St Peter's Basilica

St Peter's Basilica

Subscribe to EverythingCatholicBlog

Search This Blog

Friday, 29 April 2016

The False Saints of the False Catholic Church 2: Mother Theresa of Calcutta





The universal popularity of Mother Theresa is well know! She has worked to heal the problems of poverty in India and has raised a lot of money to help the poor.
However, helping the poor alone does not make one a saint! A saint is someone with heroic sanctity! But is Mother Theresa of heroic Sanctity? She was not. But given her work for the poor, many millions of people not properly knowing the Catholic faith declare her a saint!
But nothing could be further from the truth!

Religious Indifferentism
Mother Theresa subscribed to the heresy of religious indifferentism. She believes that all religions lead to God and to salvation! An associated Press journalist asked her whether she tries to convert those she cares for to Catholicism. She answered
"Of course I convert. I convert you to be a better Hindu or a better Muslim or a better Protestant. Once you’ve found God, it’s up to you to decide how to worship him" ("Mother Teresa Touched Other Faiths," AP, Sept. 7, 1997). 
Note here that Mother Theresa said two things here. First, all religion leads to God Second, it is up to the individual to worship God any how he please!
Both statements are false!

Apostasy
Mother Theresa equated false Gods with the Almighty God! The Catholic dogma of the Trinity means nothing to Mother Theresa. When asked about the Nature of God, She said; “Some call him Allah, some simply God. But we all have to acknowledge that it is he who made us for the greater things: to love and be loved” quoted from the book Mother Teresa: The Case for the Cause. By Michael Zima  (pp. 4-5).
Here she has denied the dogma of the trinity by suggesting that Allah is God! This is apostasy!
Another evidence of her apostasy was shown when she addressed the United Nations in 1985. She said,
“No color, no religion, no nationality should come between us. We are all children of God” (p. 6) of the same book.
So here, Mother Theresa is saying two things. First she says that Our Holy Religion does not matter. And Second, all persons are “children of God”. This was the Devil speaking through her.
We know that the only religion that leads to God is the Catholic religion and it matters! It is central to our lives. It cannot divide people. It leads people to God. Secondly we know that not all persons are children of God! The Children of God are ONLY those baptized validly! It is a dogma of the Church that baptism is what makes us children of God and members of the Church of Christ that is priestly in character!
So, Mother Theresa apostatized from the faith for believing the contrary!
Mother Theresa Sent Souls Directly to hell!
In her work at her hospices, if she encounters a dying person, the person would be invited to take the last rites of his or her religion! No efforts are made by her to offer baptism! According to her this is against her mission which is not to convert people!
According to the foundress of the Missionaries of Charity, the policy was to ask those who were about to die “if they want a blessing by which their sins will be forgiven and they will see God” (p. 127). If they agreed, and apparently most did agree, the sisters would put a wet cloth on the head of the person and quietly say the form of words for Baptism (p. Zima P. 127).

There are obvious problems with such procedure. Questions must be asked if this strange procedure is a valid Baptism. First, for a valid Baptism, the water must be applied by sprinkling, immersion or pouring. Does laying a wet cloth on the forehead comply with the rule?

Second, the formula of Baptism should be said aloud in an audible voice, and it is not clear if the sisters did so.

Third, for adults to be properly disposed for Baptism, they should clearly express their desire to embrace the Catholic Faith as the one true faith revealed by God. It is almost certain that this requirement was not fulfilled in the “ticket for St. Peter” administrated by Mother Teresa and her nuns. Clearly, Hindus, Muslims and agnostics who have never been instructed in the Catholic faith and who did not accept Jesus Christ are not properly disposed. 

Other false teachings of Mother Theresa
God as incarnate in every human being. Mother Teresa often spoke of God being incarnate in each of the poor she served. Regarding abortion, she said “When we destroy an unborn child, we destroy God.” In fact, abortion is horrendous because it is a terrible crime, the murder of a child. But, as Mr. Zima points out, only “a pantheist would believe that destroying an unborn child is destroying God” (Zima, pp. 54, 88-111). This is paganism on the part of Mother Theresa!

The nature of man is good. When Mother Teresa insists, as she did, that man is not born evil, it is difficult not to interpret this as a denial of the dogma of original sin (p. 43). The Church teaches that we are born with sin! So here, Mother Theresa denied this dogma!

The primacy of conscience. Mother Teresa said that what mattered was that the individual think and believe that his or her way is the only way to God: “Man is free to embrace the religion that gives him peace, joy and love. There is no freedom if a person is not free to choose according to his own conscience” (pp. 32, 168). The relativism of her words are clear: “If the individual thinks and believes that his or her way is the only way to God, then that is their way of salvation” (pp. 74-75). Clearly, Mother Theresa proves She is NOT a Catholics! The human conscience must be guided in the light of the truth faith! It cannot pick and chose where and how to worship God since the only way to worship God is through the catholic Church!

The wide gate to Heaven. Contrary to the teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ who warns us that the gate of Heaven is narrow (Mt 7:13-14), Mother Teresa often comforted persons by assuring them that “we will meet all our friends and family members who died before us in Heaven.” Buddhists, Muslims, Protestants – all were “going home to God” (p. 123-125). 
 This is a heresy of Universal Salvation arising from the heretic Theologian, Karl Rahner and which is affirmed by the arch heretic and non-saint John Paul II

Here we have seen that to consider Mother Theresa a saint is a deviation from the catholic faith! Those who insist she is a saint, are not true Catholics!
By Malachy Mary Igwilo,
Given today 29th April in the year of Our Lord, 2016, on the feast day of St. Peter of Verona







Thursday, 28 April 2016

The False Saints of the False Catholic Church 1: John Paul II





It is not so obvious to millions of people worldwide that the current religion at the Vatican and which is seen in the Catholic parishes worldwide is not Catholic! Many still see this false religion as the Catholic Church, complete with all sorts of heresy and apostasy! As part of the falsehood perpetrated by this false Catholics Church, they canonized some people as saints in order to deny the true Catholic Church. Yet despite this obvious act of infamy, people still view this false Church, this false religion as the Catholic Church!

