On Being A Catholic -- The Oldest Christian Church In The World By JIM CHORON The Catholic Church existed long before Constantine. It was simply given the name Roman Catholic Church at that time. Prior to that there was only one church, the Body of Christ, and it required no name. The Church, as a universal body, was acknowledged to exist among all Christians at least as early as the First Council of Jerusalem and was completely organized and theologically united by the Councils of Nicea and Trent. Even by this early time the Apostiles Peter and Paul had made their way to Rome and the recognized seat of Christiandom was seen as the Imperial capital. No "name" was necessary, it was simply "the church." The term "Roman Catholic Church" came into wide use under Constantine. There were two reasons for this. First, the Christian faith was declared, under Constantine, to be the official religion of the Roman Empire. Secondly, there had been several prominent splinters in the unity of the body by this time and the distinction was made to determine the orthodoxy of Christian belief as opposed to several smaller groups which had taken on aspects of the pagan religions that surrounded them. Notably, in the begining, these were the Gnostics, Armenians and Coptics. For a very good book on the early history of Christianity I strongly recommend anything at all written by Dr. John H. Dahmus Sr. of Cornell University. Most of these are now out of print but can be found, or ordered by custom order. They are primarilly history books but they are exclusively based on original sources and Dr. Dahmus is a readable writer that states his facts clearly and concisely and tells the reader exactly where his information comes from and how to find the material for themselves. No Catholic worships the Pope. That is one of the biggest tales told by Protestants and one of the hardest to get anyone to understand. The Pope is only the administrative head of the Church. He is a priest like any other. We venerate him because of his experience and his position as the leader of the largest Christian denomination in the world. Likewise, no one "prays" to Mary or the Saints, which is something that many people do not understand. They are holy people... people... who we venerate and copy. When we pray we pray to the Lord Jesus Christ just like you do. The confusion comes in when we ask a saint, whether a deceased saint, already in the presence of our Lord or one who is living (and any devout Christian is a saint) to pray for us. It is no different than my asking you to pray for me. This has no bearing on where our Salvation comes from or in whom we place our trust for that salvation ... Our Lord Jesus Christ. No Pope is infallable and they do not claim to be. That entire idea comes up over the doctrine that the "Pope is infallible in matters of interpretation of Scripture." So far, that doctrine has only been invoked two times since the days of St. Peter. It is no different than saying that any of us, given eyes, ears and a mind, cannot ascertain the meaning of Scripture ... it is the Scripture that is infallible, not the Pope. The entire doctrine came about because the Pope, as leader, was often called on to address issues of Scripture and their meaning. For me to say that Joseph Smith and his Mormons are Heretics who have corrupted the bible is just as infallible as any statement that any Pope could make on the subject. People think that a celibate priesthood is an edict of some Pope. It is not. We have orders of priesthood like divisions in an army. All of them, so far, have elected to follow the rule of St. Paul and remain celibate as was Our Lord Jesus Christ. This has become accepted, but it is not a written dogma of the Church except in vows taken by specific orders of priests. I fully expect this current Pope to make a statement on that very issue. They say that we "pray" to Mary. We do not. We venerate Mary as the Mother of Our Lord. Many of us, not all by any means, will ask Mary to pray for us. Is that worship? No. It is asking a mother to pray for us before her son. Since we believe that the exceptionally holy are taken straight up into heaven, such as we see in the old Testament and is promised to the Good Thief on the Cross, they are already in the presence of our lord. Are they our "Mediator"? No. There is only one mediator with the Father, Christ Jesus the Righteous and he is the expiation of our sins. It's that simple. Many choose Mary since it is a matter of Scripture that Jesus never denied anything that was asked of him by his mother. Does this guarantee that our prayers to Our Lord will be answered? No. Sometimes he answers "no" to our petitions. That is also an answer. It may not be the one that we want, but it is his will that we should be seeking, not our own. Many people ask me why we go to confession? Does the Priest have the right or ability to forgive sins? No. But we are commanded in the bible to confess our sins before man. The priest simply hears our sins and prays with us ... not for us ... for Our Lord to Forgive those sins. But ... you say that the Priest assigns "penance." Yes, he does, but it has nothing to do with God or Our Lord forgiving us. It is simply an outward sign, to ourselves, that we have sinned and a reminder that we should not commit that sin in the future. It is the confidentiality of the confessional that makes this confession before man somewhat easier for the average person, which is the whole idea. I do not know of too many people who would stand up before an entire congregation and confess their sins. Do you? The priest is bound to silence and many have died rather than divulge what they were told in confessional. Still, this fulfils the biblical command to confess our sins before man. The problem is that while anyone could learn these things if they were to ask, most do not. The Catholic Church is very large and it has many offshoots. Some people might very well believe some of the things that we are accused of. I don't personally know of any, but such may exist. That is no different than the differences in theological views seen among Protestants. Do I, or any other Catholic believe that works will get you into heaven? No, but we do believe that faith without works is dead just as Our Lord Taught us. For me to say I'm a Christian and do nothing to show it is empty. In our view Christians cannot and do not "work their way into heaven" but if they call themselves a Christian they should produce good works to match the words that they speak. Our