You are here: Home Page > Who Is Sitting on the Chair of Peter? > Part 5

Home Page • Contact

The cult of Mary and revering relics:
Whoever does not believe in this
is eternally damned by the Catholic Church.
Is a dictatorship trying
to rule over a democracy?

During our last program we showed how early Christianity emerged and changed over the course of centuries – from the peaceful teaching of Jesus of Nazareth to an aggressive pagan cult religion called Catholic. It became clear how ever more Roman concepts and other pagan ideas were put into practice against the Christian teaching – sometimes even violently. Today, we will portray in detail how the Holy See almost exclusively bases itself on this pagan foundation. We will shine a light on Catholic tradition, its customs, rites, cults, dogmas, insignia, holidays, etc.

As we go through the details, it will become increasingly difficult to conceive as possible the extent of such a conglomeration of pagan cult concepts.

The teaching and structure of the Catholic Church in almost all aspects is derived directly from pagan idolatry.

Given this statement, its connection to the cult of Mary becomes clear as an essential component of the Catholic faith. It is the cult of the “mother of God” who, according to a dogma proclaimed by Pius XII, presumably was taken physically up to heaven. Jesus of Nazareth did not speak of His mother as the “mother of God.” She was Mary, a simple, modest and devout woman, a woman of the people. So it would be quite interesting to look into how such an odd development took place and above all, what antecedents did this cult have? Looking back, we realize that the cult of a mother of God is deeply rooted in pre-Christian paganism.

For example, it is known that the Egyptian goddess Isis and the Greek goddess Artemis were revered in a similar way as Mary is venerated until today in the Catholic Church. In part, they were even referred to using the same terms as “Queen of the Heavens” or “Star of the Sea” – perhaps some of us know that song “Star of the Sea, I Greet You” that is still sung today in places of pilgrimage honoring Mary. Did Jesus of Nazareth ever refer to Mary, His mother, as “Star of the Sea?” This was the title of the great mother-goddesses in Greece and Egypt. And what is also significant is that the dogma that claims Mary as the mother of God – that is, not only the mother of Jesus, but the mother of God – was decided at the Council of Ephesus in 431, when it declared that the second letter of Cyril to Nestorius was in agreement with the Council of Nicaea.61  Interestingly enough, Ephesus was the center of the Diana cult, that is, a city where the mother-goddess Diana was particularly revered. Clearly, this is a pagan thought that found its way into the Church.

Perhaps it is interesting to note that Diana was the goddess of the hunt, and at the same time, the “mother of God.”

And so, the mother of Jesus became a cult object, a pagan cult object. This went so far that in Altötting, for instance – a place of pilgrimage in Bavaria – so-called “Black Madonnas” were sold right into the 20th century. From a work of reference compiled on Dr. Edmund Müller’s collection of relics called “Mittel zum Heil,” we can read the following:

A very striking possibility to consume a remedy when in need was to take shavings from the clay figure of a “Black Madonna.” Still well-known into the 20th century, the Black Madonnas came from Altötting in Bavaria and were known among the folk as “bodily” copies of grace from Einsiedlen in Switzerland. The latter were held to be miraculous and healing because the clay supposedly had soil and mortar from the Lady Chapel mixed into it as well as relic particles. This held true only for those Madonnas that were sold by the convent itself …62

So relic particles, perhaps even corpse pieces, were added to these Madonnas. Whoever acquired these “religious remedies” scraped some from the clay figure and added it to their food. The monastery itself sold these right into the 20th century. This is just one example to show how far a cult, a pagan cult, will go. But most Catholics don’t even know this. Surely this doesn’t have the least bit in common with religion, much less with a Christian religion or the teachings of the Nazarene.

Many a church leader may perhaps excuse this as having to do with folklore, or even superstition, but the fact remains that the basic celebrations of this Mary cult are part of church dogma, even to portraying Mary as the “mother of God.” She is revered in the Catholic Church as the Madonna with a corona of stars on a crescent moon. This portrait is similar to the Egyptian goddess Isis, who was depicted in exactly the same way.