The true Catholic canonization process was destroyed within the false Church by John Paul II who, infact, prepared the way for his own canonization. This man removed the various canons needed in the canonization process and crowned it all by removing the post of the “Devil’s Advocate”, all in a bid to make the process cheap and easy to attain and also to show that holiness is not as hard as people paint it. His own process emphasizes human centered sainthood, denying the true Catholic Church and admitting false miracles! During the false pontificate of John Paul II, hundreds of “saints” were canonized, more than all the saints canonized throughout the history of the Church!  

The Catholic Church declares people saints if they have been found to have heroic sanctity! This heroic sanctity is proven by series of investigations. The hallmark of the investigation is the presence of the “Devil’s Advocate”! This person is responsible for examining the person’s life from top to bottom seeking out sins that will disqualify the person for sainthood. This is important because a saint is presented for imitation by the whole Church and so, scandal must not arise!

The person’s ideas written in books, if there are any, are examined to ensure that they are in tandem with that of the true Church. If there is obscurity or any deviation, no matter how subtle, the person is disqualified.
After all the investigation are done, the Church will then pray to God to give heavenly evidence through two miracles performed through the intercession of the person! Even scientists and psychologists are invited to examine the miracles obtained to prove that those are indeed genuine miracles!
If these miracles are certified, and the person is proved to have heroic sanctity, the person is canonized and presented for the imitation of the whole Church.
Saints therefore are people who have lived in this world and have died in an ardor of sanctity and which the Church declares are in heaven and who we pray to seek their intercession in heaven.

Here we present four false saints of the false Religion at the Vatican
John Paul II
As any Catholic who wants to study the many heresies of John Paul II knows, his deviations from the faith are too numerous to be engaged in a small write up. But here, I will just state just a few to show that this man is NEVER a saint in the Catholic conception of the word “saint”. Here Dr. Amelunxen, with minor editing from me, has elucidated some of the mess that is Korol Wojtyla, who later claimed to be Pope John Paul II. This is indeed a brief expose showing that John Paul II was not even a catholic not to talk of being saint.
Wojtyla's thinking before the papacy 

Here is a short summary of the thinking of Karol Wojtyla before to his false Papacy:

1. He was known for his early involvement with a kind of theosophical “know thyself” philosophy along the lines of Rudolph Steiner, the Jesuit liberal thinker who greatly influenced Angelo Roncalli (anti Pope John XXIII).

2. He pursued studies of Thomistic theology under Archbishop Sopieha in Krakow, which seemed to be an exercise in futility because like many in the Rhine group (e.g. Rahner and Küng) he did not hesitate to denigrate St. Thomas’s Summa and Scholasticism.

3. He studied at the progressivist Louvain University in Belgium, a leading center for radical theological ferment. Karol was a proponent of these teachings and part of the Priest-worker movement (Communist-inspired) prevalent at that time.

4. Fr. Wojtyla spent two years preparing a thesis on the man-centered philosophy of Max Scheler, a German-Jew philosopher who after being a Catholic for a few years, reverted to rigid Atheism.

5. He found a new philosophical fascination in the Phenomenology of Rahner, Küng and Dulles and the Existentialism of Maritain and Von Balthasar – most of whom proclaimed heresy (e.g. by the denial of the Divinity of Christ and Transubstantiation).

6. In 1956 Fr. Wojtyla became a Bishop– at that time two of his books were published: the Max Scheler thesis and a very questionable book on marriage.

7. At Vatican II he and Fr. Ratzinger worked on the Constitution Lumen gentium. In it is stated that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church and, therefore, that the Church of Christ is not just the Catholic Church! Wojtyla was also a member of the commission that drafted the Constitution of Vatican II Gaudium et spes (The Church in the modern world), an insidious document, to say the least.

Later, “Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger would affirm that the principles of adaptation to the world in Gaudiun et spes and of religious liberty formed a type of counter-Syllabus.

8. At Vatican II, “Archbishop” Wojtyla commented on missionary activity in the Church: “It is not the role of the Church to lecture unbelievers. We are engaged in a search along with our fellow men – let us avoid moralizing or the suggestion that we have a monopoly on truth.” The great Missionary Fathers of the past must have wept in Heaven. As an anti Pope he repeated this in his encyclical Ut unum sint and spoke often of the possibility of the universal salvation of all men. For example, in his encyclical Redemptoris Missio, he stated that “salvation is accessible in mysterious ways – even to those who are not members of the Church or have not received the Gospel proclamation - insomuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ's redeeming sacrifice.”

9. He removed from Gaudium et spes(despite the objection of Czech Archbishop Hnilica) any condemnation of the horror of Atheistic Communism. For that devilish brilliance, he was made a “Cardinal” by anti Pope Paul VI in 1967.

10. “Cardinal” Wojtyla explained to Paul VI that downplaying the Ukrainian Uniate Catholic Church, in favor of the Soviet KGB “Orthodox Church” was a goal he should pursue via Cardinal Casaroli (a known Freemason). Vatican Ostpolitik became an obsession thereafter.

11. At the 1974 Synod in Rome, a call for the “evangelization of love” was made and “Cardinal” Wojtyla acted as official theologian for the notably very progressivist “Cardinal” Etchegaray of Marseille. His introductory talk reeked of Maritain’s Integral Humanism; then later he emphasized the thoughts of the Austrian Jesuit Joseph Jungman who urged “a rejection of the sterile transmission of dogmatic theological teaching.”

In 1978 on October 16, Karol Wojtyla was falsely elected to the Chair of Peter. Was he, finally, a bona fide Traditionalist who had reached the top? I’m afraid not. Seriously, many prayers were offered for him to the Blessed Mother and the Holy Ghost to shed enlightenment on his thinking.

Landmarks of John Paul II's false pontificate

What follows is a short summary of the false pontificate of John Paul II:

1. He took as his motto, Totus Tuus [Totally yours, Blessed Mother]; but not to the extent that he was willing to obey her mandate at Tuy in 1929 to Sister Lucia to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart in union with the Bishops of the world.

