As every schoolchild knows, Columbus had difficulty funding his trip to the New World. He asked for funding from various kings, but he found them reluctant to write him a check. Maybe it was because he was so demanding, even arrogant. He demanded the title of Admiral, the rulership of all lands he might discover, and one-tenth of all things of value in those lands. He then demanded the sponsoring king make him a knight. Yes, he was demanding.

The merchants of Europe were excited over the possibility of a short water route to Asia. If they could shorten the journey, their profits would be multiplied enormously. Products from the Far East were greatly desired throughout Europe but difficult to get. When they could be purchased, they were highly-priced. Ginger, nutmeg, cinnamon, pepper, and cloves were of major importance not so much to enhance the flavor of food but to disguise the taste of spoiled meat in a world without refrigeration. Wealthy Europeans paid huge prices for figs, dates, oranges, and rice to pamper their palates and stuff their stomachs. They were desirous of silk and fine textiles to cover their bodies.

A short journey to the east by sailing west was a merchant’s dream come true. Marco Polo had written about seeing great quantities of gold in Japan, and Columbus took that book on his first voyage. Gold was the answer to Spain’s major problem after fighting a war for ten years. They needed vast sums of money. Columbus talked about finding gold, but the Spanish sovereigns had to wait for Cortez and others to produce prodigious amounts of gold from Peru, Mexico, and other places.

Columbus was a very religious man, as his diary proves, and he was committed to spreading Catholicism everywhere, although he became less religious as gold, spices, and fame increased. King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, Spanish sovereigns, agreed to finance his journey, and they were pleased with his spirituality. In a letter from the New World to Isabella, he wrote, “I think they [Indians] can very easily be made Christians, for they seem to have no religion. If it pleases our Lord, I will take six of them to Your Highnesses when I depart, in order that they may learn our language.”

Ferdinand and Isabella were very religious (outwardly), and they were determined to spread Catholicism and persecute Islam and Jews. In fact, all Jews (Spain’s bankers) were expelled from Spain on the day Columbus sailed west. Of course, all the loans made to the king and queen and other Spaniards were canceled.

Isabella was the decision-maker (an early feminist) and loved her husband, although it was a political marriage. Ferdinand was unfaithful to her and fathered at least two children by mistresses. Immediately after her death, he married a very young, very pretty French girl generating much criticism although he was the king and rank hath its privileges.

The queen decided to fund Christopher Columbus’s voyages leading to the discovery of the New World; she also supported the Pope in the brutal Spanish Inquisition that continued 300 years after she died. That means she made the best decision and maybe the worst decision ever made by a sovereign.

Columbus was now plying the ocean, sailing farther from the coast than any other man. He was going to make everyone happy except some natives.

None of his sailors had been more than 300 miles from land; now they were 3,000 miles away, and they started to be mutinous until they sighted land on October 12, 1492. It was one of the Bahamian Islands that Columbus named San Salvador. He thought he had found India, and as friendly natives approached, he called them Indians. He decided to take six of them back to Spain without thinking they might not want to go.

Boarding his ship, Columbus sailed to Cuba, thinking he had found China. On landing, no one greeted him except an old dog that paid no attention to him and his men. As always, he planted a cross in the sand “as a token of Jesus Christ, our Lord, and in honor of the Christian faith.”

He still had not found the gleaming cities of gold that he was looking for, and that failure would prove embarrassing when he arrived home. He finally found gold on the island of Haiti and took the king and queen a chest full. He left a crew of men to supervise the panning for gold since Isabella and Ferdinand were expecting an inexhaustible supply.

With his gold, Indians, parrots, peacocks, etc., he set sail eastward and home. On a calm July day in 1493, Columbus was led by an honor guard toward the winter palace in Barcelona to report to the king and queen. The crowds grew ever larger as he approached the palace. Beautiful senoritas threw roses from upper balconies as the people shouted, “The Admiral! The Admiral!” Shops closed, and church bells rang throughout the city in his honor.

The Admiral made his way to the magnificent throne room and was greeted by Ferdinand and Isabella as “Admiral of the Ocean Sea and Viceroy of the Indies.” The royal couple rose to meet him as he approached the throne, an unusual honor. Additional honor came to him as he was invited to sit beside the royal couple.

The court listened in silent reverence as Columbus told of his difficult journey, fear of mutiny, and the excitement on sighting land. He then presented the court with fruits, parrots, and six dark-skinned natives. When he finally opened the chest of gold, the king and queen got on their knees, followed by everyone in the court, and wept and sang, “Oh Lord, in thee have I trusted, let me ever be confounded.”