So Mary was adopted by the Roman Catholic Church, elevated to the mother of God and is portrayed as the direct successor of Egyptian goddesses, such as Isis and other figures of pagan mystery cults. She is the successor of Diana or Artemis, or even Astarte, who was the Phoenician divinity of fertility. And this dogma of enthroning Mary as a mysterious cult goddess developed in Ephesus, a city where the cult of the mother of God had been a custom for centuries. What is also significant is the fact that while the council of Ephesus was trying to eliminate devotion to Diana, the bishops were besieged by crowds demanding: “Give us our Diana of the Ephesians!” 63

From this, we can deduce that Mary, the woman and mother, is above all women and mothers. If we now think of the fact that particularly Catholic priests are not allowed to marry, could this have something to do with the fact that they might, for instance, marry a simple woman? Instead, they have to “marry,” so to speak, the woman of all women and the mother of all mothers.

In fact, this is an explanation for the deepest psychological root of celibacy in the Church. The “great mother” was a figure that prevailed in the subconscious of mankind millennia before the emergence of Christianity. Back then, priests of the “great mother” were not allowed to marry; they wore feminine robes and saw themselves as the sons of this great mother. In view of this, the priests, who may not marry a woman, are basically in service to this “great mother,” an archetypal figure of pagan origin.

But an important question would be: Why did the Church need to take over this pagan cult of the mother goddess? Could it have something to do with the fact that the Church had portrayed God as a cruel, arbitrary, punishing God, who allegedly can send His children into eternal damnation? So to balance things out, it took the “mother of God,” who is a more comforting figure, so that the people would not be left in fear of a “punishing” God.

Now, some may ask, what about the person who doesn’t believe in this Mary cult or revere the so-called “mother of God,” but simply respects and cherishes her as the mother of Jesus, the physical mother of Jesus? According to church doctrine is this person eternally damned?

The answer is, yes. In the book “The Teaching of the Catholic Church as Contained in Her Documents” by Neuner-Roos, it says:

If anyone does not truly and rightly confess with the Fathers that the holy, ever virginal and immaculate Mary is Mother of God, since in recent days she really and truly conceived, without seed, by the Holy Ghost, the same divine Word who was born before all time and gave birth to him in chastity, her virginity remaining unimpaired after the birth – condemnatus sit. (No. 269)

This would mean that all those who call themselves Protestant are eternally damned, or condemned. So, why do they curry favor with the Holy See?

This is a question that always comes up when there is talk about ecumenism, or when the Protestants make a pilgrimage to the Holy See or gather with it in other ways, and then, as recently happened, a high-ranking cardinal like the cardinal of Cologne, Cardinal Meisner, expresses himself with great reticence on the subject. In the Protestant Press Service release from June 5, 2005, it is reported:

An ecumenical progress is expected by the archbishop of Cologne only between the Roman-Catholic and Orthodox Churches, but not between Catholics and Protestants. With the Reformed Church it is a long and laborious way, said Meisner. We should not fool ourselves with things that cannot be kept.

Sometimes, one could wonder at the spiritual perspicacity of those Protestants who are drawn to the Catholic Church.

Being eternally damned by the Catholic Church can happen very quickly. As children, many are compelled to go to church, and in many churches there is a skeleton dressed in beautiful clothing in a glass casket near the altar. What a ghoulish sight for children! And yet, when a Catholic doesn’t believe salvation comes from these skeletons, he is damned.

The Council of Trent decreed the veneration of the corpses of martyrs and damned those who do not believe in relics. We read:

Also, that the holy bodies of holy martyrs … are to be venerated by the faithful; through which (bodies) many benefits are bestowed by God on men; so that they who affirm that veneration and honour are not due to the relics of saints … are wholly to be condemned as the Church has already long since condemned, and now also condemns them.64

This explanation may not be directly classified as a dogma, but it nevertheless remains an obligation for Catholics to believe this, although it really is deepest paganism.

In ancient Egypt there were many cult sites where the remains of so-called “gods” were venerated, and from which a magical effect was said to emanate. When we read about the relics and the “Black Madonnas,” we can see the direct path that leads to the “magic” that still prevails today in the Roman Catholic Church and that has nothing to do with Christianity.

