't "sell" indulgences promising people less time in purgatory for money. My conscience is not stained by the blood of millions of souls killed by the Roman Catholic church in the name of God. I'm not so stupid to think a little piece of cracker is the body of Christ. I don't command abstaining from marriage when the Bible clearly teaches the opposite. I'm not so stupid as to call Mary sinless especially in the light of the fact she offered up the offering for bringing a man into the world...a sin offering!

Strange how you quote now several of those early church Father's who taught the salvation of all mankind and NOT eternal torture. In a previous email you ridiculed them. Now you quote them to try to support your position. Sounds a bit hypocritical, don't you think. I suggest you read, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Basil, Eusibius, more carefully. They deny your eternal torturing god! Origen was the greatest scholar of the early church. He taught the salvation of all mankind. He was a true Universalist (Catholic). He taught and believed that all mankind would be saved. Quite different from your dark religion.
 

-----Original Message-----
From:  Don Ross [SMTP:ddrchurch@usaor.net]
Sent:  Wednesday, October 15, 1997 7:38 PM
To:    Gary ***
Subject:       More on Tradition

Gary,

I hope this helps you with your understanding of Tradition. It's important to know what is and what is not Sacred Tradition as understood by the Catholic Church. Your learning this may help you to avoid being embarrassed in the future.

Apostolic Tradition

Is Scripture the sole rule of faith for Christians? Not according to the Bible. While we must guard against merely human tradition, the Bible contains numerous references to the necessity of clinging to Apostolic Tradition.

Thus Paul tells the Corinthians: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the Traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the Traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the Tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

To make sure that the apostolic Tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession--his own generation, Timothy's generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.

The early Church fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, recognized the necessity of the Traditions that had been handed down from the Apostles and guarded them scrupulously, as the following quotations show.

Pope Clement I

"Then the reverence of the law is chanted, and the grace of the prophets is known, and the faith of the Gospels is established, and the Tradition of the Apostles is preserved, and the grace of the Church exults" (Letter to the Corinthians 11 [A.D. 80]).

Papias

"Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the Apostles from those who accompanied them, and he moreover asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their Traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from Tradition" (Fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]).
 

**Again, I have taken the liberty to truncate this text. As you can see from the short portion above, it is an article that demonstrates very clearly that the early understood Sacred Tradition to be what Catholics teach today - the other half of Divine Revelation with Sacred Scripture. You may read the entire essay by clicking here. ***

Subject: RE: Unam Sanctum
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:53:17 -0500
From: g***@***.net (Gary ***)
Organization: Tentmaker
To: "'Don Ross'" <ddrchurch@usaor.net>

Yes, Don, I have been hurt. And so has my father and a host of millions too deep to count by the dark perpetuators of Romanism. My "acidity" against Romanism comes from the fact that I know much about the Roman Catholic church. I was born in Germany. Studying history there IS studying Roman Catholicism. Dark, Dark, Dark history...one blood bath after another all in the name of God. That is Roman Catholicism then and that is still Roman Catholicism today. Gross hideous darkness disguised as truth. It reaks of death. Why Romanism worships death! They even put death men under their altars. Jesus tells us to overcome our enemies by loving them and the Popes overcome their enemies with the sword. It's not too difficult to see that Romanism has nothing to do with Christ except that it has sought to snuff out the true light whenever it springs forth. Don, you represent darkness, ignorance, and superstition. How could you possibly be so ignorant and blind? But then I know. I have tasted of atheistic darkness and I have tasted of religious darkness. They both are dark indeed. I have lost my taste for both of them. I seek to follow the Savior of all mankind, Jesus Christ. His body is well and alive on this earth and it is NOT the Roman Catholic Church.

P.S. You ought to do an etymology of the word "church" sometime. You might discover the true origin of your institution AND what your institution has done to mankind. Hint Church comes from Kirche which comes from Cherche (church latin) which comes from the Greek Kirke also spelled Circe. Look her up my friend and then you will discover why the Roman Catholic church makes men act like animals. Good day to you, Gary

-----Original Message-----
From:  Don Ross [SMTP:ddrchurch@usaor.net]
Sent:  Wednesday, October 15, 1997 7:06 PM
To:    Gary ***
Subject:       Re: Unam Sanctum

Gary.

