Catholic Faith Defender

JOHN. 8:32 “et cognoscetis veritatem et veritas liberabit vos”

Archive for the ‘CFD VS INC’ Category


Posted by catholicfaithdefender on February 27, 2019




Image result for Catholic vs Protestant


Retrieve from:



Being an Exhaustive Refutation of the Biblical Bloopers, Historical Blunders, Logical Absurdities, Incoherent Nonsense, Outright Fabrications, and Pure Poppycock of the Posts of LES WILCOX


“Good. I’m ready for you Catholics to quit all this accusations without any substantiation. If it was really all that hilarious I would think as an adult you would just ignore it. Must be more serious than hilarious, huh?” LES WILCOX TO PHIL PORVAZNIK — FidoNet Open_Bible 8/14/95

“There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church….As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.” ARCHBISHOP FULTON J. SHEEN — preface to RADIO REPLIES

“Errors die hard, especially Protestant fictions.” DOM JOHN CHAPMAN — Monk of Downside Abbey

“The committed fundamentalist, who is often a former Catholic, KNOWS the Catholic religion is wrong and thinks he can prove it from the Bible. The first step is to demonstrate to him that much of what he knows simply is not so. Emotional barriers will be overcome later, and they will fall as he realizes he has not been told the whole story.” KARL KEATING — from CATHOLICISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM


In this reply to the posts of Les Wilcox, I will respond to three anti-Catholic posts that have appeared in Open_Bible the past month:


2) Which will you believe? The Holy Scriptures, God’s Unchanging Word or The Human Traditions of Men? by The Conversion Center (for more on this group see chapter 4 of Karl Keating’s book)

3) Are some Roman Catholics Saved? by an ex-priest Rev H. Gregory Adams (for his story see FAR FROM ROME, NEAR TO GOD edited by another ex-priest Richard Bennett)


LW> We ask that you find out for yourself – in the manner that Paul COMMANDS us to: “TEST ALL THINGS – HOLD FAST TO THAT WHICH IS TRUE”.


This will be the theme of this reply. Les reminds us of this command from the apostle to “test all things” (1 Thess 5:21). Unfortunately, not a single charge in these anti-Catholic posts WAS tested and hardly anything in them is true. The name’s Friday and the dates HAVE been changed to protect the innocent. In fact, most of it was just made up out of thin air and/or copied from other anti-Catholic material such as Loraine Boettner’s book ROMAN CATHOLICISM (P&R, 1962). There is not a shred of documentation for the errors, misunderstandings, fabrications, and irrelevancies in these posts.

And Les was complaining to me about no substantiation? Give me a break!


Let’s start with the lists of supposed “inventions.”

First, the author of the post “THE ROMAN ROAD…” has no clue what Catholics mean by DOGMA. For example,

LW> The Roman Catholic Church maintains as irreversible and mandatory doctrine (we will use their term “DOGMA” in the remainder of this writing)

LW> There are a number of DOGMATIC doctrines of the Roman Catholic church that were NOT part of the original church. The Roman Catholic Church continues to make the claim that “the Church has always taught (????????)!” You can fill in the blank with EACH and EVERY dogma listed below.

LW> Look up the scriptures under the dates of certain doctrines.


The author is confusing the terms “dogma” and “doctrine.” For both Catholics and Protestants, “DOCTRINE” simply means “teaching” and is derived from the Greek word -didache- denoting that which is taught (Matt 7:28; 2 Tim 4:2; Titus 1:9) or the act of teaching or instruction (Mark 4:2; Rom 16:17). Doctrine can be true or false (2 Tim 4:1-4; 2 Peter 2:1) though the Scripture stresses “sound doctrine” (1 Tim 4:6; Titus 2:1) taught by the apostles and passed on and guarded by their successors, the Bishops, such as Timothy and Titus (1 Tim 3:2; 4:11-16; 6:20-21; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2) who taught with Christ’s own authority (Mt 10:19-20,40; 16:18-19; 18:17-18; 28:18-20; Lk 10:16; Jn 20:21-23).

The Catholic term “DOGMA” refers to a true doctrine that has been solemnly defined by a Council of Bishops (cf. Acts 15) or a Pope. The actual date of the definition does not mean that is when the dogma was INVENTED but that is when it was solemnly DEFINED. To quote Catholic scholar Ludwig Ott from a standard reference source, FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA (Tan Books, 1974) —

“By DOGMA in the strict sense is understood a truth immediately (formally) revealed by God which has been proposed by the Teaching Authority [or Magisterium] of the Church to be believed as such. The Vatican Council explains:

Fide divina et catholica ea omnia credenta sunt, quae in verbo Dei scripto vel tradito continentur et ab Ecclesia sive solmeni iudicio sive ordinario et universali magisterio tanquam divinitus revelata credenda proponuntur [Denz 1792].

“All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God written or handed down and which are proposed for our belief by the Church either in a solemn definition or in its ordinary and universal authoritative teaching.” (Ott, p. 4)

A good example of this which all Catholics and Protestants accept is the Christological dogma of the two natures (divine and human) in the one Person of Christ defined as orthodox for the whole Church at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. “Peter has spoken through Leo!” the Bishops exclaimed. Pope Leo’s TOME settled the matter for this Council.

In fact, the first four ecumenical Councils of the Christian Church almost all Bible-believing conservative Protestants accept and receive as teaching the truth handed down to them from Christ and His apostles.

One could say the Church has ALWAYS taught the Trinity even though there have been those who have denied certain aspects of it (e.g. Subordinationists, Arians, Monarchians, Monophysites, Pneumatomakians).

There is a certain DEVELOPMENT of doctrine as Cardinal Newman explained in his classic work on the subject, concerning the nature of God. And there is one true teaching — the DOGMA of the Trinity — but many heretics and many false doctrines on the nature of God and Christ.

Since the author of “THE ROMAN ROAD…” has no idea what a DOGMA is almost everything in the list of “inventions” is completely irrelevant. So I would have the right to throw the whole list out of court from the start. It proves nothing.

However, I will deal with some of it below. And not only are these not dogmas, but most of them are not even DOCTRINES. The author does not know what a doctrine is either.

LW> Before we look at the books of John and Matthew, which the Roman church claims as its authority, I believe that it is important to look at the FACTS of recorded history. Let’s look AT THE RECORD OF HISTORY

The problem is these are hardly “FACTS.” There is not one shred of documentation for these “FACTS” of recorded history. Most of it is completely false. I will document this shortly.

Sorry, Les, I do not count Loraine Boettner as a credible historian. He simply made some of these dates up out of thin air! If you compare his list of “Some Roman Catholic Heresies and Inventions” in his book ROMAN CATHOLICISM (p. 7-9) you will find almost all of these listed below. The dates in Boettner and “THE ROMAN ROAD…” are identical.

This is simply a case of one anti-Catholic copying another anti-Catholic. Neither produces ANY documentation.

These are hardly “facts” but FABRICATIONS of history!

Let’s look at some of these. Remember what the author of “THE ROMAN ROAD…” is claiming — that these are DOGMAS of the Catholic Church. Here are a few….




709 – KISSING THE FEET OF POPE ORDERED (Acts 10:25-26 & Rev 19:10, 22:9)


965 – BAPTISM OF THE BELLS (Ceremony of actually baptising bells

998 – FASTING ON FRIDAYS & DURING LENT (Matt 15:11, I Cor 10:25, I Tim 4:1-8)



1287 – SCAPULAR PROTECTION DECREED (Brown cloth with picture



That last one is what I meant by “hilarious,” Les. I ask Les Wilcox, how dumb does he think Catholics are? A stuffed donkey in Italy is the donkey Christ rode in Jerusalem on? And this he thinks is a DOGMA? Or a doctrine?

Even if the dates are correct, NONE of these are dogmas, NONE of these are doctrines. The author does not know what either one is and apparently Les Wilcox has no clue either since he uploaded this nonsense. The Sign of the Cross, priestly dress, use of Latin, kissing the Pope as a greeting and sign of respect (1 Peter 5:14; Rom 16:16; etc… not worship so your verses hardly apply!), holy water, bell “baptism” (in the sense of blessing not that the bells actually received the Sacrament!), Friday fasting, the Rosary, the Legend of Loretto (spelling above is wrong), the Scapular, the Hail Mary (or Ave Maria), and Donkeys alive or dead or stuffed have nothing to do with Catholic Dogma, Les. Most of these are disciplines or customs of the Church, neither dogmas nor doctrines.

Now let’s look at some of the errors contained in the above.

The date for the use of Latin is way off. Latin was the COMMON (i.e. “vulgar” as in Latin Vulgate) language of the Christian people in the West from at least the 2nd century. All the early Fathers of the West wrote in Latin and it was used in the Liturgy almost immediately and is still the official language of the Church. Paul wrote to Latin-speaking Rome. And it is a beautiful language! But so what? What is the point of this “invention?”

The 1 Tim 4:1-5 passage I have answered a million times here. The “doctrines of demons” was to forbid marriage to EVERYONE and forbid certain foods because they thought these were SINFUL. These were the early Gnostic heretics who denied that Jesus “has come in the flesh” (1 Tim 3:16; 1 John 4:1-3; 2 John 7).

The body is evil so the Incarnation was impossible and the marital union was also evil according to these heretics. In the Catholic Church, marriage is a Sacrament so we hardly forbid it. And we recommend fasting as a discipline (mandatory during Lent) just as the Bible does (following Jesus’ example in the desert — Matt 4).

