Catholic vs. Protestant

What are the differences?



The following heresies written by a Protestant to my video channel are deviations from the true teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. My response follows (not italized)

They wereadopted and perpetuated by the Roman Catholic Church in the course of 1,600 years.

In reality, the Romanists are the heretics of past ages instead of the people they have murdered because they would not conform to these heresies. These dates mentioned below are in many cases approximate. Many of these heresies had been current in the Church years before, but only when they were officially adopted by a church council and proclaimed by the pope as dogma of faith did they become binding on Catholics.

At the Reformation in the 16th century these heresies were repudiated as having no part in the religion of Jesus as taught in the New Testament.


(1) Of all the human inventions taught and practiced by the Roman Catholic Church, which are contrary to the Bible, the most ancient are the prayers for the dead and the sign of the cross. Both of these began over 300 years after Christ.

(2) Wax candles were introduced in churches about 320 A.D.

(3) Veneration of angels and dead saints began about 375 A.D.

(4) The Mass as a daily celebration was adopted in 394 A.D.

(5) The worship of Mary the mother of Jesus and the use of the term Mother of God, as applied to her, originated in the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D.

(6) Priests began to dress differently from the laity in 500 A.D.

(7) The doctrine of Purgatory was first established by Gregory in 593 A.D.

(8) The Latin language as the language of prayer and worship in churches was also imposed by Pope Gregory I in the year 600 A.D.

(9) The Bible teaches that we pray to God alone (Jn. 16:23-26). In the primitive Church prayers were never directed to Mary or to dead saints. This practice began in the Roman Church about 600 years after Christ.

(10) The Papacy is of pagan origin. The title of “Pope”, or “Universal Bishop”, was first given to the bishop of Rome by the wicked emperor Phocas in the year 610 A.D. Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and He did expressly forbid any such notion (Lk. 22:24-26; Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18; 1 Cor. 3:11).

(11) The kissing of the Pope's feet began in the year 709 A.D. It had been a pagan custom to kiss the feet of emperors. The Word of God forbids such practices (Acts 10:25-26; Rev. 19:10; 22:9).

(12) The temporal power of the popes began in the year 750 A.D. Jesus expressly forbad such a thing and He Himself refused worldly kingship (Mt. 4:8-9; 20:25-26; Jn. 18:36).

(13) Worship of the cross, images and relics was authorized in 788 A.D. Such practice is called idolatry in the Bible, and is severely condemned (Exod. 20:2-6; Deut. 27:15; Ps. 115; Rom. 2:22; 1 Cor. 8).

(14) Holy Water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by the priest, was authorized in the year 850 A.D.

(15) The veneration of St. Joseph began in the year 890 A.D.

(16) The baptism of bells was instituted by Pope John XIV in 965 A. sD.

(17) Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV in 995 A.D. Every believer and follower of Christ is called saint in the Bible (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2).

(18) Fasting on Fridays and during Lent was impoed in the year 998 A.D. by popes said to be interested in the fishing industry. See Mt. 15:10; 1 Cor. 10:25; 1 Tim. 4:1-8; Col. 2:14-17; Rom. 14:1-23.

(19) The Mass was developed gradually as a sacrifice, and attendance made obligatory in the 11th Century after Christ. The Gospel teaches that the sacrifice of Christ was offered once and for all, and is not to be repeated, but only commemorated in the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11; Heb. 7:27; 9:26-28; 10:10-14).

(20) The celibacy of the priesthood was decreed by Pope Hildebrand and Boniface VII in the year 1079 A.D. Jesus imposed no such rule, nor did any of the apostles. On the contrary, St. Peter was a married man (Mt. 8:14-15) and St. Paul says that bishops were to have a wife and children (1 Tim. 3:2-5, 12; Titus 1).

(21) The rosary, or prayer beads, was introduced by Peter the Hermit in the year 1090 A.D. This practice was copied from Hindus and Mohammedans. The counting of prayers is a pagan practice and is expressly condemned by Christ (Mt. 6:5-13).

(22) The inquisition of heretics was instituted by the Council of Verona in the year 1184 A.D. Jesus never taught the use of force to spread his religion (Mt. 5 and 10).

(23) The sale of indulgences, commonly regarded as a purchase of forgiveness and a permit to indulge in sin, began in the year 1190 A.D. The Christian religion as taught in the Gospel, condemns such a traffic, and it was the protest against this traffic that brought on the Protestant Reformation in the 16th Century.