I will pray for you. It is obvious by your bitter tirade that someone hurt you and you do not have the courage at this time to face that. I am sorry that you know so little about the Catholic Church that you have to resort to this kind of acidic testimony. There must be very little behind your faith for you to think that you are unable to present such a simple faith to me. And one point before I add your name to the growing list of those "pure Christians" who cannot stand up to the Light and Truth of Catholic teaching - those same first Christians who you think knew nothing of current Catholic practice do not have writings that comply with your immature understanding of church history.

It is unfortunate that you know so many disaffected Catholics, but what is more disconcerting is your basis of the Catholic faith on your recollection of some nuns when you were an immature child. It is obvious that you are incapable of defending yourself and that it would take me very little time to peel away the falseness of your beliefs, and even less time to reveal the idiocy of your spiteful feelings about the Church of Christ.

May God heal your soul and allow you to see that there is no other Church that can trace its origins to Christ then the Catholic Church. Your insubstantial claims about some ancient boogie men in the first few centuries does not in the least defend your position, it only perpetuates the weakness of the Protestant ire against Christ's True Church.

Too bad you're not the one to "help" me. But maybe this is God's will. I do not think that it would be His will to hurt anyone's feelings. And maybe He knows that if I were to demonstrate to you the Truths that you have avoided for so long, it may send you back to the darkness of atheism. In His time, then. When you are ready and able to defend your vitriolic words, let me know, the Truth never changes and I will always be willing to offer it to anyone who is in a sincere search for it.

Don

ps, had you been interested in the Truth, I was planning to show you in many places where your ignorance of the Church showed darkly through the below message. But, alas, you choose not to hear. Hmm, guess I'll move on to the mission fields and meet with the JW's and Mormons who are at least willing to listen to the Truth, even if they do not immediately accept it.

Subject: RE: Only Links this time
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 21:19:54 -0500
From: g***@***.net (Gary ***)
Organization: Tentmaker
To: "'Don Ross'" <ddrchurch@usaor.net>

Well, I knew you were parrotting some pre-formed pablum of some sort. Thanks for the location of the poison. Fortunately for me, I can drink deadly poison and it will not hurt me at all. (End of Mark) The enclosed links will be helpful for future research so thank you for providing them. I have read some Catholic propaganda and I'm sure I'll read some more, but what I've read in the past is really very weak. I have "Evangelicals and Catholics Toward a common Mission together" by Colson and Neuhaus. What a crock! Some men will stupe to anything for power and fame.

-----Original Message-----
From:  Don Ross [SMTP:ddrchurch@usaor.net]
Sent:  Wednesday, October 15, 1997 7:48 PM
To:    Gary ***
Subject:       Only Links this time

Gary, to let you make the decision, I have only placed links on this message.

 http://www.catholic.com/answers/tracts/traditn.htm (About Tradition)

 http://www.catholic.com/rock/oraltrad.htm (Tradition in NT)

 http://www.catholic.com/answers/tracts/paganism.htm (Is Catholicism Pagan?)

 http://www.catholic.com/answers/tracts/father.htm (Calling Priests father)

 http://www.catholic.com/answers/tracts/marks.htm (The marks of Christ's Church)

 http://www.catholic.com/answers/tracts/no_assur.htm (Assured salvation??)

 http://www.catholic.com/answers/tracts/forgive.htm (Forgiveness of sins)

 http://www.catholic.com/answers/tracts/_confssn.htm (Confession as understood by the early church)

 http://www.catholic.com/answers/tracts/_mother.htm (Mary the Mother of God)

 http://www.catholic.com/answers/tracts/p-infall.htm (Papal infallibility)

 http://www.catholic.com/answers/tracts/peter_pa.htm (Peter and the papacy)

And I will end with one of my favorite pieces that demonstrates the tenuous understanding of salvation by most non-Catholics - and even some anti-Catholics:
 http://www.catholic.com/answers/tracts/minister.htm

God bless you. Let me know if you would like some more of these. I know that with an honest heart, you will read these, just as I have read the links you suggested. But the difference between you and me is that I will answer any questions or comments you may have about the links I have suggested you read.