Lord says that "by their fruits ye shall know them." I, and most Catholics that I know prefer for our lives and our works to be the biggest part of our Christian witness. This does not constitute working our way into heaven. It is simply a way for people to see that we "practice what we preach." Our actions, far more than any words (and this applies to any Christian whether they are Catholic or not) do more to win others to Our Lord than any sermon ever preached or any words ever spoken. People must see Christ living in us. In the end it comes down to a single issue. Salvation. There is only one name under heaven by which men may be saved. That is the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Anyone who believes on his name, repents of their sins and are baptized are Christians. Any other name that they give to themselves as groups, denominations or fellowships ... or no other name at all ... simply Christian ... is irrelevant. The word "Catholic" simply means "universal" and signifies that we are part of the single, united and universal brotherhood and sisterhood of Christ Our Lord. I am a Roman Catholic, which simply means that the seat of my church, as a general body, is located in Rome. Orthodox Catholics have a slightly different system and the seat of their general bodies are national such as Greek, Russian, Serbian, Coptic and Armenian. They are still part of the universal brotherhood and sisterhood of Our Lord... "Catholic" in nature. As I have stated before, there are several catechisms that are currently in use within the Catholic Church. The fact that they vary in content, some to greater and some to lesser degrees, does not detract from their use by the bodies that use them. I know of at least four that are commonly used in the United States and three that are used commonly in Europe. While all of them bear the imprint of the general church, this means only that they have been found free of any major theological (and this is important) flaw. They each contain a vast array of differences in interpretation that is not scripturally based. It is similar to the "Book of Common Prayer" as used by the Episcopals and Church of England or the "Discipline" that is used by various branches of the Methodist Church. All vary to some degree, but the scriptural content is considered valid in all cases by the governing bodies of those respective churches. The interpretation, that which is not scriptural but is more bureaucratic or "governmental" in scope is not considered to be important since it is determined by the needs of the local bodies (even if that local body takes up a large geographic area or a non-territorial area). While I am on this subject, it is very important for all to understand that all churches, denominations and divisions within each vary greatly depending on their location. American Catholics are as different from European Catholics and Asian or South American Catholics as are the American branches of any Protestant Church from their European, South American and Asian affiliates. This is not necessarily in a scriptural sense, but most Americans are completely lost when they enter a church of their own denomination in a foreign country. In any case, the variation in the catechisms in use and the inherent differences due to culture are a cause of many of the problems that non-Catholics have in understanding the Catholic Church. It is, as I said, not unique to my church. It is symptomatic of all. With further regard to Catholicism, there is also a great deal of difference between those of us who do not adhere to the Vatican II conference and those of us who do. The last reliable count showed that there were over 400 different kinds of Baptist in the United States alone. Trust me, there are at least that many different forms of Catholic. The biggest problem is that due to the hatred and misunderstandings at the various times the non-Catholic denominations broke away from the Catholic Church .... and all of them did whether they admit it or not ... the majority of differences were political and not religious or theological. Corruption was rampant in the early days as it is and was in all churches even today. It takes time to address that kind of thing and patience and dedication. The larger the group the longer it takes. I personally do not agree with the Vatican II conference and am somewhat relieved (rather like saying "slightly pregnant" or "marginally dead") that the current Pope has already gone a long way in dismantling some of it's more obnoxious and offensive tenets. I expect it to be completely a thing of the past, if not in my own lifetime then in the lifetimes of my children, and good riddance. I am not alone in this feeling the only place in which the liberal views of Vatican II are actually in a majority is in the United States and the liberality of the Roman Catholic Church in America makes it almost unrecognizable from a true Catholic Church. They have accepted and taken in almost all of the things that our church has traditionally stood against. I would like to mention at this point that none of the original Protestants, those who broke away from the Catholic Church during the Reformation, had the least intent to found a new church. Martin Luther intended to reform the existing church, which was badly in need of reformation. This is how the entire movement acquired it's name. The "new" church came about when the German Princes and Electors found a way to use Luther's conflict with Rome to gain independence for their states from the Holy Roman Emperor, or at least a greater degree of independence. Religion was used as a unifying factor toward political ends. True, reform took place and some valid doctrines were developed but it must be noted that within a period of 100 years all of the reforms that Luther had proposed were adopted by the Roman Catholic Church, most within the span of Luther's own lifetime. Likewise, the same can be said for Huss and Calvin who were far more interested in creating a "theocracy" in a political sense than in actually starting a new church. If you look at the actual practices of all early Protestant Churches, with the exception of their allegiance to local authorities rather than Rome, there is little difference in theology. In England Henry VIII wanted a second divorce. The first had been granted but the neither the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Pope would grant a second based simply on the notion that Henry wanted a male heir to his throne. At this point Henry VIII