(24) The dogma of transubstantiation was decreed by Pope Innocent III in the year 1215 A.D. By this doctrine the priest pretends to perform a daily miracle by changing a wafer into the body of Christ, and then he pretends to eat Him alive in the presence of his people during Mass. The Gospel condemns such absurdities, for the Holy Communion is simply a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ (Lk. 22:19-20; Jn. 6:35; 1 Cor. 11:26).

(25) Confession of sins to the priest at least once a year was instituted by Pope Innocent III in the Lateran Council, in the year 1215 A.D. The Gospel commands us to confess our sins direct to God (Ps. 51; Isa. 1:18; Lk. 7:48; 15:21; 1 Jn. 1:8-9).

(26) The adoration of the wafer, (host) was invented by Pope Honorius in 1220 A.D. So the Roman Church worships a god made by hands. This is plain idolatry and absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Gospel (Jn. 4:24).

(27) The Bible was forbidden to laymen and placed in the index of forbidden books by the Council of Toledo in 1229 A.D. Jesus and the apostles commanded that the Scriptures should be read by all (Jn. 5:39; 1 Tim. 3:15-16).

(28) The scapular was invented by Simon Stock, an English monk, in 1287 A.D. It is a piece of brown cloth, with the picture of the Virgin and supposed to contain supernatural virtue to protect those who wear it on the naked skin from all dangers. This is fetishism.

(29) The Roman Church forbad the cup to the laity in the Council of Constance in 1414 A.D. The Gospel commands all Christians to celebrate Holy Communion with bread and wine (Mt. 26:27; 1 Cor. 11:26-29).

(30) The doctrine of Purgatory was proclaimed as a dogma of faith by the Council of Florence in 1439 A.D. There is not one word in the Bible that would teach the purgatory of priests. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sins (1 Jn. 1:7-9; 2:1-2; Jn. 5:24; Rom. 8:10; Rev. 1:5; Eph. 1:7).

(31) The doctrine of Seven Sacraments was affirmed in 1439 A.D. The Gospel says that Christ instituted only two sacraments, baptism and the Lord's Supper (Mt. 28:19-20; 26:26-28).

(32) The Ave Maria, or the addition of part of the last half, was made in 1508 A.D. It was completed 50 years afterward and finally approved by Pope Sixtus V at the end of the 16th Century.

(33) The Council of Trent, held in the year 1545 A.D., declared that tradition is of equal authority with the Bible. By tradition is meant human teachings. The Pharisees believed the same way, and Jesus bitterly condemned them, for by human traditions they nullified the commandments of God (Mk. 7:7-13; Col. 2:8; Rev. 22:18).

(34) Six apocryphal books were added to the Bible by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D. This is contrary to the Bible (Rev. 22:18-19).

(35) The creed of Pope Pius IV was imposed as the official creed of Catholics in 1560 A.D. True Christians will retain the Holy Scriptures as their creed. Hence, their creed is 1,500 years older than the creed of Roman Catholics. (See Gal. 1:8; Rev. 22:18-19; 2 Tim. 2:15; 3:15-17.)

(36) The immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in the year 1854 A.D. The Gospel states that all men, with the sole exception of Christ, are sinners. Mary herself had need of a Savior (Rom. 3:23; 5:12; Ps. 51:5; Lk. 1:30, 46-47).

(37) In the year 1870 A.D. Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of papal infallibility.

(38) Pope Pius X, in the year 1907 condemned, together with “modernism,” all the discoveries of modern science which were not approved by the Church. Pius IX had done the same thing in the syllabus of 1864 A.D.

(39) In the year 1930 Pius XI condemned the public schools.

(40) In the year 1931 the same Pope Pius XI reaffirmed the doctrine that Mary is “the Mother of God.”


This doctrine was first invented by the Council of Ephesus in the year 431 A.D. This is a heresy which is contrary to Mary's own words (Lk. 1:46-49). What will be the next invention of the Roman Church? Catholics say their church never changes, yet it has done nothing but invent new doctrines which are contrary to the Bible, and has practiced rites and ceremonies taken wholly from paganism. At least 95% of the rites and ceremonies of the Roman Church are of pagan origin. Cardinal Newman, in his book (Page 359) “The Development of the Christian Religion” admits that “Temples, incense, oil lamps, votive offerings, holy water, holidays and seasons of devotions, processions, blessings of fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure (of priests, monks, and nuns), images are all of pagan origin.” Let any honest heart find Scripture for the above practices and see for himself that Romanism is not scriptural. The above chronological list of human inventions disproves the claim of the priests of the Roman Church that their religion was taught by Christ and that the popes have been the faithful custodians of that religion.