God bless you and your family!
Don  

Subject: Father
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 17:32:29 -0500
From: g***@***.net (Gary ***)
Organization: Tentmaker
To: "'ddrchurch@usaor.net'" <ddrchurch@usaor.net>

In reference to the Father issue, the "titles" Pope and "Father" are simply not ecclesiastical titles found in the Bible and I therefore refuse to use them as the Catholic church does. As I said, fatherhood is a relation not a title. Catholics are asked to call all priests "fathers," even those whom they do not have a personal relationship with. I believe this brings the use of the term "father" in the R.C. out of the bounds of the use of the term in the Bible. This by the way to me is a minor point. Let's stop straining out gnats and discuss something more substantial. Let's talk about all the people the R.C. church has killed in the name of God and compare this to Matt 5:43-48.

Subject:
PaPa's words
Date:
Wed, 22 Oct 1997 00:05:25 -0500
From:
g***@***.net (Gary ***)
Organization:
Tentmaker
To:
"'ddrchurch@usaor.net'" <ddrchurch@usaor.net>

Go look these quotes up before I put them on the web site. If you find any spelling errors please bring them to my attention. I want to make sure I have quoted everything properly. I have a whole lot more of these kind of goodies. Aren't you glad I'm putting up Catholic documents for your Church? Do you think this might get me out of purgatory a few years earlier?

Here are quotes taken from "Corpus Juris Canonici, emendatum et notis illustratum, Gregorii XIII. Pont. Max. Jussu editum. Cum Licentia." To that digest of the entire canons of pontifical laws, is prefixed the ratification of the Pope, Gregorius PaPa XIII.--"Ad futuram rei memoriam." Which volume, that Pope proclaimed, he commanded to be published for the convenience of all the Papists throughout the world, that all Roman Priests may know their duty to the Pontiff; and urging all secular authorities to enforce his assumed power and prerogatives. It should be remembered that not one jot or tittle of the whole farrago of impiety and despotism has ever been denied or rescinded; and that the whole is uniformly taught by every Roman priest to his votaries, and constantly exacted in all places and periods, when it can be done with the certainty of success.

I. It standeth upon necessity of salvation, for every human creature to be subject unto the Pope of Rome.--Boniface VIII. Extravag. de Majorit. et Obedient. Cap. Unam.

18. Whosoever speaketh against the papacy is a heretic, a Pagan, a witch, an Idolator, and an Infidel.--Nicholas, Dist. 22. Cap. Omnes.--Gregory Dist. 81. Cap Si qui.

21. The Pope is Head of the Church of Rome, as a king is over his judges; for he is Peter's Vicar and Successor; Vicar of Christ; Rector and Director of the Universal Church; Chief Magistrate of the whole world; Head and chief of the Apostolic Church; Universal Pope and Diocesan; Most mighty Priest; living law on the earth, having all laws in his breast; bearing not the place of man alone; neither God nor man, but between both, the admiration of the universe; having both swords of temporal and spiritual jurisdiction; and so far surmounting the authority of the Emperor, that of his own power alone, without council, the Pope has authority to depose the Emperor, and transfer his dominions.--Bulla Donationis, Dist. 96. Cap. Constantin.--Paschalis, Dist. 63. Cap. Ego.--Clement V. Cap. Romani; Glossa.--Boniface VIII. Sixt. Decret. Cap. 4. Glossa.--Hilarius, Dist. 25. Quest. I. Nulli.--Sixt. Decret. Cap. Ad. Arbitris. Glossa.--Boniface Sixt. Decret. De Const. Cap. Licet.--Innocent III. De Trans. Cap. Quanto.--Prohem. Clement. Glossa. "Papa Stupor Mundi. Nec Deus, nec homo, quasi, neuter es inter untrumque."--Boniface Extravag. De Majorit. et. Obed. Cap. Unam. Dist. 22. Cap Omnes.--Sixt. Decret. De Senten. et Re Cap. Ad Apostoli; and the Glossa.