 Furthermore, it cannot be excused as mere folklore. This matter of relics was taken in hand by the popes right from the very beginning. We read, for example, the following:

In about 750, long lines of wagons constantly came to Rome bringing immense quantities of skulls and skeletons which were sorted, labeled and sold by the popes. Graves were plundered by night and tombs in churches were watched by armed men.65

Gregorovius wrote: “Rome was like a moldering cemetery….” 66 In the church of St. Prassede there is a marble tablet still today, on which is written that in the year 817 Pope Pascal had the bodies of 2300 martyrs brought from cemeteries into this church. And when Pope Bonifatius VI transformed the Pantheon into a Christian church in the year 609, “twenty-eight cartloads of sacred bones were said to have been removed from the catacombs and placed in a porphyry basin beneath the high altar.”  67 The foundation of this church consists of hundreds upon hundreds of skeletons, and the high altar was built upon this.

It could be said that the beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church are really founded on bones, that it is a cult of the dead. This statement is justified by the fact that this veneration of relics is an intensification of a pagan cult. Generally we can conclude that much found in the Catholic Churches, almost all their customs, stems from paganism. We not only find its roots in paganism, but beyond this, the Catholic Church greatly increased the use of paganism. These relic customs were not known to such extent in paganism.

Perhaps we should question of whether any such customs and rites or cults come up in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth at all. We would not find a single point in common! And a repeated comparison would be worthwhile: What did Jesus, the Christ, teach, and what does the Catholic Church teach?

Jesus said: “Let the dead bury their dead. But you, follow Me” (Mt.8:22).

And there is also a passage that reads:

And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law? And he said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets. (Mt.22:35-40)

So, where did all the rest come from and what should it serve?

Some things are already known about this. Even the prophets of the Old Covenant, for instance, Jeremiah, knew that all this comes from paganism. For example, he said:

For the customs of the peoples are vanity. A tree from the forest is cut down and worked with an axe by the hands of a craftsman. They decorate it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so that it cannot move. Their idols are like scarecrows in a cucumber field, and they cannot speak; they have to be carried, for they cannot walk. Do not be afraid of them, for they cannot do evil, neither is it in them to do good. (Jer.10:3-5)

So, even the prophets said that such customs were all hullabaloo, and that the people of God should not surround themselves with such statues or put together such objects made of wood, silver and gold for their belief, because all that is done by the pagans. Clearly, the Catholic Church closed rank with pagan cults, and not with the true prophets of God.

Many a guileless person would like to say that these relics of dark superstition belong to a distant past. But it is particularly shocking to see that actually, it is all much closer to us than we would like to think. Recently a visit was made to the museum holding the cathedral treasures of Würzburg, Germany. There, the insignia of the current bishops, in use right up until today, was on display. 

For example, the “pectoral cross.” Since the 12th century, every bishop has to wear a certain pectoral cross. Already in the 4th century, it was an amulet, a vessel that held a relic. And to this day, it is stipulated that a relic must be contained in this pectoral cross. In this and similar ways, these rituals and insignia are carried into the present and passed on.

A relic is also worked into every altar. A Catholic altar is fully consecrated only when it contains a relic. What would a Catholic believer say, who did not know that such bones or other sacrosanct corpse pieces continue to rot away in the altar of the church which he may be visiting Sunday after Sunday?

Here, a thoughtful contemporary would ask: Do the people really have to believe in this cult of relics? And if it is not accepted by the so-called faithful, that is, if the people do not believe in it, what then?

We have already referred to the fact that it was particularly the power of relics that had to be believed. There is a dogma that all-embracingly declares the following: “Any one does not accept the whole of the Church’s tradition, both written and unwritten – anathema sit.” (Neuner-Roos, No. 78) So this means that the person who doesn’t even know about this tradition, or who doesn’t accept even a single component of this tradition, not believing it to be true, is already damned, without even knowing it. According to the Catholic Church, he already has one foot in hell, even without being aware of it.

But doesn’t this concern almost all Catholics? It is hard to believe that every Catholic even knows all the dogmas and traditions of their church. Consequently, they are supporting a church that has long since damned them.

Perhaps we should clarify what it actually means to be eternally damned. Mostly we simply repeat the words, and are rather scandalized. But we become aware of the extent of it only when we realize what it really means: To eternally, forever more, suffer in the fire of unspeakable torment, and never be released from it. The Church teaches that there is no end to this torment, simply because one doesn’t believe the one or other dogma. Recently, by the way, this is also the consequence when a couple lives together without a marriage certificate. Just a while ago, Benedict XVI proclaimed that marriage without a certificate is not compatible with the teachings of this Church, that is, it is a grave sin. And according to the dogma of eternal damnation, the one who dies in this condition of sin falls victim to the eternal fires of hell.

