Theory about saints

DanOB · 21-10-2006 2:05pm #1

hi, im not a regular user of these forums but i would like to share a theory of mine with all of you.

Is having one god, followed by jesus, then mary and all the saints not the EXACT same as being a Roman Pagan 2000 years ago having zuez as a god and followed by all the other gods?

such as god of war and then us having saint of travellers?

wolfsbane · 21-10-2006 7:03pm

DanOB said:

Is having one god, followed by jesus, then mary and all the saints not the EXACT same as being a Roman Pagan 2000 years ago having zuez as a god and followed by all the other gods?

Yes.

DanOB · 21-10-2006 7:59pm

then doesnt that make christianity paganism?

wolfsbane · 22-10-2006 9:05pm

DanOB said:

then doesnt that make christianity paganism?

No, just the Roman Catholic and Orthodox imitations.

Protestantism threw out worship of anyone other than God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as did the persecuted underground Church over the centuries before the Reformation. They held on to the worship of God set out so clearly in the Bible, especially in the New Testament.

The later 'traditions' that saw the invention of the priesthood, prayers to the saints, worship of Mary, etc. represented a gradual take over of the main organisation of the Church by paganism. The success of Constantine just about made that certain. An Imperial Religion incorporating much of the previous pagan religions.

robindch · 23-10-2006 10:17am

> The later 'traditions' that saw the invention of the priesthood, prayers to the
> saints, worship of Mary, etc. represented a gradual take over of the main
> organisation of the Church by paganism.

All of these things existed already in various religions of the roman empire -- the priesthood was well-organized and busy arm of government and the top priest in Rome was called the Pontifex Maximus, then same name as the pope uses for himself today. Prayers to christian saints performed pretty much the same function as offerings and prayers to the former roman household and public gods. All the early popes were made into god-saints by their successors, just as the early roman emperors were. Mary took over many of the functions of previous female or maternally-minded god-figures, particularly Artemis/Diana, so it was no surprise that the Council of Ephesus (the location of one of the seven wonders of the ancient world, the longest lasting large temple to Artemis/Diana) in 431 was where the christians formally decided that Mary was a "god-bearer".

The idea of the trinity seems to have come, through Athanasius, from Egypt, where tripartite gods were common in Egyptian religion. The ideas of resurrection, a battle at the end of time between good and evil, the return of the deity to earth and many more, all derived from earlier identical beliefs in judaism and the jews themselves derived many of their beliefs from the Zoroastrians.

More recently, preotestantism's (and especially baptist/presbyterianism's) non-centralized organization has provided a sharp evolutionary advantage over other forms of christianity, which is why we see catholicism and other older forms losing out heavily to the much-better marketed, and far richer, modern forms.

wolfsbane · 23-10-2006 5:56pm

robindch said:

All of these things existed already in various religions of the roman empire -- the priesthood was well-organized and busy arm of government and the top priest in Rome was called the Pontifex Maximus, then same name as the pope uses for himself today. Prayers to christian saints performed pretty much the same function as offerings and prayers to the former roman household and public gods. All the early popes were made into god-saints by their successors, just as the early roman emperors were. Mary took over many of the functions of previous female or maternally-minded god-figures, particularly Artemis/Diana, so it was no surprise that the Council of Ephesus (the location of one of the seven wonders of the ancient world, the longest lasting large temple to Artemis/Diana) in 431 was where the christians formally decided that Mary was a "god-bearer".

That's about it as I read it too. But I'm not sure the 'god-bearer' thing came from the increasing elevation of Mary, or was an affirmation of Christs' deity - I'll need to check the context again.

The idea of the trinity seems to have come, through Athanasius, from Egypt, where tripartite gods were common in Egyptian religion.

Not really - the issue became contentious are heresies arose that denied it, but the doctrine was present in the Bible and is in extra-biblical writers as early as the end of the 1st Century.

The ideas of resurrection, a battle at the end of time between good and evil, the return of the deity to earth and many more, all derived from earlier identical beliefs in judaism and the jews themselves derived many of their beliefs from the Zoroastrians.

Christianity indeed inherited all these from Judaism, for Christ is the Messiah the Old Testament pointed to. Christianity is the fulfilment of the faith of the Old Testament. The Church is the New Covenant community, as the nation of Israel was the Old Covenant community.

But it is not true that these doctrines derived from the eastern religions. Judaism - the religion of the Old Testament - was there from the beginning, as its history sets forth. The eastern religions were its contempories, the worshippers the brothers and cousins of The Old Testament fathers.