First of all, let us be clear that this poor soul does not believe in the role of Tradition in the Church. By referencing only the Bible, he apparently is a Sola Scriptura type. And of course he does not subscribe to the completed and correct version of the Bible, that is, the Douay- Rheims. The Douay–Rheims Bible is a translation of the Latin Vulgate, which is itself a translation from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. The Vulgate was created primarily due to the efforts of Saint Jerome (345–420 AD), whose translation was declared to be the authentic Latin version of the Bible by the Council of Trent. With the Protestant Reformation in full gear, the Catholic Church deemed it important and urgent to publish a book that countered the errant Protestant versions that were emerging.


I understand how deluded souls believe that Jesus did not die on a ‘cross’. It is interesting that such fools ignore the use of the term in their own bible, such as the King James Version (KJV). They ignore the fact that one of the most popular forms of capital punishment utilized by the Romans were crucifixion. And they love to cite that it was Emperor Constantine that introduced and propagated the ‘cross’. They refuse to recognize what the Apostles, Apostolic Fathers and Fathers, all way before Constantine, taught with regards to the sign of the cross. The early Church Fathers attested to the use of the sign of the cross. Tertullian (d. c. 250) described the commonness of the sign of the cross:

“In all our travels and movements, in all our coming in and going out, in putting on our shoes, at the bath, at the table, in lighting our candles, in lying down, in sitting down, whatever employment occupies us, we mark our foreheads with the sign of the cross” (De corona, 30).

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) in his Catechetical Lectures stated, “Let us then not be ashamed to confess the Crucified. Be the cross our seal, made with boldness by our fingers on our brow and in everything; over the bread we eat and the cups we drink, in our comings and in our goings out; before our sleep, when we lie down and when we awake; when we are traveling, and when we are at rest” (Catecheses, 13). But of course, the poor deluded souls refuse to acknowledge Church Tradition and associated teaching for hundreds of years before a bible even existed. 300 years after Christ? At least be honest and scholarly about it.

Regarding candles, the use of lamp/ candles reads like a rash in the Old Testament. For example, Exodus 27:20:

“Command the children of Israel that they bring thee the purest oil of the olives, and beaten with a pestle: that a lamp may burn always,"

And First Book of Kings (1 Samuel) 3:3:

“Before the lamp of God went out, Samuel slept in the temple of the Lord, where the ark of God was.”

And Prophecy of Zacharia 4:2:

"And he said to me: What seest thou? And I said: I have looked, and behold a candlestick all of gold, and its lamp upon the top of it: and the seven lights thereof upon it: and seven funnels for the lights that were upon the top thereof."

So tradition from the Old Testament clearly illustrates that lamps and candles were utilized by the faithful as commanded by God. So why is it any different for Christians where the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity is present in the Holy Tabernacle in the Church? Or I get it. You do not believe in the Holy Eucharist. It is just bread and wine to you. Read St. Matthew 26: 26-28:


“And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.”

If you claim to be a Christian, you are blaspheming the Holy Spirit in denying this fundamental truth given to us by Jesus Christ, himself. Or as St. John 6:54 says

"Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."

Such an inconvenient truth, isn’t it? So go on poor deluded soul. Explain away what the Old Testament teaches and what Jesus Christ himself taught.


Explain to me why Joshua prostrates himself before the angel standing with his sword unsheathed in front of Jericho in Joshua 5. And in Genesis 19, Lot bows to the ground before two angels? One chapter earlier, Abraham does the same to three angels. Then there is Luke 24, where some ‘women from Galilee’ stumble upon the opened tomb of Jesus and are confronted by two angels. The women respond by bowing. No rebuke follows. Instead, they are given the good news of Jesus’ rising. I suppose according to your polluted way of thinking, in all these instances the faithful committed a heinous crime against God for venerating these angels. Hah! As for saints, the faithful have venerated them since the earliest time of Christianity; especially the martyrs. There is plenty of testimony to this that is in writings that are undisputable. But a bigger question needs to be posed. What do you think saints do in Heaven besides worshipping God and enjoying The Eternal Prize? They are available 24 x 7 for the remainder of eternity to intercede for you.


I appreciate that, provided you are a heretical/ schismatic so-called Christian, you may only want to pray to Jesus Christ. But, do you do it 24x7? Why not? Are you so proud that you refuse to ask a saint to intercede on your behalf when you are unable or even unwilling to do so? If you insist on refusing, you are a genuine fool, indeed. That is what veneration of saints is truly all about. The use of Icons and Statues as well as devotions are means to assist in focusing on particular saints to perform a better request or prayer to them. It is that simple.