What they were thinking was, we can now pay some of our bills. The Pope had given the king and queen control over “the funds in the Americas.” However, it was not the popes to give. The sovereigns and the Pope had a quid pro quo agreement—you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours. It worked; the Pope gave them the income from the New World discoveries since they had supported his horrendous inquisition years earlier.

Columbus could now have anything he wanted and what he wanted was a fleet of ships to colonize the islands. He had lost or forgotten most of the high idealism he had at the beginning of his adventure. He was too much impressed with himself and overly concerned with the results of success: possessions, power, and position.

The discovery of limited gold in Haiti had salvaged his first trip, but the successive voyages were disasters taking many lives, ships, and reputations of famous men. The supporters of his second journey were not thrilled with him spiritualizing his trip and talking about planting a cross on each island. They were interested in products, profits, and prestige.

The mighty Admiral’s reputation was tarnished, and his momentum had fizzled. His virtues were not as impressive; his vices were magnified; his victory was limited to his first trip.

Whatever his failures and they were many, Columbus was the first man who was willing to risk his life to prove a theory and had discovered what would become the greatest civilization that has ever blessed mankind—America.

He should be honored for that, not cursed, criticized, and condemned by lesser men.

(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. Boys authored 18 books, the most recent being Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! The eBook is available here with the printed edition (and other titles) at www.cstnews.com. Follow him on Facebook at Don Boys, Ph.D.; and visit his blog. Send a request to DBoysphd@aol.com for a free subscription to his articles, and click here to support his work with a donation.)

Every sane person agrees that we must do whatever is necessary to keep bad people out. A wall, barrier, fence, hedge, railing, screen, paling, partition, barrier, barricade, or whatever you choose to call it will stop most of the bad guys. That will result in America’s stability, security, and survival.

It will also stop or slow down “good” guys who refuse to follow U.S. rules, regulations, and requirements to enter. Coming to America is not a right but a privilege: a privilege we choose to grant to those who will become a help not a hindrance.

Donald Trump has promised to build a wall on the southern border to keep drug pushers, terrorists, and tomato pickers from gatecrashing into America without following U.S. rules. Progressives (former liberals who lost the immigration debate and changed their name thinking none of us would notice) have resorted to ridicule but that is easier than addressing the problem.

Moreover, ridicule is the last resort of the dumb, the deceived, and the demented.

Walls have been used since the beginning of time for defense, privacy, and “to protect the people of a certain region from the influence or perceived danger posed by outsiders.” In fact, an ancient city without walls was an invitation for disaster. Walls discouraged some barbarians, delayed others, and defeated still others.

A well-fortified city with high, wide walls, watchtowers, and iron gates was a good guarantee of peace and prosperity, but never a panacea. The Psalmist said in 122:7, “Peace be within thy walls, and prosperity within thy palaces.” Who would want to live or start a business in a vulnerable city? A walled city offered security, stability, and sociality—even survival. People who lived outside walled cities were known as “pagans,” and were “rustic,” or “of or relating to the countryside,” and later were thought to be uncivilized or unenlightened people. Yes, I suppose if people chose to live in a violent, unprotected area, they would qualify as “unenlightened.” And dead.

In other words, thinking intelligent people lived behind walls, big walls if possible. So, today’s progressives such as Hillary Clinton live in gated or high-rise communities yet ridicule a wall on our southern border. Clinton’s New York mansion has a high, attractive wall. In many parts of the world, homes are commonly built surrounded by walls topped with wire or glass for protection. That is to keep them away from us.

The Pope lives in the Vatican, a walled enclave within the city of Rome, yet wants us to build bridges instead of walls.

Pope Francis, tear down that wall! And open your palace and the Vatican to the poor, oppressed, and those looking only to better themselves. Practice what you preach.

When Moses sent twelve men to spy out the land of Canaan, they returned and informed him of the conditions of the land. Most of them spoke of an incredible land of very large people living within walled cities. They spoke from exaggerated facts and fear, not faith. The spineless spies warned in Deut. 1:28, “the cities are great and walled up to heaven”–a slight hyperbole! They declared, “All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates, and bars.” They were saying, “Moses, you are a dummy if you think we can take those walled cities. We have no battering rams, no ladders, and no trees to provide the necessary siege instruments. Let’s go somewhere else.”