However, let it also be said that the Church is not shy to industriously collect money from the many who don’t believe in all their dogmas, even though it explains to them that they are damned forever, because they do not believe everything that it proclaims.

This is what the Church proclaims. Who believes that God commanded them to do this? Who would believe such a thing? No normal person would believe that Jesus, the Christ, or God, our Father, would have conveyed such a thought, such a mandate, to the Church. If God is the love, then He is love. Love forgives, love pardons, love carries, but the Church damns! Who is sitting on the Chair of Peter here?

Leo Tolstoy, a great Russian author, said it very clearly in his story: “The Resurrection of Hell.” This story was first published by his son after his death. It tells that after the event on Calvary, when Jesus died on the cross, the devil was banned into the deepest depths of hell. Thus, he was fettered, because after this time people strove to put the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth into practice. There was less fighting; the people reconciled with each other, and the devil had nothing more to do. Hell was empty. And then, after a long time, there was suddenly a lot of noise in hell and several devils came in joyfully with torches and Beelzebub demanded, pointing upward: “What’s going on there?” 68 And they replied: “Just what was and now always will be.” They had put hell back into business again. When the devil asked how they did this, the second highest devil said “… I invented ‘The Church.’”

Leo Tolstoy then described how this happened, that by inventing the Church, fighting started again among the people, that an elite class had been formed again that exploited others, and that the state exploited others as well, and in this way, the beginnings of early Christianity were destroyed, resulting in even more crime than before.

When the devil heard: “I invented ‘The Church,’’’ he said: “What is ‘The Church’”? He didn’t know. And the second highest devil answered with the following:

One can imagine the church in this way: When these hypocrites utter untruths and suspect that they will not be believed, they always call upon God to be their witness. This, in essence, is “The Church” but I built in another wrinkle. Those who call themselves “The Church” convince themselves that they cannot go wrong, so they convince themselves that they cannot and must not repudiate their lies. This greatest of lies is what they call “infallibility.” I taught these pathetic men that God, to ensure that he should not be misunderstood, gave power to certain men, and to those to whom they chose to transfer this power, that they alone could infallibly interpret his teachings. So these men, who collectively call themselves ‘The Church’ regard themselves as possessing the truth, not because what they have passed on is good or reasonable, but simply because they see themselves as the only true heirs of the disciples, their hated master, and finally of God himself.

So, Tolstoy’s opinion was that the devil founded the Church. And that Tolstoy wasn’t just shooting in the dark is shown in the following formulation of the Catholic Church in Neuner-Roos:

Hence also the meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother Church has once declared; nor is that meaning ever to be departed from under the pretence or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them. … (No. 48)

And, as already quoted: “Any one does not accept the whole of the Church’s tradition, both written and unwritten – anathema sit” (No. 78).

In No. 351, we also read: “… It is to be held as a matter of faith that no one can be saved outside the Apostolic Roman Church. It is the only ark of salvation and anyone who does not enter it must sink in the flood.”

Logically, this means that all other religions deserve eternal damnation. The great world religions are, for example, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Jainism, Confucianism, Judaism, Taoism, or even all the Protestant and other denominations that are not Catholic. It has always been said that this statement was weakened at the Vatican Council, but this is not borne out. We can read what was decided at the Vatican Council, in Neuner-Roos: “Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it” (No. 417, German Edition).

But who of the Protestants all over the world does not know of the Catholic Church? Everyone knows the Catholic Church. This means that this sentence holds true for all people except at most, some isolated tribes in the rainforest of Papua New Guinea or the Amazon basin, who really don’t know that a Catholic Church exists. But for all others it holds true: According to the Church, they are damned.