broke with Rome and assumed the leadership of the Church in England ... which later devolved to Scotland until it evolved toward a more Calvinistic influence. Even today there is very little difference theologically in the Church of England/Episcopal Church and it's offshoots (Methodist, Weslyan, etc.) and the Roman Catholic Church except in the form of secular government. All Baptist Churches are derived from Huss with a strong Calvinist leaning. Whether there is a direct succession in the breaks or not, if one compares the theology in actual terms the pattern is clear to see. The same thing can be said for the Christian/Churches of Christ. All Charismatics are descended from the Weslyans who are descended from the Anglicans ... and through the Church of England .... to the Roman Catholic Church. Even the Salvation Army is included in this grouping. The point that I am making is this. We are all Christian. We have different interpretations and we have different styles and forms of worship and internal government, but in the end, we are all Christian. All of us are those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, accept him as our Lord and Saviour and are baptized for the remission of our sins. Now, there are those who do not fit this category. It is stretching the imagination to call a Mormon, a Moonie or a Jehovah's Witness a Christian. There are some outward similarities and all acknowledge Our Lord in some way. However, if one looks at exactly what is believed by these groups it is clear to see that they are not, by definition Christian. They are completely separate, non-Christian religions which like Islam have borrowed extensively from both Christianity and Judaism but have patched this together within the framework of their own system which is based on the thoughts and writings of their founder. The classic examples of this are the Book of Mormon and two other "holy" books of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints written by Joseph Smith in the middle of the 19th century. A close examination will show any reader who is familiar with the bible where he has patched sections of actual Scripture into a narrative that is essentially a work of fiction based on the Social Darwinism of his time. Likewise if one examines a Jehovah's Witness "bible" one will find significant differences between it and any known translation of the actual Christian bible. While I am on the subject of Bibles. Many people believe that the Catholic Bible (actually there is no such thing as a "Catholic" Bible) has more books in it than a Protestant Bible. This is both true and false. The accepted canon for a Bible for any Christian Church is 66 books. Most Bibles published by Catholic publishing houses, and a good many published by Protestant publishing houses have an additional section between the two Testaments which contains several books that are not considered to be of the same weight as Scripture. Note. I just said "not considered to be of the same weight as Scripture." Please take note. These are historical books that fill in what happened in the time frame between the completion of the last book of the Old Testament and the first book in the New Testament. They are included as "filler" to show what was happening in this time. They are not intended and have never been intended to be taken at the same value as Scripture. Sometimes they are quoted but it is only as historically pertinent material and never as the Word of God. It is the same as if a person wrote a history of the First and Second World Wars and needed to include some material which covered what went on between the two wars in order to make events more historically clear. Catholics accept the same Scripture as Protestants. In fact, until the King James (Authorized) edition of the bible was revised in the 1860s these books were included in all King James versions of the bible and are found in all earlier Bibles regardless of source. It is valuable material that should not be forgotten or overlooked but it does not have the same weight as Scripture and was never intended to. No one, no Catholic Priest or Protestant Pastor is going to quote II Maccabees with the same authority that he would quote II Corinthians or II Kings. They are not the same in weight, content or value. They simply fill in an historical gap with information that is necessary to allow the reader to know what took place during a period spanning several hundred years. For myself, I know in whom I place my trust and in whom I receive my salvation, as do most Catholics. We stand before no earthly judge whether we call him Pope, Bishop, Pastor, Prince or King. We stand before God and Our Lord. That is where my salvation lies and no one has a right to question it or to insult my faith. This has been my major complaint with MC. They attack out of ignorance without even bothering to try and find the truth. They are too content with the old stories that they have been taught and the "authority" of those who have nothing to base their "authority" on other than the even older tales that they have been taught. Let me give you an example within Protestantism. The Church of Christ does not believe in instrumental music in Church. The Christian Church does. Theologically they are the same with this one exception. Which is saved? Both claim that the other is not, yet except for the presence of a piano or organ in their building they are exactly the same theologically. By the way, both believe that they are the only people who are actually saved. Now, I do not know what denomination any of you are and will not ask. But, wouldn't you get just a bit upset if someone posted a thread that asked if you and all like you were saved? I suspect that you would. I suspect that you'd become even more upset if you knew how many tens of thousands of members of your denomination had died for their belief in Our Lord and that thousands of your clergy had died horrible deaths for preaching his word. It would annoy you even more if you happened to be related to some of them. No Catholic would dare call any Protestant "Non-Christian" or "Un-Christian". We simply do not do that. We will state that we think that there are points where we disagree and we will say that we believe that some of those points, in a Protestant interpretation, are wrong, but we do not consider Protestants to be either "Non-Christian" or "Un-Christian". Any who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, repent of their sins and are baptized are saved and worthy of the name