But the first walled city to be taken was Jericho, the “world’s first city.” Most people are familiar with the wall of Jericho that was miraculously destroyed to permit Joshua and the Israelites to conquer the city and the land. I have been to the excavation site of those ruins many times. It was a well-fortified city but it fell by faith, not by force because the walls of Jericho fell in obedience to God. The people within the city thought they were safe because of their protective walls; they were wrong. This is no argument for not building a wall.

It is an argument to prove that ancient people used walls to protect themselves, sometimes unsuccessfully, especially when God wanted the wall destroyed to bring judgment upon a people.

King Nebuchadnezzar II (reigned 605-562 B.C.) is famous mainly because of his association with the Hebrew prophet Daniel and his three buddies. Nebuchadnezzar built three walls around Babylon and one was so broad that a four-horse chariot could turn around on it. The Ishtar Gate in the wall was said to be more impressive than any of the Wonders of the Ancient World.

Herodotus the Greek historian declared, “Babylon surpasses in wonder any city in the known world” and said that the wall was 56 miles long, 80 feet thick and 320 feet high! That is higher than a football field is long! Even allowing for the usual exaggeration which afflicted ancient historians, it was a very high wall. There was a wide and deep moat that encircled the entire city. No wonder it was commonly believed that Babylon was impregnable. But no one told two Hebrew prophets and King Cyrus that “fact” and the city fell to the Medes and Persians—but the wall stood! A wall will not guarantee survival but it’s a great beginning.

Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world and during its long history it has been destroyed twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times. It is one of the oldest walled cities. The wall has been built many times but the rock foundation and a few rows of original Herodian stones can still be seen. The wall is less than 3 miles long, the average height is 39.37 feet, and the average thickness is 8.2 feet. The wall also contains 34 watchtowers and 8 gates. On some of my 13 tours that I have led to the Middle East, I took some of the group for a trek along the top of the wall to provide a different perspective of the city and its surroundings.

Even with the wall, the destruction of Jerusalem and Solomon’s Temple was accomplished by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. and the city and Herod’s Temple, also known as the Second Temple, were destroyed by Titus in A.D. 70. The destruction in A.D. 70 was prophesied by Christ in Mark 13:1-2 when He said, “And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” Note how precise He was in that not one stone would be left upon another. That was not poetic. Some of the Temple stones were 37 feet long, 12 feet high, and 18 feet wide. According to a PBS special, one stone weighed over 300 tons and they wondered if modern equipment could move such stones! It would take hundreds of men to move one stone but why would weary soldiers even try to do so after an exhausting battle?

The prophecy was fulfilled literally when the Romans completely destroyed Jerusalem and the temple buildings. One reason for the fall was the Jews were divided into three groups, even killing each other as the Roman Army was outside the wall! Rome prevailed and according to historian and eyewitness Josephus, the massive stones were moved by the soldiers, pried apart to collect the gold leaf that melted from the roof when the temple was set on fire. The city was taken after a four year siege! The prophecy was precisely fulfilled.

Like Jericho, Babylon, and Jerusalem, the walls did not guarantee safety but then there are no guarantees in life. You do the best you can to protect yourself; but to invite thieves, thugs, and terrorists with open borders is insane. Borders are biblical and reasonable and a wall is needed along our southern border.

The Great Wall of China with all its branches is 13,171 miles long extending east-to-west across the northern border of China and it was built to protect a nation not a city. And like city walls, it had a measure of success. It was built over the centuries beginning in about 221 B.C. to protect the Chinese against raids from nomadic groups from Mongolia. It was finished in the 17th century but fell into disrepair until recent years. The wall was also used to control immigration and permitted the imposition of taxes on goods that were transported along the Silk Road from Europe to China. When China extended its northern border, the wall became obsolete–except as a tourist attraction. It has four million visitors annually. The 2,500 watchtowers and garrison stations permitted watchers to send smoke signals to alert inland troops of approaching danger.

A modern myth has prevailed and is believed by most people that the Great Wall of China is the only man-made structure on earth that can be seen from the moon. But that is not true. Modern day scholars and scientists, as well as those who have traveled to the moon, have debunked this claim repeatedly but it is still often repeated.