A brief historical background on this important heavenly mandate is in order. It is known that Pope Pius XI knew about this command by the Mother of God six to eight weeks after Tuy in 1929, but Vatican Ostpolitik was already in progress via Cardinal Tisserant, the predecessor of Casaroli, who wanted to avoid hurting the feelings of the Russian “Orthodox.” If Pius XI would have obeyed, it is worth pondering the outcome: no World War II or subsequent wars involving hundreds of thousands of lives; Russia would be converted; many souls would have gone to Heaven instead of Hell, etc. Instead, we have had 77 years of disobedience by Popes to the Blessed Mother of God! JPII could have prevented both Iraqi wars and much of the above. It is a sickening scenario.
2. The religious encounters at Assisi I and II comprise a horror story which is well known. At Assisi I in 1986, the Buddhists, led by the Dalai Lama, quickly converted the altar of the Church of San Pietro by placing a small statue of the Buddha atop the Tabernacle and setting prayer scrolls and incense burners around it. It was a high level sacrilege. And, more recently, we have Hindus praying to their gods on the Cova da Iria altar at Fatima.

3. Under JPII, capital punishment was claimed to have became a sinful act in contrast to Sacred Tradition and the consistent teaching of the Church, which says otherwise.

4. Regarding evolution, JPII gave a talk to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences implicitly endorsing evolutionism and going beyond what was expressed by Pope Pius XII in Humani generis with regard to it. Pius XII referred to evolution as a “serious hypothesis” worthy of further research and reflection. Pius XII also stressed the essential point: “if the human body takes its origin from a pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God.”

JPII went beyond this by saying that “today almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that the theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence neither sought nor fabricated of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory” (cf. Inside the Vatican, January 1997, pp. 26-9).



5. According to JPII’s teachings, we Catholics worship the same God as the Islamics and Jews! JPII said this and reiterated it in the un-Trent-like and evil  Catechism of the Catholic Church, based mainly on Vatican II. This is a denial of Christ and the Trinity, Who are clearly rejected in these religions.

Under the heading The Church’s Relationship with the Muslims in the above-mentioned Catechism (1994, with an imprimatur by Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger and approved by anti Pope John Paul II), it states: "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham and together with us, they adore the one merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day”" (p. 223, 841). The Jews also adore the God of Abraham!

6. John Paul II kissed the Koran in which it is stated that the Trinity is an abomination, and that Christians are infidels who should be destroyed. How can ecclesiastics and high level politicians consider it a text of peace? After he kissed the Koran, he approved the new mosque in Rome.

7. In a talk given to Jewish rabbis, when asked about the Catholic belief in the Messiah in relation to the Jews, he answered, to paraphrase, that we have had the Messiah as Christians, but the Jews are yet awaiting their messiah – we can’t fault them for this. How could he forget the prologue of St. John: “He came into His own and His own received Him not.”

Further, the evil Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “And when one considers the future, God’s people of the Old Covenant and the new people of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God. The other awaits the coming of a messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time, and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or misunderstanding Christ Jesus” (p. 223, 840).

8. The World Youth Days inaugurated by JPII turned out to be immoral and ecumenical events celebrating all the religions. It seems that it did more to incite lust and the cultural revolution in the masses who camped out together than an authentic religious spirit.

9. On more than 100 occasions, according to the Italian journalist Luigi Accattoli, anti Pope John Paul II has publicly admitted that the Catholic Church was guilty of errors in the past. Among the Church's supposed errors for which John Paul apologized are the Church’s previous condemnations of heretics and schismatics, conversions, the ecclesiastical use and approval of force, and the anti-Jewish religious polemic. He also made apologies for the supposed harsh treatment of Galileo, the existence of the Inquisition, and the convocations of the Crusades
For example, regarding Galileo, the scientist involved himself with false theology in his scientific pursuit and was “chastised” by living in luxury for over a year in the Palace of the Archbishop Piccolomini of Siena. Galileo was a heretic and so why apologize for condemning a heretic?


10. In 2001 JPII endorsed a fraudulent version of the Third Secret, delivered to him by “Cardinals” Sodano, Ratzinger, Hoyos, and “Archbishop” Bertone. The Third Secret was inferred by Frs. Fuentes and Alonso who were close to Sister Lucia, and by Bishops Venancio and da Silva of Fatima. Cardinals Ottaviani, Oddi, Ciappi and Biffi, and even the liberal Cardinal Bea and his aíde, Fr. Malachi Martin read the Third Secret.

All referred to the “great apostasy” in talks about the contents of the Secret. Ottaviani mentioned it four times in one talk, and Fr. Martin said it also included mention of chastisement. “Cardinal” Mario Ciappi, papal theologian under Paul VI and John Paul II, wrote this: "In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.” 

Anti Pope JPII, “Cardinals” Sodano, Ratzinger, Hoyos, and Bertone, fabricated a new Third Secret in 2001 by proposing that it was an assassination attempt on JPII, which absolutely does not fit with anything released about it before. Even liberal secular sources expressed skepticism about that fraudulent exposé.

Anti Pope Benedict XVI stated clearly that Fatima was over, although he said otherwise about seven years ago. Without release of the Third Secret to the world and the Consecration of Russia as mandated by the Blessed Mother of God, how could Fatima be over?


11. In Fatima in Twilight by Mark Fellows (published at the Fatima Center in 2003 by Fr. Gruner), Sister Lucia told Fr. Alonso: “The final triumph of Mary’s Heart is certain and it will be definitive. But it will take place ‘in the end,’ that is, to say after a terrible purification of sinful humanity in a baptism of fire, blood and tears.” One can certainly surmise this means after the chastisement.

Of course, the party line is that the Consecration was made in 1984, 22 years ago. The level of morality in Russia is now in severe decline. Would this dismal state of affairs signal the conversion of Russia promised by Our Blessed Mother at Fatima after the country is consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart?

