Walsingham Witness 2013.

The National Pilgrimage to the Anglo-Catholic Shrine to Mary took place on the 27th of May.  This year the preacher was the supposed Evangelical Archbishop of York, John Santamu.
      As ever, a number of faithful Protestants, who still have some protest left, made the long journey to East Anglia.  In spite of a number of people being ill or having bereavements in the family, thirty people turned up
      We were very keen to challenge the archbishop concerning his evangelical credentials.  As he processed up the street, dressed in full papal regalia, he was confronted with a banner quoting from the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England which declares "Masses to be blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits."  One could see his lips move as he was reading it.  Evidently, he didn't know it off by heart.
      He was challenged how he, as a professed Evangelical, could walk behind an idol of Mary, and then proceed into a ritualistic service that would see Christ supposedly sacrificed upon an altar, contrary to Scripture and contrary to the Articles of Religion of his own denomination.  His response was to give us a papal style blessing.  He was again challenged as to what authority he had for doing such a thing.
      He was the preacher who addressed the "pilgrims" after the interval following the celebration of the mass.  One could hear the crowd say "amen", loudly, on three occasions in quick succession.  No doubt this was the Archbishop working up the congregation.  However, five minutes later, the same people were singing the "Ava Maria" with great gusto.
      What happens at Walsingham is an admixture of truth and error.  The clergy process into the abbey grounds singing good old fashioned evangelical hymns.  Then they blaspheme Christ in the mass followed by the singing praises to Mary.  Neo-Evangelicalism is, in essence, doing the same thing.  How can somebody, who professes to believe the Bible to be the Word of God, and who professes to be trusting by faith alone in the finished work of Christ, fellowship with those who deny justification by faith alone?  Worse still, how can such people address these Gospel deniers as their brothers and sisters in Christ?
      In between the mass and the sermon, many of the "pilgrims" wander around the village or avail themselves of the beer at the local inn.   They also buy idols and rosary beads and other papist items from themany shops given over to this business. This is the time when much person to person witnessing takes place, as well as the preaching of the Gospel.  Every year these idolators are challenged for Scriptural evidence to justify their actions.  Every year there is no response.  They are told that they have a choice to make.  Either they submit to the Word of God, which condemns their activities, or believe and practice the traditions of men.  They were warned that they were going out to meet God with 'a lie in their right hand.'
      A young trainee priest, who was at first reluctant to converse, admitted that Mary was not sinless and that the Pope could not make saints.  He took a CD of Richard Bennet's testimony.  Richard Bennet was formerly a Redemptorist priest.  He asked the person witnessing to him to pray for him.
      Another long conversation took place with a monk.  He said he was once a scientist who didn't believe in God but he found he could not deny the New Testament.  Sadly, he was denying the teaching of the New Testament for, among other things, he believed in the necessity of baptism for salvation.  It was pointed out to him that the thief on the cross was not baptized, which he admitted.  It was also pointed out to him that the Apostle Paul said that Christ sent him to preach and not to baptize.  This would be a very strange statement for Paul to make if baptism was necessary for salvation.  He took a tract entitled "The Gift of God."  May it please God to open his eyes.
      Several hundred tracts were also distributed and other conversations entered in to.  We trust that God, by His Holy Spirit, will quicken these truths to these benighted people.
      The numbers attending were slightly up on last year, probably because of the presence of the archbishop, but still a far cry from the numbers that once processed through the streets.

The Papacy: A Historical Perspective.

Introduction.  The resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and the election of the new Pope, Francis I, has attracted huge media interest.  Day after day, news bulletins were largely taken up with the comings and goings in the Vatican and widespread speculation as to which Cardinals were in the running.  The Roman Catholic Church would have us believe that the proceedings are directed by the Holy Ghost, but, in reality, there are various factions among the Cardinals vying for control.  The fact that the process necessitates several ballots indicates either, that the Cardinals are not listening to the Holy Ghost, or, He can't make His mind up.  After all, if these princes of the church are as in touch with God, as they are supposed to be, they would all have the mind of the Spirit from the commencement.  Old fashioned Protestants think there is another spirit at work which is not of God.
     A look back into history is Makes for very interesting reading..  While the media did mention the fact that Benedict was the first Pope to resign in six hundred years, they did not elaborate.  The last pope to resign did not resign willingly, for, at that particular time there were three popes.  Yes!  Three popes.
      A council of the RC Church was called in 1414, to deal with the multiplicity of popes, and other problems facing the RC Church at that time, and was in session until 1418.  The Council met at Constance, a town on the border between Switzerland and Germany, and is known as the Council of Constance.  The three popes at the time were as follows:-  Pope Benedict XII, also known as Pope Benefectus (The Fake).  Pope Gregorius XII, also known as Pope Errorius (mistake), and Pope John XXIII.
      Pope John XXIII  preached at the formal opening but when Sigismund, the Holy Roman Emperor, arrived on Christmas morning 1414, he ordered him to resign.  A huge indictment was drawn up against him and he fled to Schaffhausen but was brought  back by the imperial guards to face his accusers..  The charges against him were reduced from fifty-four to five, the most serious charges being dropped.  The five remaining charges were piracy, rape, sodomy, murder and incest.  He received a sentence of only three years in jail.  On the 29th of May, 1415, his seals of office were solemnly smashed with a hammer.  When Pope John XXIII of Vatican II fame was elected in 1958, several  cathedrals had to hastily remove the fifteenth century Pope John XXIII from their list of pontiffs.
        Contrast the light sentence he received in comparison to John Hus, the reformer.  He had been granted safe passage to Constance by Sigismund but on arrival he was immediately arrested.  The reason given for this gross breech of promise was that no faith was to be kept with heretics.
      The chief charge against him was that he denied transubstantiation.  He was not allowed to speak in his own defence and when he attempted to do so he was shouted down.  He was sentenced to be burned at the stake which sentence was duly carried out in May.
      The same council ordered that the bones of John Wycliffe, the Morning Star of the Reformation in England, and who had died forty years previously, to be disinterred and burnt.  The sentence was duly carried out and his ashes thrown into the river.  Such was the malice of Rome against those who exposed her false teachings and corruption.