As pertains to the Mass, it has evolved since the days of Christ. That is a proven fact. It did not begin in the late 4th Century as you claim. It all begins with Jesus Christ’s command regarding the Holy Eucharist to “do this in memory of me.” As St. Paul First Corinthians 10:16 says, "The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?" So what is St, Paul referring to if not the early form of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? What part of this do you not understand? You are so blind.


As regards the Mother of God, since you are Sola Scriptura, you have absolutely no appreciation for Tradition. Yes, the Council of Ephesus formalized the term of Mary as the Mother of God. So what? The entire Church believed this and the Council unanimously agreed, that is 100% agreed. That is called the Magisterium of the Church. They didn’t invent this. They studied Tradition, the teachings of the Apostles, Apostolic Fathers and holy theologians and saints of that era. Who are you to rebut that? Also, I suppose you do not like the Hail Mary prayer. Well, you are going to have to explain what the angel, St. Gabriel, said to Mary in St. Luke 28-55, especially And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou has found grace with God….” Boy, that “Hail, full of grace” must of gotten St. Gabriel, the Archangel in an awful lot of trouble with God. How dare he? You probably do not believe she is the Immaculate Conception either. You must believe that a polluted soul with Original Sin would be a holy tabernacle of the Lord, instead of the New Ark of the Holy Covenant, the New Eve. Get a life.

That is 5 out of 40. I am through with you for now. More will come in the days ahead. Nuf said. --Nich

Nick Fluh’s Second Response to the Poor, Deluded Soul:

"Man’s nature is such that he needs external helps to assist him in fixing his attention on sacred things. We are all impressed to a remarkable degree by "pomp and circumstance." A king on his throne, clad in his royal robes, holding his scepter and wearing his jeweled crown, is an imposing sight; all these accessories indicate his dignity and help us to realize his greatness. The same king without these trappings of royalty would possibly be a very insignificant object.


For this reason it has been customary in every age and country to invest those holding any position of dignity or practicing certain avocations with some uniform or badge, by which their rank and duties are designated. The soldier wears his uniform, by which he is distinguished from the ordinary citizen. The policeman, the fireman... each has his special garb, marking him as set apart for some definite work.


This is done for a twofold purpose -- that others may respect and obey him as far as is necessary, and that he may respect himself and be more conscious of his duties and more attentive to them, on account of the uniform he wears. This is even more true of the religious garb. The priest wears it that he may be thereby distinguished from other men, and that he himself may be always reminded by it that he is "taken from among men to offer sacrifices and holocausts for them" -- to be a mediator between the Almighty and His creatures.

In every religion since the world began, the practice has been in vogue of wearing some form of vestment. The priest has had a distinctive dress, whether he was a..."medicine-man" of some... tribe, an augur of pagan Rome, or a priest of the Hebrew [religion]. Here, as in many other cases, our Church has shown her wisdom by making use of a meritorious feature of other religions.


The liturgical vestments worn at Mass have evolved over time. Under the Jewish law every detail of the vestments used in the worship of God was provided for by divine command. The garb of the high priest and his assistants was specified most minutely as to material and form, and observance of these rules was enjoined under the severest penalties. The veneration of the Jewish people for the vestments of the high-priest was so great that they kept a lamp constantly burning before the repository of the sacred robes, just as we do now before the Blessed Sacrament.


When Christianity arose, no divine command was given concerning the dress to be worn by the priests of God. This was left to the judgment of the heads of the Church, and in the different ages of her history many changes have been made in the number and form and material of the priestly vestments.


There is no record of any special form of vestments during the first four centuries. It is probable that the garb of the clergy in those times was the common dress of laymen. The outer garments worn by men of those days were long and flowing, a modified form of the old Roman toga; and consequently the vestments used in the divine service took the same general form. Gradually the custom was introduced of making them of rich and costly materials, to add greater beauty thereby to the rites of religion. When the hardy barbarians of the North had overwhelmed the luxurious nations of southern Europe and had brought in their own fashions of dress, the Church did not see fit to change the garb of her ministers as worn at the services of her ritual, but she permitted them to change their ordinary dress to some extent, and forbade them to wear their vestments except while officiating at sacred rites.


Nevertheless, since the earliest days of the Church, liturgical vestments have been worn by priests for the celebration of the Mass. Even though priests of the Old Testament wore vestments in their liturgical rites, the “Christian” vestments are not really adaptations of them; rather, the vestments of the Christians developed from the dress of the Graeco-Roman world, including the religious culture. Nevertheless, the Old Testament idea of wearing a special kind of clothing in the performance of liturgical rites did influence the Church. St. Jerome asserted,

“The Divine religion has one dress in the service of sacred things, another in ordinary intercourse and life.”