But then there are many myths about walls that are espoused today in political discussion: we don’t really need a wall; a wall is an insult to our Mexican friends; a wall will not accomplish anything other than anger others; if people want in, they will get in; and at a cost of $25 billion, it is too expensive. Not if Mexico pays for it. Mexico has clearly and bluntly said that they will never pay for it but they will if America increases fines for overstaying visas and imposes a tax on every dollar sent to Mexico by workers in the U.S. About $20 billion per year is sent to Mexico from the U.S., usually by electronic transfer typically in about $300 amounts. Taking a small fee at the place of origin from each transaction will soon pay for the wall. After all, much of that money was never taxed.

Trump’s Wall, like the Great Wall of China, can be successful and provide a measure of peace and prosperity but it is not a panacea.

(This is an expanded rewrite of my article published a few years ago.)

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

According to the New Testament, the church was started by Christ and nourished by Peter, Paul, John, James, and others. During those early days, the church was known as “the church in Jerusalem” or the “Jerusalem church.” Later, churches were established in homes in Corinth, Antioch, and Rome. Being human (and fallible), Christian leaders disagreed (wrongly) with some of the Apostolic teachings and formed churches that reflected their interpretation. Some were minor and some were major departures from the Scripture. They then wrote false “gospels” to support their erroneous departure from the truth. The many denominations came into existence because of such departures from the truth.

The first Christians were very familiar with the synagogues so it was expected that the first Christian services would resemble the synagogue: public reading of Scripture, chanting the Psalms and responsive “Amens.” Such was the norm in ancient church services. Church historian Kenneth Latourette reveals, “Not until the fourth century do we have more than partial glimpses of the Christian liturgy.” So, those who gush over the “solemn” and “dignified” liturgical services in Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglian, etc., churches have no support in Scripture or early history. The ancient church services were very simple.

The opulent distinctive dress of the clergy was unknown to the early Christians; even the clerical collar is not supported by Scripture. However, as usual, modern preachers, especially megachurch pastors and their wannabes have swung to the other extreme wearing faded jeans, polo shirts, and often expensive earrings and tasteless “Jesus Saves” tattoos.

The strict division of clergy and laity was unknown for a hundred years of the church’s existence. Church leadership came from the membership. Moreover, Paul the Apostle clearly commanded us in I Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 to remember that we are all believers in Christ and we must show humility as we exercise our spiritual gifts in His service. You never see archbishops, cardinals, monsignors, abbots, metropolitans; or popes in the Bible or in the early churches. You only read about pastor/elder/bishops and deacons. Again, simplicity.

It was only natural for pastors in the Empire to look to more established church leaders for help so the concept of appreciation, admiration, and authority of the church in Rome became the norm. And many of the small churches were started by the Roman Church so of course, there was an affinity to Rome. With the passing of time, the influence of the Roman pastor changed from an acquaintance, to an authority, to an authoritarian, and in the 400s, he expected the other independent pastors to look to him as the religious boss. That didn’t go well with others since all pastors were expected to be equal and independent. At that time, the Roman Catholic Church did not exist since the Christian world looked for leadership in five places: Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Rome.

Historian Edward Gibbon agreed: “The primitive bishops [of Rome] were considered only as the first of their equals, and the honorable servants of a free people.” He forcefully reports that the early churches of the Roman Empire “were united only by the ties of faith and charity.” No pope there.

Even as late as the 400s, there was no recognized universal church authority as historian Will Durant wrote, “The patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria claimed equal authority with the Roman see.” No pope there, only five wannabe popes!

The idea that Peter and/or Paul founded the church in Rome is totally false. In a footnote in the classic, (and very first) Church History by Bishop Eusebius (died 339), we read, “Neither Paul nor Peter founded the Roman Church in the strict sense for there was a congregation of believers there even before Paul came to Rome, as his Epistle to the Romans shows, and Peter cannot have reached there until some time after Paul. It was, however, a very early fiction that Paul and Peter together founded the church in that city.”

As for Peter dying in Rome, that is not mentioned by anyone before Origen who died in 254. That is hardly a contemporaneous validation.

Emperor Constantine moved the center of the Empire to Byzantium (later named Constantinople, now Istanbul) in 330 and the Patriarch of Constantinople later claimed control over the whole church including what was left of the western part of the Empire centered in Rome. That alarmed, angered, and agitated the Bishop of Rome since he liked his usurped authority that was slowly developing and saw it threatened by the Patriarch in Constantinople. When Rome fell, it produced major problems for everyone and left a vacuum of leadership.

Moving the center of the Empire to the East was no doubt one of the causes of Rome’s fall. It was the beginning of a geographical, cultural, and political split between the East that was centered in Constantinople and the West that was centered in Rome. Everything started to sour and did so for hundreds of years. Still a little sour today.