      Pope Gregory XII, now in his ninetieth year, convoked the council, which already had been in session for months, and then resigned.  So ended this particular farce.  It is this pope that the media referred to but gave no details.  He resigned because he had to, like the other two.  No doubt there were some who knew about this but kept it quiet, such is the influence the Vatican wields over the media.
      Pope Gregory XII was nearly ninety when appointed pope.  He was chosen because it was thought he was too old and frail to be corrupt.  He soon proved he was as adept at corruption as any of his predecessors. His first act after becoming pope was to pawn his tiara for six thousand florins to pay off his gambling debts.  He resided in Rimini and there proceeded to sell off  all that he could lay hands on.  He even sold Rome itself to the king of Naples.  Of course the media kept quiet about these inconvenient truths.

The Council of Constance.

The Council of Constance poses something of an dilemma  for the RC Church.  The fact that it was convened to dismiss three popes and appoint another to replace them means it was excerising an authority above that of a pope.  In addition, a council is only deemed to be infallible when it meets under the authority of the pope.

Some Interesting Papal Claims.

"The Pope, Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Saint Peter, is the perpetual, visible head and foundation of the unity of the Church.  He is the vicar of Christ, the head of the college of bishops and the pastor of the universal Church over which he has by divine institution full, supreme, immediate, and universal power."
      The full official title of the present pope is "His holiness Pope Francis I, Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God."
      In 1302 A.D. Pope Boniface VIII made the following astounding claim:  "I have the authority of the King of kings, I am all in all and above all, so that God, Himself and I, the Vicar of God, have but one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do. What therefore can you make of me but God."  Rome has never repudiated this declaration.

Rome’s Political Intentions.

The Church of Rome's claim to superiority over all secular powers is based upon a fraudulent document known as The Donation of Constantine. The document relates the story of how the Emperor Constantine contracted leprosy and how he was miraculously healed by being baptised on being told to do so by Pope Sylvester. Sylvester instructed him concerning the Trinity and informed him of the primacy of Peter, repeating the words with which Christ addressed Peter on his confession that Jesus was the Christ. Believing himself to be healed by Peter, Constantine then, in the name of the Senate and Roman people, handed the western part of the empire to the Bishop of Rome.

The Donation reads as follows:

Inasmuch as our imperial power is earthly, we have decreed it shall venerate and honour his most holy Roman Church and that the sacred See of Blessed Peter shall be gloriously exalted above our empire and earthly throne.... He shall rule over the four principle Sees, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Jerusalem, as over all the churches of God in all the world....

Finally, lo, we convey to Sylvester, Universal Pope, both our palace and likewise all our palaces and districts of the city of Rome and Italy and of the regions of the west.

In 1471, a papal aid, Lorenzo Valla, proved the document to be a fraud. The pope at the time of the alleged events was not Sylvester but Militiades. Constantinople at that time was still known by its old name of Byzantium. The Latin in which the document was written was in a style that was not in use then. Rome did not concede that the document was a forgery until many centuries later. By then her spurious claims were well established.

After Pope Stephen III went to Pepin, king of the Franks for help, Rome continued to use the secular powers to accomplish its aims. In AD 800, Leo III, crowned Charlemagne Emperor and Augustus. The area over which they ruled became known as the Holy Roman Empire. As later writers sarcastically observed, it was neither holy, Roman, nor an empire. The fact that Leo had crowned Charlemagne emperor was later used to demonstrate that the ecclesiastical was above the secular. But for the time being, the emperor was the supreme authority. Pope Adrian I, as a reward for enlarging the Papal States, gave Charlemagne the authority to choose the new pope.

But the popes did not want to play second fiddle to secular rulers. For centuries successive popes struggled to assert their authority over all. It has been well remarked that the Papacy thinks in terms of centuries and it was centuries later when the Papacy finally succeeded in asserting its supremacy in the reign of Pope Boniface VIII.

Prior to the issuing of Unam Sanctam, the Papacy scored a number of important victories. Henry IV, the Holy Roman Emperor defied the Pope but had to cross the Alps in the depth of winter in 1077 and was made to stand barefoot for three days in the snow outside the papal residence at Canossa before he was finally restored. Machiavelli, in his History of Florence, stated that 'Henry was the first prince to have the honour or feeling the sharp thrust of spiritual weapons'. Henry got his revenge later when he called a council to depose the Pope and chose Guibert of Ravenna in his place. Guibert took the title of Clement III. Henry marched on Rome and enthroned Clement, while Gregory fled to Salerno where he died on 25th May 1085.

In England, it was King John who was to experience the full force of papal pretensions when he brought upon himself and the nation the displeasure of Pope Innocent III. The Pope had nominated Stephen Langton to be the Archbishop of Canterbury. John refused to recognise him so the Pope gave him three months to reconsider or face the consequences. John responded by expelling the monks of Canterbury. The Pope then placed the realm under interdict, published on Palm Sunday 1208. This meant that all the churches were closed and the priests ceased to fulfill their priestly duties. For a people, who looked to the priest for all spiritual succour from cradle to the grave, this was disastrous. The Pope followed this up with the excommunication of John in October 1209. Three years later, the pope deposed John and called upon Philip of France to prepare to expel him and take over the throne of England. All who took part in this pious work would be granted the same indulgences as those enjoyed by the Crusaders.