John Paul II's contradictions

The following are two examples of Anti Pope John Paul II’s blatant contradictions to dogmatic infallible teachings:

A. The doctrine of Justification

Regarding the dogma of Justification, the following definitions are found in A Catholic Dictionary by Donald Atwater:

“Justification in its active sense is the act of God declaring and making a person just: in its passive sense it is the change in a soul which passes from the state of sin to that of sanctifying grace (q.v.) or justice. At the time of the Reformation, the following Protestant errors became current:

a. Faith alone is the necessary disposition for justification;

b. Justifying faith is a mere confidence in the Divine Mercy;

c. Justification is separable from sanctification: it is a mere judicial declaration that the sinner will not be punished and that sanctification itself is but a cloaking of sin and an extrinsic imputation of the merits of Christ.”
The definition for Justification by faith (Atwater) is this:
“Faith is a necessary condition of justification. That faith alone justifies is a heresy of Luther condemned by the Council of Trent (session VI, can 9, de justificatione): ‘If anyone shall say that the wicked man is justified by faith alone, meaning that no other thing is required to cooperate for obtaining the grace of justification, and that it is not necessary for him to be prepared and disposed by the movement of his will, let him be anathema.’”
The definition for Justification by works (Atwater):
“Justification by faith alone is not possible. Other dispositions of the soul, works done under the influence of grace, such as fear, hope, charity, hatred of sin, are necessary. Such is the clear doctrine of Scripture: ‘Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith alone? …. Faith without works is dead’ (James 2:24, 26).”
The above definitions are clearly reiterated in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott (4th ed., 1960, pp. 250-54), and in the Dogmatic Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent and Vatican Council I (originally published in 1912, reprinted by Tan Books and Publishers, 1977, pp. 49-57.)

Regarding the dogma of justification in the signing of the Catholic-Protestant accord in Augsburg on October 31, 1999: Atila Guimarães points out in his analysis of the documents] that the document key phrase (paragraph 15) affirms the need for grace and faith to achieve salvation:
“Together we confess that we are accepted by God and we receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts, empowers us, and calls us to do good works, not on the basis of our merits but only through grace and faith in the salvific work of Christ.”
This agreement, which in effect denies the need for good works and accepts Luther’s version of justification by faith alone flies in blatant contradiction to the condemnation of the errors of Luther at two Ecumenical Councils: the Fifth Lateran Council and the Council of Trent. Even a Pope cannot revoke the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church, i.e. infallible pronouncements of Dogmatic Councils, ex cathedra papal pronouncements and Sacred Scripture.

As John Vennari points out in Pope John Paul II and the Lutheran-Catholic Accord:
“The goal of this ecumenical dialogue and the Joint Declaration is an attempt for Lutherans and Catholics to reach a common understanding on the doctrine of justification – how man is made ‘just’ in God’s eyes. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the difference between Catholic doctrine vs. Lutheran teaching on justification will recognize immediately the impossibility of achieving a common understanding. The two teachings are diametrically opposed”

B. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (No salvation outside the Church)

Of all the Catholic dogmatic teachings, this one has been the subject of much controversy and interpretations, ranging from rigid to moderate, but none even remotely approach the concept proposed by John Paul II of universal salvation.

There are three pronouncements categorized asex cathedra on the dogma Extra ecclesiam nulla salusThe first was made by Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215; the second by Pope Boniface VIII in the Bull Unam Sanctam in 1302, and the third and by far most encompassing by Pope Eugene IV in the BullCantate Domino in 1441 just prior to the Council of Florence in 1442.

Blessed Pope Pius IX forcefully reiterated Extra ecclesiam nulla salus in the following statement: “We must mention and condemn again that most pernicious error, which has been inhibited by certain Catholics who are of the opinion that those people who live in error and have not the true Faith and are separated from the Catholic unity, may obtain life everlasting. Now this opinion is contrary to Catholic Faith, as is evident from the plain words of Our Lord (Mt. 18:17, Mk 16:16, Lk 10:16, Jn 3:18), as also from the teaching of St. Paul (2 Tim 3:11) and of St. Peter (2 Pet 2:1). To entertain opinions contrary to this Catholic Faith is to be an impious wretch” (apud Michael Muller: The Catholic Dogma, NY: Benzinger Bros, 1888, p. xi).

A Catholic Dictionary (Atwater) states that Outside the Church there is no salvation refers to those who are outside the Church by their own fault. There is a command to enter the Church which is the prescribed way to Heaven. He who refuses to join the Church which Christ founded, commanding adhesion to her, is on the way of perdition. But those who are in invincible ignorance will not be condemned on account of their ignorance. There has been much discussion on the issue of invincible ignorance and on the Baptisms of desire and blood, which would be the topic of another article.

The Encyclical Ut unum sint of JPII, however, jumps past this discussion and proclaims universal salvation, completely contradicting the entire spectrum of interpretations of the dogma Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

As pointed out by the author, revolutionary proposals by JPII include the creation of a “common martyrology” containing “saints” from Catholic, so-called Orthodox and Protestant religions, the beatification of heretics who were condemned for their doctrines (e.g. Girolamo Savonarola and Giordano Bruno), the affirmation that other religions are a normal and legitimate means to salvation, and that the Vatican’s total dedication to ecumenism is irrevocable.

In anti Pope John Paul II and the Lutheran-Catholic Accord, John Vennari writes that in a shocking statement JPII says that “it is a source of joy” that in some circumstances non-Catholics who have no intention of converting to the Catholic Church may now receive the Eucharist”

In addition, JPII mandates ecumenism into every aspect of Church life, and encourages numerous unprecedented interfaith practices that have always been condemned by the Church as grave sins against the Faith. Universal salvation really denies the necessity for Baptism, denies original and mortal sin, and strongly suggests a denial of Hell. Sanctifying grace seems to be present in all of mankind.

False ecumenism

Anti Pope JPII has abandoned dogmatic infallible teachings that come from de Fide infallible pronouncements by Popes or Councils to promote a false ecumenism. As St. John says: “Other sheep I have that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and there shall be one fold and one Shepherd” (10:16). The meaning is clear that conversion of all men is the goal of Christ, not through dialogue and concession, which is the very essence of false ecumenism.

The Doctors of the Church are harsh in their condemnation of Popes and other ecclesiastics who contradict the extraordinary infallible Magisterium, which in Dogmatic Theology is untouchable. Is it possible that JPII with his extensive background was unaware of his dogmatic errors? It is highly unlikely.

As defined in A Catholic Dictionary(Atwater), “Heresy consists in the formal denial or doubt by a baptized person of any revealed truth of the Catholic Faith; as a crime it consists of the outward and pertinacious manifestation of the sin.” Anyone guilty of the crime of a defined heresy incurs excommunication ipso facto. The Council of Trent is replete in using the word anathema to signify the most severe form of excommunication.