Christian. Whether we agree on every single point is not at issue. So long as we agree on those points we are brothers and sisters in Christ Our Lord. We are Christians together. Catholicism, specifically Roman Catholicism, is the oldest single Christian church in existence today. Certainly we have those in the Church that are not saved. So do all other churches. Much is made, in the media, of perversion in the priesthood and corruption in the Church. Unfortunately both exist. They also exist in Protestant Churches and in Non-Denominational and Independent Congregations. You say that there seems to be more of it in the Catholic Church. Numerically there is. I have no argument there at all. But, there is a reason for this that most people overlook. There are far more Catholics than there are any other branch of Christianity. If you put one black pea into a jar with ten white peas the black one stands out fast. If you put that same black pea into a jar with half a million white peas, it's a bit harder to find. Like all Churches and congregations we try our best to weed out those "black peas." Unfortunately some of them are fairly good at hiding out and covering over their corruption. In the early 1980s there was a United Methodist Bishop in Texas (I won't mention his name but it is a matter of public record) who died of AIDS. Naturally it was claimed that he contracted it while "ministering" to AIDS victims. Unfortunately at the time he died several of his close associates resigned some rather prestigious pastorates in somewhat of a hurry and several of them have since died of AIDS. One may look at the cases of Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and numerous other non-Catholic clergymen who have been involved in scandals. It has only been a month or so since there was a noted paedophilia and homosexuality related resignation by a rather prominent non-denominational pastor in Oklahoma. Now, these are isolated cases. Is it fair to say that all of their clergy is like this? No. Is it fair to say that when a Catholic priest is caught in a scandal that it is representative of all Catholic clergy? No. It simply means that one slipped through the cracks. Is it right for the Church to protect these perverts and con-men? No. But it is not something that is common to the Roman Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church alone. It happens, unfortunately, to all Christian bodies. It is still sin. It is sin no matter who or which church it happens to effect. It is simply a fact of life that many perverts and con-men will gravitate toward the clergy, regardless of church or denomination, because it gives them legitimacy with which to mask their perversion. Are we all actively trying to weed these miscreants out? Yes, of course we are. Can we possibly catch them all? Unfortunately in some cases the only way to catch them is to catch them in the act and that is not only too late to prevent the damage that it does to all Christians no matter what denomination, but it is too late to prevent the personal tragedy involved. The only thing one can do is be more vigilant, which all of us are doing, or should be doing. If you have never seen the process that it takes to get into any major seminary, Catholic or other, it is an eye-opening experience. Every effort is made to eliminate those who are undesirable. It's simply a sad fact of life that we all miss a few and they manage to bring shame and disgrace on all of us regardless of which church they belong to. I will point out here that it is far more likely for a Protestant to "repent" and gain "forgiveness" and once again fill a pulpit after an incident like this than it is for a demonstrable pervert to regain a Catholic pulpit in parish work that would put them into a position to repeat their crimes and perversions. Now I will amend that by saying that I've seen it done in the United States, but that does not make it a universal policy of the Roman Catholic Church any more than Jim Bakker or Jimmy Swaggart re-starting their ministries makes them typical of Protestants. The sheer number of Roman Catholic Christians who have died and been tortured for simply proclaiming their faith in the Lord Jesus, let alone preaching His Word boggles the mind. It is in the tens of millions. Certainly there have been Protestants and non-affiliated Christians who have suffered as well, but not on the vast scale as have Roman Catholics and Orthodox Catholics. It is no big thing to hear people talk about "Bloody Mary" the Catholic Queen of England who executed a few dozen Protestants. It is unheard of for them to mention "Bloody Elizabeth" the Protestant Queen who burned hundreds of Catholics at the stake. Interesting isn't it. No one mentions the thousands of Catholics who lie in mass graves in Stalin's Gulag or those who died in Auschwitz and Dachau ... simply for being Christians. I have personally been present on photographic shoots when mass graves have been opened here in Russia. It gives one a completely different view of religion in general when one sees bodies, frozen solid and still identifiable after half a century and more ... men, women and children ... stacked five or six layers deep like cord wood. It makes one consider the cost of their faith when one sees the death grips of those frozen hands still grimly clinging to some small icon or crucifix and knowing that they died praying to Our Lord and died for the very belief that their last, dying gesture bears a mute tribute to. I will point out that Russia is 60% Orthodox Catholic and 20% Roman Catholic. There is no question as to the affiliation of these brave Christian martyrs who went to face their Lord and their God simply because they would not renounce their faith or their trust and belief in their saviour. No two Christians, let alone two churches or denominations are going to believe alike, but for Christians to bash and attack fellow Christians is simply not in keeping with the concept or definition of being Christian. Deluding one's self into believing that others are not Christians simply because we have a different approach to worship of the same God and same Lord does not make that concept right. I've seen people say, openly that there will be "no Catholics in Heaven". I have never said that about anyone else and I have never seen any Catholic say such a thing either in a forum or in public, in "real life." Certainly some have, it simply stands to reason. But, they are not representative of the Roman Catholic or the Orthodox Catholic Church. On