Gibbon gives 476 as the year Rome Empire ceased to exist. That was when the Germanic king Odoacer deposed the last Roman Emperor to rule the western portion of the Roman Empire. During the resulting chaos, the Bishop of Rome stepped in to take more control of secular as well as religious matters.

Eventually, but gradually, the Roman Catholic Church became a reality when Gregory the Great (590-604) became the first man to wield the authority similar to modern Popes–yet he opposed the concept! But popery became a reality late in the sixth century!

Relations between Rome and Constantinople continued to simmer and erupted when the Patriarch of Alexandria broke away from Rome at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and was soon joined by the Armenians, and later by a dissenting group from Antioch. By the 800s, most of the liturgical churches identified with Rome in the west or Constantinople in the east. They basically split over the issue of papal authority; the eastern churches thought the Pope assumed the top honcho position claiming authority he did not rightly possess. But the other mini popes refused to recognize that, so “Christendom” was embarrassed when the two leaders excommunicated each other! Now there was a definite split between Rome and Constantinople, and the independent churches continued to proliferate.

In 1054, the split became permanent and the eastern churches were known as Eastern Orthodox Churches (official name, Orthodox Catholic Church). Now Christianity was divided into Roman Catholic Churches, Eastern Orthodox Churches, and independent churches, with the large number of formal, liturgical churches split between Rome and Constantinople. The independent churches continued to multiply and gain religious and political influence.

All three groups claim to be successors of the original Christians. In my opinion, the Eastern Orthodox group is closer to original Christianity than the Roman Church; however, their liturgy, vestments, holy days, unswerving adherence to the church councils, adoration of icons, use of terms such as Ecumenical Patriarch, Metropolitan, etc., are absent from the Bible. Also, like the Roman Church, the Orthodox group teaches apostolic succession.

With the passing of time, the Roman Church became incredibly corrupt–in theology and personal living. Enter the Reformers beginning with Wycliffe, Hus, Tyndale, Luther, Knox, Calvin, Puritans, and Pilgrims, among others. While the Reformers were highly dedicated and courageous men who came “out from among them,” they did not come out far enough! After leaving a corrupt system, they formed churches which became state churches and all of them practiced infant “baptism.”

In a free nation, people can choose to believe what they want–even error, and I do not agree with Augustine and his followers who believed people should be forced to believe the “truth.” A truly free person can believe error if he or she chooses.

Of course, there is a big price to pay for error and part of that price is so many denominations.

I am not looking for a church of opulence but obedience; not money but a message; not grandeur but grace; not popularity but passion. I demand sincerity, strength, simplicity, and scriptural truth–just like the ancient churches.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

I am a Christian Fundamentalist, one who adheres closely to what the Bible teaches and I don’t find much in other religions and denominations to recommend religiously. Very frankly, I am right and the other religions, even parts of Christianity, are wrong. (What did you expect me to say?) Now that I have settled that, I am willing to admit the historical truth that the Roman Catholic and the Greek Orthodox Churches have made major positive contributions to the world especially in the fourth century forward. I still maintain my right to disagree, even declare they wrote the histories to make them seem to be original Christians, but they made valuable contributions.

For the record, it should be remembered that the Catholic Church was hundreds of years in the making with many godly, dedicated, and true preachers of the Word associated with it during that time. While the Roman Church was forming, there were numerous independent churches growing alongside it. While those independent churches stayed true to the Scripture for the most part, they did not have the clout, the cash, and the crowds of the Roman Catholic Church; consequently, they did not make the social impact on citizens of the Roman Empire as did the larger, better financed Catholic Church.

While the Roman Catholic Church was gaining more and more power as the Empire collapsed, there were unaffiliated independent churches all over the Empire who refused to conform to the growing power of the Roman Church. Each pope became stronger throughout Europe until Leo I (died 461) claimed superiority over all bishops in the West and the East! Leo was met with resistance since all bishops were to be equal. The patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria “claimed equal authority with the Roman see” so as of 450 there was still no authoritative, supreme pope. That came with Gregory I in the late 500s (died 604) who was the first supreme pope.

The fabled civilization of a thousand years could see the handwriting on the wall as the brutal barbarians were at the gates of Rome and collapse was imminent. In 410 A.D., Rome collapsed as the city of the Caesars fell to uncivilized, uneducated, and uncouth barbarians. With the collapse of Rome, a chill went throughout the civilized world; however, as the Empire fell, the Church of Rome stepped in to fill the gap.