More recently, preotestantism's (and especially baptist/presbyterianism's) non-centralized organization has provided a sharp evolutionary advantage over other forms of christianity, which is why we see catholicism and other older forms losing out heavily to the much-better marketed, and far richer, modern forms.

Hmmm. The popularity is entirely transitory. I doubt it represents any advance in real pulling-power. Autocracy is on a low at the moment, but in the right circumstances it will blossom again. There are those who love to be led and have others do the spiritual bits for them, etc. Indeed, that mind-set is present in much of the popular charismatic scene. For all their happy-clappiness and many divisions, they love the pope-figure, the super-apostle who brings them power from on high.

robindch · 23-10-2006 10:40pm

> But I'm not sure the 'god-bearer' thing came from the increasing elevation of
> Mary, or was an affirmation of Christs' deity

Both really. The problem at the time was that a political split within the remains of the Roman Empire was opening up along a vaguely east-west axis. Nestorius, the top guy in Constantinople, fought for control of dogma (and therefore, the emperor) with Cyril of Alexandria, and the chosen battle-ground was the question of whether Jesus was a god or a man. Cyril won the ideological battle at Ephesus, and managed to get Mary declared Theotokos, or god-bearer. By implication, Jesus was a god.

Interestingly, as an Egyptian, Cyril seems to have held many of the beliefs surrounding the Egyptian god-mother figure, Isis, and the mapping from Egyptian Isis to christian Mary is quite easy to see.

> [trinity] the issue became contentious are heresies arose that denied
> it, but the doctrine was present in the Bible and is in extra-biblical
> writers as early as the end of the 1st Century.

The doctrine is not present in the bible. Yes, it's implied in a few places, but at no point in the text of the bible does the text state unambiguously that god comes in three equal parts. Neither do Jesus or the holy ghost appear in the old testament. It's interesting that the world's most popular holy book fails to define accurately and unambiguously, the shape of the deity amongst its three-quarters of a million-odd words.

> Judaism - the religion of the Old Testament - was there from the
> beginning, as its history sets forth.

Wrong. The story of Noah and the world-wide flood, for example, existed in Sumerian and Mesopotamian cultures before it was later subsumed into the jewish religious tradition.

Given the Sumerians' location in the alluvial flood-plane between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, and the large-scale annual flooding which took place there, it's little wonder that stories of world-wide floods arose. Likewise, the Sumerians built ziggurats -- tall temples -- the largest of which seems to have been in Babylon and was named Etemenanki ("the foundation of heaven and earth"), and seems to have been the seed for the story of the tower of Babel (from "Babylon").

> The eastern religions were its contempories, the worshippers the brothers
> and cousins of The Old Testament fathers.

You're out by a couple of millennia. The eastern religions were the great-great...-grandfathers of the western ones.

robindch · 23-10-2006 10:52pm

> The popularity is entirely transitory. I doubt it represents any advance in real
> pulling-power.

It's not an advance -- it's an evolution. Decentralized, localized versions of christianity have grown up from nothing over the few centuries, as the political power of the roman church has waned. And that's simply because locally-appropriate versions of any religion will always be more locally-popular than centrally-approved ones, in the absence of any effective military or administrative power to enforce centralization (or the assertion of a division between church and state).

Differential reproductive success again. Do you see how it works?

> There are those who love to be led and have others do the spiritual bits for
> them, etc. Indeed, that mind-set is present in much of the popular
> charismatic scene. For all their happy-clappiness and many divisions, they
> love the pope-figure, the super-apostle who brings them power from on high.

It's not specific to the charismatic scene. Some humans simply enjoy being told what to do -- brings a feeling of freedom, as they cast their responsibility for their own understanding, together their own actions, at the feet of somebody else unscrupulous enough to assume their unconditional support. It happened in Stalin's Russia, just as it does in North Korea, just as it does in many religious settings. A not-always-useful feature of human group psychology, you could say.

wolfsbane · 24-10-2006 9:50pm

robindch said:

Interestingly, as an Egyptian, Cyril seems to have held many of the beliefs surrounding the Egyptian god-mother figure, Isis, and the mapping from Egyptian Isis to christian Mary is quite easy to see.

Well, to be more accurate, the Roman/Orthodox Mary. The New Testament has no such position for the real Mary.

The doctrine is not present in the bible. Yes, it's implied in a few places, but at no point in the text of the bible does the text state unambiguously that god comes in three equal parts.

Agreed, there is no formula statement. But the deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is set out clear enough for any reader. Once that is established, it is just a matter of formulizing it to get the 'Trinity'.

Neither do Jesus or the holy ghost appear in the old testament.