the other hand, I have seen and heard it many times from the Protestant community, not only with regard to Catholics but to other Protestants as well. I'm sorry, but that is not what Our Lord taught us. He said that all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. That includes Catholics and non-Catholics. I personally resent my Church or any other Christian Church being lumped in with Jews, Moslems, Hindus and Buddhists ... people who never make any claim to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and never once have called on his precious name to be Saved. I'm sorry, but this simply makes no sense to me. To me, those who do such things and make such statements have far more serious questions to ask about their own salvation than I do, or any Catholic for that matter. As for myself, I am a Christian. I am saved. I have no earthly judge to face, only Our Lord Jesus Christ and my God. I see the word of God as it is printed in the bible. I see more than two thousand years of Christian tradition and the learned and inspired writings of two thousand years worth of Christian scholars. The definition of a Christian, whether anyone likes it or not and regardless of the name you hang over a church door, is "One who calls upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, don't get much simpler than that and that is what Catholics ... all of them ... believe. The rest is unimportant. The same can be said for anyone or any church that calls themself or itself by His name. I am a Christian. I am a Roman Catholic Christian. I am Saved. The sign over the door of my Church says Divine Infant Roman Catholic Church. I would be just as saved if it said something else. I happen to be comfortable and can find my Lord where I am. The name over the door means nothing. When the time comes I will gladly and proudly stand before my God and my Lord and trust in the blood of my saviour for my salvation. I need fear nor face any earthly judge. Now, what precisely do Catholics believe? It is all summed up pretty succinctly below. Please read. I believe in God, the Father Almighty And in Jesus Christ His only Son, Our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, Born of the Virgin Mary, Suffered under Pontius Pilate, Was crucified, dead and buried. He descended into Hell* On the third day he rose from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, Where he sitteth at the right hand of God the Father almighty. From thence he shall come to judge the quick** and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, The Holy catholic*** Church, The communion of saints"""" The forgiveness of sin, The resurrection of the body And the life everlasting. Amen. * The place of the dead. This indicates that we believe that Jesus was truly dead and suffered that death for all of us who believe on him and call on his name for our salvation. ** The living *** The word "catholic" with a small "c" means "universal". The body of Christ is one. It is made up of all believers and is indivisible regardless of any other thing that we call ourselves, we are all part of the universal body of Christ Our Lord. **** Any and all who are saved by the grace of Our Lord and lead holy lives in his image. Some are so recognized by the church as such. Most are not. All are saints.

MY DRAMATIC ENCOUNTER WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT By SHANA, San Diego, California, USA I was saved in what I consider a somewhat unique way. I was saved almost twenty years ago. I was alone and did not have anyone "lead me in the sinner's prayer" etc. It was late at night, I was in some despair. I was crying and crying and crying. I did not grow up in church, but rather in the occult and new age movement. However I always was searching for God. Anyway, I was crying and crying, and with no real volition that I can recall on my part (it was heartfelt but spontaneous) I prayed. I prayed the only prayer I had ever heard (aside from the Lord's Prayer) which was from my favorite movie "The Sound of Music." I cried out to God over and over again "Father forgive me for I have sinned." Over and over again. As I prayed, God showered me with His divine love. He filled me and poured out His love upon me and in me so much I could physically feel it rushing through me and in me. It was electric. It was physical, as if I were standing in front of a huge speaker at a concert and the bass is pounding (although that description does not do justice). I did not know if I was asleep or awake. I pinched myself (literally) to feel my body and know I was awake. And all the while I kept praying, asking God to forgive me, and the tears just streamed from my eyes and poured down my face. This encounter with God lasted quite long. I don't think I know how it ended- I think I fell asleep. The next morning I woke up and I was an entirely different person- from the MINUTE I woke up. My heart was filled with joy- joy unspeakable. I was happy and smiling. I didn't swear any more- the very words made me cringe and it was taken from me. I never smoked another cigarette, and that night, my friends asked me to go out with them (it was Saturday night) and I said no. I had no desire. But I didn't know why. And I had never heard the Gospel. But I knew I had had an encounter with God. So that week I went to the library and began reading books on religions, primarily eastern, because that was what I knew. By the following week, God spoke to my heart, the same way He does now. He told me to move to my parents' home in Nevada. I didn't have the money for the plane ticket. He told me to sell my school books at the university. I did, and I had eight dollars over the plane ticket which was enough to eat until I left. I missed the plane two times before I finally caught the flight home, three days later. I arrived home, and my entire family recognized a difference. I knew there was a difference. I soon got a job and within a week of working, a pastor came in. I waited on him. He asked me if I knew Jesus died on the cross for my sins and rose from the dead. Everything inside of me screamed YES!!!! I got a huge smile on my face and said "YES!" He said "oh, are you a Christian?" I smiled even bigger and said "YES!!!!" He asked me if I had a church, I said no, I had just moved there. He gave me his card and invited me to his church. I went the next Sunday and went forward for the altar call. Within three weeks my brother, mother, father and sister were believers. We've been walking with the Lord ever since! Glory to God!