One anomaly in the dating is the “institution” of the Rosary according to the above was in 1090 (wrongly attributed to Peter the Hermit, see Boettner) while the Hail Mary did not come into being until 1593.

The Rosary prayer originally consisted of the 150 Psalms. And the tradition of the Rosary actually is linked with St. Dominic (1170-1221) who is said to have received it from the Virgin Mary herself to combat the Albigensian heresy. See “The Rosary Dissected” by Terry L. Frazier (THIS ROCK Sept 94), an Evangelical convert to the Catholic faith.

Holy water can hardly be said to be “fabricated” in 850 A.D. since it is clearly found in the Old Testament as in the Jewish rites of purification (Num 5:17; 8:7; ch 19; Exod 30:18-20; Lev 11:28,32,40).

Using holy water and making the Sign of the Cross as Catholics frequently do upon entering a Catholic church reminds us of the waters of Baptism which once flowed over our foreheads — see Born Again: Baptism in the Early Fathers — and signifies that we are not worthy to enter into the Presence of Christ without purification. As Catholics say before Communion, “Lord, I am not worthy to receive You, but only say the word and I shall be healed.”

Also, there is a contradiction between “THE ROMAN ROAD…” and the list from The Conversion Center —


LW> Fabrication of Holy water……………………….A.D. 1009

Well, which is it? I guess the author thinks he can get away with this since at the bottom of the second list is added —

LW> (The dates are approximate.)

Yeah, approximately in the first or second millennium! They are both way off by hundreds and hundreds of years. Try this….

“It is required then that the water should first be cleansed and sanctified by the priest, that it may wash away by its Baptism the sins of the man who is baptized.” ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (Letters 70:1 A.D. 258)

“King and Lord…look upon these waters and fill them with the Holy Spirit…that those who are being baptized may be no longer flesh and blood but spiritual.” SERAPION (Euchologion 19 c. A.D. 392)

SOURCE: New Catholic Encyclopedia (Vol 14, p. 825-827) under “Water”

The “Asperges” or ceremony of sprinkling altar, clergy, and people with holy water on Sundays became a custom of the Church in the 800’s under Pope Leo IV. Maybe that is what these lists were talking about? But so what? Holy water is biblical (Num 5:17) so what is the big deal?

The Sign of the Cross was already an old custom in the time of Tertullian who lived from c. 155-250 A.D. —

“At every forward step and movement, when coming in and going out, when putting on our clothes, when putting on our shoes, when bathing, when at table, when lighting the lamps, when reclining, when sitting, in all the ordinary occupations of our daily lives, we furrow our forehead with the Sign.” (De corona or THE CROWN 3:4 A.D. 211)

SOURCE: The Faith of the Early Fathers by William Jurgens (3 volumes)


LW> Making the sign of the Cross……………………A.D. 330

Come on, Les! Make up your mind, 300 or 330? One is from “THE ROMAN ROAD…” and one from The Conversion Center. Has Les bothered to “test all things….” It would not appear so.

To answer each of these “inventions” would require a whole book (see Karl Keating’s CATHOLICISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM), so let’s move on….


LW> Prayers for the dead were instituted…………….A.D. 330

Make up your mind, 300 or 330? Actually it was much earlier. Try Tertullian again —

“We offer sacrifices for the dead on their birthday anniversaries.” [-pro nataliciis annua- or on the anniversary of their death which is their birthday into eternal life] THE CROWN 3:3 A.D. 211

“A woman, after the death of her husband, is bound not less firmly but even more so, not to marry another husband….Indeed, she PRAYS FOR HIS SOUL and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, she offers the sacrifice.” Tertullian, MONOGAMY 10:1,4 A.D. 213

“Standing by, I, Abercius, ordered this to be inscribed; truly, I was in my seventy-second year. May everyone who is in accord with this and who understands it PRAY FOR Abercius. Nor indeed, shall any man place another in my tomb.” EPITAPH OF ABERCIUS, Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia Salutaris, 180 A.D.

“May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me; he was not ashamed of my chains, but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me eagerly and found me — may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day — and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus.” APOSTLE PAUL, c. 67 A.D. 2 Tim 1:16-18 THE IGNATIUS BIBLE-RSV

My Catholic Bible says Onesiphorus is dead. You don’t like that? Okay, how about….

“It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.” JUDAS MACCABEUS, c. 100 B.C. 2 Macc 12:46

Now if you don’t think this is Scripture, how do you determine what IS Scripture to begin with? You must at least admit this was a custom of the Jews and an early Christian practice, BEFORE 300 A.D.


Anathema was decreed by Paul (Gal 1:8-9). We follow the apostle. Now if you’re talking the Filioque clause “from the Father AND the Son” that subject has been discussed here with our Orthodox friends.


Partially correct. The date is wrong — should be 363 A.D. Canon 60 (though the genuineness is open to doubt) enumerates the canonical books following Athanasius closely although Ruth is attached to Judges and Esther follows immediately. It does not include the Apocalypse (Revelation) among the NT canonical books. See F.F. Bruce THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE (Intervarsity Press, 1988), p. 80, 210.

The Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397,419) as well as the Council of Rome under Pope Damasus (382) accepted the “Apocrypha” or what Catholics call the deuterocanonical books, and these decisions were ratified by the Ecumenical Councils of 2nd Nicaea (787), Florence (1438-43) and finally Trent (1545-63).

Catholics receive their canon, whether OT or NT, on the authority of the original historic Church founded by Christ (Matt 16:18-19). You have no such authority which is why I asked — how can you determine what IS Scripture? Do you have an answer to that, Les?


LW> 593 – PRAYERS TO BE DIRECTED TO MARY ORDERED (Matt 11:28, Luke 1:46, Acts 10:25 & 14:14)

Boettner has — (see his ROMAN CATHOLICISM, p. 7-8)

Veneration of angels and dead saints, and use of images…..375

Prayers directed to Mary, dead saints and angels, about…..600

First, they aren’t dead but alive with Christ in heaven (Matt 22:32; Phil 1:23; Rev 5:8; 8:3-4). Angels can pray for us too (see Psalm 103:20-21; 148:1-2). They are “ministering spirits” (Heb 1:7,14; 12:22f; Matt 18:10; Acts 12:11; Rev 5:11).

Second, the dates are way off. 600 A.D. ? Not quite.

“But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels…as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep.” ORIGEN On Prayer 11 A.D. 233

“Aschandius, my father, dearly beloved of my heart, with my sweet mother and my brethren, remember your Pectorius in the peace of the Fish [Christ].” PECTORIUS Epitaph A.D. 250

“Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence the first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father’s mercy.” ST. CYPRIAN Letters 56(60):5 A.D. 252

“Mother of God, listen to my petitions; do not disregard us in adversity, but rescue us from danger.” Rylands Papyrus 3 A.D. 350

“You say in your book that while we live we are able to pray for each other, but afterwards when we have died, the prayer of no person for another can be heard…But if the apostles and martyrs while still in the body can pray for others, at a time when they ought still be solicitous about themselves, how much more will they do so after their crowns, victories, and triumphs?” ST. JEROME Against Vigilantius 6 A.D. 406

And so on….Cyril of Jerusalem, Hilary of Poitiers, Ephraem of Syria, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, John Chrysostom, Augustine, and Pope Leo the Great all believed we could ask for the prayer of angels, Saints, the Virgin Mary, and all members united in the one Body of Christ.

Prayers cannot be “ORDERED” and your biblical verses are irrelevant.


394 A.D. for the Mass, huh? I exploded that myth in my looooooooong posts to Mick James — see This is My Body: Eucharist in the Early Fathers. The Liturgy has changed little from the time of St. Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 A.D.). See his 1 Apology ch 65-67.


LW> Mary, QUEEN OF HEAVEN (Jeremiah 7:18, 44:17 & 25)

LW> Mary, MEDIATRIX (I Tim 2:5, Mt 11:28, Ecc 9:6)

LW> Mary, EVER-VIRGIN (Mt 1:25, Mk 6:3, Jn 2:2-4)

LW> 785 – Mary, CO-REDEMPTRIX (Acts 4:12, Ps 146:5, Heb 7:25)

LW> 788 – Mary, WORSHIP (Romans 1:25,Is 42:8, John 7:10)

LW> 1508 – Mary, MOTHER OF GOD (Mt 12:46-50, Mark 8;19-21, Acts 1:14)

LW> 1864 – Mary, SINLESS (Luke 1:46-47, Romans 3:10-19 & 23)

LW> 1854 – IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF VIRGIN MARY (Romans 3:23 & 5:12, Psalms 51:5)

Now this is what I meant by Incoherent Nonsense in my introduction.

How am I supposed to decipher all of this? First, “WORSHIP” of Mary has never been taught by the Church although there have been abuses in Marian piety and misunderstanding among Catholics. And will you please make up your mind. Was it 431 or 788 where the “worship” of Mary was taught? And was it 1864 or 1854 where the sinlessness of Mary from the moment of conception (Immaculate Conception) was taught?