22. What power or potentate in all the world is comparable to me, who have authority to bind and loose both in heaven and on earth; who have power both of heavenly and temporal things; to whom Emperors and Kings are inferior, as lead is inferior to gold? for the necks of kings and princes bend under his knees, and are happy to kiss his hands.--Nicholas Dist. 22. Cap. Omnes.--Glossa.--Gelasius, Dist. 96. Cap. Duo. Cap. Illud.

23. If the Pope has power to bind and loose in Heaven, how much more to loose Empires, Kingdoms, Dukedoms, and whatsoever else mortal man may have, and to give them where he will; and if he have authority over Angels, who be Governors of Princes, what then may he not do upon their inferiors and servants?--Gregory VII.--PLatina.

24. The power of the Pope is greater than Angels in jurisdiction; in administration of the Sacrements; in knowledge; and in reward. Does he not command the Angels to absolve the soul out of Purgatory, and carry it into the glory of Paradise?--Antoninus, Pars. 3. Summae majoris. Bulla Clementis.

38. The power of the keys is given to the Pope immediately from Christ. By the jurisdiction of which keys of binding and loosing, and dominion, the fullness of Papal power is so great, that even Emperors and all others are subjects to the Pope, and ought to submit their acts to him.--Dist. 19. Cap. Si Romanorum.--Gab. Biel. Lib. 4.--Dist. 19. Petrus de Palude.--Dist. 95. Cap. Imperator.

43. The Pope is the Vicar of Jesus Christ throughout the whole world, in the stead of the living God. He hath that dominion and lordship which Christ, when he was upon earth, would not assume; that is, the universal jurisdiction of all things, both spiritual and temporal; which double jurisdiction was signified by the two swords in the gospels, and by the offering of the wise men, who offered not only incense, to signify the spiritual dominion, but also gold, to point out the temporal dominion as belonging to Christ and his Vicar the Pope. We read that "the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof;" and Christ said, "all power is given to me in heaven and earth"--so it may be affirmed, that the Vicar of Christ hath power over all things Celestial, Terrestial, and Infernal. That power he received immediately from Christ; but all others take power directly from Peter and the Pope. Those who say that the Pope hath dominion only over spiritual things in the earth, are like the Councillors of the kings of Syria, 1 Kings 20:23: "Their gods are gods of the hills, therefore they were stronger than we; but let us fight against them in the plain, and we shall be stronger than they." Thus evil councillors now, through their pestiferous flattery, deceive kings and princes; maintaining that Popes and Prelates are gods of mountains, that is, of spiritual things, but they are not gods of valleys, that is, they have no dominion over temporal things, and therefore let us fight with them in the valleys for the power of the temporal possessions, so we shall prevail over them. But what saith the sentence of God to them? 1 Kings 20:28: "Because the Syrians have said, the Lord is God of the hills, but he is not God of the Valleys, therefore will I deliver all this great multitude into your hands, and you shall know that I am the Lord." What can be more effectually spoken to set forth the Majesty of papal jurisdiction which was receive immediately from the Lord?--Eckius in Enchir.--Gratianus Decret.--Gerson de Eccles. Protestate.--Hugo Cardinal. in Postilla.--Johan. Cremata de Ecclesia summa.--Lanfrac cont. Wicliff.--Ockam, Dialog. Pars. I. Lib. 5.

46. The Pope is to be presumed to be always good and holy; and though he be not holy, and be destitute of merit, yet the merits of Peter, his predecessor, are sufficient for him, who hath bequeathed a perpetual inheritance of merits and dowry of innocense to his posterity; so that although the Pope should be guilty of homicide, adultery, and all other sins, he may be excused, by the murders of Samson, the thefts of the Hebrew, and the adultery of Jacob.--Hugo, Dist. 40. Cap. Nonnos; Glossa.--Caus. 12 Quest. 3. Cap. Absis. And if any Priest shall be found embracing a woman, it must be expounded that he doeth it to bless her!

47. The Pope hath all dignitaries and all power of all patriarchs. In his primacy, he is Abel. In government, ark of Noah, In Patriarchdom, Abraham. In order, Melchisedec. In dignity, Aaron. In authority, Moses. In seat judicial, Samuel. In zeal, Elijah. In meekness, David. In power, Peter. In unction, Christ! The power of the Pope is greater than all the saints; what he confirms none should alter; he favors whom he pleases; he can take from one and give to another; and all persons ought to eschew his enemies.--Caus. II. Quest. 3. Cap. Si inimicus; Glossa.