St. Thomas defines heresy as “a species of infidelity in men who having professed the Faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas. The right Christian faith consists in giving one’s voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval.” (II-II, q. 11, a in The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911, vol. 12, p. 256). Further on, it is stated: “Pertinacity, that is, obstinate adhesion to a particular tenet, is required to make heresy formal” (ibid).


How can a man that has deviated completely from the catholic Church be declared a saint? Such a thing is NOT possible! It is only the False religion at the Vatican that can muster such deceit.
By
Malachy Mary Igwilo
Given on 28th April 2016 on the feast day of St Paul of the cross.





Wednesday, 27 April 2016

“Pope” Francis is a Complete Non Catholic Heretic! Do you Agree?







Those who have been observing Francis pretend as the pope of the Catholics Church must be wondering what to do with the man! He is a complete shipwreck! Those who call him a shipwreck must have some Catholic sense remaining in them!

But the majority has seized being Catholic long ago! To seize to be catholic is a gradual process. First you depend ONLY on what you hear from those that preach to you on Sundays, never trying to study the Church and then over time, you become indifferent! You begin to see that it does not matter what religion one goes to. All are good.

Then those you listen to show you themselves as heretics and because you do not really know what heresy is, you keep pretending to be Catholic!
According to St. Thomas Aquinas heresy: "is specie of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas". 

This is what it means to be a heretic. If you corrupt the dogma, then you are a heretic!
Francis has been corrupting dogmas since the beginning of his false pontificate. Yet, many millions of people consider him Catholic.
According to Pope Pius XII’s encyclical, Mysterium Corporis, anyone who preaches heresy publicly is automatically excommunicated! This is really an echo of Forth Council of Constantinople which said that a heretic automatically anathematizes himself and does not need a council or tribunal to be condemned. He has already condemned himself!

Many of the things Francis says is heresy!
For instance, on April 24th, on the occasion of Earth Day, Francis said one’s religion does not matter. What matters is that we are all humans and should work together!

This is a clear heresy!

This is the same doctrine preached by Freemasons! They teach that your religion does not matter just come become a member! The Church condemned both Freemasonry and Francis heresy!

According to Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Humanum Genus published in 1884. Number 16 says:

If those who are admitted as members [in Freemasonry] are not commanded to abjure by any form of words the Catholic doctrines, this omission, so far from being adverse to the designs of the Freemasons, is more useful for their purposes. First, in this way they easily deceive the simple-minded and the heedless, and can induce a far greater number to become members. Again, as all who offer themselves are received whatever may be their form of religion, they thereby teach the great error of this age — that a regard for religion should be held as an indifferent matter, and that all religions are alike. This manner of reasoning is calculated to bring about the ruin of all forms of religion, and especially of the Catholic religion, which, as it is the only one that is true, cannot, without great injustice, be regarded as merely equal to other religions.

So we see clearly that Francis is a heretic for suggesting the opposite of what Pope Leo XIII teaches!

Yet, many people support this man.

Recently, Hans Kung wrote in an article that Francis is undermining the dogma of the infallibility of the pope by referring to other people’s ideas and never saying anything on his own, wanting to show that the pope cannot speak for the Church alone. This man Hans Kung was one of the arrow heads of the Second Vatican Council, the Council of the Devil.
He said

"He [the pope] repeatedly quotes statements made at the Episcopal synod or from national bishops' conferences. Francis no longer wants to be the sole spokesman of the church. This is the new spirit that I have always expected from the magisterium. I am fully convinced that in this new spirit a free, impartial and open-ended discussion of the infallibility dogma, this fateful key question of destiny for the Catholic Church, will be possible."

So here this man is praising the errors of Francis and hoping it is sustained!
This is unbelievable, well believable because a heretic will always support a heretic!.
But you will you continue to support Francis despite his daily heresies?

By
Malachy Igwilo

Given on 27th April, 2016 on the feast Day of St. Peter Canisius, Doctor of the Church

Monday, 25 April 2016

Answering some objections raised by Protestants against Catholicism




In presenting the catholic view to the world, many Protestants, in particular the brand called “Pentecostalism” raise further issues about Catholicism. After I presented the reasons why Catholics go to confession to a priest, I also submitted elsewhere that the Bible is truly a Catholic book having been written and compiled by Catholics. A friend of mine in the “Pentecostal” religion raised the following issues from the bible to show that Catholic Church is NOT the owner of the bible and that Catholicism is false. These according to him, proves that the Catholics did not own the bible because if they do, they would not be going against the bible. He itemized the problems he found and I have also presented a rebuttal as he presented his own. Here are some of the actual questions he posed, with biblical quotes and my own biblical responses to them(I call these pocket responses because there are volumes I cold say to defend the Church). Please read these to help you understand the thinking of non-Catholics concerning the one true Church. Please print out to make your own contributions to these important discussions. In summery, he says “if the Bible is a catholic book,
1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9).
9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?

 (1)You said the bible condemned clerical dresses in Matt. 23:5-6. This assertion is typical of non- Catholics who fail to read just what the book says. The passage says “But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues”
How does this show that it is a ban on clerical dress? Jesus was clearly rebuking those who abuse their clerical dresses as a means of obtaining unnecessary favors. I refer you to Matt 5:17 where Jesus clearly stated that he is not here to abolish the prophet but to fulfill them. This is why the Christian Church is referred to as Judeo-Christian, which means it has adopted some of the things in the former convents (Old Testament) in her present worship. In the Jewish covenant priests wear dresses to signify their function in the temple. Go to Leviticus 21: 10 to read this up. Today’s Catholic priests wear dresses to show their function as priests who offers the eternal sacrifice of the Alter. So quit suggesting that the Bible has banned clerical dresses.