After the legalization of Christianity in A.D. 313, the Church continued to refine “who wore what when and how” until about the year 800 when liturgical norms for vesting were basically standardized. The bottom line is that Catholic vestments evolved over time. There is nothing heretical at all in this and it is consistent with Jewish traditions as well. So much for your inadequate accusation.


Purgatory: Purgatory is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions. Have you ever attempted at all to study history in the Old and New Testament? Or for that matter the teachings of the Apostles, Apostolic Fathers, Fathers and Doctors of the Church? You don’t even know these terms. Your assertions are ridiculous. Go read the Old Testament, specifically The Second Book of Machabees 12: 41-46,

“Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.”

The term "With godliness,” Judas hoped that these men who died fighting for the cause of God and religion, might find mercy: either because they might be excused from mortal sin by ignorance; or might have repented of their sin, at least at their death. Furthermore, "It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead": Here is an evident and undeniable proof of the practice of praying for the dead under the old law, which was then strictly observed by the Jews, and consequently could not be introduced at that time by Judas, their chief and high priest, if it had not been always their custom.


Where are all these poor dead souls if not in some type of purifying state? For they are not worthy to be before the divine presence of God. There guilt through any sin(s) needed to be removed. And that didn’t and still does not happen suddenly or overnight in today’s world without intercessions, prayers, sacrifices and oblations by the faithful on earth. While we are at it, why did your dammed colleague, Martin Luther and other dammed associates of his exclude this Book of Machabee from their putrid bible? An inconvenient truth perhaps? Then there is the New Testament. How about St. Matthew 5:26?


“Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing.” And St. Luke 12:59 to wit, “I say to thee, thou shalt not go out thence, until thou pay the very last mite.”

Presuming these payments are made before being released from punishment, where are these payments to occur?


This means such individuals are not eternally dammed as many others are. It means they must experience purgation to atone for sins committed and achieve union with the Divine Will of God. Or as St. Paul’s First Book to the Corrinthians 3: 12-15 declares,

“Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire."

I know you losers love to misquote and interpret this explanation by St. Paul, but the fact is like the bad works, the soul though saved will be purified “yet so as by fire.” Then there is St. Matthew 12:32:

“And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.”

You should pay particular attention to these words. Poor, degenerate souls like yourself, like to claim that Jesus’ sacrifice completely sufficient to pay for all sins. Really? Where in the bible or where did Christ state this or where did the Apostles, Apostolic Fathers, Fathers and Doctors of the Church teach this? You ignore the obvious noted in the above quotes where Christ, himself, directly claims that poor souls must pay even to the last “farthing” for sins committed. And blaspheming the Holy Ghost is unforgiveable. But, NO, you idiots love to ignore the obvious and come up with convoluted and decrepit arguments. You are not all saved simply because you may claim you believe Christ is your savior.


Or as Jesus said in St. Luke 13:23-28,

“And a certain man said to him: Lord, are they few that are saved? But he said to them: Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able. But when the master of the house shall be gone in, and shall shut the door, you shall begin to stand without, and knock at the door, saying: Lord, open to us. And he answering, shall say to you: I know you not, whence you are. Then you shall begin to say: We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. And he shall say to you: I know you not, whence you are: depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you shall see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.”

Go argue with Jesus Christ, not with the faithful. As concerns Pope St. Gregory the Great’s declaration regarding Purgatory, you ignore the fact that he did not do this unilaterally but with the unanimous agreement of all the bishops with the support of the teaching (verbal – Tradition) of the Apostles, Apostolic Fathers, Fathers and Doctors of the Church.


As regards the use of Latin, who are you or any other Protestant or polluted poor soul, taking exception to the use of Latin by the Roman Catholic Church. It is the right of the Church, not of outsiders to declare what the language of the Church should be. The Catholic Faith, which is so beautifully expressed in the Holy Mass, was spread by the Apostles and by the early Christian missionaries throughout the Roman Empire. The common language of the Roman Empire was Latin, but in the East, Greek was the vulgar tongue. Thus in the Roman Rite, while both Greek and Latin were used as liturgical languages, the preference was eventually given to the use of Latin, while some use of the Greek was maintained. It has been the consistent teaching of many Popes, moreover, that Latin has special qualities as a language of worship in the Roman Rite, giving us a common identity with our ancestors in the Faith. Latin is a symbol of the visible universality and unity of the Church that helps preserve a bond of unity with our common center, Rome, 'the Mother and Teacher of all nations'. So get off our case on this one. It is none of your business nor is it of your right or privilege to criticize or contend with my beloved Church’s language.