Getting back to the question: Who is sitting on the Chair of Peter? The founder of the Protestant Lutheran Church, Martin Luther, wrote an answer in the Smalcald Articles in 1537:

… all things which the Pope, from a power so false, mischievous, blasphemous, and arrogant, has done and undertaken, have been and still are purely diabolical affairs and transactions … the holy Christian Church can exist very well without such a head, and it would certainly have remained better if such a head had not been raised up by the devil … This teaching shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power … the Pope’s teaching, where it is best … is nothing other than the devil himself, because above and against God he urges his falsehoods concerning masses, purgatory, the monastic life, one’s own works and divine worship … and condemns, murders and tortures all Christians who do not exalt and honor these abominations above all things. Therefore, just as little as we can worship the devil himself as Lord and God, we can endure his apostle, the Pope, or Antichrist, in his rule as head and lord. For in the Council we will stand … before the Pope and devil himself, who intends to listen to nothing, but merely to condemn, to murder and to force us into idolatry…69

That is what the founder of the Lutheran Church has to say about the pope. And even though this was never retracted, the Protestant churches tend to curry favor with the Catholic Church. Why? Maybe because the Protestant Lutheran Church also still has a lot of paganism in it. The Protestants did not take over the cult of Mary and relics, but they did take over a lot of other things that are pagan. For example, the altars in the churches are a pagan concept, a pagan practice. The pulpit existed already in the Isis cult. And the early Christians did not have communion in such a ritualized form as has been developed in the Catholic and Lutheran churches. They celebrated a feast of love together, at which they ate with each other and at which the poor were also fed. It is only later that it became ritualized and was turned into something called the Sacrifice of the Mass, a meal of sacrifice, which also existed in pagan cults.

Luther took this over as well as many other aspects. But above all, the Protestant-Lutherans took over the main component, namely, that of the priests, where a human being presumes to stand between an individual and God. It is a central aspect of Catholic teaching, that you can get into heaven only when you believe what another person tells you. And the Protestant Church also took over this superstition: Only the priests can mediate salvation for you. Whereby they are also contradicting their own Bible again, because it says there: “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men” and now it comes, not the priests, but it says in the Bible, “the man Jesus Christ.” There’s no talk at all about priests in 1 Tim. 2:5.

Although they adopted a lot of things from the Catholic Church which, in turn, took from paganism, none of this is going to do the Protestants any good, because according to Catholic teaching, if they do not adopt the central doctrines of Catholic faith in their entirety, then all Protestants are damned.

We have now heard a lot about eternal damnation, about hell, and such atrocities. On the one hand, the Catholic Church acknowledges that man bears within an immortal soul; on the other hand, it proclaims that the one who doesn’t believe in its dogma will be destroyed. So the life created by God will be destroyed, if the person doesn’t believe in the dogmas of this organization.

Of itself, hell is a thought, of which we must say that if just one person lands in eternal damnation and stays there, that would be a victory over God, because God created this life. God is a God of love and if only one person remains eternally damned, then God would be vanquished. So therefore, this teaching of hell and of eternal damnation is a blasphemy against God.

But when we question this more exactingly, it is often denied or played down by the Catholics. For example, a German Catholic newspaper (Weltbild, 20/96: “Ewig Einsam”), has a forum for the Catholics to ask questions and receive answers and there it says: “How should one talk about hell these days?” And the answer is: “There is a thesis that hell means for a person that he simply ceases to exist. He is no more.”

Does this means that suddenly there is a brand new interpretation? What’s behind this thought that the person shall no longer exist?

They’re not saying it’s a dissolution into Nirvana, where the energy still remains, but that the person dissolves into nothing. What is “nothing”? Is there such a thing as nothing if everything is energy? The law of God knows no such thing as decay, or dissolution or disappearing or ceasing to exist. Instead, it knows only transformation, evolution and growing into higher forms of being. So behind such a statement, that a being simply ceases to exist, there is either a profound lack of spiritual knowledge, or perhaps the desire to destroy the creation of God.

The Catholic Church also claims in its Catechism that the Church  is “necessary for salvation.” (No. 846) This means that for the salvation of a person it is necessary to be in this church. If he is not in this church, then he will not attain salvation; he is damned.