The Holy Spirit is indeed in the Old Testament:
e.g. Psalm 51:11 Do not cast me away from Your presence,
And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.
Jesus is not mentioned by name, since He was not yet born, but He was present and He was prophesied: e.g.
One of the 'Us' at Creation: Genesis 1:26a Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;
The LORD appeared to him by the terebinth trees of Mamre: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=18&version=50
The Prophet who was to come: Deuteronomy 18:15 “The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear,
David's Lord: Psalm 110: 1 The LORD said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”

It's interesting that the world's most popular holy book fails to define accurately and unambiguously, the shape of the deity amongst its three-quarters of a million-odd words.

It reveals enough for us not to be in doubt as to the deity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It reveals His nature: holy, loving, omnipotent. Then it calls us to worship Him. That's what its all about.

Wrong. The story of Noah and the world-wide flood, for example, existed in Sumerian and Mesopotamian cultures before it was later subsumed into the jewish religious tradition.

Think about it: the Jews came from Abraham, who came from Mesopotamia. And they were children of Noah and his sons. So the story of Noah belongs to the Jews as much as the Sumerians. It's like saying an American history of the Middle Ages is derived from the English, because there was no America back then. But the American history would be dependant on the same sort of handed-down accounts as anyone else's. Those who were there, and that included the ancestors of Moses, would be able to pass on the history. Moses had however a much more reliable source in addition - God.

Given the Sumerians' location in the alluvial flood-plane between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, and the large-scale annual flooding which took place there, it's little wonder that stories of world-wide floods arose.

I think they would have been able to tell the difference between a local and a world-wide flood.

Likewise, the Sumerians built ziggurats -- tall temples -- the largest of which seems to have been in Babylon and was named Etemenanki ("the foundation of heaven and earth"), and seems to have been the seed for the story of the tower of Babel (from "Babylon").

Indeed. It or one like it was the Tower of Babel.

You're out by a couple of millennia. The eastern religions were the great-great...-grandfathers of the western ones.

You can't say there was no religion in the line from Noah to Abraham, except the heathen ones. God had the few, like Noah, in each generation. He called Abraham from the heathen society of Ur of the Chaldees. That did not mean God was unknown until Moses.

Bradidup · 04-03-2007 10:20pm

DanOB wrote:

hi, im not a regular user of these forums but i would like to share a theory of mine with all of you.

Is having one god, followed by jesus, then mary and all the saints not the EXACT same as being a Roman Pagan 2000 years ago having zuez as a god and followed by all the other gods?

such as god of war and then us having saint of travellers?

Check this out. I have nothing against Roman Catholics as I was braught up in the RC Church myself and had it drilled into me in religion class in school however their docterine dosent seem to weigh up when compaired against gods word. (the Bible)

<snip> I will step down as moderator here before I allow links to Jack Chick. Sorry. - Puck</snip>

wolfsbane · 05-03-2007 10:17pm

Bradidup said:

Check this out. I have nothing against Roman Catholics as I was braught up in the RC Church myself and had it drilled into me in religion class in school however their docterine dosent seem to weigh up when compaired against gods word. (the Bible)

<snip> I will step down as moderator here before I allow links to Jack Chick. Sorry. - Puck</snip>

I don't know what Jack Chick said, and it may well have been true, but so much of his stuff is rubbish that it destroys any credibility for the rest. There a much better resources on Roman Catholic errors available, e.g:
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/

kelly1 · 07-03-2007 11:32am

DanOB wrote:

hi, im not a regular user of these forums but i would like to share a theory of mine with all of you.

Is having one god, followed by jesus, then mary and all the saints not the EXACT same as being a Roman Pagan 2000 years ago having zuez as a god and followed by all the other gods?

such as god of war and then us having saint of travellers?

Hello Dan, just to give some balance to the views being expressed, could I say the following:

First of all, Jesus is God while still being a separate "person". He is a "mirror image" of the Father and is the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity. The Son is not the Father and the Father is not the Son but both are still God. The same applies to the Holy Spirit.

John 14:10 Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?

It's not an easy mystery to fathom but it's true.

As regards Mary and the saints, nobody worships Mary or the saints! This is a lie that has been perpetuated by anti-catholic bigots.

When catholics pray to Mary or the saints, there is no worship involved. We are merely asking Mary and/or the saints to pray to God on our behalf.
We believe that Mary and the saints are highly favoured by God and have great ability to intercede on our behalf. How could Jesus refuse a petition from His most holy mother?

God bless,
Noel.

wolfsbane · 07-03-2007 5:04pm

kelly1 said:

As regards Mary and the saints, nobody worships Mary or the saints! This is a lie that has been perpetuated by anti-catholic bigots.