Your reference to St. John 16:23 is typical of Protestants who love to take select pieces of Scripture out of context. READ from 16:21-23. Jesus is referencing a person who lives with sorrows; telling them to have fortitude and hope. For afterwards, in Heaven, he will listen to their requests and answer them. Note: Line 22 –

“So also you now indeed have sorrow; but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice; and your joy no man shall take from you.”

Jesus is definitely talking about souls that have passed from this life into the next. What part of this do you refuse to understand?


As regards The Mother of God and the saints, I have spoken to that point previously. And the reference above only reinforces my arguments about venerating the angels and saints. Get it!


Regarding the papacy, again like a typical Protestant/ woe-be-gone, you fail to take the quote in proper context. This is such a pathetic and unscholarly approach. Referring to St. Luke 22: 24-26, you ignore the context of Christ’s speech which is the fact he was condemning his traitor, Judas, and the Apostles began questioning themselves in human fashion because obviously with Jesus Christ gone, who would lead them. But he corrected them telling them that to lead you must serve the way Jesus served and not the other way around, that is, being served. Jesus did not declare that there would be no leader.


As a matter of fact, read St. Matthew 16: 16-23 –

“Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

Again and again, what part of these statements by Jesus Christ, himself, do you refuse to accept? And in your reference, again out of context, to the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Ephesians 1: 22-23 Jesus is indeed the Head of the Church, but this does not preclude Jesus from appointing His Vicar on Earth as He did with St. Peter as previously noted. The pope is Christ Vicar, whether you recognized what is taught by Holy Scripture and Tradition or not. It did not begin with the formality of the seventh century but was affirmed and reaffirmed by the bishops throughout the history of Christianity since Christ’s time on earth. Nuf said. More to come. --Nich

Nich Fluh’s Third Response:

You are foolish. St. Matthew 5:26 Out of context? Verse 25 is associated with a lesson / parable. Verse 26 is the conclusion that Jesus states is the outcome of sin. Your commentary about Roman Law is irrelevant to the teaching of Christ about the “Individual” Judgement we will all have with the Just Judge when we die. Eternal damnation is given to those who not only deserve it but during their Individual Judgment, demand it and blaspheme the God/ Holy Ghost who provides them sufficient Grace to see the state of their souls when before Jesus in judgement. Purgatory is not a second chance. It is a result of one’s personal judgement by Jesus and should He decide, His Divine Mercy. But again, you are not a Christian. Yes, I said Christian. Christian is Catholic, whether you agree or not.


Your reference to Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians 5:8 is again out of context because you ignore the following verses 9 and 10 to wit,

“And therefore we labour, whether absent or present, to please him. For we must all be manifested before the judgement seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body, according as he hath done, whether it be good or evil."

In the particular judgment, immediately after death, the soul is rewarded or punished according to what it has done in the body.


Regarding Isaiah 14:9, again you misunderstand the meaning of the message. Hell, below, that is where the devils and dammed souls reside and all their minions on earth are in a fury over the fact that God offers poor souls that are faithful the hope and the opportunity for eternal salvation. God does not preclude in any fashion that such poor souls though faithful but imperfect, must atone for their sins. Regarding Revelations 20:15,

"The “second death” is for those who are “not found written in the book of life."

Though in the Book of Life, this does not preclude purgation by the poor soul. If you truly believe otherwise, that is your problem, not any Catholic. We believe in Christ crucified. We believe in mortification of one’s will to God’s. Anything less we believe requires purgation to cleanse our souls before appearing before the Throne of the Almighty. So it is and so it shall be done. Amen.


Yes, again and again I condemn your false and demonic beliefs. As concerns you, a poor deluded soul, you are a tragic figure lost and outside of the Church. Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus. That is your problem not mine. Or as that famous saying goes, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” Better do it while you are alive. Come to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church if you want to receive eternal happiness. Otherwise, you are a condemned soul. That is not me. That is Jesus himself who affords you every opportunity to acquire eternal salvation.


You refuse to acknowledge or explain with any proper fashion the quotes I gave you previously, because these quotes are opposed to your perverse way of thinking. You lack what is best expressed in Latin, Adaequatio intellectus nostricum re. I recommend to you to try avoid advesus solem ne loquitor.