Following the alleged conversion of Constantine in the early fourth century, the churches constructed and maintained hospitals, hospices for strangers, and houses for orphans, widows, and the indigent. As Rome crumbled, the Church remained the one (and only) stable institution that helpless citizens could depend on for help and protection.

As the Empire collapsed because of internal decay, corruption of officials, and the barbarian invasions, the social structure decayed also. The bewildered citizens looked to the only large, powerful entity for succor–the Church. The churches, primarily the Roman Catholic Church as it was gradually forming, basically replaced the failing Empire. As internal confusion and inability to maintain the army in the north accelerated, Rome became a shadow of its former glory. The more the Empire crumbled the more important and powerful the Church became. Although the Church became heretical, it provided fearful citizens with protection, food, health care, etc.

The Church at Rome (that became the seat of the Roman Catholic Church) had over fifty thousand members and supported 1,500 widows, orphans, and the poor according to Gibbon. He adds that the church at Antioch “consisted of one hundred thousand persons, three thousand of whom were supported out of the public oblations [gifts to churches].” Of course, that was long before the formation of the Roman Catholic Church.

After the Council of Nicaea in 325, the bishops were told to go into every Cathedral city (the main city of a diocese where the bishops ruled) and start a hospital–and later universities. Consequently, a number of hospitals were founded by rich Christians in various cities.

About this time, monasteries and convents were organized with many purposes but they became the bastions of scholarship in many fields. Catholic engineers constructed massive and elaborate cathedrals throughout Europe that still amaze visitors with their beauty, size, and symmetry.

Basil of Caesarea (c.329-379) was the Greek bishop in Cappadocia (part of modern Turkey) who supported the Nicene Creed and opposed Arianism and other heresies. He was from a wealthy family and founded the first Christian hospital that ministered to the sick. It was the first hospital that had wards for specific diseases. He organized a soup kitchen and distributed food to the poor during a famine. He gave away his personal family inheritance to benefit the poor of his diocese. He actively worked to help thieves and prostitutes.

An obvious outcome of establishing hospitals was the need to provide workers; therefore, brotherhoods and orders were birthed to serve in hospitals, hospices, orphanages, etc. According to historian Kenneth S. Latourette, “One of the first of which we know began late in the ninth century in Siena. In the eleventh century many cathedrals and parish churches had hospitals…A large proportion, perhaps a majority of monasteries seem to have had hospitals attached to them, several gave training in medicine, and many abbots became expert physicians. Hospitals cared not only for the sick, but also for the orphaned and the poor, and in the cities many of them fed prisoners.”

Many groups organized and formed orders to care for the sick and dying. Catholic religious orders included the Order of Saint Benedict, the Order of Friars Minor, the Carmelites, the Dominican Order, and the Order of Saint Augustine. (All orders did not serve in hospitals or provide for the poor since each order had its own specialty.) Monasteries served as hospitals and places of refuge for the weak and homeless. The monks studied the healing properties of plants and minerals to alleviate the sufferings of the sick.

Historians admit that when the Roman Empire began to crack at its foundations, the Church had not only established hospitals but had also become “the schoolmaster of Western Europe and the tutor of the barbarian of the North.” The origin of many medieval universities can be traced back to the Catholic cathedral schools (monastic schools) which appeared as early as the 6th century.The Catholic Church is to be commended for being the impetus for most of the universities of the Middle Ages.

Catholic scientists that made the world better are Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Nicolas Copernicus, Louis Pasteur, Gregor Mendel, Roger Bacon, and many others. And the popes are to be commended for permitting dissecting of human bodies for medical research.

Moreover, the Cathedral churches and monasteries were the main preservers of literature after many libraries of the ancient world had been destroyed. Dedicated monks protected and copied books making them available for scholars throughout Europe.

Latourette reveals “the [Roman Catholic] Church was the first to accumulate reserves of capital, to begin the system of deposits, credit, and banking, and to advocate a stable coinage. The Templars were famous as bankers….The Church, too, inculcated the theory of the ‘just price.’” Again, much is owed to the Roman Church in the practical area of finance.

While there is much I disagree with in the Roman Church, especially its doctrine and religious ceremonial practices, I recognize their incredible contributions to giving some stability in very difficult, desperate and dangerous times; their production and protection of vast scholarly literature; their generous alleviation of suffering of millions; the construction and maintenance of universities; etc.