When catholics pray to Mary or the saints, there is no worship involved. We are merely asking Mary and/or the saints to pray to God on our behalf.
We believe that Mary and the saints are highly favoured by God and have great ability to intercede on our behalf. How could Jesus refuse a petition from His most holy mother?

Evangelicals like myself hold Mary to be a sister, greatly honoured by God in being called to be the mother of His Son in His earthly incarnation. Her piety is an example, as is that of many other Christians in the Bible.

You will understand our difficulty with your assessment of Mary's status, if you examine the actual teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, and see the actual practises of most practising Catholics.

The teaching, for example: CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p6.htm#963

In effect, Catholics pray to Mary in the same manner Evangelicals pray to God. For Catholics she is the Mediator, as for Evangelicas Christ is the Mediator. She is the Redeemer, as Christ is for Evangelicals. That this idolatry is disguised by making her share these offices with Christ, gives no excuse. Mary is the functioning Goddess of Roman Catholicism.

What a vast chasm between this and the Bible account! Rome has invented an entirely different Mary. True Christians in the Roman Church should openly reject such heresy, even if it gets them expelled. They will find a warm welcome amongst their brothers in countless churches across the world.

BTW, for a modern sermon by an Evangelical on Mary see:
John MacArthur
http://http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-315.htm

kelly1 · 07-03-2007 10:40pm

wolfsbane wrote:

The teaching, for example: CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p6.htm#963

In effect, Catholics pray to Mary in the same manner Evangelicals pray to God. For Catholics she is the Mediator, as for Evangelicas Christ is the Mediator. She is the Redeemer, as Christ is for Evangelicals. That this idolatry is disguised by making her share these offices with Christ, gives no excuse. Mary is the functioning Goddess of Roman Catholicism.

What a vast chasm between this and the Bible account! Rome has invented an entirely different Mary. True Christians in the Roman Church should openly reject such heresy, even if it gets them expelled. They will find a warm welcome amongst their brothers in countless churches across the world.

BTW, for a modern sermon by an Evangelical on Mary see:
John MacArthur
http://http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-315.htm

Wolfsbane, you are either wholly ignorant or deliberately malicious!

In effect, Catholics pray to Mary in the same manner Evangelicals pray to God.

This is absolutely untrue. We ask Mary to intercede for us because we believe prayers to God are better received from Mary than they are from us. We DO NOT ask Mary for things that only God can give. Christ is the source of all grace. Asking Mary's intercession is entirely optional as we can just as easily ask God directly.

For Catholics she is the Mediator

Again untrue. Christ is the only Mediator. Mary could be seen as a mediatrix in the sense that she mediates between us and her Son by her prayers of intercession. Did you not read the following bit?

"970 "Mary's function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power."

She is the Redeemer, as Christ is for Evangelicals.

Where did you get this idea?

Mary is the functioning Goddess of Roman Catholicism.

This is a disgraceful lie! Did you not read the following paragraph?

II. DEVOTION TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN

971 "All generations will call me blessed": "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship."515 The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. . . . This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration."

Please see the following link for more info:

http://www.truecatholic.org/pope/honor.htm

Before making any further comments on the catholic faith, I suggest you actually go and learn something about it.

God bless,
Noel.

Asiaprod · 08-03-2007 12:58am

kelly1 wrote:

This is absolutely untrue. We ask Mary to intercede for us because we believe prayers to God are better received from Mary than they are from us. We DO NOT ask Mary for things that only God can give. Christ is the source of all grace. Asking Mary's intercession is entirely optional as we can just as easily ask God directly.

I am confused, please clarify.
There are things that you can ONLY ask God for
There are things you can ask Mary to ask Jesus to intercede and ask God for
You CAN ask God directly for anything.
God receives prayer better from Mary than from to you.

What things can only God give you?
What things can Mary give you?
What things can Jesus give you?
And why the division ?

I was taught ALL things come from God!

kelly1 · 08-03-2007 10:38am

Asiaprod wrote:

I am confused, please clarify.
There are things that you can ONLY ask God for
There are things you can ask Mary to ask Jesus to intercede and ask God for
You CAN ask God directly for anything.
God receives prayer better from Mary than from to you.

What things can only God give you?
What things can Mary give you?
What things can Jesus give you?
And why the division ?

I was taught ALL things come from God!

Yes, ALL things come from God. My line "We DO NOT ask Mary for things that only God can give" I suppose was a bit confusing. There is no division.

What I'm saying is this. Mary is the most perfect human ever created and she perfectly conformed with the will of her Son and so she is highly favoured by God. So we catholics believe her intercession with God is very powerful. We believe that our prayer can be passed to God via Mary and that in doing so our prayers are made more acceptable to God because of her high glory in Heaven.