FROM GHANDI TO JESUS

By Devaprakash (Professor in Mechanical Engineering) Bangalore, India. It was, in a way, Mahatma (means great soul) Gandhi whose autobiography “Experiments with Truth” influenced me to become a believer in Jesus Christ! He writes that his life was influenced by “Sermon on the Mount,” Leo Tolstoy’s “Kingdom of God is within you,” and John Ruskin’s “ Unto the Last.” In fact, his strategy of non-violent struggle to end British rule was based on the ‘sermon on the mount’: “To turn the other cheek!” Leo Tolstoy was an orthodox Christian and Ruskin had a Christian background! Gandhi was accused of having a Christian heart! He did not like Christians who practiced many things that were in contradiction to what Jesus preached. He never liked the liberal attitudes of many Christians with whom he came in contact in the United Kingdom! He was repelled by their norms! He never hated Jesus Christ! As a matter of fact, no one – even people of other religions – will have anything against Jesus Christ and His preaching! If someone says asks whether Gandhi will go to hell, I will only respond and say that it is for Jesus Christ to decide and not me! Similarly there are other saints, such as, Gautama Buddha, Purandaradasa, Kanakadasa, Mother Teresa (Catholic) et al, in Indian history, who gave up life of pleasure to seek the truth, may appear before the Judgment seat of Jesus Christ. I cannot assume the authority of Jesus to decide and comment that these people are going to hell! Purandaradasa was immensely rich (like Bill Gates) who gave his wealth and property to poor before becoming a servant of god ( ‘dasa’ means servant or slave) about 500 years back! Satan has badly influenced many people in all religions, starting from Eve!

COMMENTS ON ESOTERIC CHRISTIANITY

By LEVANNAH IVRI, Melbourne, Australia. [To the writer of the first two articles about Esoteric Christianity, I would like to offer some additional comment]. 1. THE HIDDEN MEANING IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE: I would like to draw to the attention of the writer of the above article the fact that in the Old Testament -- as he/she implies, commandeered from the Jewish people -- that the Jews have long had a practice of esoterica in the Bible. Mostly, this comes from a system of numerology employed in the Hebrew language to give a magical or mystic interpretation to the Bible. I am well aware that numerology has been employed in the Bible by Christians and others since the Hebrew application, except while I cannot entirely understand its relevance in the latter, I can in the Hebrew, for it most certainly does have relevance. Let me explain. Hebrew is a language which gives an alpha-numeric value to each character. For instance, the first letter of the alefbet (alphabet) is designate alef, which, while being a silent letter also designates the numeral one. Likewise, beta, the second letter which can give a sound of either 'b' or 'v' is also two, and so on and so forth. Therefore, it is not difficult to turn any given word into a string of numbers, each with a unique mystical (or inner) meaning of its own. The additional fact that ancient Hebrew in particular (Biblical Hebrew) is never written with vowels -- try reading the following: MLBRN or perhaps NW STH WLS -- and one begins to experience the difficulty of this ancient language. Each word must be read in context with all others in the sentence to make it clear exactly what is meant, and this practice serves also with the mystic numerical application as well. Try the many combinations of CT, for example, and the numerical value will be as different as the many words which a vowel or two will turn CT into. 2. ASTROLOGY IN THE BIBLE: Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with the writer that a great deal of astrology does exist in the Bible. In Biblical days, however, astrology and astronomy were interchangeable, and astrology was actually banned to the Jews because it was seen as 'fortune-telling', much in the same way as witches, soothsayers and idolatry were banned because " . . . the Lord your God is a jealous God, and you shall have no other gods before me!" (Funny then that the most common expression for 'congratulations' to someone in Hebrew remains mazal tov! -- lucky stars!) The episodes chosen by the writer of this article to illustrate his/her point are, indeed, particularly apt, except the cycle to which he/she refers is (astronomically) closer to 2500 years for each zodiacal sign, the total cycle being 26,000 years. It is known even today in astronomical circles as the precession of the equinoxes, explaining the 'slipping back' or going in reverse to the way we know them today. And whatever God had commanded the Jews in the Ten Commandments was undoubtedly severely tested during the Exile in Babylon, where the Jews must have come across the astrology/astronomy of the Babylonian practice. This is quite probably how astrological references throughout the Bible crept in, for the Babylonians were the greatest practitioners of this art in their time.