For all that, I tip my hat to my theological adversaries.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

While the Roman Catholic Church has much to be ashamed of since its beginning in the fifth century, (not the first century, as all honest historians know) much of these recent apologies are simply damage control. And Francis is the one who keeps doing the damage!

Furthermore, the pope recently told a group of poor people visiting the Vatican to “Pray for the rich, the wise and the hypocrites. Pray that the Lord may bring about a conversion in their hearts.” Francis, never missing an opportunity to spout error and banalities, assumed that the poor were Christians while the rich and wise were not! Someone at the Vatican needs to apologize for Francis!

The Roman Church has been in deep doo doo for many years. The major problem is the sex scandal; plus the declining number of priests worldwide, the loss of the religious elementary and secondary schools in the U.S., the hypocrisy in standing against abortion yet permitting major politicians to stay in good standing while they promote (and have) abortions, makes principled people gag. But then the Roman Catholic Church permitted Mussolini, Hitler, and assorted South American dictators to remain in the church until they did the world a favor and assumed room temperature after pointing their toes upward.

Columnist Burt Prelutsky referred to the Roman Church’s refusal to deal with politicians who advocate abortion asking why some famous people are not excommunicated from the Church. He opined that the Church “should start booting these high-profile backsliders out on their collective fannies. Otherwise, when it comes to their members as well as their leaders, we have to assume that the Elks, the Moose and the Rotarians all have higher standards than the Catholic Church.” Wow, not bad for the Jewish talk show host and columnist!

Francis wrote in his book, A Big Heart Open to God: “Tell me, when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?” I’m not sure Francis was expecting an answer from me but the fact is God always loves the homosexual (and fornicator, thief, glutton, liar, false prophet, Liberal, etc.) but condemns all our sins and offers forgiveness only through the work of Christ on the cross.

Recently, the pope told some journalists that the Catholic Church owed “gays” an apology “for the way the church has treated them in the past”; however, history proves that the Catholic Church has been very friendly to homosexuals. U.S. News and World Report revealed that “most priests are gay” (July 29, 2013) so the hierarchy has been very casual in their screening process. One Roman Catholic clergyman suggested that “30 percent [of priests] were gay, 30 percent were straight and 30 percent are in denial!” I don’t think I would joke about something like that, but maybe he was serious.

Trying to push all the right buttons Francis said, “I think the church must not only apologize … to a gay person it offended, but we must apologize to the poor, to women who have been exploited, to children forced into labor, apologize for having blessed so many weapons.” What an inane statement.

Francis declared that homosexuals “should not be discriminated against” but should be treated with respect and “accompanied pastorally.” Frankly, it is difficult to respect people who do unbelievably vile things to each other and are in rebellion against God’s plan for the human race.

As to “accompanied pastorally” I have no idea what that means. Maybe the pope should apologize for his ambiguity.

Francis could start by apologizing for and nullifying Pope Boniface’s asinine statement in his 1302 papal Bull Unam Sanctam: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.” The Church professes not to believe that today but it was an “irreversible doctrine” and still stands! That means, according to Catholic doctrine, the pope and the Vatican Council II were wrong to say that non-Catholics can go to Heaven. The Roman Church has always taught salvation is found only in their church but that is bad public relations.

Does Francis blush when he reads that he and all popes are God according to the Fifth Lateran Council of 1512? “For thou art the shepherd, thou art the physician, thou art the director, thou art the husbandman; finally, thou art another God on Earth.” Surely, with blushing face, pounding heart, trembling hands, and knocking knees, Francis will repudiate that blasphemous statement.

Most people don’t know that no pope has ever apologized for the Council of Trent curses upon true believers. While it is five hundred years late, maybe Francis could in the spirit of the much-vaunted ecumenicity, lift the curses! Now, that would be a major move but don’t expect it because Trent was the beleaguered Church’s desperate, defiant, and divisive response to the Reformation.

The infamous Council of Trent declared, “We define that the Holy Apostolic See [Vatican] and the Roman Pontiff hold the primacy over the whole world.” Will Francis repudiate that teaching?

How about canon nine where all who believe that men are redeemed by faith in Christ alone are to be cursed? Will Francis repudiate that teaching?

Canon twenty-four curses those of us who believe that good works are good, but are not essential for eternal salvation. Will Francis lift that curse?

Obviously, Francis and the Roman Catholic Church have much for which to be ashamed. How about some genuine apologies followed by lifting the Trent curses!