This is even written up in a dogma, also found in Neuner-Roos:

The Holy Roman Church, founded through the word of our Lord and Redeemer, firmly believes, confesses and proclaims that no one outside of the Catholic Church, neither pagan nor Jew, nor non-believer or one separated from the unity will take part in eternal life, but will rather fall victim to the eternal fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels, if before his death he does not join it (the church). (No. 381, German edition)

It has become clear that according to Catholic doctrine, Protestants, for example, will fall victim to the eternal fires of eternal damnation. Now, as a Protestant, a person could deny this by saying that he doesn’t believe in this dogma, and therefore has nothing to worry about, perhaps even quoting the Bible: “Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues.” (Rev.18:4) However, what a Protestant-Lutheran person doesn’t know is that he might be jumping from the pot into the frying pan. For although it is not openly stated today, the Protestant-Lutheran Church teaches that a person is predestined. According to the arbitrary will of God, a part of mankind is promised salvation and the other part falls victim to eternal damnation, without being able to do anything about it. Such a doctrine is actually even more perverse than that of the Roman-Catholic Church. So, Protestant-Lutheran belief surely is not a way out of this dilemma.

To shed more light on this, we quote from an article published in “Quodlibet Online Journal of Christian Theology and Philosophy” written by Ken Ristau and titled: “Concerning the Will: An historical and analytical essay examining Martin Luther’s treatise ‘The Bondage of Will.’” 70

God is all-powerful and therefore, God’s will is alone immutable. Any person, therefore, that appeals to the freedom of human will attempts to usurp for themselves an attribute that belongs only to God … God freely chooses to create our present reality and likewise, He freely sustains this reality. In fact, reality does not exist except by the will of God … In this respect, one realizes why Luther cannot ascribe free will to any created being. For Luther, the concept of free will requires total autonomy that can only exist as an attribute of the Divine, whose will is not subject to any other will. God, in effect, creates the ability to will. God alone has free will. As Luther states, it follows, therefore, that ‘free-will’ is obviously a term applicable only to the Divine Majesty; for only He can do, and does (as the Psalmist sings) ‘whatever he wills in heaven and earth’ (Ps.135:6).71

In Luther’s theology, the will of God is not contingent and so likewise, the foreknowledge of God is also not contingent. For whatever God wills, he foreknows and so, whatever He foreknows must, by necessity, happen … Luther … asserts, though not at any length, that the grace of God is a gift given only to the elect, to those whom God by his foreknowledge has predestined to become his children … “So utterly does grace refuse to allow any particle or power of ‘free-will’ to stand beside it” 72 and at the conclusion of his work where he declares: “So, if we believe that Satan is the prince of this world, ever ensnaring and opposing the kingdom of Christ with all his strength, and that he does not let his prisoners go unless driven out by the power of the Divine Spirit, it is again apparent that there can be no ‘free-will.’ ” 73

So, clearly a person doesn’t need a church. Because whether it is foreseen or predestined, if it happens anyway, then I must have really taken leave of my senses, if I still pay into and support this institution.

The absurdity of this doctrine becomes particularly clear when we apply these statements to specific incidents. Imagine a court case, where someone has committed a crime, and the perpetrator of the crime says: “Well, even before I was born, God decided that I would be a bad person or would commit a bad crime. So you can’t condemn me for this.” What would the judge have to say about this?

Most likely, it would be for him as it is for most Protestants: He wouldn’t know a thing about it. For the Protestants “believe,” but for the most part, they do not really know what they believe in. So the judge would most likely simply ignore this objection

However, this remains an interesting paradox that is pre-programmed into the teachings of the Protestant-Lutheran Church and which undermines every legal system. A church that denies a person’s freedom of will in ethical matters, and that says, as did Luther that: “we are captives, bond slaves to Satan and by nature ‘children of wrath.’” 74 is basically denying the foundation of our legal system, including our constitution, which assumes that every person has the freedom to develop according to his personal decisions, to shape his life according to his ethical standards. All this is ruled out when we take Luther’s teaching seriously.

Our whole legal system could not function. No one could be sentenced for a crime, since right from the beginning the perpetrator of the crime lacks any guilt in the matter. 

Basically, we have a senseless condition of un-free “marionettes of God.” Although God is freedom, a God of love, an image of man is being instilled that turns the creations of God into marionettes, something that God never created.

So do we need a legal system at all if we are all marionettes? The one is condemned to evil and the other to good, the one for heaven, the other for hell. According to Luther, we cannot do otherwise. So then, do we need a legal system?

The state couldn’t even function according to the Lutheran principle, so it is simply ignored. And there is one thing we shouldn’t forget: If the jury or judge were to deny the free will of the accused just as Luther did, they would have to deny their own and then declare themselves incapable of sound judgment, and with this, the whole system would fall apart.