48. All the Earth is the Pope's diocese; he has the authority of the King of all kings over their subjects.--Caus. II. Quest. 3. Cap. Si inimicus; Glossa.

49. The Pope is all in all and above all; so that God himself and the Pope, the Vicar of God, are but one consistory; for he is able to do almost the God can do, Clave non errante, without error.--Hostiensis, Cap. Quanto de translat. preb.--Baptist. Summa Casuum.

56. Thus the Pope hath all power in Earth, Purgatory, Hell and Heaven, to bind, loose, command, permit, elect, confirm, depose, dispense, do, and undo--therefore, it is concluded, commanded, declared, and pronounced, to stand upon necessity of salvation, for every human creature to be subject to the Pontiff of Rome.--Sixt. Decret. Cap. Felicis; Glossa--Boniface VIII. Extravag. De Majorit. et Obed. Cap. Unam Sanctum.

Subject: RE: Father
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 09:14:14 -0500
From: g***@***.net (Gary ***)
Organization: Tentmaker
To: "'Don Ross'" <ddrchurch@usaor.net>

Surely you have been blinded with prejudice. Have you never read about the pogroms, the Inquisition, the Crusades? Do you not know your own churches position about what to do with what the popes deem as heretics, witches, etc? As to the Protestant side of things, very well, then, let us throw them in with yourself as deceitful workers of iniquity, as murders of the innocent. I am NOT a Protestant! I find the 30 Year War as repugnant as your Inquisition. I find Luther's killing of the Anabapts as evil as the Popes evil Crusades. Jesus said to over come our enemies by love. I do not find death very loving, but the Roman Catholic church loves death even to the point of cutting up dead Saints, putting them in jars and using them for all sorts of evil purposes like generating money for the ignorant.

You ask "What church document documents that it has ever killed anyone?" I can't believe this statement. The Roman Catholic church paints itself as so innocent and gentle, yet she is a wolf ready to devour whatever comes her way. Did she instigate the Crusades? Do you records not record that? Did they not go into battle for a piece of real estate? Did the Crusaders not plunder and kill all the way to the Jerusalem? Did they not kill those who refused to call a cracker the body of Christ? All the torture equipment we still find in castles in Roman Catholic lands, we they made merely to be tourist attractions? Or we they used for more devious purposes.

You contradict yourself when you reference Protestant killings to justify your own. You say Protestants are equally guilty. This acknowledges that the Catholic church kills.

As far as Reverend, it is as much of an abomination as "Father." The term means "holy and august." I have met too many Catholic priests who were far from either. The title is not appropriate. The term "reverend" in the King James Bible is used only once as a description of God. I think there is where the title belongs, not some drunk priest.

-----Original Message-----
From:  Don Ross [SMTP:ddrchurch@usaor.net]
Sent:  Wednesday, October 22, 1997 6:33 AM
To:    Gary ***
Subject:       Re: Father

First, you make a strange contradiction between a relationship and a title. In order to clear up your confusion about Catholic "titles", a Priest's title is not Father, it is Reverend. It is the understanding of Catholics that they are our fathers in faith for which we give them the due of calling them father. So, our use of it is biblical, and it is only your avoidance of that point that confuses you.

And the only gnats we are straining at are those of your making. You were the one who brought up the issue of father, I merely supplied you an article to explain it. And you still have not told me what was faulty in the article. Your claim that some of it was true implies that some of it was not. What was the some that was not true?

I'm not sure what killing you are talking about. What Church document demonstrates that the Catholic Church herself ever killed anyone? Please help me with this. And while you are getting that information, you may want to pull up some information about your Protestant forefathers who murdered innocent women and children in the colonies for beinf witches. And there was also the purges of post-reformation Europe when Protestant kings and queens came into power - similiar to the ethnic purgings so popular in eastern European countries today. This way, we could get a balanced look at historical events that point out the human frailty over the ages.