The Conversion Center has the 788 one as —

LW> Adoration of Mary, the Saints, the Cross, images, relics…A.D. 788

Compared with “THE ROMAN ROAD…”

LW> 788 – WORSHIP OF CROSS, RELICS AND IMAGES AUTHORIZED (Exodus 20:4, Deut 27:15, Psalms 115)

And Loraine Boettner has —

Worship of the cross, images and relics, authorized in……788

The fact is neither “worship” nor “adoration” was taught in 431 or 788. Veneration is the proper Catholic term. We don’t worship wood, relics, or images. We venerate them or give them due respect or honor pointing to the person represented — see my History of Iconoclasm. This was defined and explained at the 2nd Council of Nicaea (787) as follows —

“We decree with full precision and care that, like the figure of the honored and life-giving Cross, the revered and holy images, whether painted or made of mosaic or of other suitable material, are to be exposed in the holy churches of God, on sacred instruments and vestments, on walls and panels, in houses and by public ways; these are the images of our Lord, God, and Savior, Jesus Christ, and of our Lady without blemish, the holy God-bearer [Theotokos] and of the revered angels and of any of the saintly holy men. The more frequently they are seen in representational art, the more are those who see them drawn to remember and long for those who serve as models and to pay these images the tribute of salutation and respectful veneration.

“Certainly this is not the full adoration in accordance with our faith, which is properly paid only to the DIVINE nature, but it resembles that given to the figure of the honored and life-giving Cross and also to the Holy Books of the Gospels and to other sacred objects….Indeed, the honor paid to an image traverses it, reaching the model; and he who venerates the image, venerates the person represented in that image.”

(cited in THIS ROCK May 1994)

LW> 1508 – Mary, MOTHER OF GOD (Mt 12:46-50, Mark 8:19-21, Acts 1:14)

Mary declared the “Mother of God” in 1508? You’ve got to be kidding. I have testimony going back more than a thousand years earlier than that date in a debate I had with a rabid anti-Catholic Fundy — see Mary the Mother of God, for Theotokos = “God Bearer” or Mother of God officially proclaimed at the Council of Ephesus in 431. Even Boettner (p. 7) got that much right. Theotokos was meant to safeguard the deity-humanity of Christ against the Nestorians who denied the title to Mary and also taught Christ was two persons.

As far as the perpetual virginity of Mary is concerned, your date is a bit off. I have another fairly exhaustive debate on that — see The Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady. All the major Protestant Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley) defended it!

LW> 431 – Mary, QUEEN OF HEAVEN (Jeremiah 7:18, 44:17 & 25)

While “Queen of Heaven” was not officially taught in 431 as you erroneously say, the title is found as early as the fourth century in the prayers of Ephraem of Syria and is very popular also among our Eastern Christian brethren, both Catholic and non-Catholic.

The verses in Jeremiah can hardly be used against us unless you wish to condemn the title “King of kings” for Jesus (1 Tim 6:15; Rev 17:14; 19:16) since it is used of the pagan king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 2:37). Because Jesus is the Davidic King, Jesus elevates His Mother as Queen of Heaven (Rev 12) just as the Queen-Mother was highly exalted and given a prominent place in the OT (1 Kings 2).

Even Martin Luther preached after his break with Rome on the Feast of the Visitation (July 2, 1532) —

“She, the Lady above heaven and earth, must have a heart so humble that she might have no shame in washing the swaddling clothes or preparing a bath for St. John the Baptist, like a servant girl. What humility! It would surely have been more just to have arranged for her a golden coach, pulled by 4,000 horses, and to cry and proclaim as the carriage proceeded: ‘Here passes the woman who is raised FAR ABOVE all women, indeed above the WHOLE human race.'”

Five years later, preaching on the same feast day, Luther said —

“She was not filled with pride by this praise…this immense praise: ‘No woman is like unto thee! Thou art more than an EMPRESS or a QUEEN….blessed above all nobility, wisdom, or saintliness!'”

(LUTHER’S WORKS 36:208; 45:107 as cited in REFUTING THE ATTACK ON MARY by Fr. Mateo available from Catholic Answers)

Heinrich Bullinger, Cranmer’s brother-in-law, Zwingli’s successor said:

“What pre-eminence in the eyes of purity, her saintliness and all her virtues, so that she can hardly be compared with any of the other saints, but should by rights be rather elevated above all of them…”

French Reformed pastor Charles Drelincourt said in the 17th century —

“We do not simply believe that God has favoured the holy and blessed Virgin more than all the Patriarchs and the Prophets, but also that He has exalted her above all Seraphim. The angels can only qualify as servants of the Son of God, the creatures and workmanship of his hands; but the holy Virgin is not only the servant and the creature but also the Mother of this great and living God.”

(from MARY, MOTHER OF ALL CHRISTIANS [p. 89] by Calvinist theologian Max Thurian who later converted to the Catholic faith)

The titles of “Mediatrix” or “Co-Redemptrix” for Mary have not been officially defined so those dates are wrong. They do reflect the Marian piety and devotion of many great Popes, Saints, and Doctors of the Church. For a complete defense of Marian doctrines, get the above booklet from Catholic Answers. And read it carefully.

Let’s continue with the “inventions” list…..

LW> 593 – DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY (Gregory) (I John 1:7-9; 2:1-2, John 5:24, Rom 8:1)

LW> 1439 – PURGATORY DECLARED VALID DOGMA (Matt 25:46, I John 1:7, Luke 23:43)

Purgatory is another whole debate and I will give more on this subject in a later post. Suffice to say, the anti-Catholics you have quoted have no idea what purgatory is about. The dates are approximately correct but must be properly understood. Gregory the Great is usually referred to as the “inventor” of purgatory in 590 A.D. But Augustine certainly believed in the doctrine as early as 400 and we will get to his quotes and what the Bible says later.

The author of “THE ROMAN ROAD…” is completely wrong stating —

LW> As we have shown in the historical outline at the beginning of this writing, there was a period of almost six hundred years where (1) the Apostles, (2) early church fathers or (3) church historians did not know of or write about PURGATORY!

Wrong! Many of the great Fathers and Doctors of the Church wrote on the efficacy of praying for the dead and/or a state of purification after death beginning with Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Lactantius, Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, Jerome, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine, as well as Gregory the Great and later Catholic theologians as Anselm, Bernard, Aquinas and Bonaventure supported the doctrine. The Council of Florence (1438) merely defined as dogma what had been previously believed universally in the Church.


LW> Gregory the Great, while Bishop of Rome, in 600 A.D. wrote “I confidently say that whosoever calls himself ‘universal bishop’ or desires to be so called, in his arrogance, is the forerunner of antichrist.”

Oh no! Not the “universal bishop” controversy, again! I answered that quite thoroughly for Mick James and Pedro Vega in the Battle for the Papacy. “UNIVERSAL” in the sense of “ONLY” (that other Bishops weren’t really valid Bishops).

Now let’s move on to more fabrications of history….


The Church never officially sanctioned the “selling of indulgences” although there were abuses in the 16th century. Whatever the date means, this is a caricature of the doctrine. For a biblical defense and explanation of indulgences, see “A Primer on Indulgences” by an Evangelical convert to the Catholic faith, James Akin in THIS ROCK (Nov 1994 issue) from Catholic Answers.

LW> 1229 – BIBLE FORBIDDEN TO LAYMEN (John 5:39, II Tim 3:15-17)

The Bible was never “forbidden” to laymen. Boettner has the same date and adds “forbidden to laymen, placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Valencia….1229.” I have two editions of Boettner’s anti-Catholic book and the later edition corrects this to the Council of Toulouse. There was no Council of Valencia in 1229. And as Karl Keating points out, there never was a Council in Valencia, Spain and the Index of Forbidden Books wasn’t established until 1543! What was “forbidden” were the erroneous versions of the Bible propogated by the Albigenses to support their heresy of Manicheanism. It was a local, temporary matter restricted to southern France. That is all.



These two were quite hilarious and since you gave some quotes below I had to look this up. First, your quotes are as follows

LW> Pope John XXII decreed in 1685, “To believe that our LORD GOD the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed is to be deemed heretical.” Then Pius V stated, “The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in heaven and earth.” Finally, Pope Nicholas I declared, “the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who, BEING GOD, cannot be judged by man.”

LW> Pope Pius X stated, “The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but HE IS JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF, hidden under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak? IT IS JESUS CHRIST that Speaks. Does the Pope accord a favor or pronounce an anathema? IT IS JESUS CHRIST who pronounces the anathema or accords the favor.”

Now we go to RADIO REPLIES by Fathers Rumble and Carty (volume 2)

2-310. Pope Pius X made the blasphemous claim that he was “Jesus Christ hidden under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ who speaks.”

REPLY: A Protestant paper, the “Church Review,” in England, October 3, 1895, charges Cardinal Sarto, Archbishop of Venice, with having uttered those words at Venice. Cardinal Sarto was elected Pope in 1903. But as soon as the charge was made in 1895 that Cardinal Sarto had said those words, inquiries were sent from England to Venice, and Cardinal Sarto produced the manuscipt of his discourse. And this is what he actually did say:

“The Pope REPRESENTS Jesus Christ Himself, and therefore is a loving father. The life of the Pope is a holocaust of love for the human family. His word is love; love, his weapon; love, the answer he gives to all who hate him; love, his flag, that is, the Cross, which signed the greatest triumph on earth and in heaven.”

2-311. Pope Nicholas I. said that the Pope, being God, is judged by no man.

REPLY: Never did Pope Nicholas I. say that the Pope is God. What he does say is this:

“Since those in higher authority are not judged by inferiors, it is evident that the Apostolic See, than which no earthly authority is higher, is judged by none.”

And that is perfectly sound reasoning. Even in civil law, the king is “above the law,” and not subject to his own laws. Hence the legal axiom, “The king can do no wrong.” Italy itself has acknowledged the justice of the Pope’s claim to be independent of all civil jurisdiction, and subject to no earthly authorities.

2-312. In the “Extravagantes” of Pope John XXII, Roman Canon Law says that it is heresy to deny the power of “Our Lord God the Pope.”