(2)You suggested that Luke 11:27-28 is a teaching against the adoration of Mary the Mother of God. The passage says “As Jesus was saying these things; a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you. Jesus replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.” How does this mean that he is against the adoration of his Mother? Christ was trying to put the emphasis on obeying God’s Words just as his Mother has done! This is another non-Catholic way of grabbing at straws.
In Luke 1:48 it was prophesied that all generations shall call Mary Blessed. Catholic adores Mary because of her special place in the History of our salvation. After the first parents sinned, God immediately thought of Mary. God said “I shall put enermity between you and the woman, between her seed and your seed” (Genesis 3:15). Who is that woman in the whole of scriptures that is against the devil? And was without any sin? And was always Virgin even after bearing Jesus? The answer is Mary. God prepared her from the beginning for the task ahead. And so she is special. Apart from this, the Angel Gabriel told Mary in the Visitation that God will give Jesus, when he is born, the throne of his ancestor David. (Luke 1:32). This means that the kingdom where David ruled was Israel and Christ now rules in the New Israel in heaven. In the Davidic kingdom, it is the Mother of the King that is the Queen just as Beersheba was the Queen because she was the mother of Solomon and Solomon obeys her and consults her. So in the Kingdom of God, Mary reigns as Queen. How can one not adore the Queen with all urgency? Christ also obeyed his Mother as was evident in the marriage at Cana (John 2:11). If this be the case, Catholics are right in adoring her and pray for her intercession since if she talks to her son he will ‘obey’ her as He ‘obeyed’ her while on earth!

(3) 1 Pet. 2:5,9. You suggested that this passage say that all Christians are priests. This is true. The Church of Christ is priestly in Character which means all members are indeed priests. By the virtue of our baptism, which makes us members of the Church of Christ, we are priests. Here I mean the authentic baptism which is being born again and being baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Matt 28:19). All these baptisms by non-Catholics, the one they call immersion, are not baptism at all. Many of them depart from this baptismal formula and are not members of the Church of Christ that is priestly in Character. Therefore are truly not Christians.
However, there is another type of priesthood, the apostolic priesthood or ministerial priesthood. The type Christ imposed on the apostles at the last supper (Matt 26:26). Christ by asking them to change bread into his body and wine into his blood, he made them special. He was just telling the apostles to do this and not all of us who are priests by baptism. The apostles perpetrated this call through the apostolic succession which has come down to us in our priests. So this is this the difference between the average Catholic and the ministerial priests within the Church.

(4) Gal. 4:9-11. You suggest that this passage is a condemnation of special feast days. I laugh at your childish analysis. St. Paul was referring to Greek worship of gods despite the presence of Christianity in Galatia. The passage is not a ban on special days. Even you, you observe your birthday, wedding anniversaries (are you married?), Christmas, Easter, you observe Sunday as a day of going to Church (even though you go to the wrong ‘Church’). Christ Himself observed the Passover feast which was special for all Jews. God himself observed a special day in his creation work by resting on a particular day! So please we Christians can observe those days and feasts that remind us about our humanity and Christianity!
(5) 1 Cor. 1:2. Oh yes this passage call all Christians saints! This is true. Once we are baptized and are sanctified in Christ, we are saints! Saints are those who are without sin! Those who are pure! What baptism does is to blot out first our original sin (Adamic Sin) and our actual sins! But when we tarnish this baptismal purity, by rejecting Christ and therefore sinning, we seize to be saints! So, in actual fact, Christians are called to be saints! The Church triumphant, that is those who have died and are in heaven are saints because they would not be in heaven if they have sins (Rev 21: 27) says “Nothing impure can enter heaven”. However, some of these people in heaven led very public lives and so bear open testimony to Christ. This is why the Church presents them to us to emulate and then call them saints! This also gives credence to what we call ‘’Communion of saint”. We relate with saints in heaven and them with us and vise versa.
(6) Ex. 20:4-5). You said that is passage condemned adoration of images. Here is what the passage says “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me”. You must place emphasis on verse 4. Catholics do not worship images. But they respect images when these images represent things in heaven or on earth. Why? It is because God himself asked Moses to make image to give himself (God) glory. See Numbers 21:9. To worship something, a mental disposition is necessary and a sacrifice is also necessary. Praying before a statue does not mean worship since the statue is just merely a psychological cue for the person praying. As I said earlier, we are Judeo-Christian and Images in Church arises from images in the Old Convent. Jewish temples are always adorned with images and there is no place Christ condemned images. We humans are made in the image of God this is why even you, makes images to serve as mental cues for you. Those pictures you have of you and friends, what are they? Are they not images? It just plain comedy to suggest that Catholics worship images!

(7) Col. 2:12. Oh Yes. There are various ways for baptism. If you just immerse someone in water, that is not baptism at all! Even when you immerse, you must still scoop water and pore on the person’s head saying “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. Early Church did just this. But The Church, through St. Peter has the power to bind and loose. In her wisdom, she allows people to baptize without immersion because of what we can call logistics problems. Just imagine needing to baptize someone quickly before someone dies? In a desert? Would you wait to look for a pool of water? No! You would urgently baptize this person! Apart from this, those in the desert will have to travel for days to reach a pool of water. So, the Church says, in her teaching authority, given to her by Christ, a cup full of water is just okay! In baptism the water(the matter) and the words( the form)  is important and not the pool!

(8) Matt. 23:9. This passage was referring to sycophants we want to be called father because of their position in the temple and society. This passage does not forbid us calling religious leaders ‘’Father”. It just was a particular reference of the fact that God is our only father. But there are spiritual fathers. We call them father because of the central role they play in our salvation Journey. Remember that St. Paul was called Father. But this is not equating him with God the Father but a father in the faith. Our priests are called “Father” because they are our fathers in the faith! Even 1Tmothy 5: 1 asked us to call our elders by the sweet name of “Father”. So our priests are elders in the faith and so we call them “father”! Apart from this, we all call Abraham our father in the faith! (see James 2:21)

(9) 1 Cor. 3:11. This passage is correct in saying that Christ is the foundation or head of the Church. The Catholic Church does not say otherwise. Peter is just the Vicar of Christ (Vicar here means someone who assists, represents). There is no teaching of the Church that say that Peter is the foundation of the Church. Christ just rested the running of the Church on Peter in Matt 16 Christ used the article “my” to refer to the Church he was investing on Peter. This means that it is that Christ’s Church that Peter is vicar. Peter also was the first Pope. We can sincerely trace all the popes to Peter. It is like the typical Parish priest in a typical Catholic Church. The priest is not the owner of the particular Church. He is just a vicar he is just assisting a Bishop who is a member of the apostolic succession and on whose authority he does all things in that particular parish. So Peter assists Christ on a physical level in running the Church. But Christ Directs and rules the Church through the Holy Spirit! To suggest that Catholics teach that Peter is the foundation or head of the church is a cheap lie that can only be fed to the numerous half-Catholics who can go to your half ‘church”.

