To whom do the Roman Catholic faithful turn for answers? Who do they trust? The "infallible" Magisterium, of course. Or the equally "infallible" Pope - when he speaks ex cathedra on matters of faith or morals. Or, perhaps to one of the bishops who, acting in community with the rest of the bishops, constitutes a part of the "infallible" Teaching Authority of the Roman Catholic Church. To ensure that the RCC teaches only its version of truth, various holy or sacred offices have been created, such as the Holy Office, the Congregation of the Faith, etc. Yessir, the Roman Catholic Church goes way out of its way to keep its teachings accurate and its membership in line with what it considers to be the Truth (with a capital T).
To help keep the faith pure, Rome has a history of seeking out and crushing what she calls heretics. The Catholic definition of a heretic, taken from a Catholic dictionary, is:
Whoa! Since I was baptized into a Catholic family as a baby and professed Catholicism as a child and youth, but then turned my back on that predatory body, I suppose that makes me a "formal" heretic. Now, however, I deny the RCC has a teaching authority and also deny her teachings. Does that mean I am also a "material" heretic? Inquiring minds want to know.
Since I began posting to the Internet, two Catholic "clerics" have informed me, privately and on public forum, that they have conducted exorcisms directed at me. An RCC layman actually wrote me a very biblical-sounding curse, damning me to eternal torment for my efforts to damage "Mother Church." In reading the documents and canons of the various church councils and the Code of Canon Law, I am aware that I have merited hundreds of anathemas and several latae sententia excommunications. To this list, I suppose should be added condemnation as a double heretic. Woe is me! Does this mean there will be no place set for me in Satan's banquet hall when the Catholic hierarchy gather to feast their ruler?
I have written articles illustrating the avarice and downright villainy of some of those men whom the RCC declares to have been "infallible" links of the unbroken chain of Apostolic Succession. Men who murdered to gain access to Peter's throne and who then used that throne to acquire great wealth and power. I have written of barbarous and lusty men who wore the papal tiara, some of whom kept mistresses or even a harem within the walls of the papal palace. I have written of foolish popes who have declared two different skulls to be from the body of Peter, and who apparently see nothing unusual in the fact that both are stored under their very eyes in the Vatican. I have written of the pope who authenticated Peter's skeleton, despite the fact its bones included five different femurs, as well as the bones of chickens, goats, pigs and a mouse. I most recently wrote concerning at least 14 Holy Foreskins – 15 if we count the one Catherine of Sienna claims Jesus put on her finger when they married. Like the twin heads of Peter, the multiple heads of John the Baptist, and the bottled Milk of the Virgin Mary, these "holy relics" have been authenticated by the Roman Church. And the Roman Church, through her infallible teaching authority, can do no wrong.
A very kind German gentleman, Holger Hermann Haupt, has provided me with information from a monograph written in 1907 by German Dominican A. V. Müller. In this monograph, entitled Die hochheilige Vorhäute Christi (The highholy foreskins of Christ), the monk lists the following 13 places with `genuine' foreskins: the Lateran, Charroux near Poitiers (in France), Antwerp, Paris, Brügge, Boulogne, Besancon, Nancy, Metz, Le Puy, Conques, Hildesheim, Calcata (a very small Italian village near Lago di Bracciano) "and probably others".
Haupt commented that the 'genuine' foreskin that resided in Rome (Lateran) was a present from Charlemagne, who received it directly from an angel of the Lord. Wow! Wonder if that was the same one used in the wedding ceremony of Catherine of Sienna?
What is this fascination Rome has with human body parts? In her holiest ceremony, the Eucharistic sacrifice, she not only worships body parts but, according to her infallible teachings, actually leads her faithful in cannibalistically consuming those holy bits and pieces. The very altars upon which this ghoulish meal is celebrated are built "on dead men's bones," for they are set with bits and pieces of martyred "saints."
The Roman Church says the Eucharistic celebration is a bloodless re-presentation, a continuance if you will, of Christ's one-time substitutionary death on the cross of Calvary. Rome teaches that, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, the communion wafer is miraculously transformed into the "real" body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.
Now, here we see a strange thing. Surely no member of the Roman clergy would even consider inviting those present at a funeral to dine on the body of the departed, or to drink a toast in his blood. Yet these same priests and bishops wax poetic over the joys and benefits to be derived from eating the "real and substantial" body and drinking the "real and substantial" blood of the Catholic Christ. In other papers, I have shown how, very early in the history of the Church, the metaphorical teaching of Jesus at the Last Supper was corrupted by a literal understanding and how the actual flesh and blood communion of the Mithraic religion was incorporated into Catholic practice.
I have no difficulty understanding that the members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, often utterly unprepared for the posts they occupied, were driven by many urges and worldly desires to form the doctrines and dogmas that today govern the lives of a billion souls. I have explored some of the factors that help explain how the common people came to accept the many fantastic claims of Catholic hagiography and teachings. What I cannot understand is how, in these enlightened times, anyone can fail to see the plain truth that the Roman Catholic church is built on error, teaches error and actually strives to sustain the ignorance of its devotees.
Good grief!! When an "infallible" leader declares two different skulls to be those of Peter, or five different legs to have belonged to the same body, why can't Catholics see the failure of the RCC to honor truth? When the Catholic Church "authenticates" 13 different foreskins as being those of Jesus of Nazareth, why don't they wonder about the other teachings of that "infallible" juggernaut? When a "holy" church rips the heart out of a freshly dead churchman and encases it in a gold and jeweled reliquary, why can't they see that for what it is: grave robbing, desecration of a human body, ghoulish worship little different from the pagan rites of vodun or santeria?
Why don't Catholics turn their backs on the morgue that is the Catholic faith and seek God in His Word?