REPLY: That remark is attributed, not to Pope John XXII, but to the Canonist Zenzelinus, in his commentary on Title XIV of the “Extravagantes.” But an examination of the original manuscript of Zenzelinus, preserved in the Vatican Library, failed to reveal the words attributed to him; and it has been definitely proved that the reference to God is an interpolation in later copies of his commentary.

Phil P comments — let’s try to debate what Catholics really believe, Les, rather than trying to show we think the Pope is God, okay?



For these two I had to do some checking in the volumes of the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967). Here is what I found —

First, do Catholics have something against science? One might think so from the Galileo case. This was discussed in great detail in a new mag The Catholic Dossier (July/Aug 1995) edited by Ralph McInerny. Here is what Pope John Paul II has to say about science —

“The unity we perceive in creation on the basis of our faith in Jesus Christ as Lord of the Universe, and the correlative unity for which we strive in our human communities, seem to be reflected and even reinforced in what contemporary science is revealing to us.”

(JPII in “Dynamic Relationship of Theology and Science” in letter to Father George Coyne, S.J. director of the Vatican Observatory cited in “Beam Me Up, Lord?” by Gerard V. Bradley in above mag)

Now was “all science” condemned in 1907 ? Hardly. What was condemned by Pope Pius X was the heresy of Modernism in the decree -Lamentabili sane exitu- (July 3, 1907) which lists 65 condemned propositions containing the errors of Modernism in summary form. In the Encyclical -Pascendi dominici gregis- (Sept 8, 1907) the Pope emphasized the root tendencies and principles of Modernism.

What was condemned included 1) agnosticism, both in natural theology and in the symbolic, nonobjective approach to dogmatic content; and 2) vital immanence, an exclusive immanence of the divine and a consequent natural vital evolution of revelation; and 3) total emancipation of exegesis from dogma and of political-religious movements from ecclesiastical authority.

Modernism as an ideology emerged within the Church around 1900 and sought a revolutionary transmutation of Catholic doctrine through the application of naturalistic evolutionary philosophy and arbitrary historical criticism. It was condemned by the decree -Lamentabili- and the encyclical -Pascendi-, and definitively ended by the Oath against Modernism.

SOURCE: New Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 11 (p. 408ff) on Pius X, volume 9 (p. 991f) on “Modernism,” volume 8 (p. 350) on Lamentabili, volume 10 (p. 1048) on Pascendi. How’s that for substantiation?

Now what about public schools? Were public schools condemned in 1930? Nope, wrong again. Under Pope Pius XI, the Encyclopedia explains —

“The encyclical on Christian education, -Divini illius magistri- (Dec 31, 1929), lays the foundation for a genuinely Christian theory of education, opposes the modern state’s monopoly of schools, and undertakes the demarcation and coordination of the education rights of the family, the Church, and the state.” (NCE volume 11, p. 412)

And now for our final inventions…..

LW> 1215 – DOGMA OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION DECLARED (Luke 22:19-20, John 6:35, I Cor 11:26)

LW> Sacrifice of the Mass…………………………..A.D. 1215

LW> 1215 – CONFESSION OF SINS TO PRIEST ORDERED (Ps 51:1-10, Luke 7:48 & 15:21, I John 1:8-9)

LW> Auricular confession of sins to a priest………….A.D. 1215

The exact technical term “transubstantiation” (from Latin meaning “change of substance”) was sanctioned here but the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was believed from the earliest centuries of the Church. See This is My Body: Eucharist in the Early Fathers for details (also find the two massive volumes A HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST by the Anglican scholar Darwell Stone).

I had a discussion with David Goforth on Confession. I explained to him what the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) did. It merely reaffirmed the well-established practice while emphasizing the importance of penance. I gave several quotes from the early Fathers like Origen, Cyprian, Athanasius, Basil, Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom and Pope Leo the Great.

ORIGEN (c. 244 A.D.)

In addition to these [kinds of forgiveness of sins], albeit hard and laborious: the remission of sins THROUGH PENANCE…when he [the sinner] does not shrink from DECLARING HIS SIN TO A PRIEST OF THE LORD AND FROM SEEKING MEDICINE….In this way there is fulfilled that too, which the Apostle James says: “If, then, there is anyone sick, let him call the PRESBYTERS [where we get PRIESTS] of the Church, and let them impose hands upon him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and if he be in SINS, THEY SHALL BE FORGIVEN HIM [James 5:14-15; cf. John 20:21-23].” (Hom on Leviticus 2:4)

CYPRIAN (c. 250 A.D.)

Of how much greater faith and salutary fear are they who…CONFESS THEIR SINS TO THE PRIESTS OF GOD in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience….Indeed, he but sins the more if, thinking that God is like man, he believes that he can escape the punishment of his crime by not openly admitting his crime….I beseech you, brethren, LET EVERYONE WHO HAS SINNED CONFESS HIS SIN while he is still in this world, while his confession is still admissible, WHILE THE SATISFACTION AND REMISSION MADE THROUGH THE PRIEST ARE STILL PLEASING BEFORE THE LORD. (The Lapsed 28)

For a serious scholarly defense of sacramental Confession, please locate the two massive volumes A HISTORY OF PENANCE by Oscar Watkins!


Apostolic Church Tradition IS equal to Scripture (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15). Mark 7, Matthew 15, and Col 2:8 condemn “traditions of men” that contradicted the written Word of God. You would have to show that a certain Catholic dogma contradicted the Bible, that you are properly understanding the Catholic teaching and properly interpreting the Bible, and explain why we should go against the traditional teaching of the Church defended by so many Saints and Fathers that have come before us. It is clear from these posts you have no clue what Catholics believe so you cannot do this.

Tradition has ALWAYS been normative as a Rule of Faith in the Church. -Sola scriptura- was simply never believed. The Council of Trent (1545-63) and Vatican II merely re-affirmed the constant teaching of the historic Christian Church — that for a doctrine to be true it must be established both from Scripture (at least implicitly) and from Tradition.

From EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES by eminent Protestant scholar of Church history, J.N.D. Kelly of Oxford (1985) on his chapter TRADITION AND SCRIPTURE (p. 29 – 51)

“Scripture must be interpreted in the light of its fundamental ground-plan, viz. the original revelation itself. For that reason correct exegesis was the PREROGATIVE OF THE CHURCH, where the apostolic tradition or doctrine which was the KEY to Scripture had been kept intact [St. Irenaeus Against Heresies 4:26:5; 4:32:1; 5:20:2].” (38)

“The whole point of [Irenaeus’] teaching was, in fact, that Scripture and the Church’s unwritten tradition are identical in content, BOTH being vehicles of the revelation. If tradition as conveyed in the ‘canon’ [i.e. Creeds and teaching of the Church] is a more trustworthy guide, this is not because it comprises truths other than those revealed in Scripture, but because the TRUE tenor of the apostolic message is there UNAMBIGUOUSLY SET OUT.” (39)

“Like Irenaeus, Tertullian is convinced that Scripture is consonant in all its parts, and that its meaning should be clear if it is read as a whole. But where CONTROVERSY with heretics breaks out, the RIGHT interpretation can be found ONLY where the TRUE Christian faith and discipline have been MAINTAINED, i.e. IN THE CHURCH [Tertullian De praescr 19].” (40)

“[Tertullian] was certainly profoundly convinced [De praescr 15; 19; 37] of the futility of arguing with heretics MERELY on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it IMPOSSIBLE to reach any decisive conclusion in that field. He was also satisfied, and made the point even more forcibly than Irenaeus, that the INDISPENSABLE KEY to Scripture belonged EXCLUSIVELY TO THE CHURCH, which in the -regula- [rule of faith] had preserved the apostles’ testimony in its original shape.” (41)

“…the ancient idea that the Church ALONE, in virtue of being the home of the Spirit and having preserved the authentic apostolic testimony in her rule of faith, liturgical action and general witness, possesses the INDISPENSABLE KEY to Scripture, CONTINUED to operate as POWERFULLY [in later centuries] as in the days of Irenaeus and Tertullian.” (47)

“It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the WHOLE period Scripture AND tradition ranked as complementary AUTHORITIES, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the SUREST CLUE TO ITS INTERPRETATION, for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an UNERRING grasp of the real purport and MEANING of the revelation to which Scripture AND tradition alike bore witness.” (47-48)

“Thus in the end the Christian MUST, like Timothy [1 Tim 6:20], ‘GUARD THE DEPOSIT’, i.e. the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and CORRECTLY INTERPRETED IN THE CHURCH’S UNERRING TRADITION.” (51)

(end of quote from EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES by J.N.D. Kelly)

LW> 1870 – PAPAL INFALLIBILITY DECREED (II Thess 2:2-12, Rev 17:1-9; 13:5-8,18)

The date is correct — that is when the dogma was defined — but I gather from your biblical references that you believe the Pope is the “Man of Sin” and/or the Beast of Revelation and the Catholic Church is the “Whore of Babylon.”

Oh dear….. You and Mick James would get along just fine.

That’s it for the so-called Catholic “inventions.” Much error, misunderstanding, and outright fabrication in the posts of Les Wilcox has been exposed. Oh boy, did that take a lot of work! You’re welcome, Joe Didde, William Putnam, Sean Brooks, John McIlroy and my other cheerleaders.

Perhaps later I can respond to the following anti-Catholic accusations, further misunderstandings, and outrageous statements made in the posts of Les Wilcox covering the following topics…..

On the Church, St. Peter and the Rock

LW> History does not give any evidence whatsoever of the presence of Peter in Rome.