(10) 1 Tim. 2:5. This passage says that there is one God and one mediator Christ! The Church does not teach otherwise. But the Mother of God, Mary, and the Saints are in Christ so “they are Christ”. They wear the clock of Christ which is purity and share in the nature of Christ in heaven. If they do not, what then does it mean to go to heaven? Apart from this, those who are ‘saints’ here in this world play the same role since we pray for one another. Even apostates ask people to pray for them so they too are mediators! It would be wrong for us to go and ask another small god to mediate for us when we have Christ!

(11) 1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5. These passages taught that a Bishops should be married. Oh Yes! But the Church has the power to bind and to loose! The early Church had need for married Bishops that was why it was written thus. But there were many Bishops who were not married too even in the early Church, long after that passage was written. However, given the nature of the Bishop’s priestly function, Bishops are not married in today’s Church. They are basically eunuchs for the kingdom of God, just like all Catholic priests(Matt 19:12). The Church can ask her priests not to marry through the import of the apostolic authority and for the fact that the Church, not the bible is the Bulwark of truth. (Read 1 Tim 3:15)

(12) Luke 22:24-27. This passage does not oppose the primacy of Peter in the Church. Christ himself made Peter his Vicar and he was the head of the Apostles! This does not mean that he is better than all the others. But Christ being God has seen all the dimensions of Peter and decided to choose him.

(13) Luke 16:26. This passage does not oppose purgatory. Purgatory exists in biblical teachings but you have failed to see it. The Church established by Jesus Christ, that is the Catholic Church, teaches that purgatory exits as a place where those who died with venial sins (small sins) go for purification before they are admitted into heaven. Because the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit who teaches her all truths, the Church cannot be wrong in matters of doctrine. Not to believe what the Church teaches is to reject the teachings of Christ! Purgatory exists because according to the bible, Rev. 21: 27, “nothing impure can enter heaven”. This means that not even a minor sinner can go directly to heaven. Also, the bible stated that (1 John 5:17)“not all sins lead to death”. Death here is not physical death but death to the soul in hell. It means that there are great sins and there are small sins. Great or mortal sins are those sins that lead to hell and small sins are those that do not lead to hell. So, if someone dies, with small sins, and cannot enter hell, where then would the person go? The answer is the person goes to purgatory to be washed clean before entering heaven since NOTHING UNCLEAN CAN ENTER HEAVEN. Christ Himself also suggested that it is possible for sins to be forgiven in the next life. He said that the sin against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven either in this life or in the next life (Mt 12:32). So, where in the next life can sins be forgiven? Not hell, since those there are condemned already. Not heaven since those there are holy and without any sin. Then, it becomes purgatory!

14a. the Bible is not completely silent on infant baptism. It is just that you failed to decipher it from there. Baptism is a way we become Christians. This means accepting Christ. Christ told Nicodemus “unless you are baptized in spirit and water, you will not have life in you”! This means that those who are not baptized cannot enter heaven. Children are not excluded from this and if they die without baptism, they would never enter heaven. Someone may be tempted to say “why now, they are without sin!” No! Children are with Adamic sin which causes a barrier to God. So we baptize Children to make it possible for them to enter heaven. Christ himself said that we should not prevent Children from coming to him. This why we baptize Children. In the Bible, there are cases where an entire household was baptized, like the Ethiopian Eunuch’s. As you and I know, a household is made up of both adults and children and all were baptized! So the bible did suggest things about infant baptism, but apostates and heretics fail to see it!

14b On instrumental music, just go and read Psalms, in particular, 150 and you see that we can make music to God with harps and symbals. Remember that I have told you that the Church is Judeo-Christian. We borrow something from the old convent since Christ did not teach that the covenant is wrong except that it is now replaced with a new. The Old prefigures the New!

14c. On the Mass. It is a pity that you do not know what the Mass is about. The Mass is Calvary reenacted. The Bible did not call it Mass. It is the Church mediating in the works of Christ calls it Mass. The Mass is Calvary reenacted in a bloodless manner. It is necessary for salvation since it is a sacrifice directed to God for man. See (1 Cor 11:26)

Note that after Christ finished his ministry, he went up into heaven. The apostles started to preach to the known world. Some of them started to write and document the testimonies of their experiences with Christ. When the Church reached Rome, especially after the destruction of Jerusalem by Romans, it was a necessity that an official document be promulgated to show the real story of Christ. Many converted pagans were indeed seeking to see such a text. By then, there were already books circulating written by Christians. So the Church sat down to select from among many which book is the true testimony! There was no other Church that did this other than the Catholic Church! Some of the apostles were still alive at this period! There are those Greek scholars converted by the apostles who wrote a lot about their experiences of the apostle’s work, their work has survived in many volumes. We call them the early Church fathers! Go and look for these works to see if you are losing your soul now or not! Do not be deceived. Come back to the true Church, the Catholic Church!

By Malachy Mary Igwilo
Given on the 25th of April in the year of Our Lord, 2016 on the feast day of St. Mark.


Friday, 22 April 2016

Why Do Catholics confess their sins to a priest who is a human being?




Sometime ago, a neighbor of mine, a member of the so-called “Deeper Life Bible Church” located in Nigeria said he wanted to see me urgently. When I got to his flat he said that I am risking my soul believing in the doctrines on men instead of the doctrines of God. He said he wanted a Catholic to help him understand why human beings will go and confess their sins to a man who we call a priest.

I referred him to the Gospel of John and how Christ gave the authority to his apostles to forgive sins. I then told him that the apostles handed over this authority to those coming after them through the process of laying of hand which we call Holy Orders, as in order of priests of God.