Mary is highly regarded because she is the vehicle by which salvation in Jesus came to the world. Mary is not the redeemer but she gave Jesus His humanity.

Luke 1:28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
............
48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

I hope this makes things a bit clearer

God bless,
Noel.

Asiaprod · 08-03-2007 11:39am

kelly1 wrote:

I hope this makes things a bit clearer

God bless,
Noel.

It does indeed, thanks for the clarification:)

wolfsbane · 09-03-2007 8:38pm

kelly1 said:

This is absolutely untrue. We ask Mary to intercede for us because we believe prayers to God are better received from Mary than they are from us.

That is in direct violation of our Lord's command that we ask the Father, in His name. God has made us His sons and daughters and our concerns are His. We have no need of someone to make our requests for us. We are perfectly acceptable in Christ. We desire all Christians to pray for us, as we for them, but our first duty is to personally ask our heavenly father.

Again untrue. Christ is the only Mediator. Mary could be seen as a mediatrix in the sense that she mediates between us and her Son by her prayers of intercession. Did you not read the following bit?
Quote:
"970 "Mary's function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power."

Yes, I did read that bit. It is only an attempt to excuse the introduction of another mediator. It gives Christ a special mediation, but one that is not the 'only' sort as revealed in Scripture:
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,

To say there is one Mediator, and then to introduce another between Him and us is to have more than one between God and us. No amount of doublespeak can hide that.

Quote:
She is the Redeemer, as Christ is for Evangelicals.

Where did you get this idea?

From the claims of Rome that her pain at the death of her Son is part of the work of salvation:
Mary's role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it. "This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to his death";504 it is made manifest above all at the hour of his Passion:

Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross. There she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother's heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, born of her: to be given, by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross, as a mother to his disciple, with these words: "Woman, behold your son."505

The intent behind those words is revealed in the current attempt to name Mary as Co-redemptrix. A Catholic defense of this attempts to make it no more than her sharing in the circumstances. But if that we true, then each one of the apostles would be a Co-redemptrix, as would Joseph, John the Baptist, etc. However, that is not the intention of Rome and it is only Mary who is singled out for this role. Which agrees perfectly with the actual practice - Goddess worship.

Quote:
Mary is the functioning Goddess of Roman Catholicism.

This is a disgraceful lie! Did you not read the following paragraph?

Quote:
II. DEVOTION TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN

971 "All generations will call me blessed": "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship."515 The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. . . . This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration."

Yes, it is saying Mary cannot be worshiped in the same way as the Trinity, but it is obvious she is to be worshiped nevertheless. She is credited with God-like ability - to hear millions of prayers simultaneously. She is entitled Queen of Heaven (a title only found in the Bible in reference to the pagan goddess). In practice, Catholics bow in prayer before her statues in exactly the same way pagans have always done.

Before making any further comments on the catholic faith, I suggest you actually go and learn something about it.

I am aware of Rome's teachings, maybe better than most Catholics. My desire for them all is that they learn what the Bible says and give heed to it. The false gospel of salvation by faith plus merit is eternally damning, and it brings only bondage to superstition in this life.

Juza1973 · 12-03-2007 5:15pm

You are confusing devotion with adoration, and when they show you the text you say "yes, but the text actually implies" even if the text said the contrary. This way you can give any meaning to a text.

wolfsbane · 12-03-2007 8:11pm

Juza1973 said:

You are confusing devotion with adoration, and when they show you the text you say "yes, but the text actually implies" even if the text said the contrary. This way you can give any meaning to a text.

When the acts of devotion are the same as acts of adoration, it is not me who is confusing the issue. The 'devotion' offered by Roman Catholicism to Mary is adoration - worship. The Mary they present is not the godly woman, the sister of all true Christians, but a demi-god. Look at what Rome teaches about Mary, and how the devout address her - is this a fellow-human, or something much more? Yet hear what Scripture says about our relationship to even the holy angels:
Revelation 19:9 Then he said to me, “Write: ‘Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb!’” And he said to me, “These are the true sayings of God.” 10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”

The New Testament carries no thought, much less injunction, of God's people praying to Mary, kissing her image, regarding her other than a fellow-believer who was greatly privileged by God. Nowhere is she invoked by any of the writers of the New Testament. Nowhere is she referred to as a mediator or co-redemptrix. It is all the invention of a later paganized Church.

The corruption of theology was matched by corruption of morals, and both these characterise the Roman Church to this day. Any honest observer will agree that the Roman Catholic Church is nothing like the Christian Church of the New Testament.

Theory about saints

Comments