On Salvation —

LW> Romanism is a complicated system of salvation by works.

LW> The Roman Catholic church, then CURSES PAUL, THE APOSTLE, for his teachings!

LW> The Roman Catholics are as lost as the poor African or Hindu.

LW> Those who insist that there are saved Roman Catholics either do not know the Bible or do not know Roman Catholicism.

On being “Born Again”

LW> And no Roman Catholic is a born-again believer in Christ.

On Purgatory

LW> Nothing and nobody can condemn to Purgatory or to any other place of condemnation those who through Jesus Christ have been made free from all guilt.

On the Mass

LW> This means, according to Roman teaching, that Jesus suffers the terrible agony of Calvary 200,000 times every day!

On the Sacrament of Penance

LW> Confession to a priest is an inducement to commit more sin.

On calling our priests “Father”

LW> Anyone calling himself a spiritual father is anti-christ.

On Jesus and Mary —

LW> He foresaw that she would become the object of great idolatry, would be given the place of Deity by the Roman Catholic system, and would be assigned names properly given to Deity only.

On the Catholic Church and idolatry —

LW> It has further taken deceit as a manner of common operation!

LW> We have read and investigated EACH and EVERY catechism that is being used by the Roman church. EACH one has this same deceit in its pages.

LW> Clearly the Roman Church is acting in direct opposition to the will of God, plainly stated in many verses of scripture…..

We’ll see what kind of response this gets from Les Wilcox and whether or not he wants me to continue…..

How about some “SUBSTANTIATION” from the Bible and from Catholic sources for the above, Les?

I feel like Mike Tyson because I think I already knocked him out in the first round. But anyway…..

PHIL PORVAZNIK (August 1995)

Posted in Apologetics-Pope, CFD VS INC, CFD VS SDA, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE ANSWER | Leave a Comment »

Have Popes Really Claimed to be God?

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on February 27, 2019

Have Popes Really Claimed to be God?

Retrieve from:


Quotations (more properly, alleged quotations for the most part, as we’ll see later) showing that popes have claimed to be God or equal to God are a staple of anti-Catholic polemics. I recently ran across such a list, and the results of my investigations are below. I suspect the list as I got it is rather old, as its most recent entry dates only to the late 19th Century. The continuing growth of materials available on the Internet has made it possible to shed some light on the facts behind these “quotations”.

The List

  1. Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) wrote: “We may according to the fullness of our power, dispose of the law and dispense above the law. Those whom the Pope of Rome doth separate, it is not a man that separates them but God. For the Pope holdeth place on earth, not simply of a man but of the true God.” (1 Book of Gregory 9 Decret. c. 3)
  2. The Lateran Council addressing Pope Julius II in an oration delivered by Marcellus said: “Take care that we lose not that salvation, that life and breath which thou hast given us, for thou art our shepherd, thou art our physician, thou art our governor, thou art our husbandman, thou art finally another God on earth.” (Council Edition. Colm. Agrip. 1618)
  3. Pope Nicholas said of himself: “I am in all and above all, so that God Himself and I, the vicar of God, hath both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do… wherefore, if those things that I do be said not to be done of man, but of God, what do you make of me but God? Again, if prelates of the Church be called of Constantine for gods, I then being above all prelates, seem by this reason to be above all gods. Wherefore, no marvel, if it be in my power to dispense with all things, yea with the precepts of Christ.” (Decret. par. Distinct 96 ch. 7 edit. Lugo 1661)
  4. The RC New York catechism states: “The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth… by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth.”
  5. The title “Lord God the Pope” – these words appeared in the Canon Law of Rome. “To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical.” (The Gloss extravagances of Pope John XXII Cum. Inter, tit XIV Ad Callem Sexti Decretalium, Paris, 1685)

    Father A. Pereira acknowledged: “It is quite certain that Popes have never disapproved or rejected this title “Lord God the Pope” for the passage in the gloss referred to appears in the edition of the Canon Law published in Rome by Gregory XIII.”

  6. Pope Nicholas I declared that “the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who being God, cannot be judged by man.” (Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can 7 Satis Evidentur Decret Gratian Primer Para)
  7. Speaking [in] the name of the Pope (a rhetorical device) Cardinal Manning said: “I acknowledge no civil superior, I am the subject of no prince, and I claim more than this, I claim to be the supreme judge on earth and director of the consciences of men, I am the last supreme judge of what is right and wrong.” (Sermon in the Pro Cathedral, Kensington, Tablet Oct 9, 1864)


Cardinal Manning

I can find no better place to start the responses than with the last-given “quotation” from Cardinal Manning. As we shall see, it is no quotation at all.

Rather than provide my own refutation, I would like to quote an anonymous (as far as I can tell) writer in the New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXIX, Issue 41, 10 October 1901, pp. 1-2. A scanned copy of the original article can be found online here.

The article deals well not only with the (fake) quotation in question, but with the tactics used to prepare the entire list given above. (In fact, I am not sure but that the “misquotations, garbled statements, mistranslations, at least one concocted ‘extract’–all secondhand–and … marvellously complete and comprehensive ignorance of Catholic teaching” to which the author refers are not a response to the exact list we now have.) I commend the second paragraph to your particular attention in this regard.

Dr. Starbuck, an eminent American non-Catholic divine, seriously blames some Protestant controversialists, not for lack of honesty, but for being ‘slovenly and inexcusably ignorant’ in their ‘expositions of Roman Catholic history and doctrine.’ ‘The Pope, like the poor,’ he adds, ‘we have always with us, and whenever we will we can do him evil. Well meditated attacks on him easily take the place of knowledge, of cultivation, of good manners, of deliberation in statement, of justice, of charity, and of all other requirements usually supposed to beseem a minister of the Gospel.’ Recent attacks upon the Pope in Christchurch and Dunedin were based upon misquotations, garbled statements, mistranslations, at least one concocted ‘extract’–all secondhand–and on a marvellously complete and comprehensive ignorance of Catholic teaching, of which our assailants knew as little as Bettesworth did of law–and he knew thereof neither ‘text nor margent.’ Our readers will recollect that the late Cardinal Manning was alleged to have said (among other things)–speaking in the name of the Pope; ‘I acknowledge no civil power… I claim to be the supreme judge and director of the consciences of men’; and again: ‘I am sole last supreme judge of what is right and wrong.’[Footnote 1.] We were referred to the London Tablet of October 9, 1864, for these words. But no Tablet was published on that date. We learned by cable message a few days ago that in a discussion on the subject in Melbourne, the alleged doctrinal utterance of Manning was credited to the Tablet of August 6, 1859, but after a most minute examination of the Tablet of that date we can find no trace whatever of anything at all resembling the words attributed to that distinguished convert. Some weeks ago a writer in the Christchurch Press quoted this alleged Manning extract on the authority of ‘the Rev. Mr. Lilley,’ whom he described as ‘an able, eminent Catholic writer’–confounding a Presbyterian clergyman of that name in Arbroath with the distinguished Catholic layman, Mr. W. S. Lilly. When his statement was corrected, he simply sprang a somersault and gave Mr. Grattan Guinness as the authority for the Cardinal’s speech!

Herein lies one of the difficulties of which Catholics experience in defending the fair fame of their Mother Church against the more noisy and ill-informed class of controversialists. A suspicious-looking ‘extract’ is quoted, with suspicious-looking vagueness, from (say) ‘a Catholic writer,’ or ‘a distinguished Catholic theologian.’ You forthwith make a request for name and chapter and verse. This is sometimes met with angry resentment, sometimes by an airy gibe, sometimes by a general statement to the effect that it is in Suarez (or Saurez, as a Wellington enthusiast called him recently), or Aquinas or Bellarmine or De Lugo or Liguori or some other noted Catholic writer–only that and nothing more, and you are left to toil through the 23 massive volumes of one author, or the 17 of another, or the 10 to 20 of the rest. More rarely there is a show of precise reference, but it is commonly found to be inadequate or deceptive–a mockery, a delusion, and a snare–as if one should refer you to ‘the seventeenth verse of the Bible’; or the ‘authority’ is non-existent, like ‘the Tablet of October 9, 1864.’ In the comparatively rare instances in which detailed references are given, you find that the alleged quotation is conspicuously absent, or that the author’s words have been shamefully garbled or mistranslated, or–as in the case of an ‘extract’ recently attributed (in a Dunedin paper) to St. Thomas Aquinas–that not a line of it was ever written by him. If you persecute your opponents on one reference (as, for instance, the Tablet of October 9, 1864), they fly to another (August 6, 1859). You follow the direction indicated by the new sign-post only to find that you have been again chasing a rainbow. And the upshot of the whole thing is this: you find, in practically every instance, that the ‘quotations’ are secondhand or tenth-hand, that they have been carefully and deliberately lopped and chopped and pruned and twisted and contorted till they more or less seriously misrepresent the views of the authors to whom they are attributed, and you not unnaturally conclude that all these inadequate and misleading references are merely so many ruses–the side-jumps of the hunted roebuck–to delay or prevent the discovery and exposure of those discreditable bits of controversial trickery.