These modern day apostles are Catholic Bishops who then appoint priests to help them in this apostolic mandate. This is akin to the 72 Christ appointed to help the Apostles. The 72 were not apostles themselves, but through a process of laying of hand, can assume the mantle of some apostolic functions thereby helping the apostles. I then added that the Church is Judeo- Christian and that we have not abandoned the Old Testament completely and that things in the Old Testament days still inform our actions in Church today. I also told him that throughout our relationship with God, he approaches us sacramentally, through what we can see.
Going to a priest to confess is a sacramental process, an approach through what we can see. I then told him that if you do not confess your sins to a priest duly appointed by God through the Church, your sins are never forgiven.
The man was baffled but he looked convinced but he asked me to write the whole thing down for him to digest further and raise possible further questions. This is what I wrote to him. Please read carefully and SHARE!
On Catholics confessing their sins to a human being
We confess our sins to priests because God wants us to do just that and God himself has always approached us sacramentally, that is through things we can see or touch. Christ himself established the sacrament of confession in the Gospel of John chapter 20: 23 when he appeared to His apostles after the resurrection and said to them
“receive the Holy Spirit, any sin you forgive in this world is forgiven in heaven, any sin you do not forgive in this world is not forgiven in heaven”.
This means that Christ gave his authority of forgiving sins to the apostles. Since these apostles are not going to be in this world forever, and the MISSION of Christ has to continue, they handed this authority over to those other apostles coming after them. You must remember that the name ‘apostle’ is an office in the Church of Christ.

Christ did not make everybody apostles; he just selected 12 people to occupy that office. So these original apostles selected their own successors through the sacrament of ‘laying of hands’ (Holy Orders).
You remember the case of Mathias who replaced Judas (Acts 1:26). He became an apostle showing that the ‘apostle’ is a special office and also St. Paul was made an apostle too, by God and was confirmed by the apostle through laying hands on Paul(See Acts 9:17). So, it is not a matter of someone waking up one day, as people do these days, to say that God has called him and he will start to call himself “pastor” or “bishop”.

If God calls someone, the Church will still confirm that call through laying of hands! It is these apostles that we confess to today through their successors, our Bishops who, because they cannot be everywhere at the same time, appointed priests to carry out these functions of forgiving sins.

It must be noted though that the apostles are not as persons forgiving sin.

They are forgiving the sins through Christ! It is Christ that forgives through the apostles! So the apostles cannot just forgive sins without knowing what sins they are forgiving this is why we must approach a priest to tell him the sin in a sacramental manner.

God uses the sacramental approach, that is through what can be seen, to show us himself. This is why we CANNOT go inside our rooms and tell God our sins before they are forgiven. When our first parents sinned, God could have forgiven everything but he decided to send his son so that we can see him and touch him and through him be freed of sin, Original Sin.

If God want us to confess directly to him, he will not have appointed the apostles to do this job for him.

You must also remember that the Church is Judeo-Christian. This means that we have not totally abandoned things in the Old Testament. Some of these things in the Old Testament still inform our actions in Church. If this be true, you can even see that in the Old Testament, sins are forgiven through the actions of priests and people go to priests to offer sacrifices for sins. So a priest is VERY important in the process of forgiveness of sin.

In Leviticus 5:5-6, we read, “then whoever is guilty in any of these cases shall confess that sin that he has incurred, and as his sin offering for the sin he has committed he shall bring to the Lord a female animal from the flock, a ewe lamb or a she-goat. The priest shall then make atonement for his sin.”
And in Numbers we read, “And the Lord said to Moses, “Say to the people of Israel, When a man or woman commits any of the sins that men commit by breaking faith with the Lord, and that person is guilty, he shall confess his sin which he has committed; and he shall make full restitution for his wrong, adding a fifth to it, and giving it to him to whom he did the wrong. But if the man has no kinsmen to whom restitution may be made for the wrong, the restitution for the wrong shall go for the priest, in addition to the ram of atonement with which atonement is made for him. And every offering, all the holy things of the people of Israel, which they bring to the priest, shall be his; and every man's holy things shall be his; whatever any man gives to the priest shall be his.”” (Nm 5:5-10)
So, what are we seeing in the quoted Old Testament passages are: We see (1) confession of the sin committed, (2) a form of penance, specifically in these cases a “sin offering” AND “restitution” for the sin and (3) the person is NOT to go straight to God, but through a priest!
God set it up so that they were to go through a priest for confessing their sins, and this going through a priest is a foreshadowing of things to come when Christ establishes his priesthood (cf. Hebrew 10:1, Mt 5:16-18).

So, what do we see in the New Testament? Apart from what I have already told you about the Gospel of John and about when Christ asked the apostles to forgive sins on his behalf, there are some more New Testament passages you need to consider.
“...and they were baptized by him [John the Baptist] in the river Jordan, confessing their sins” (Mt 3:6). Okay, so it looks like the Jews are still observing the confession of sins to a man...whom they believe is a prophet...a man whom God works through, in this case John the Baptist. Let's look further, in Mt 9:2-8, along with Mk 2:7, which is the same story.
Jesus tells a paralytic to “take heart”, that his “sins are forgiven” (Mt 9:2). But the people were astounded by Christ’s forgiving a man’s sin. Remember that people did not at that time know that Christ is the Messiah so they protested saying: “This man is blaspheming” (Mt 9:3, Mk 2:7), “who can forgive sin but God alone?” (Mk2:7).
But we know that it is the Scribes that made this objection, and as Christ points out, while it is true that God alone forgives sins, this statement betrays a limited understanding of God's Power. Jesus shows them the shallowness of their words when he told them, “that you may know the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Mt 9:6). What happened then after Christ have said this? “When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men” Which means they now understood that God can give authority to men to forgive sin! (Mt 9:8). It says, “to MEN”, plural...not just to “a Man” (Jesus) but to MEN.

Sir, are these typographical error in the Scriptures?

Please Sir, the Catholic Church is that Church established by Christ for the salvation of humans and which you read about in the Acts of the Apostles. It has always been the true Church and her teachings are never wrong because she is guided by the Holy Spirit. All other religions, claiming to be “Churches” are man-made and therefore false!

We pray that God will continue to open his words to us.
Amen.
Raise more questions for me please sir.

Written by
Malachy Mary Igwilo
Given today, in the year of the Lord, 22nd of April, 2016 on the feast day of Sts. Soter and Caius