UNSCRIPTUAL TEACHINGS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH By CHERYL, Illinois, USA The Bible says that our prayers are only to God. 1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; I will openly admit that I am very anti-Catholic. Not against the people, but against the false doctrine. Here is what the Bible says about those who bring false doctrine - "another gospel": Galatians 1:8-10 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. These are God's words, not mine. But if we are Christians, we should feel the same way about this. I used to think it was just another Christian denomination, until I started to do some studying - and especially reading their CCC - Catechism of the Catholic Church. It states that it is to be received equally with scripture, and that the pope is infallible and has the authority to add to the canon of scripture. This is no different than the cults such as Mormons, who add the book of Mormon to the Bible, and redefine the doctrines of the Bible. You will receive a real education if you start reading the catechism. Of course we are to love all people regardless of their beliefs, but if we truly love them, we will tell them the truth. Souls are at stake. Here are just a few parts of the latest catechism of the Catholic church. Anyone can read and decide if these are Christian beliefs, or if they conflict with scripture. [82] "As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence." Mary - sinless, a perpetual virgin, Mother of God, Queen of Heaven, Co-Redemptress with Christ. The pope has the power to forgive sins. The Eucharist is to be worshipped (#1418 and 1378) Taking the Eucharist can forgive sins. If Christ is the one Mediator, why do Catholics pray to Mary and the saints? "Mary goes before us all in the holiness that is the Church's mystery as "the bride without spot or wrinkle."[194] This is why the "Marian" dimension of the Church precedes the "Petrine."[195] "As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God" (CCC 1414). [834] Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome "which presides in charity." "For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord" (St. Irenaeus, Adv. Haeres, 3,3,2: PG 7/1,849; cf. Vatican Council I: DS 3057). [963] Since the Virgin Mary's role in the mystery of Christ and the Spirit has been treated, it is fitting now to consider her place in the mystery of the Church. "The Virgin Mary . . . is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer.... She is 'clearly the mother of the members of Christ' . . . since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head."[500] "Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church."[501] [966] "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."[506] The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians: [964] 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";[502] 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."[503] [965] After her Son's Ascension, Mary "aided the beginnings of the Church by her prayers."[504] In her association with the apostles and several women, "we also see Mary by her prayers imploring the gift of the Spirit, who had already overshadowed her in the Annunciation."[505 ] [966] "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son ..." The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection ... "In giving birth you kept your virginity... You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death" (Byzantine Liturgy, Troparion, Feast of the Dormition, August 15th.). [968] "In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the Saviour's work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace." [969] "... Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us gifts of eternal salvation. ... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix." Mary goes before us all in the holiness that is the Church's mystery as "the bride without spot or wrinkle."[194] This is why the "Marian" dimension of the Church precedes the "Petrine."[195] In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.[507] 971 "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship." The Church rightly honours "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. ..." The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an "epitome of the whole Gospel," express this devotion to the Virgin Mary. The catechism says that the pope is infallible and he can add to scripture. Isn't this a big red flag? (82) "As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition (the catechism) must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.") [891] The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful -- who confirms his brethren in the faith -- he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. ... The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. ... This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself. The Catholic church considers anyone who has been baptized as a Christian - including Mormons. "the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."[272] Catholic justification not by faith:....(Council of Trent) "If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema" (Council of Trent, Canons on Justification, Canon 9). "If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema." (Canon 14). Mark 7:6-9 He answered and said unto them, “Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And He said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

LONG HISTORY OF SEXUAL ABUSE IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH By COLIN LUCK The Uniting Church in Australia has finally entered the twenty first century and accepted the inevitable as, just for example the Catholic Church has for many years had practicing homosexuals as priests within its various orders, but they were the worst kind as they felt it their right to be sexually intimate with young boys. All the current Christian churches have this problem and the Anglican Church in Canada is actually broke after admitting that they protected paedophile priests, and the current leader of this country’s church apologised to the victims. Actually, while always being alleged, this practice was never given a second thought as anyone who made these complaints was considered to be unstable and many were locked up in lunatic asylums for their own protection. The Catholic Church has recently been shown to have protected these priests by moving then around to different parishes when their deeds became too outrageous in any one particular parish. Most of the other churches did the same thing: it was really nothing more that protecting each other’s back and they were in this case, like any other profession, as they all group together for their own protection (just try to make a complaint about a Doctor of Medicine.) Anyway in church run orphanages it was common practice for the priests/religious people to come around and any child that they took a fancy to was their sexual play toy until they got sick of him or found someone that interested them more. You will notice that most of the current sexual abuse claims against the church are lodged by males against the priests. But similarly the nuns quite often took a liking to their female charges and in return for sexual favours would allow that child better food/clothing and general conditions, as these places where horrendous at the time. Because of the inability of the people in charge to control themselves sexually most of these institutions have now disappeared. However this is nothing new and has been practiced for all the time of the Christian church which effectively started in the fifth century when Pauline Christianity was accepted by the Roman Emperor Constantine as his favoured religion. Prior to that there were small loosely organised "Christian Churches" around but none was very big and they all followed different teachings. Haven't you ever wondered just why it is that the Catholic Church is the main source of old texts of Christian teachings? In addition to the afore mentioned, the original founders of the " New World' who fled England to escape religious persecution had much the same problem, but this time with their young females as all too often these young girls who were attractive and had just started menstruating where invited over to the religious leader’s house for a week long or longer for “religious instruction.” This was never questioned in any manner and most of these young girls ended up pregnant. But at least the pastors weren't abusing young boys. Personally I can't see a difference in principle between an admitted homosexual and a priest who sexually assaults young boys. To me this is all homosexual activity but these very priests are not considered as homosexuals for some reason. To me they are the worst form of homosexuals as they exert their power over someone that isn't in a position to defend themselves and actually should be safe with these very same people. The admitted homosexuals don't attack young boys as they prefer males of their own age and this is considered as wrong, but the ones who molest young boys are considered as normal by the church. To me this reeks of a "double standard" of the worst kind as to me anyone who is sexually intimate with another of the same gender is actually a practicing homosexual. However as I already mentioned there was no reference to female sexual activity being frowned upon by the early church. This is something very new and only came about within the last 30 years or so. It was the early Christian Church which made sex dirty, and while necessary for the procreation of the species and for that matter the church (even the current Catholic Church frowns on any form of birth control) they didn't want their members to enjoy it but to have sex only to create new members of the church. Actually at the time and up until very recently pregnant women and those with very young children where treated as sick and avoided when possible. However if you take a look at the Orthodox Jewish Church it is the females who are empowered sexually as, when they marry, they are given certain rights and they expect to be serviced very regularly. Even today it is grounds for divorce within that church if the woman claims that her husband doesn't service her often enough. The very minimum that these women can expect is to be serviced five times a week and it is only males with heavy work (like camel drivers) who are allowed to service their wives less. But even then they must service their wife at least twice a week if not more, and always at the females demand. The Christian church on the other hand has turned this around and made the wife the male’s property who was only there for the man's pleasure. It was only very recently that "Rape in Marriage" was accepted as an offence as, prior to that it was considered as the wife's duty no matter what, or how she was used in a sexual manner.