It is reasonable to judge a quotation as you would judge a man–by the company it keeps. And the alleged Manning quotation is in decidedly bad company, among a pack of ‘faked’ and concocted and ‘doctored’ extracts of an altogether disreputable kind. It has, moreover, about it a suspicious and guilty look. It is, for instance, set down as Catholic teaching which it would be heresy to deny. Yet there are portions of that precious extract which it would be heresy to maintain; and they differ vastly from the clear-cut expositions and the sharply defined lines between doctrine and inference–between dogma and opinion–which are to be found in acknowledged works of Manning, such as his Petri Privilegium and his Vatican Council. At first blush, therefore, the alleged extract naturally seemed to us, in all its circumstances, to be a fabrication. We, however, declined in express terms to maintain this theory, and admitted the possibility of its publication as the result of ‘a reporter’s blunder and an editorial oversight.’ Despite the misleading references–which were calculated, if not intended, to baffle inquiry–we have at length succeeded in coming across the original report from which the alleged Manning quotation was taken. The report in question is that of a sermon by the late Cardinal on the Syllabus, and it appears in the London Tablet, volume 34, No. 1539, pages 601-602. Towards the end of his discourse Manning tells his hearers the sort of reply which, he fancies the Pope (Pius IX.) would make to the overtures of the advocates of divorce, godless education, endless devisions [sic] in religion, and ‘the absolute renunciation of the supreme authority of the Christian Church.’ The now notorious ‘Manning quotation’ purports to be a faithful transcript of one sentence taken from this part of the late Cardinal’s discourse. But, as we expected, the extract has been grievously lopped and tortured by the enterprising individual through whose instrumentality it first got floated into polemics. (a) He follows the usual plan of tearing it violently away from its context, (b) He turns the one sentence of the report into three–a small matter in itself, but significant as an indication of the man’s ideas of accuracy of quotation, (c) He takes the three vital clauses in the sentence, and, with the fullest apparent deliberation, completely alters their meaning–one by the substitution of one term for another, the other two by the cool omission of two all-important qualifying words. And (d) he tacks on to the end of the extract, as an integral part thereof, a misquotation from the Bull Unam Sanctam, of which not a trace is to be seen anywhere in the report. And then (e) forth steps the Rev. Mr. Gibb and informs all and sundry that this mutilated quotation is a statement of Catholic doctrine–with the rider that it would be heresy to deny it . Whereas, as a matter of fact, in the unmutilated report (for the accuracy of which, of course, we cannot vouch) the words attributed to Manning are not, nor do they pretend to be, a statement of Catholic doctrine.

The Rev. Mr. Gibb, for instance, makes Cardinal Manning, speaking on behalf of the Pope, say the following words: ‘I acknowledge no civil power.’ Now this statement is (a) absurdly contrary to fact; (b) it is untrue in point of doctrine; and (c) it is nowhere to be found in the report. On the contrary (d), Manning, according to the report (p. 601), said:

The civil Society or civil power was a thing sacred in itself. It came from God. It had God as its author, and it most be treated with great veneration. It ia sustained by authority, obedience, and equality–the three laws of the human family, which b«gan with the first family–namely, the parental authority, the filial obedience, the fraternal equality. These three laws existed in human society. God was the author of them, and when families multiplied and combined into races, nations, and States, these three laws, which were domestic and private in the beginning, assumed the public and recognised character of what they called constitutions and kingdoms, from which came monarchies, empires, and civil order throughout the world. The sovereign authority which governed mankind was derived not from the consent of men, bargaining and bartering, and transacting and compromising together as it were in a market-place, but as derived from God Himself, and immediately given to human society. But the particular form in which society may be cast, and the particular person or prince, be it one or many, who bears the sovereign power, come not immediately from God, but mediately from human society. It was of this that St. Paul spoke [p. 602] when he said: ‘Let every soul be subject to the higher powers,’ though he was then speaking of a heathen Emperor. ‘For every power is of God. He that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God, and he that resisteth shall receive to himielf damnation. St. Paul says this of the civil society or political order of the world–of the Roman Empire, persecuting and pagan, as it then was.

And yet Manning is made, a little lower down in the very same discourse, to attribute to the Pope the false and un-Catholic statement: ‘I acknowledge no civil power!’

‘I acknowledge no civil Power,’ Manning is made to say, voicing what he conceives to be the opinion of the Pope. But Manning says no such thing. He says ‘I acknowledge no civil Superior [which is quite a different thing], I am the subject of no prince.’ In other words, the Pope, who is the head, in spiritual matters, of 250,000,000 Christians, is, by virtue of his office, free from civil subjection, and will not be the tool or puppet or hired man of any political ruler. And this, in brief, is the substance of his answer to those who call upon him to become the obedient subject and servant of the House of Savoy. ‘You ask me,’ Manning makes him say, ‘to abdicate, to renounce my supreme authority. You tell me I ought to submit to the civil power, that I am the subject of the King of Italy, and from him I am to receive instructions as to the way I should exercise my supreme power.’ The concocted statement as to the repudiation of the civil power by the Pope was set forth by the Rev. Mr. Gibb as Catholic doctrine, and our denial of the truth of his assertion was, at least by implication, denounced as an act of heresy. But, as a matter of fact, there is no question or statement of Catholic doctrine in the words reported as used by Manning, which are, in effect, merely a variant on what so strong a Protestant as Lord Brougham said in the British House of Lords when Pius IX. was an exile at Gaeta: ‘Stripped of that secular dominion [the independent temporal power], he [the Pope] would become the slave, now of one Power, now of another: one day the slave of Spain, another of Austria, another of France…. His temporal power is an European question, not a local or religious one; and the Pope’s authority should be maintained for the sake of the peace and the interests of Europe.’

Cardinal Manning was also represented by the Rev. Mr. Gibb as to putting into the mouth of the Pope the statement that he (the Pope) is ‘the supreme judge and director of the consciences of men,’ and the ‘last supreme judge of what is right and wrong.’ And this, too, is set forth as a Catholic doctrine, which it would be heresy to deny. But (a) the quotation, as given, makes the Pope claim to be absolutely the highest judge in matters of conscience and right and wrong–even the Almighty Himself not being excepted; for there is no limiting or qualifying word or phrase. And this, so far from being ‘Catholic doctrine,’ is rank blasphemy. But (b) the report attributes no such sweeping statement to Manning : it simply makes the Pope claim to be in these matters the supreme or highest judge ‘On Earth.’ It is unnecessary to point out, even to persons of the most meagre understandstanding, what worlds apart is the statement attributed to Manning in the Tablet report, and that which is credited to him by the Rev. Mr. Gibb and his Orange and other ‘authorities.’ The suppression of the two vital words referred to above (‘on earth’) is rendered all the more inexcusable by the fact that, on page 602, 22nd and following lines of the report, the position of the Pope is expressly stated to be, not that of one who is absolutely supreme, but that of the vicar, delegate, and representative of Another, and that his teaching and executive authority is not direct but derived, and is for ‘the Christian society’ which Christ founded ‘on earth.’ (c) We are unable to say whether Manning really used the words ‘supreme judge on earth,’ etc., in the connection given in the report. The terms there given are not happily selected, but we are not concerned, in any case, to defend them. They are by no means couched in the precise and careful language of Manning’s works, and represent, at worst, one of those inexact oratorical statements such as slip with painful frequency from the lips of some of our critics, even when they speak–as the Rev. Mr. Gibb did–with copious notes and plenteous ‘extracts’ at hand. We suppose that even a learned Catholic prelate, speaking–as Manning did, in the fiery midst of a period of anti-papal religious and political storm and fury–may not unreasonably plead, as did the Rev. Mr. Gibb, that ‘in the heat of public utterance,’ he might ‘overstate his case’ and feel called upon to suggest that his audience ‘make a liberal reduction’ for ‘the fervor of the platform.’ But it is not true, as alleged by the Rev. Mr. Gibb, that Manning’s reported words are, or profess to be, statements of ‘Catholic doctrine.’

(d) In addition to the grievous manipulations of the text mentioned above, the extract-rigger on whom the Rev. Mr. Gibb relies with a faith that is so simple and childlike, adds one other word to the ‘Manning extract’ that is not contained in the Tablet report, he subtracts three, and he alters no fewer than six! All this violence, be it noted, is done in one sentence of the report, which (as already stated) is at the same time broken up into three. The addition, subtraction, etc., last mentioned do not materially affect the sense of the extract, but they serve, in their way, to further emphasise the reckless manner in which the Rev. Mr. Gibb’s vaunted ‘authorities’ are prepared to twist quotations to suit their turn. (e) Another curious instance of controversial ‘accuracy and scholarship’ is furnished by the concluding sentence of the Rev. Mr. Gibb’s ‘Manning extract,’ already quoted in a footnote to the present paragraphs.

It runs as follows: ‘Moreover, we declare, affirm, define, and pronounce it to be necessary to salvation to every human being to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.’ This, as already stated, is a mistranslation of the concluding sentence of the Bull Unam Sanctam. It is given, within the same quotation marks, as a portion of the Tablet report of Manning’s utterance. But no such words are found either in that or any other part of the Tablet report. They are simply flung in as a make-weight.

We are sorry for those of the extreme section of our fellow-colonists who have of late thought fit to make apparently concerted attacks upon us in Dunedin, Christchurch, and Wellington. The weapons which they employed were boomerangs which have returned and wounded the throwers. The wholesale scale on which sham and ‘faked’ and garbled and concocted ‘quotations’ have of late been used against Catholics in these countries tends to burn into our minds the conviction that the less educated and more violent class of anti-Catholic controversialists hold themselves to be dispensed from the ordinary obligations of truth and charity. We shall be glad to hear what explanation or defence the Rev. Mr. Gibb’s Orange ‘authorities’ have to make for their mutilation of the report of Manning’s discourse. As a matter of elementary fair-play, the columns of this paper are, of course, open to him or them, or to any responsible persons for such reply as they may desire to make. The vogue which the ‘Manning extract’ has of late acquired in these countries, in the mouths of our more violent assailants, is our apology for dealing with it at what may seem inordinate length. Our Catholic readers and our Catholic exchanges everywhere would do well to pigeonhole these paragraphs. The ‘Manning extract’ has proved itself a highly appreciated addition to the long list of Artful Dodger ‘quotations’ that constitute the chief stock-in-trade of the less instructed assailants of the Old Church. It is sure to go far afield, and, even after it has been fully exposed, it will be heard of again–for a period. It is a way that these ‘quotations’ have. When a branch was lopped off Virgil’s inexhaustible tree, another sprung up in its place :

Uno avulso, non deficit alter
Aureus, et simili frondescit virga metallo.