No, Francis will not and cannot apologize for me.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy of Muslim Invasion, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

The papacy was not established by Jesus nor prophesied by Isaiah and saying otherwise does not make it so. For about 300 years after Christ, very ordinary village priests were called pope (papa). (By the way, what of the Bible prohibition in Matthew 23:9 of calling any man “father” other than your own physical father?) Moreover, Peter was not the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church as some shallow historians loudly proclaim. Obviously, the Christian church was built upon Peter’s confession of Christ, not upon Peter. Peter was not a Catholic!

The Christian Reformers were on the march in 1544 giving the Roman Catholic Church leaders a perpetual heartburn. The reformers were shining the light upon the religious corruption, priestly incompetence (and wickedness), and numerous unscriptural doctrines that the Roman Church espoused. The Roman Catholic leaders determined to act and did so by calling the Council of Trent (in Trento, Italy) that lasted from Dec. of 1545 to Dec. of 1563. The Catholic Counter Reformation was on the move. Trent is considered one of Rome’s most important councils. It was 400 years before another council was held.

Trent decided that the Scripture alone was not sufficient and that truth would be decided by Scripture, the pope (and his bishops), and tradition. They decided that salvation was attained by faith and works in opposition to Luther’s demand for justification by faith alone as taught in the Bible.

All Protestants and Baptists who disagreed with the council’s decision were cursed as the Roman leaders hurled 125 anathemas (curses) at all who disagreed with their decisions. That meant that such people were out of the church and destined for hell.

Those who laugh at the thought that the Pope (or any other human) can ever be without error are condemned to eternal Hell, according to First Vatican Council.

If one does not believe that Purgatory is a reality since it is never mentioned in Scripture, he is to be cursed to Hell (Session 6). Purgatory has been an embarrassing, unscriptural fund-raiser for the Roman Church. If a Catholic pays money to his church, then a relative’s sins are forgiven and eventually the doors of Purgatory open so he or she can enter Heaven. However, Purgatory, like Limbo does not exist.

Session 7 declared, “If anyone says that baptism is …not necessary for salvation,” he is cursed. Well, that means all Baptists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, Lutherans, Interdenominationalists, independents, and others are candidates for Hell even though John 14:7 clearly teaches that Christ is the only way of salvation. Water baptism is simply an outward sign of what happened inwardly.

In Session 12, the church leaders decreed that those who don’t believe that the bread and wine at the Lord’s Table are the actual body and blood of Christ are doomed to Hell. Church leaders insist that they are actually eating the body of Christ and drinking His blood! If one analyzed the bread and wine as it hits the tongue would it prove to be flesh and blood? Only a superstitious fool or religious fanatic would think so. Only 45% of Catholics believe that teaching. Acts 15 forbids the drinking of blood. Catholics would have us believe that Christ was saying as He held the bread, “This is my body that we will now devour together!” What an absurdity! Moreover, Christ had not yet died, so how could the bread be His body that was in the room with them?

It is incredible and a mangling of English to call Trent an “Ecumenical Council.” The churchmen showed no interest in genuine discussion of the doctrinal differences with the Protestants. The Roman leaders were determined to reinforce their agenda with some housecleaning to satisfy the protesters. It is interesting that no Baptists were even close to the council. They wanted nothing to do with either side. Baptists are neither Catholics nor Protestants!

When Pope John XXIII opened the Second Vatican Council (1962), he made a Declaration of Faith. He said that he accepted everything declared by the Council of Trent. He specifically said that he anathematized everything that contradicted it, a position that was reaffirmed by Pope Paul VI. It was said that Paul “sought dialogue with the world, with other Christians, other religions, and atheists, excluding nobody.” But that is not true. With a wink and a nod, he spoke of inclusiveness while he reinstituted the vile curses of Trent. It is time for the Roman Catholic Church to apologize for Trent and lift all curses. Of course, the curses have no effect on non-Catholics but it is a matter of principle that the curses should be lifted if the Church leaders sincerely believe in ecumenicity. They are hypocrites if they don’t.

This evil attack upon all non-Catholics cannot be relegated to the Middle Ages; it is as current as it was at Trento. All curses are still in effect! Hardly a gracious and inclusive thought. It is way past time to lift the curses. Will the new Pope do so?

An Augustinian monk named Luther hammered to his church door in Wittenberg his objections to Roman Catholic doctrine and other abuses, accelerating the necessity of Trent. It is now time for Rome to admit that the simple monk was right and lift their curses on those who agree with him.