Nich Fluh’s Fourth Response:

As an anti-Catholic I recognize that you refuse to understand or distinguish, (a) adoration/ worship vs. veneration and (b) honor given to the servants of God vs. the worship of God alone. I spoke of (a) previously. As regards (b) and specifically kissing of the pope’s feet, the idea of kissing the pope’s feet did not materialize until the time of Pope Eugenius II who died in 827 A.D. This practice eventually became a law which was to instill honor for the office of the Vicar of Christ, not so much the man in the office. It was a custom not much different from the Army when a commanding officer walks into an area, the lead person yells out “Attention” and everyone stands up and recognizes the officer. Additionally, Pope Gregory VII required all the princes to submit to this practice. This was used to identify those who were not loyal to Christ. That would seem to be the chief concern at the time.

And to avoid any follow up of irrelevance through your pathetic response, my point here is that there is no resemblance between King Ahasuerus, the Babylonian King and the Pope that you Protestants frequently reference. There is no connection what so ever. King Ahasuerus regarded himself a god. He regarded his laws to be acted on because he demanded it as a god. He enslaved the people of God and forced them into slavery. The king imposed honors that would be against the Law of God.


We Catholics know that the Pope is not a god. But, he is the successor of St. Peter, the Vicar of Christ whose office functions as royal steward for the King, Jesus Christ, something you polluted Protestants can’t stand. The idea here is that it is Jesus being honored here. Also note, that in those days the practice was never widely done, but reserved for a Catholic King, Catholic sovereigns, bishops and cardinals, as a gesture of acknowledgement of the pope’s authority of Christ. For example, Pope Gregory beginning in 1073 A.D, twice excommunicated Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV because of his meddling in the affairs of the Church. Whether you like it or not, the spiritual power is infinitely higher than an earthly power. I can only wish that the Church still practiced this function with neer do wells like Kerry, Pelosi and other woe-be-gone politicians and leaders who claim to be Catholic.

The temporal power of the Pope is his power to rule an independent state as sovereign, free and independent from other earthly sovereigns. The vastness of the Church and the greatness of its responsibilities towards its millions of members require that it should be able to communicate with them unhampered by any national government, free of foreign interference.


Your refererence to 750 AD is another example of your inability to articulate rational thought. When Constantine the Great was converted at the beginning of the fourth century, he gave large grants of money and lands to the Church. Emperors who succeeded him added to the grants. In the year 327 Constantine moved the seat of his Empire to Constantinople. Rome was abandoned to itself, and became the prey of successive hordes of barbarians. The Roman people came to look up to the Popes as their only governors and protectors. In fact it was Pope Leo the Great who saved Rome from Attila the "Scourge of God", and from Genseric the Vandal. Thus abandoned by the emperors, little by little the people of central Italy became bound more strongly to the Popes. In 754 the Lombards invaded Italy and threatened Rome. The Pope appealed urgently to the Emperor in Constantinople, but he was indifferent, neglectful, and did nothing. In this emergency, the Pope crossed the Alps and appealed to Pepin, the Frankish king, to protect the people in Italy from the Lombards. Upon defeating the Lombards, King Pepin granted the conquered provinces to the Pope. In 774 Charlemagne, the successor of Pepin, confirmed the grant, and donated additional provinces to the Pope. These possessions, called the States of the Church, the Popes held until 1859. In 1859 all the States of the Church, except Rome, were seized by the armies of Victor Emmanuel II, leader of the movement for the unification of Italy. In 1870 Rome itself was taken, and made capital of Italy, and the Pope became virtually a prisoner in his own palace. In 1929 the Lateran Treaty signed between the Holy See and the crown of Italy recognized the Pope's temporal power and his sovereignty over the City of the Vatican, by a formal concordat between the Pope and the crown of Italy. The City of the Vatican is the smallest sovereign state in the world. At the time of the signing of the Lateran Treaty, it had a population of 532, only 250 of whom were resident. It is almost entirely enclosed by high walls, and comprises 110 acres.


So here we are today with a state the size of 110 acres. Boy that is an empire. LoL. What really is pathetic, is how you refuse to look at actual history and circumstances that compelled the popes and allied leaders of their respective times to collaborate for the sake of the faithful, that is to save lives from war, misery and death which again, is a very definitive Catholic act of “Charity” the third and most important virtue before Faith and Hope.

Oh, and your pathetic reference to St. Matthew 4:8-9 where Jesus is being tempted by Satan is another indication of your sophomoric beliefs and misleading interpretations. The verses associated with Jesus and Satan and all the kingdoms of the world was specific to Christ; not to the Church and its pope. The devil was attempting to get Christ to separate Himself from His Father by worshiping a creature, the devil, Satan. This has nothing at all to do with the Church’s rightful privilege to temporal power. You are so off the reservation on this one.