Just when Philip had his forces ready to invade, John capitulated on 13th of May 1213. Cardinal Pandulf received his submission. John laid the crown of England at his feet. The Cardinal contemptuously kicked it across the floor and ordered his servant to pick it up and place it on the king's head. John, for his part, promised to restore all church funds and lands.

Two days later he signed a second document wherein he gave England 'to God and our Lord, Pope Innocent and his Catholic successors'. The interdict was not lifted until June 1214, by which time all the money had been paid back as John had promised. Philip of France, the meantime, was very put out for he had spent a huge amount of money preparing for the invasion of England. He dare not set foot in what was now papal territory.

In England, meanwhile, the barons, who hated John anyway, were furious with him for what he had done. They drew up the Magna Carta which guaranteed the rights of the Church and the people, forcing John to attach his seal to it. When Innocent heard of this he thundered 'By St Peter, we cannot pass over this insult without punishing it'. The Magna Carta, called the foundation of English liberties, was condemned by Innocent as 'contrary to moral law'. The King said he was not subject to the barons or the people, as he was the subject of the pope. Therefore, John requested, that the barons should be punished. Innocent then issued a Bull stating that 'From the plenitude of his unlimited power and authority which God had committed to him to bind and destroy kingdoms, to plant and to uproot', he annulled the charter, absolving the king from having to observe it. He excommunicated 'anyone who should continue to maintain such treasonable and iniquitous pretensions'.

Pope Boniface VII issued his Bull, Unam Sanctam, in 1302. This Bull left all rulers in no doubt as to what the Papacy intended.

He who denies the temporal power of Peter wrongly interprets the Lord's words, 'Put up thy sword into its scabbard.' Both swords, the spiritual and the material, are in the power of the Church. The spiritual is wielded by the Church; the material for the Church. The one by the hand of the priest; the other by the hand of kings and knights at the will and sufferance of the priest. One sword has to be under the other; the material under the spiritual, as the temporal authority in general is under the spiritual.

This Bull signalled the Papacy's attempt to assert its supreme authority over all other powers. King Philip of France was not amused. He eventually succeeded in making Boniface prisoner, the latter barely escaped being killed. Such was the trauma he suffered he lost his mind and died just over a month later. Benedict XI, died a year after being elected. King Philip used his influence to have Bertrand de Grot, Archbishop of Bordeaux, elected, taking the title of Clement V. Philip took him back to France and he settled in Avignon where he could keep an eye on him. Thus began what the RC Church termed The Babylonian Captivity, which was to last for seventy years. At one time there were three Popes reigning, some at Avignon and some in Rome. This situation was finally resolved by the Council of Constance in 1415 when all three popes were dismissed or resigned and Martin V was elected.

This did not stop the Papacy in trying to assert its authority, which it did do successfully on a number of occasions.

The Papacy interfered in England a second time with the accession of Elizabeth I. Pope Pius V issued his Bull 'Regnans in Excelsis', on April 25th, 1575.

He that reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in Heaven and earth, has committed one holy Catholic and apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, to one alone upon earth, namely Peter, the first of the apostles, and to Peter's successor, the pope of Rome, to be by him governed in the fulness of power. Him alone He has made ruler over all peoples and kingdoms, to pull up, destroy, scatter, disperse, plant and build, so that He may preserve His faithful people in the unity of the Spirit and present them spotless to their Saviour.

The Bull then goes on to list the crimes that Elizabeth had committed against the RC Church.

Therefore, resting upon the authority of Him whose pleasure it was to place us (though unequal to such a burden) upon this supreme justice seat, we do out of the fulness of our apostolic power declare the aforesaid Elizabeth to be a heretic and the favourer of heretics, and her adherents in the matters aforesaid to have incurred the sentence of excommunication and to be cut off from the unity of the body of Christ.

And, moreover, we declare her to be deprived of her pretended title to the aforesaid crown and all lordship, dignity and privilege whatsoever. And we also declare the nobles, subjects and people of the said realm and all others who in any way have sworn oaths to her, to be forever absolved from such an oath and from any duty arising from lordship, fealty and obedience; and we do, by the authority of these presents, so absolve them and so deprive the said Elizabeth of her pretended title to the crown and all other aforesaid matters. We command all and singular nobles, subjects and peoples and others aforesaid that they do not obey her orders, mandates and laws. Those who will act contrary we include in the like sentence of excommunication.

This Bull clearly reveals the two pretended powers that Rome claims to exercise, namely, supreme power in church and state.

Some time after the Bull was published, a number of the Roman Catholic nobility required from the pope advise as to whether they would be committing a mortal sin if they assassinated her. They were informed that not only would they not be guilty of committing a mortal sin but would be doing a pious deed by sending her out of the world. There followed several Roman Catholic attempts to slay her, culminating with the launching of the Spanish Armada against England. But God blew with His wind and they were scattered.

There are those who think that all this is in the past and that Rome poses no such threat today. She undoubtedly is not in a position to do so directly but is working in other ways to influence governments. That she has ceased to make the claims she once did is untrue. Even now, when the pope is enthroned and the triple tiara is placed upon his head, the officiating cardinal intones the following,

Receive the tiara, adorned with three crowns, and know that thou art father of Princes and Kings, ruler of the world, and vicar of our Saviour, Jesus Christ, in earth, to whom is honour and glory in the ages of the ages.