Gary *** wrote:

> In reference to the Father issue, the "titles" Pope and "Father" are simply
> not ecclesiastical titles found in the Bible and I therefore refuse to use
> them as the Catholic church does. As I said, fatherhood is a relation not
> a title. Catholics are asked to call all priests "fathers," even those
> whom they do not have a personal relationship with. I believe this brings
> the use of the term "father" in the R.C. out of the bounds of the use of
> the term in the Bible. This by the way to me is a minor point. Let's stop
> straining out gnats and discuss something more substantial. Let's talk
> about all the people the R.C. church has killed in the name of God and
> compare this to Matt 5:43-48.

Subject: RE: PaPa's words
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 09:16:43 -0500
From: g***@***.net (Gary ***)
Organization: Tentmaker
To: "'Don Ross'" <ddrchurch@usaor.net>

You must not have read the title? Don't you recognize your own documents of the Roman Catholic Church? No, of course you wouldn't, because if you did you might wake up to the hypocrisy practiced by this institution and get out. By the way, Don, what do you do for a living? What is your role in the Roman Catholic Church?

-----Original Message-----
From:  Don Ross [SMTP:ddrchurch@usaor.net]
Sent:  Wednesday, October 22, 1997 6:40 AM
To:    Gary ***
Subject:       Re: PaPa's words

So, Gary, what anti-Catholic tome did you draw this from? Or does it matter to you? By the way, even if these are true quotations, what of it? What is your point? The only way that quotations like these can bother anyone is if they deny that the Pope is the successor of Peter. If any of these quotations were attributed to Peter alone, I doubt that your dander would be so raised.

And, as I expected, you do not offer the same courtesy to me as I offer you by avoiding sarcastic comments. I do not belittle your man-made beliefs about salvation, Holy Writ, forgiveness of sins, nor any other Protestant invention, and yet you never fail to offer your immature barbs at me and my faith. Should I expect any little from you? We shall see.

Subject: RE: PaPa's words
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 21:39:48 -0500
From: g***@***.net (Gary ***)
Organization: Tentmaker
To: "'Don Ross'" <ddrchurch@usaor.net>
 

-----Original Message-----
From:  Don Ross [SMTP:ddrchurch@usaor.net]
Sent:  Wednesday, October 22, 1997 8:59 PM
To:    Gary ***
Subject:       Re: PaPa's words

Gary, what are you talking about?

Gary *** wrote:

> You must not have read the title?

So what does PaPa's words mean?

> Don't you recognize your own documents
> of the Roman Catholic Church?

What is there to recognize? What are you talking about.

> No, of course you wouldn't, because if you
> did you might wake up to the hypocrisy practiced by this institution and
> get out.

And join a church with someone like you as a member? Not if my life depended upon it.
[Gary ***] I see, you would rather associate with alcoholic child molesting monks. I guess we've solved the real issues as to why we aren't getting along then. No more need to argue over what does the Bible say, do we? The issues really don't deal with God, do they?

 I want to be around Godly and Christlike people who are not so insecure about their own beleifs that they have to attack the only Church that has Christ as its founder.
[Gary ***] Sir, I believe it was you who came into my life and not the other way around.  I believe the Roman Catholic churches propaganda throws out far more stones at people like myself than I have ever posted on my internet site. This all began because I quoted some Catholic writings and supposedly wrong.
 
You see, you will be hard pressed to find any Catholic web-site that lashes out at other faiths like you and your ilk do. You will find ones that defend the Church against your kind, though.
[Gary ***] Obviously you do not read some of the old Jesuit anti-Protestant writings. Obviously you have never read of the Inquisitions, the pogroms, the Crusades, and the hundreds of other battles the Catholic church started in which it not only verbally abused its opponents, but killed them in the process.
 
And I count them as the best sites out there. It is only the weak and pathetic of spirit that delight in passing off half-truths and outright lies to tickle the ears of the devotees. So sad that you, who at times can seem faintly intelligent, must fall into this trap of hatred and bigotry. May God have mercy on your soul.

> By the way, Don, what do you do for a living?

Ooh, do I detect some faint note of concern for me? Probably not. And since this is the last time that I will be writing to you, I don't see a great need in starting some kind of male-bonding ritual.

> What is your role
> in the Roman Catholic Church?