But pollard-willow or spreading broom or Californian thistle or Virgil’s tree–they all give way at last to the patient chip-chipchop of the polished steel. Prompt and repeated exposure, plus the spread of education and training in exact methods of research will, in time, strew the path of the anti-Catholic quotation rigger with so many thorns and spikes and sharpened nails (with inverted divisors) that there will be very few to travel by it. And the cause of truth and peace and religion will be greatly served thereby.

Footnote 1: The full ‘Manning extract,’ as given by the Rev. Mr. Gibb at an Orange demonstration in Dunedin, is as follows:–‘In the Tablet of the 9th October, 1864, the late Cardinal Manning, speaking in the name of the Pope, is reportod thus: “I acknowledge no civil power. I am the subject of no prince, and I claim more than this: I claim to be the supreme judge, and director of the consciences of men–of the peasants that till the field and of the prince that sits upon the throne, of the household that lives in privacy and the legislator that makes laws for the kingdoms. I am sole last supreme judge of what is right and wrong. Moreover we declare, affirm, define, and pronounce it to be necessary to salvation to every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”’

Footnote 2: [Transcriber’s note: I was unable to locate the footnote marker in the main text.] The Rev. J. P. Lilley, a Presbyterian clergyman of Arbroath, was cited by the Rev Mr. Gibb as evidence in support of the notorious ‘Manning extract’ quoted in another footnote to these paragraphs. But (1) in so far as the Rev. Mr. Lilley is evidence at all in this matter, he is evidence against the Rev. Mr. Gibb, for, on p. 235, of his Principles of Protestantism (T. and J. Clarke, 1898–the same edition to which the Rev. Mr. Gibb refers us) the Arbroath clergyman quotes Manning as follows: ‘Speaking in the name of the Pope, Cardinal Manning said: “I acknowledge no civil superior, I am the subject of no prince; and I claim more than this: I claim to be the supreme judge on earth and director of the consciences of man; I am the last supreme judge of what is right and wrong.”’ (The italics are ours.) Such is Lilley’s quotation in full. The most superficial comparison between this and the extract given by the Rev. Mr Gibb will show how widely different they are, not merely in form, but in meaning. (2) Lilley, at least, did not (as reference to the italicised words will show) garble and alter the meaning of the reported utterances of Manning in the wholesale and shameless fashion that the Rev. Mr. Gibb’s other ‘authorities’ did. But (a) he tore the words from their proper context: (b) he omitted, from the very middle of the extract–and without the smallest indication of such admission–no fewer than thirty three words: (c) he referred this mutilated extract to ‘Sermon, Tablet, October 9, 1864,’ which fell on a Sunday, and no Tablet, as we have shown, was published on that date. The Rev. Mr. Gibb vouched for ‘the accuracy and scholarship’ of the Rev. Mr. Lilley. But it seems clear that the Rev. Mr. Lilley’s ideas of accuracy and scholarship either did not rise to the level of consulting the Tablet or of quoting it correctly. We have found his book fairly swarming in places with inaccuracies. Here is one which occurs a few lines above his version of the ‘Manning extract’: ‘By the constitution of the Church of Rome, the Pope is made the absolute lord of the individual mind and conscience.’ (The italics are ours.) As a matter of fact ‘the constitution of the Church of Rome’ does no such thing. The right of absolute lordship over subjects is correlated by the duty of absolute obedience on their part, and the most elementary acquaintance with Catholic teaching on this subject and on the papal prerogatives would have prevented the ‘accurate’ and ‘scholarly’ Mr. Lilley from making a statement so absurd in itself and so directly opposed to fact.

I note that the erroneous Oct. 9, 1864 date is still attached to the fake quotation, which is one of the points that leads me to think the author of the article above has in mind the very list of allegations that are the topic of this web page. Sadly, the anti-Catholic quotation rigger is still alive and well.

Addendum: Out of curiosity, I went looking for places that use this false quotation. It appears in Charles Chiniquy’s alleged memoirs. More surprisingly, perhaps, Upton Sinclair uses it in his The Profits of Religion an Essay in Economic Interpretation. It shows up in several books written in support of Freemasonry. And, of course, it appears here and there on anti-Catholic websites. It does appear that this quotation is not used as frequently as some of the others on the list.

Pope (St.) Nicholas I, first entry

This alleged quotation is again no quotation at all. It is taken from John Foxe’s Acts and Monuments, Vol. 4, and as far as I can tell contains no authentic papal statements whatsoever. Foxe was attempting to show what the list compilers are attempting to show–that the popes have taken upon themselves the place of God. He did this by creating a fictitious speech from a fictitious pope setting out all his claims. The “speech” is a series of quotations from various documents either about the papacy or by popes themselves, interspersed with what Foxe thinks the popes were thinking. It is somewhat easier to follow in his original than it is here; the person who compiled the extract for the list either didn’t notice what Foxe had done, or didn’t care. All the distinctions are gone, along with most of the footnotes.

And if we take apart the pieces of the alleged quotation, what do we find?

“I am in all and above all” are Foxe’s own words, put in the mouth of his speaker.

The next part (“so that God Himself and I, the vicar of God, hath both one consistory,”) is not from a pope at all–here, Foxe is selecting quotations from other writers speaking about the pope, through the artifice of having his fictional mouthpiece pope speak of them with approval. I can’t find the original reference (Hostensius?), so I can’t provide the missing context, nor even check for accuracy of translation.

Likewise, “and I am able to do almost all that God can do” is not from a pope but from some other document speaking of the papacy. Again, I can’t locate the “Summa casuum fratris Baptista”, so I can’t provide context or check the translation.

We now switch to the part that is quoting actual papal documents (to his [slight] credit, it’s not Foxe’s fault that the distinction was lost–he makes it clear that he’s switching).

“… Wherefore, if those things that I do be said not to be done of man, but of God, what do you make of me but God?” It’s amazing what an ellipsis will hide. The context of this quote can actually be guessed from Foxe’s reference, a decretal from Pope Gregory on transferring bishops. (Note that this is not the reference given in the list. More on that reference at the end of this section!) There was (and is) a train of thought in the Church that sees a bishop’s relationship to his diocese as analogous to marriage–not the same as, but related to. Gregory is arguing here that he does have the power to move bishops, but only because he acts with divine authority. To top it all off, Gregory never said any of the material quoted at the beginning of this paragraph. That’s Foxe putting words into the mouth of his fictitious pope.

As is this: “Again, if prelates of the Church be called of Constantine for gods, I then being above all prelates, seem by this reason to be above all gods. Wherefore, no marvel, if it be in my power to dispense with all things, yea with the precepts of Christ.” No pope said that. It’s Foxe’s own commentary on Pope St. Nicholas I’s releasing men from oaths made under pressure while in captivity.

In summary:
Actual papal words quoted: 0.
Words quoted from actual Catholic documents: Few.
Stuff Foxe made up: Most of it.

And, ironically enough, that one reference we’re given in the quotation as it stands in the list? It refers to a passage in Foxe’s book that has dropped entirely out of the quotation as it now stands.

Lord God the Pope?

There’s an excellent web page dealing with this claim. To summarize that page: the original edition of the Extravagantes doesn’t contain that passage at all; it appears (allegedly; I have not seen a copy) in an edition printed 300 years later. The passage in question is in a gloss (commentary), not in the main text itself, so even if it were authentic, it would not have the force of law. And, finally, even if the phrase were in Canon Law, it would have no doctrinal force. Canon Law is not intended to present the teachings of the Church and does not do so definitively, though it sometimes repeats those teachings to give context to the canons. So all we have here is a quotation of unknown provenance, added to the text at a later date, that would prove nothing at all even if it had been authentic.

Fr. Periera was an 18th Century Spanish priest. I have not seen a copy of his work either, and the quotation given from it is originally taken from a highly polemical source. I hope the reader will understand by this point if I do not trust quotations taken from such a source. I do not know why Fr. Periera wrote what he is said to have written, nor in what context. But the opinion of one person, even if accurately related (which I doubt), proves nothing.

This, by the way, is easily the most popular of these quotes on the web. Google returns over 7,000 hits for “lord god the pope”.

Pope St. Nicholas I, second entry

The actual Latin text of this entry read:

Satis evidenter ostenditur a saeculari potestate nec solvi prosus nec ligari pontificem, quem constat a pio principe Constantio Deum appellatum, cum nec posse Deum ab hominibus judicari manifestum est.

I translate that as:

It is shown clearly enough that the pontiff, who was called “God” by the pious prince Constantine, is neither loosened nor bound in any way by secular power, since it is manifest that God cannot be judged by men either.

The phrase “who being God,” as the original quotation in the list gives it, is a bad translation; one must twist the second clause (“quem constat …”) pretty heavily to get that reading. Pope St. Nicholas is simply saying that secular powers cannot control the pope, who has his authority from God. The quotation from Constantine (which I have not been able to locate for further context) is perhaps meant to show that one of the greatest emperors deferred to the power of the Church.