The Foundation of Lies.

The Lord Jesus Christ, while contending with the Pharisees over their refusal to obey His teaching, adhering stubbornly to their traditions, addressed them in a very forthright manner, leaving them in no doubt as to the source of their doctrine and their spiritual lineage. "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of the devil ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not."

The Lord, who was normally meek and mild, spoke in the strongest terms when dealing with the false religionists of His day. There are many similarities between the Church of Rome and the Pharisees. The Pharisees were very much upholders of tradition, which they referred to as 'The Tradition of The Elders'. According to their rabbis, all that Moses received from God on mount Sinai was not written down but some was orally transmitted. According to the RC Church, all that Christ said was not written down but that much was orally transmitted, exactly the same claim as that made by the Pharisees. Rome variously calls this tradition, 'Holy, Sacred or Apostolic'.

The second similarity, to which I wish to draw the readers' attention, is salvation by works and ritual. The Apostle Paul, writing to the Roman Christians, brings this fact out very clearly in Romans 10 : 3. "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."

The Church of Rome in Canon XII of the Council of Trent, pronounces an anathema upon any who believe in justification by faith alone. "If any man saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema." There are many other similarities, but these two are sufficient to show that what Christ declared the Pharisees to be can equally be applied to the RC Church.

The Church of Rome makes many pretentious claims about itself. The first is that it is the only true church headed up by Peter, who, according to Rome, was the first pope, each successive pope being in apostolic succession to him. The second is in the secular realm, in which realm, the Church of Rome, headed up by the pope, is above all secular authority.

The first assertion is based on a misinterpretation of Scripture and a deliberate falsifying of history. The second is based upon a forged document called 'The Donation of Constantine', which even the Roman Catholic Church admits is a forgery, but that does not prevent it from asserting its superiority over all secular authority.

According to the RC Church it receives nothing as dogma except with the unanimous consent of the church fathers. The majority of the church fathers believed that it was Peter's confession, that Jesus was the Christ, was the rock which Christ was referring to when he said "Upon this rock....." A sizeable number thought that the rock was Christ himself. Only a very small number believed the rock to mean Peter.

When we turn to the passage of Scripture concerned it becomes clear what the Lord meant. Peter had been named Cephas, which means a moveable rock or boulder, by Christ Himself. When Peter confessed "Thou art the Christ...." Jesus turned to him and said "Thou art Peter," petros in Greek, which is in the masculine gender. Petros means a moveable rock or boulder. Then He said upon this petra, which is in the feminine gender and means an immoveable mass of rock, I will build my church. Peter was aptly named by Christ. He was indeed an important part of Christ's plan for establishing the Church by being the first to preach the Gospel to the Jews and Gentiles. But he was inconsistent. He was indeed moveable.

It wasn't long before the Lord had to rebuke him with a "Get thee behind me, Satan." Later on he denied the Lord with curses and later still Paul had to rebuke him because of his Judaising.

Evidently, Peter himself, and the other disciples did not understand that Christ's statement established the primacy of Peter. In Luke 22 v 24 we read, "And there was strife among them, which of them should be the greatest." Surely this was the time for Christ to tell them that he had already appointed Peter to be the 'Prince of the Apostles.' He did nothing of the sort.

It is not only held by the RC Church that Peter was the rock upon which the Church is built but that Peter was the first bishop of Rome i.e. the first pope. There is no absolute proof that Peter was ever in Rome and there is absolutely no evidence at all that he was the first bishop of Rome.

The Apostle Paul mentioned several households and twenty nine people who resided in Rome but no mention did he make of Peter. This is inconceivable if he was bishop of Rome.

Eusebius of Caesarea, acknowledged to be the father of church history, wrote around AD 300. He speaks of Peter ministering in Asia Minor and of spending his last days in Rome where he was crucified. Remember this was more than two hundred and fifty years after the event. In any case, whether he was crucified in Rome or not, Eusebius does not record him as being bishop of Rome.

Iraneus, Bishop of Lyon from AD 170-200 lists twelve bishops of Rome. Peter's name does not appear on the list. The first name on the list is Linus. The Apostolic Constitution in the year 270 also names Linus as the first Bishop of Rome. This blows the whole edifice of Peter being the first pope and apostolic succession clean out of the water. It wasn't until the fourth century, when the capital was moved from Rome to Constantinople that the Bishops of Rome began to make claims about apostolic succession, especially petrine succession.

To sum up then :- (1) Peter was never regarded as the prince of the apostles by himself or others. (2) He was never the Bishop of Rome. (3) The Roman bishops did not begin to make claims of petrine succession until the fourth century. Therefore the whole edifice of the Church of Rome is built upon a gigantic lie. By its own admission, their rock is not as our rock, they themselves being witnesses. They say Peter is the rock upon which the Church of Rome is built. Protestants say that Christ is the Rock upon which the true Church is built and that it is by confessing Christ a sinner enters the true Church. Whose is the correct interpretation? Paul in 1 Corinthians 3 : 11 wrote "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

A Light in The West!

It was my privilege to visit the West of Ireland for a week in June 2010. The purpose of my visit was to meet up with two Believers with which I had made contact while witnessing on the streets of Chester. The visit was an occasion for rejoicing while fellowshipping with Believers who had come out of Rome, but also one of sorrow at the darkness, seen and felt, at the Marian shrine at Knock in County Mayo.