From a logical point of view, the next question we could ask would be if we even need a legal system at all, since according to Protestant teaching, a person is pre-destined, and Catholic doctrine states: “If you don’t believe, you are eternally damned.” If I am eternally damned, why do I need a court decision?

Catholic theologians would counter by saying that the legal order in the world should see to it that a certain order is maintained. Order for whom? For those who have already been damned?

If we look very closely at the Catholic doctrine, above all, the statements in the books of Moses, which according to Catholic doctrine are the “true word of God” and which the New Testament is said to “shed light” on, then we actually don’t need a legal system because in the end, the priests always have the last word. And so, we could say that this legal system is merely a cloak that is draped about oneself when necessary, while in actuality, the Catholic Church says what should be done, and the world order should do what the Church wants. This is how the national or state legitimized order of law appears in church doctrine. One could also say that democracy, where power starts with the people, should be maintained for the sake of appearances. In reality, it is the caste of priests of the prevailing religion that wants to determine what is done.

We are reminded of what was done with Jesus of Nazareth. Who was it that killed Him? It wasn’t the Roman occupational authority, the world power at that time; instead, it was the caste of priests. The question may have sounded rather strange: Do we need worldly judges? The answer could be: According to the Bible and church doctrines, we need them so that the caste of priests have a cover for their operations of violence.

Whether we call it the Lutheran Church or the Catholic Church, the government, in any case, should be their long arm, the one that carries out their policies as long as the people allow this.

This is also rather ingeniously stated in the book by Neuner-Roos (No. 349): “We decree that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff have primacy in the whole world.”

Wouldn’t one have to say: The people are led to believe in democracy, but in reality, isn’t it a dictatorship of the Church behind democracy? Consider the fact that the Church demands of its faithful in every situation – be it private or professional – that Christian doctrine prevail as determined by church doctrine. With this, the ideology of an organization is being placed above the state legal system. Since it is a totalitarian ideology, which has nothing in common with democracy, one could justifiably say that here a dictatorship is attempting to rule over a democracy.

Of course, one must always differentiate between imperative sentences and the question whether these imperative sentences can realistically be exercised. Totalitarian imperative sentences from the Catholic pagan church are rather dangerous simply as imperative sentences. 

Of course, many may say, “But in reality, they aren’t put into practice!” It is interesting to note that Cardinal Meissner of Cologne recently demanded that the German political party, the Christian Democratic Union cross the C out of its name. Not because the CDU, as well as the Catholic Church, have nothing to do with Christ, but because, as he said: “We determine what is Christian!” Meissner let it be known that the party does not conform to his strict reactionary concepts. (Protestant Press Service: June 5, 2005) So apparently, this imperative sentence of the Church is not only on paper, but is also put into practice.

If anyone has any doubt about this, we recommend the book by Gabriele titled, “For Experienced Analysts: Discover the Truth. The Church and State Authority and the Justice of God.”75  With impressive conciseness and clarity, this book explains how these mechanisms function. According to it, the strings of a democratic state are being pulled by the caste of priests.

After all the absurdities that have been discussed here on pagan faith in the churches, we would like to quote a brief excerpt from this book. On page 75 it says:

More and more people are critical toward church belief. Originally they equated God with the Church. But because they are no longer in agreement with the Church, they are now also doubting the existence of God. But which God? The God whom the churches taught about and still do? God is not the “God” of the churches! Christ is not the “Christ” of church doctrine! If the Spirit of eternal truth had not come at this time in His word, many would actually not know who God or who Christ is and what we should think of Him. They would not know that they can grow closer to Him and understand Him by turning to Him, who dwells in their inner being. Jesus taught that the Kingdom of God is in us. He taught us to go to a quiet chamber: “But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.” (Mt.6:6)

Dear readers, if you are among those people who can no longer believe in the God of the churches and the Christ of the churches, then try out what Jesus taught us. Original Christians create a quiet room  where they can withdraw to pray – it can simply be a small, nicely arranged corner in a room. But this can also be done by going into nature, by listening to the sounds of nature, by becoming quiet in the process, and praying to God, our Father, in this way. Soon, you can experience that this is the quickest way to draw closer to God in you.

next / return to Table of Contents