I am a proud member of the Church Christ founded. My role is to love and serve God with all my heart, all my soul, all my strength, and all my mind. And I also serve the role of communicant of Jesus Body and Blood, as He commanded us in the Bible. So, as often as I can, I go to Mass to receive Jesus in the Eucharist. And, although you do not understand it, for me it is the most wonderful part of my day. I can't express in words how great it is to receive Him and to honor Him in every way that I can.
[Gary ***] Some people like going to all you can eat restaurants and
some like eating crackers. Each to his own.

May God bless you and your family. And may the Blessed Virgin Mary intercede on your behalf to Her Son. May your gardian angel watch over you and bring you peace and joy that may be entirely lacking in your life.
[Gary ***] I have a peace and joy which you know nothing of.
 
I would also ask that you pray for the Priests and religious who spend their lives in service to the people of God, may the example set by Saint Paul carry them through their lives.
[Gary ***] I will pray that the Roman Catholic church begins to enter the road of honesty, put down its double talk and sword,

Gary, have a nice life.  

Subject: RE: Father
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 21:46:24 -0500
From: g***@***.net (Gary ***)
Organization: Tentmaker
To: "'Don Ross'" <ddrchurch@usaor.net>

-----Original Message-----
From:  Don Ross [SMTP:ddrchurch@usaor.net]
Sent:  Wednesday, October 22, 1997 8:50 PM
To:    Gary ***
Subject:       Re: Father
 

Gary, you are a sad little man.
[Gary ***] I am slowly learning when it is quite useless to speak to a person who has been so blinded by tradition that he is totally spiritually blind. I have met such men in the recent Catholic dialogue. Yes, I am sad. Sad that there are so many religiously blinded souls on the earth. As to little, I'll leave that to my Savior to decide. You are so deeply indoctrinated into your cult that only serious deprogramming will set you free or the Holy Spirit. I'll leave it in His hands. Good Bye

Subject: RE: Inquisition
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 21:59:48 -0500
From: g***@***.net (Gary ***)
Organization: Tentmaker
To: "'Don Ross'" <ddrchurch@usaor.net>
 

-----Original Message-----
From:  Don Ross [SMTP:ddrchurch@usaor.net]
Sent:  Wednesday, October 22, 1997 9:28 PM
To:    Gary ***
Subject:       Inquisition

Gary, I know I said that I was done with you. But I didn't want to leave you in total darkness.
[Gary ***] Roman Catholicism IS total darkness. How can you possibly offer any light?

I know that I did not give any factual answers, as you did not as well. But I found this tonight and thought I would send it along. I hope it helps:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/INQUIS.TXT
 << File: INQUIS.TXT >>  

Subject: RE: Inquisition
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 23:20:13 -0500
From: g***@***.net (Gary ***)
Organization: Tentmaker
To: "'Don Ross'" <ddrchurch@usaor.net>

I have been in dozens of different types of Churches including the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox church. I have never encountered a single one that was ever honest about its past mistakes ,especially the Roman Catholic church. While the Protestant probably exaggerate the Roman Catholic atrocities, surely the Roman Catholic historian lie about their dark past. I prefer reading historians who do not have an ax to grind on either account and their account of Roman Catholic butchery tells the story quite graphically. Romanism thrives on fear and the sword. It has used both to keep its people as slaves to the Pope and anti-Biblical traditions. You judge religions with false stones, you do not look at history honestly. Surely I cannot dissuade you from your errors so then live with your hypocrisy. But the Lord knows the condition of your heart and all the holy water, indulgences, pilgrimages and a host of other dark deeds will not wash away the stains in your heart. It will take something much grander than the Roman Catholic church to wash you clean enough to enter God's presence.

-----Original Message-----
From:  Don Ross [SMTP:ddrchurch@usaor.net]
Sent:  Wednesday, October 22, 1997 9:28 PM
To:    Gary ***
Subject:       Inquisition

Gary, I know I said that I was done with you. But I didn't want to leave you in total darkness. I know that I did not give any factual answers, as you did not as well. But I found this tonight and thought I would send it along. I hope it helps:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/INQUIS.TXT
 << File: INQUIS.TXT >>