It was a joy to go into homes and listen to the testimonies of those who had been steeped in Romanism and were now rejoicing in the liberty wherewith Christ had set them free. One told of how she informed the chapel authorities that she would not be serving at the mass anymore as she was now a Bible Christian. She related how she took down and destroyed the so-called holy pictures, the last to go being the "Sacred Heart" which is displayed in most Roman Catholic homes in Ireland. What a joy it was to see the text "There is one mediator between God and man", in its place. This is evidence of Holy Ghost conversions, not the spurious type, which are all too common, where the converts remain in the RC Church or are half in and out.

There have been quite a number of converts in the West of Ireland this past twenty five years. There are many homes now clear of idols and many rejoicing in the only priest who can forgive sin. This did not happen without a struggle and threats of which I cannot particularly speak. There was also despicable behaviour by leaders of certain denominations which one would not expect to find among the ungodly, let alone those who claim to be born from above.

I paid a visit to the Marian Shrine at Knock. The spiritual darkness of that place could be seen and felt. What a contrast to the homes of those who have been set free! I saw a youngish woman walking around the buildings several times, her lips moving as she walked. Then she went to the stations of the cross, so called, genuflecting and praying at each, kissing the stonework as she moved along. I saw other women, rosary beads dangling from their fingers and lips moving, rub and kiss some stones set into the wall of a modern auditorium. These stones were from the gable of the chapel upon which the apparition supposedly appeared.

In another area there were several taps through which "holy water" was dispensed. A number of women were stocking up, filling their bags with full bottles. Through the glass a priest was visible as he celebrated the blasphemous mass. He was the centre of attention as he went through all the gestures and posturings that he had to do in order to work his "magic". The overriding impression was that of an actor on stage.



The small village of Knock is totally given over to the sale of idols, pictures and all sorts of tat associated with such places. One was reminded of Ephesus and the riots caused by the loss of trade due to the effectiveness of Paul's preaching. One shop had a towel for sale with the following prayer, here given in part.

Bless this pub O Lord I pray,
Keep it open night and day.
Bless the lager and the stout,
In the bottle or poured out.

This is an example of Roman Catholicism's inability to change the heart of man. Most Roman Catholic Churches have a licensed social club attached to which many of those attending mass head for afterwards, including the priest.

Remember the Christians there as they witness in the midst of this darkness. Pray that they may be kept from danger and false shepherds. Pray that many more will be brought out of the darkness of Romanism into the glorious Kingdom of Light.

Why We Should Remember The Reformation Martyrs.

From time to time criticism appears in the Evangelical press directed at those who organise and attend martyr memorial commemorations. Some would go so far to accuse such events as idolatrous. These tend to be the same people who frown upon anything that's deemed to be controversial. 'Just preach the Gospel', they tell us. 'Controversy brings reproach upon Christ and His Gospel.' They seem to ignore such verses as Jude 3. "Brethren, when I gave all diligence to write to you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and to exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." Evidently, there were 'Just preach the Gospel' people around at that time also.

The Christian faith is constantly under attack both from without and within the Church; especially from within. Prior to the Reformation, Christendom, so-called, was anything but Christian. The Church of Rome had long before departed from Biblical Christianity. It should be remembered that the noonday of the Church of Rome is known in history as The Dark Ages. It was in the midst of this Stygian darkness that men and women, who would afterwards be burnt alive at the stake, stood up, and in the name of God, quoting the Bible, challenged the might of Rome, and were triumphant.

Today, we are still benefiting from their sacrifice, though our liberties are coming under increasing attack. This is all the more reason why we should remember the martyrs' sacrifice and the truths for which they contended.

It is becoming increasingly obvious, in my experience, that many young Christians have no knowledge about Reformation history, nor what the errors are of the Roman Church. This is because the pastors are not teaching them about these matters. These shepherds are the dumb dogs who cannot bark, except at those who do try and take a stand. The result is that these uninformed Christians are increasingly yoking with Rome and consider those who would reprimand them for this as bigots and extremists. How Rome must be laughing at this behind the scenes!

We were informed at the recent martyr commemoration in Coventry that when the first memorial service took place in the late eighteen hundreds some 10,000 people were in attendance. The attendance on May 1st was twelve. That is a measure of the decline which has taken place in little over a hundred years.

One thing is for certain, and that is if we do not value our liberties, so as to contend for them as they come under threat, they shall be taken from us. The old saying "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom", still holds good.

Canonization.

The definition of canonization is given as “The act of admitting a deceased person into the canon of the saints. The RC Church has an elaborate procedure for a person to be canonized. Vatican City published the canonical procedure on September 12th, 1997.

The actual procedure was laid down by Pope John Paul II in the Apostolic Constitution 'Divinus Perfectionist Magister', promulgated on January 25, 1983. It is instructive to understand the elaborate procedure and see how completely it is at odds with Holy Writ. It is my intention to publish the whole rigmarole and then consider what the Word of God has to say about who the saints are and why they are called saints.

1. “To begin a cause it is necessary for at least five years to have passed since the death of the candidate. This is to allow greater balance and objectivity in evaluating the case and to let the emotions of the moment to dissipate.

2. The bishop of the diocese in which the person whose beatification is being requested is responsible for the beginning of the investigation. The promoter group ('Actor Causae'); diocese, parish, religious congregation, association, asks the bishop through the postulator for the opening of the investigation. The bishop, once the 'nulla osta' (an official declaration not to be against something or someone) of the Holy See is obtained, forms a diocesan tribunal for this purpose. Witnesses are called before the tribunal to recount concrete facts on the exercise of Christian virtues considered heroic, that is, the theological virtues; faith, hope, charity, and the cardinal virtues: prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude, and others specific to his status in life. In addition, all documents regarding the candidate must be gathered. At this point he is entitled to the title Servant of God.