Again, your pathetic claim is St. Matthew 20: 25-26, ignores the preamble of the mother of the sons of Zebedee, attempting to get Jesus to assure her two sons, seats at His right and left hand in the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus clearly was giving constructive criticism to the Apostles that they must serve and not be served which coincidentally, the traitor Judas could not stand. That was the only purpose of those verses. It has absolutely nothing to do with temporal power or authority.


Yes, Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world as noted in St. John 18:36. Of course, what you fail to note was the context or purpose of that statement. Jesus specifically was answering the Roman, Pontius Pilate regarding claims made by the Jews. He lived and proselytized in Palestine, a Roman territory. By Christ’s own statement, He asserts He has no temporal jurisdiction in the Roman Empire. If He did, His “servants would certainly strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews…” This ultimately caused Pilate to recognize that Jesus was innocent and a victim of the Jewish leaders who were threatened by him. In St. John 18:38 Pilate, says “I find no cause in him.” THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THESE VERSES. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH TEMPORAL POWER.


Your pathetic accusation that Catholics worship crosses, relics and icon/ images is not only wrong but a rude and obnoxious claim that is spiteful to Catholics all over the world. Yes, you are a troll. An Icon is an image (usually two dimensional) of Christ, the Saints, Angels, important Biblical Christians pray in the presence of Icons (just as Israelites prayed in the presence of Icons in the Temple), but we do not pray to the image.


B-t-W, to put this subject in proper perspective, did the Ark of the Covenant work miracles (e.g. Joshua 3:15ff; 1st Samuel 4-6; 2nd Samuel 11-12)? Did the Bronze Serpent heal those bitten by snakes (Numbers 21:9)? Did the Prophet Elisha’s bones raise a man from the dead (2nd Kings 13:21)? Did St. Peter’s shadow heal the sick (Acts 5:15)? Did aprons and handkerchiefs that had touched St. Paul heal the sick and caste out evil spirits (Acts 19:12)? The answer to these questions are, Yes.


Nevertheless, to be precise, it was God who chose to work miracles through these things. The fact that God can sanctify material things should come as no surprise to those familiar with Scripture. For example, not only was the Altar of the Temple holy, but anything that touched it was holy as well (Exodus 29:37). But to be precise, it is God who works miracles through Icons, because He honors those who have honored Him. And, I bet you want to claim that doesn’t the 2nd Commandment forbid icons? “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image (i.e. idol), or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor shalt thou serve (worship) them…” (Exodus 20:4-5a). The word used is “Graven Image”. We are asked not even to “Make unto thee”. We are asked to refrain from even making/creating them!


So what is this “Graven Image” that God asks not even to make? If it referred to “images of any kind”, then we cannot make images of anything. Then by your convoluted reasoning, even the picture on a driver’s license violates it, and is an idol. So either every Protestant with a driver’s license is an idolater, or Icons are not idols. Leaving aside, for the moment, the meaning of “Graven Images” lets simply look at what this text actually says about them. You shall not make x, you shall not bow to x, you shall not worship x. If x = image, then the Temple itself violates this Commandment. If x = idol and not all images, then this verse contradicts neither the Icons in the Temple, nor Catholic Icons. Also the word used in the Hebrew Bible is “Pesel” which means “PAGAN IDOLS”. The images inside the Holy Temple of Jerusalem were never described using the word pesel. Pesel in Hebrew, Eidoloai in Greek and “Graven Image” in English all refer to pagan idols alone. One last point I want to make is the use of icons in the Old Testament. Boy, there are plenty of references. Those Jews must be a bunch of idolaters. Hah!


Consider how prevalent they were in the Tabernacle and then later in the Temple. There were images of cherubim: On the Ark-Ex. 25:18; On the Curtains of the Tabernacle-Ex. 26:1; On the Veil of the Holy of Holies-Ex. 26:31; Two huge Cherubim in the Sanctuary-1st Kings 6:23; On the Walls-1st Kings 6:29; On the Doors-1st Kings 6:32; And on the furnishings-1st Kings 7:29, 36.In short, there were Icons everywhere you turned! So your BS assertions and accusations are again, an illustration of (a) your ignorance and pride and (b) your irrational thoughts. More to come, troll.—Nich


Recent Posts

See All

Time To Be Militant Catholics

Despite what some may declare, I am not insane. I have learned that I am a lucky man. This venue is the only place on earth, where I may speak the truth. People for various reasons want to deprive me

Drop Me a Line, Let Me Know What You Think

© 2020 Nich Fluh