THE IMPORTANCE OF MONASTICISM IN A RELIGION

By JOHN WILLS, Oakland, California, USA All religions except mine are false. Some are falser than others. But apart from falseness of doctrine might there be something wrong with a church? Well, for a start there are things wrong with my own church despite its perfect doctrine. Can there be something so deeply wrong or lacking in a church as to poison the soul of the community? I think that lack of monasticism somewhere in the background can lead to great evils. Rabbinical Judaism has brought forth Zionism while Islam has brought forth Al Qa'ida, both of which posit moral imperatives contrary to the primary commandments of their religions. It is noticeable also that Germany’s Nazis, while claiming to be rooted in what was after all a Christian nation, condemned the idea even of clerical celibacy, never mind of monasticism, as “completely incomprehensible” (Frenssens: Weg unseres Volkes) to the spirit of that nation. I do not know of a parallel rejection in Russian Communism. Ancestral Judaism had monasticism in the shape of the Carmelites. When Judaism split into on the one hand Christianity and on the other Rabbinical Judaism, the central difference was the question of the Messiah: was Jesus of Nazareth he? Rabbinical Jews, when not humming and hawing so as not to offend their Christian friends, say he was not: his attitude to the Law, in particular to kashruth etc., shows he was not the Messiah; there are additional reasons given for rejecting Jesus, but they all seem to have come up well after the rejection had taken place. There are of course Rabbinical Jews who do not observe kashruth, but the norm of every church is the faith of practising believers. The next most noticeable difference was that Christians continued with monasticism while Rabbinical Judaism abandoned it completely. Monks have practices analogous to kashruth, and they adhere to these practices fairly consistently. They recognize that their practices are not for seculars, at least not in the same way, and that there are weightier and over-riding matters of the Law (Mt 15:1-20). It is the lack of background monasticism that has brought about such immorality as Zionism and Al Qa’ida. But suppose there were Rabbinical Jewish monks. Would they not reject kashruth as taught in the tradition of the Council of Jamnia, and conclude that Jesus might very well be the Messiah? Are the absence of monasticism and the re-emphasized and extended kashruth in Rabbinical Judaism correlated? Perhaps Edith Stein became in effect a Carmelite before she became a Christian (I have no evidence of this). Perhaps the Carmelites all became Christian (they must have done so, although there seems to be no record of it) precisely because a Jewish monk must accept Jesus as Messiah, and perhaps this is why we do not find monasticism in Rabbinical Judaism (I except the Falashas, who are really a third branch of Judaism rather than part of Rabbinical Judaism). Someone involved in monastic exercises would become a Christian before getting to the stage of denying aliyah to be a mitzvah. In Islam there has been actual persecution of monks (mentioned, I think, in Glubb: Empire of the Arabs), although the equivalent of kashruth is much easier than Rabbinical Jewish practice and not so central; nor does it set Muslims off from unbelievers as sharply as kashruth does Rabbinical Jews from Christians. Muhammed twice in the Quran – 5:85 and 57:27 – praises monasticism, but at some time a perhaps spurious hadith “there is no monasticism in Islam” [Ibn Hibban, Ahmad, At-Tabarani, graded authentic by Al-Albani] has become understood as a veto rather than as the lament the context of the Quran makes it. But there must have been something in Muslim culture to make people interpret the hadith as a veto, possibly the idea that monks were aping Christians and thus liable to go astray. Perhaps – I do not know – some early Muslim monks did become Christians en masse; such things have been known more recently, e.g. the conversion of the Atonement Friars. In this regard the monastic penchant for repentance may have led to a firm doctrine of original sin, something Islam lacks.