3. Once the diocesan investigation is finished, the documentation is passed on to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. The public document for further work is put together there. The postulator (Person who represents plea for beatification), resident in Rome, follows the preparation of the 'Posito' (to put forward the factual basis for argument), or summary of the documentation that proves the heroic exercise of virtue, under the direction of a relator of the Congregation. The 'Posito' undergoes an examination (theological) by nine theologians who give their vote. If the majority of theologians are in favour, the cause is passed for examination by cardinals and bishops who are members of the congregation. They hold meetings twice a month. If the judgement is favourable, the prefect of the congregation presents the results of the entire course of the cause to the Holy Father (Pope), who gives his approval and authorises the congregation to draft the relative decree. The promulgation and publishing of the decree follows.

4. For the beatification of a confessor a miracle attributed to the Servant of God, verified after his death, is necessary, The required miracle must be proven through the appropriate canonical investigation, following a procedure analogous to that for heroic virtues. This one too is concluded with the relative decree. Once the two decrees are promulgated (regarding heroic virtues and the miracle), the Holy Father decides on beatification, which is the concession of public worship, limited to a particular sphere. With beatification the candidate receives the title of Blessed.

5. For canonization another miracle is needed, attributed to the intercession of the Blessed having occurred after his beatification. The methods for ascertainment of the affirmed miracle are the same as those followed for beatification. Canonization is understood as the concession of public worship in the Universal Church. Pontifical infallibility is involved. With canonization, the Blessed acquires the title of Saint.”

From the above a number of issues need to be considered. Firstly, the person is made a saint because of their works. Secondly, this is confirmed by at least two miracles after they are dead; one as a result of somebody praying to him/her, and the other, after beatification, as a result of the intercession of the person beatified. Thirdly, it is the RC Church that decides who is and isn't a saint. Fourthly, it has to have the “Holy Father's” approval and, according to the document, his “infallibility is involved.” Let us then consider these four points from a Biblical perspective.

1. According to the Scriptures, saints are those who have repented of their sins and have sought and received forgiveness from the Lord Jesus Christ. They are not saints by virtue of their works but by virtue of their faith in the once and for all sacrifice of Christ upon the cross and his imputed righteousness. Hence all believers in the Bible are addressed as saints.

2. Biblical saints are saints before they die. Their sainthood does not depend on any miracle. Should God be pleased to perform a miracle in answer to prayer, it is not because of any good in the individual.

3. Thirdly, it is not the Church's prerogative, that is the true Church, to canonize anybody. One of the outstanding characteristics of the RC Church is its usurpation of that which belongs to God alone. This is especially true of the Pope. How well Paul, under the anointing of the Holy Spirit, describe the claims of the papacy then future. “Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” 2 Thessalonians 2 v4.

4. If papal infallibility is involved, why the necessity of the prolonged procedures? Why can't the pope, using his infallibility, declare all would be saints to be saints without all the palaver?

The whole thing is a devilish charade which deceives millions, including so-called Evangelicals. Why do they join forces with the Harlot Church when that church's teaching is clean contrary to the Word of God? If they profess to “Love Jesus” as they claim, then they should honour His Word and hate everything that is contrary to that Word. The prophet Isaiah could well have been referring of such people when he declared; “Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:” Isaiah 29 v 13. It simply does not add up that those who say they believe the Bible can fellowship with and call them brother who by precept and action teach doctrine of devils.

If anybody wants further information on canonization Roman style go to their web sites.

Rome's Rag and Bone Religion.

The Church of Rome sets great store by the veneration of relics of Christ, Mary, the Apostles and the departed saints. These include pieces of the true cross, the shroud that was wrapped around the body of Christ in the tomb, known as the Turin Shroud, and various body parts belonging to the departed. In many instances there are several heads or other body parts supposedly belonging to the same person. There are enough pieces of the true cross to build a wooden ship, as Calvin remarked. But the Romanists are not so easily perturbed for they claim that the true cross has the miraculous ability to regenerate itself. Whether this is why there are two heads belonging to the same person is yet to be determined. If indeed the true cross has this marvellous propensity to regenerate itself then why don't the Papists produce it so that we can all view this wonder?

In medieval times in England, as throughout so-called Christendom, prior to the Reformation, relics were a great source of income for the monasteries or churches where they were displayed. It was not unusual for monks to steal a popular relic from a rival monastery if it was a big money earner.

Some of the relics on display may seem to us to be so ridiculous that we wonder how people could be so taken in. In those days there was no Gospel light and people were sunken in ignorance and superstition. Even in these more enlightened times relics are still big business as we shall see. Among the relics on display in England was a feather of the Angel Gabriel's wing, the jawbone of Balaam's donkey, the afterbirth of Christ, the girdle that Mary wore while pregnant with Christ, a phial of her milk and the stone she stood on when delivering her son.

There were winking images, smiling images and weeping images who would only perform the prodigies when money changed hands. Then there were opaque glass orbs which would reveal the blood of Christ when the pilgrims handed over their cash. The monks would eye up the dress of the pilgrims and so determine what they might be willing to pay before the 'miracles' took place. In the case of the glass orb it was opaque on one side and transparent on the other. When enough money had changed hands the monks simply turned the orb on its axis to display the enclosed blood. During Thomas Cromwell's investigation of the monasteries it was discovered that the images were manipulated by wires and the supposed blood of Christ was duck's blood which was changed weekly.

There are those who might say that such behaviour are a thing of the past and we shouldn't keep bringing them up. Even if such events were past history the world needs to know what Rome did at the zenith of its power but the truth is that such things happen today even in “Protestant England”.