Innocent III

The issue about which Pope Innocent III was writing was again the transferring of bishops from diocese to diocese, discussed under the John Foxe pastiche above. The pope is claiming he has the authority to do this not merely as a man and by human authority, but as God’s representative. In other words, it’s a limited claim, not a universal one. No Catholic should be ashamed of a pope’s claim to govern in ecclesial matters with authority entrusted to him by God. That does not make the Pope God; it does not entitle him to worship; it does not take away his humanity; it says nothing more than does Luke 10:16

Lateran V

The list simply says “the Lateran Council”. There were five of them; the one in question must have been the fifth, which was indeed convoked by Pope Julius II, though he died not long after it began meeting.

The quotation is accurate but incomplete. I no longer have ready access to the book in which I found it (an account of the Council that includes not just a summary of the debates and speeches, but the speeches themselves); fortunately, I still have a copy of the relevant portion of this speech:

Ad te igitur supplex tamquam ad verum principem, protectorem, Petrum et sponsum accedo, quem oro, obsecro et obrestor, si quae corporis sunt, temporanea iura respiciunt, armis curasti, nunc quae ad cuiusque animum pertinent, non armis, sed sanctissimis legibus cura. Id namque lingue facilius agere poteris, quam quae hactenus egisti. Cura, inquam, pater beatissime, ut sponsae tuae forma decorque redeat et pulcritudo. Cura, ut grex tibi commissos optimis ac spiritualibus alimentis alatur et vivat. Cura, ut valetudo haec quae totum terrarum orbem invisat, abicedat. Cura, ut fluctanti naviculae, in alto a diris agitatae ventis salutis portus illuceat. Cura ne fruges cuius es cultor, prae nimia ariditate sicceiact. Cura, ut ovile unum fiat, quod modo est in partes divisum. Cura denique, ut salutem quam dedisti nobis, et vitam et spiritum non amittamus. Tu enim pastor, tu medicus, tu gubernator, tu cultor, tu denique alter Deus in terris.

The quotation given in the list covers only the last two sentences of the above. Here’s how the whole paragraph reads:

Therefore I a beggar come to you as to a true prince, protector, Peter [or Rock], and spouse, whom I pray, I beseech and I [? This word is not in my dictionary; I assume it’s a synonymn for the others], if those things which are of the body they provide for with temporal laws, and guard them with arms, now of those things that pertain in any way to the soul, you tend not with arms, but with the most holy laws. So much you are able to do more easily by the tongue than you have already done with arms. Therefore, most blessed father, take care so that beauty and attractiveness may return to the forms of your spouse. Take care so that the flock entrusted to you may be fed with the best spiritual food, and live. Take care so that good health may watch over the whole world, not depart. Take care so a port of safety may shine upon the wave-tossed boats, tossed about in the deeps by the agitation of fierce winds. Take care lest the crops whose farmer you are wither on account of excessive dryness. Take care, so that the sheepfold may be one, for it is now as if divided in parts. In short, take care that we lose not that salvation, that life and breath which you have given us. For you are our shepherd, you are our physician, you are our governor, you are our farmer, you are in short another God on earth.

In other words … it’s not a compliment. The speaker is chiding Julius for caring too much about other things. He’s not flattering him. He’s reminding him of the responsibilities he has to take care of souls by ruling and guiding the Church justly, a responsibility that belongs to Julius because he has the place of God on earth insofar as God has entrusted the care of souls to him. It’s not flattery. It’s not a call to worship. I don’t imagine that Julius was all that happy to hear it.

The New York Catechism

The only answer I have to make to the alleged quotation from this source is if there is a Catholic “New York Catechism”, I have not been able to find it, nor any information about it. The only references I have been able to find to a document under the name “New York Catechism” talk about something prepared by an Episcopal bishop of New York, in an era when Catholicism was not at all popular. If the quotation is from that book and is authentic, it is most likely simply anti-Catholic propaganda. Absent any indication that there is or ever was something called the “New York Catechism” published under the auspices of any Catholic group, there is no way to assess this claim further, except to note that a claim based on a work that no one knows anything about is most unfirmly based.


Of the seven items in the list:

  • One (#3) is almost entirely the words of John Foxe, and therefore not attributable to a pope or to Catholics at all;
  • One (#7) is a complete distortion of what was originally said;
  • One (#5) is a late addition of unknown origin to a text of no doctrinal weight anyhow;
  • One (#4) is quoted from I-know-not-where, having no useful reference;
  • One (#6) is an egregious mistranslation;
  • One (#1) does not claim that the Pope is God, but simply that he is the representative of God on earth, and thus make no claim to divine prerogatives.
  • And one (#2) is actually a rebuke to the pope (delivered with the utmost respect).

I hope that these responses will at least be of use to Catholics who find themselves challenged by this list, and I hope moreover that open-minded inquirers who came here for whatever reason will discover that, whatever arguments might be brought against Catholicism, honesty will not permit the contents of the list to be among them.

Posted in -Catholic Faith Defenders Program, Apologetics-Pope, CFD VS INC, CFD VS SDA, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE ANSWER | Leave a Comment »

Melchor Manalili (CFD) vs Bro. Daniel (INC)

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on November 6, 2018

Luneta debate : bro. Melchor Manalili RCC(CFD) VS. bro. Daniel (INC)


Tingnan po ninyo kung paano pinataob ng Catholic Apologist ang INC-MANALO.


Posted in -Catholic Faith Defenders Program, CFD VS INC, Debate, Video | Leave a Comment »

Know the Truth – Tunay na Iglesia Natalikod? (Total Apostasy)

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on August 16, 2018

Posted in -Catholic Faith Defenders Program, Apologetics-General, Apologetics-Tagalog, CFD VS INC, Felix Manalo, Iglesia ni Cristo-Manalo, Know the Truth, Marks of the True Church, Video | Leave a Comment »

CFD vs INC Debate

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on July 17, 2018

Link of the DEBATE

Posted in CFD VS INC, Debate, Fr. Darwin Gitgano, Iglesia ni Cristo-Manalo, Marks of the True Church | Leave a Comment »

Jesse Romero Triumphs – The Truth Shines

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on December 20, 2012

Jesse Romero Triumphs – The Truth Shines

By Bro. G-one TampipiPaisones


After the recent debate between the Roman Catholic apologist Jesse Romero and Jose Ventilacion of IglesianiCristo(Manalo); the truth shine its way to the top and easier to notice the biblical argument of brother Jesse Romero.  Brother Jesse Romero is far more eloquent and dynamic compared to that of any American apologist (both Catholic and Protestant) in dealing with the pound-4-pound king debater of Iglesiani Cristo – Mr. Jose Ventilacion!  Brother Romero had been knockout Mr. Ventilacion in the said debate using outstanding biblical and logical reasons.


The theme of the debate is “Which is the True Church?”  Brother Romero stand first the historical foundation of the Catholic Church; and during the cross examination he is able to answer the questions directly and honestly.  This debate also shown that Brother Romero is able to refute Mr. Ventilacion’s wiles and dirty tactics in using the Acts 15 as an instrument to destroy the Brother Romero’s stand – the Primacy of Peter; but the Acts 15 had been used by Brother Romero to provide further proof and support to the Primacy of Peter in explaining the Greek word for “judgment and opinion.”The debate also gives further notice that Mr. Jose Ventilacion does not answer the question responsively and directly but he simply implied misleading arguments that were easily noticeable.


The debate was sponsored by the Lumin Christi Men’s Bible Study Group located at Visalia, California, USA.  This debate is another collections of the Catholic versus IglesianiCristo(manalo) debates where the Iglesiani Cristo was unanimously and certainly knock-off!!!

Viva!!! Congratulation brother Jesse Romero!!!!!!!!! Halleluiah!!!Amen!!!



Posted in CFD VS INC, Challenge, Debate | 2 Comments »

CFD (Ryan Mejillano) vs Kinawawang INC (Julius Cutin)

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on November 17, 2012

CFD (Ryan Mejillano) vs Kinawawang INC (Julius Cutin)

Tingnan po naman ninyo ang isa nanamang kinawawang Ministro ng INC-Manalo laban sa ating kapatid na si Bro. Ryan Mejillano ng Catholic Faith Defenders.
This four-part video is the supposed discussion turned debate between CFD Bro. Ryan and Minister Julius Cutin of INC(Manalo), Locale of Mintal, District of Davao. It was initiated by the INC (of Manalo) to trap Bro. Ryan thinking that the latter was just a petty and mediocre Catholic Christian. This happened at the residence of an INC member who was very desiroua few months before to engage Bro. Ryan in a debate with another INC (of Manalo) Minister.

Please notice the difference between a Catholic Christian and Iglesia Ni Cristo (Ni Manalo). Notice how an INC Minister delivers his part, his speeches, how he evades from the main topic that was agreed, how he first use foul words from the start to the end of these four videos.

Enjoy and reflect.

Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis.

All Rights Reserves
Video Duplication is for back-up purposes only.
Video Courtesy:


Posted in Apologetics-General, Apologetics-Visayan, Bible, Biblia (Visaya), CFD VS INC, Challenge, Debate, Debater of the Year, Doctrinal Comparison, Frequently Asked Questions, How to Help others become Catholic, Iglesia ni Cristo-Manalo, Larawan (Visaya), Marks of the True Church, Q & A, Rebulto, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE ANSWER, Tunay na Iglesia, Usa ra ang Tinuod nga Iglesia, When Was The Catholic Church founded? | 1 Comment »