In Ashton-in-Makerfield, near Manchester, a wizened blackened hand, supposedly belonging to Edmund Arrowsmith, a Jesuit priest executed in August 1628, having been found guilty of high treason, is kept in a glass case. Periodically it is brought out and Romanists flock to see it and those who have an illness have it laid upon the diseased area or, alternately, a piece of cloth is laid on it and then transferred to the sick person.

During the months of September/October 2009, part of the remains of a French nun, “St” Therese of Lisieux, was taken around various Roman Catholic cathedrals and other locations for veneration by the “faithful”. According to Roman Catholic sources some quarter of a million people filed by the ornate casket. It was so sad to see poor deluded Romanists kissing, rubbing their hands and pieces of cloth over the casket. The remains are contained within a golden casket which is overlaid with an ornate wooden casket that is enclosed within bullet proof perspex.

Apparently, her remains are divided up into three parts. One part tours France, the second part tours the world and the third part remains in a convent in Normandy.

During the tour of England the relics were taken to York Minster, which is the Anglican Cathedral in the city of York. A small contingent of Protestant Evangelicals went along to witness. A young Christian man made a protest inside on his own at four o'clock in the morning as these false shepherds were praying at the casket where they kept an all night vigil. Needless to say, he wasn't at all welcome!

The main contingent of those witnessing arrived just as the casket was being brought out. Immediately we raised appropriate banners and one began to preach. Many of them were enraged, one striking the preacher. However, some very worthwhile conversations took place. One was with an RC lady who said she had come along out of curiosity but she didn't believe in it. She said she didn't believe in papal infallibility or transubstantiation. She said she confessed her sins to Christ but sometimes to a priest. When asked why when she could go direct to Christ she confessed to a priest but she didn't give a reason. She said she attended Protestant churches on occasions. She was advised to leave the RC Church and join a Reformed Bible based church. May it please God to lead her out of the darkness of Rome.

A freelance TV reporter made contact with the speaker and has had two interviews with him concerning what he believes. A great deal of ground was covered highlighting the differences between Rome and Biblical Christianity. He has also interviewed Romanist and Anglican apologists. At present it is being edited so we hope and pray that the truth will be broadcast.

The final exhibition took place in the RC Westminster Cathedral, London. During an address given by RC Bishop John Arnold, he said that what was taking place was no more unusual than treasuring a keepsake of a departed favourite granny. But of course its entirely different. On different occasions while witnessing at RC and Anglo-Catholic mariolatry events their apologists have used much the same argument. They have asked me if I have a photograph of my mother. I tell them that of course I do. Then they say, “well then?”. The inference being that is what they are doing. But I say “I don't bow down, sing hymns or pray to her photograph and neither do I carry it in procession.” I also tell them that the photograph is of her and not somebody's imagination. I point out they have black madonnas, white madonnas, blonde haired madonnas and every other sort of Madonna. It goes to show how destitute of a basis for doing what they do when they use such foolish reasoning.

The Pope is due to visit the United Kingdom, probably in September. It is thought he will preside at the canonisation of a defector to Rome, Cardinal Newman. Early last year Newman's tomb was opened with the intention of placing it in a more elaborate structure. It was their intention to remove some of his fingers and take them to Rome for use as relics. However, when the tomb was opened there was nothing in it. It was said at the time that his remains must have decayed but, as most people know, bones last for thousands of years. It wouldn't surprise me if they don't claim that he ascended up into Heaven.

Finally, most people are unaware that no RC altar is bone fide to perform the hocus pocus of the mass unless there is a relic placed inside it. Such is the religion of Rome. How heart breaking to see so-called evangelicals joining up with these rag and bone merchants.

Flagellator Pope!

There is an ongoing process within the RC Church to have the previous pope, John Paul II, canonised. The Church of Rome has no living saints. They have first to die and then two miracles have to be attributed to them as a result of people praying to them for healing or some other deliverance. Eventually, after the case is investigated by the relevant authorities, including a "devil's advocate", the person is raised to sainthood and Romanists are encouraged to pray to them.

This whole business is completely contrary to the Bible. The Scripture clearly teaches that true saints are those who have repented of their sins and trust in Christ alone for salvation. Hence, the Apostle Paul when addressing the people in the various churches addresses them as saints.

Nowhere in Scripture are people exhorted to pray to the departed. To do so is nothing short of necromancy, which is strictly forbidden by God. Is it not strange that Evangelicals can get very concerned about spiritism and Free Masonry, and rightly so, but fraternise with papists without a qualm.

However, to get back to John Paul II and his supposed saintliness: two Polish nuns who looked after his domestic needs have spoken of the fact that they often heard him whipping himself, especially before performing the hocus pocus of the mass. There is a belief among Romanists that inflicting bodily pain can mortify the flesh. In the Middle Ages there was a widespread movement which practised group flagellation. They were condemned by the Pope, not for flogging themselves but because they had, according to Rome, heretical beliefs.

Flogging oneself, for that is what it is, may not be as common as it once was, but many Romanists wear hair shirts next to their skin and tie sharp pointed metal objects around various parts of their bodies. Members of the sinister Opus Dei movement are said to adhere to such practices.

Public processions of flagellants still take place in Italy and the Philippines, where some go so far as to have themselves nailed to crosses. Oh how dark is the religion of Rome! Muslims also whip themselves, especially Shiites, as they mourn the death of Ali whom they regard as the true Caliph. It was also practised by ancient pagan idolaters.

Many of Rome's religious beliefs have their origin in paganism. I would encourage the readers of this article to get hold of a copy of a book entitled "The Two Babylons". It clearly reveals the link between Roman Catholic beliefs and ancient Babylon, the fountainhead of all idolatry. In reading this it will become obvious as to what system the Apostle John is referring to in Revelation chapter 17.

The Manhattan Declaration.

On November 20, 2009, a group of people, describing themselves as Christians, issued a declaration to join together to combat the evils of the present time: evils such as abortion, sodomy, promiscuity, the breakdown of marriage and the culture of death. That such evils are rampant in society is undeniable and that they should be opposed and confronted is indeed a worthy objective. But, and its a very big but, the basis upon which this declaration is founded is fatally flawed and is, therefore, doomed to failure.

In the preamble to the declaration the differences between Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Greek Orthodox are glossed over as "the shortcomings and imperfections of Christian institutions." In other words, the tortures and massacres carried out at the behest of successive popes using the instrumentality of 'The Holy Inquisition,' and Roman Catholic inspired religious wars, as a result of which between fifty and sixty million people of all ages and both sexes perished, is merely because of imperfections and shortcomings! Oh how the Evangelicals of today, having swallowed the Jesuit invented interpretation of prophecy, namely Futurism, totally ignore the bloody doings of the Church of Rome down the centuries.

It is said that during Victorian times three books were to be found in most Protestant homes, namely, the Bible, Pilgrims Progress and Foxe's Book of Martyrs. One thing is for certain nowadays and that is the fact that most Evangelicals are totally unaware of Foxe's Book of Martyrs and know precious little of church history, especially when Rome was in the ascendency.

The preamble goes on to declare how that monasteries preserved the Bible. While it is true that manuscripts were to be found in monastery libraries, the Bible was unknown to people and priest alike. For a time, the Bible was placed on the index of forbidden books by the Church of Rome, which church strove with might and main to prevent the Scripture being translated into the vernacular declaring that for the common people to have access to the Bible in their mother tongue would be the cause of great evil.

According to the preamble, papal edicts were issued against slavery in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This was the period when the Inquisition was at its height as Rome sought to keep all people in its sphere of influence enslaved in spiritual darkness. It was also during this period that the Conquistadores of "His Most Catholic Majesty," and Jesuits were enslaving and massacring thousands of the indigenous inhabitants of the Americas.

The preamble ends by stating that Christians today, like those who have gone before, are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace, to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person and to stand for the common good. One wonders what is meant by "costly grace?" Perhaps the terminology 'free grace' would be offensive to papist ears.

The Declaration begins with a false statement in that it declares that Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Evangelicals are all Christian. It goes on to declare that "We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love......" It then makes the astonishing assertion that "We set forth this declaration in the light of the truth that is grounded in Holy Scripture, in natural human reason and in the very nature of the human person." Leaving aside the fact that human reasoning is, at best, flawed, and that human nature is depraved, neither Roman Catholicism nor Greek Orthodoxy base their beliefs on the Bible alone, they themselves being witnesses.

I intend to deal only with Roman Catholic errors, especially in regard to salvation. If an organisation, calling itself Christian, is wrong in regards as to how a sinner becomes reconciled to God, it doesn't matter if it is correct in all other areas. The Church of Rome teaches a different way of salvation than that laid down in Holy Writ, therefore, its adherents, believing in the Roman way of salvation are not Christian and are under the anathema pronounced by the Apostle Paul in Galatians Chapter 1. It is for this reason that I assert that the whole project is doomed to failure because its is not based upon the solid foundation of Scripture.

The Church of Rome does not receive the Bible as being the sole source of authority for what it teaches. Listen to what the RC Church declares in its "Catechism of The Roman Catholic Church." 'Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal. Each of them make present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own 'always to the close of the age'.

'Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit'. 'And {Holy} Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.'

As a result, the Church to whom the transmission and interpretation of Scripture has been entrusted, 'does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the Scriptures alone. (My Emph.) Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.'

I could draw attention to many teachings of Rome which are contrary to Holy Writ; teachings such as Papal Infallibility, auricular confession, priestly absolution, the veneration of saints and Mary, purgatory, indulgences and the blasphemous dogma of Transubstantiation, to name but a few. But the one which I wish to draw the readers attention is Rome's attitude to justification by faith alone. This doctrine, as Luther rightly said, is the one by which a church stands or falls.

A perusal of the RC catechism reveals that they confuse justification with sanctification. They do not see justification as an act but a process. The Council of Trent, which is regarded as infallible by the Church of Rome in Canon 12 sates the following. "If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone which justifies him, let him be anathema."

These Evangelicals who are teaming up with Rome addressing them as their brethren in Christ should take heed as to what this church has to say about their faith. According to Rome they are accursed! But do these evangelicals really believe in justification by faith alone in Christ alone? If they do why do they then address those, who vehemently deny this foundational truth, as Christian? Do these people really believe in this doctrine or do they pay lip service to it? Do they believe there is more ways than one by which a sinner can be justified? Rome teaches a different way to that which is revealed in the Bible and anathematises those who believe what the Bible clearly teaches. They cannot both be correct.

The greatest danger to the true Church is, and always has been, from false teachers within. Both Christ and the apostles solemnly warned the early Christians to beware of such. People, such as Charles Colson, are a greater danger to the truth in that they call themselves Evangelical but their actions speak otherwise. They are yoking together with the Harlot Church headed up by the Anti-Christ to combat the evils of our times. Satan cannot be defeated by yoking with his dupes. He is quite willing for his false church to oppose some evils while all the time his greater purpose, namely, the damnation of men's souls goes on unopposed by those who ought to know better.