The following was posted by Michael(non-catholic) [mdroe@erinet.com] in the thread Where is hell:

Abraham Lincoln stated, "As long as God gives me a heart to feel, a brain to think, or a hand to execute my will, I will devote it against that power which has attempted to use the machinery of the courts to destroy the rights and character of an American citizen. But there is a thing which is very certain; it is, that if the American people could learn what I know of the fierce hatred of the generality of the priests of Rome against our institutions, our schools, our most sacred rights, and our so dearly bought liberties, they would drive them away, tomorrow, from among us, or would shoot them as traitors.... The history of the last thousand years tells us that wherever the Church of Rome is not a dagger to pierce the bosom of a free nation, she is a stone to her neck, and a ball to her feet, to paralyze her and prevent her advance in the ways of civilization, science, intelligence, happiness, and liberty.... I do not pretend to be a prophet. But though not a prophet, I see a very dark cloud on our horizon. And that dark cloud is coming from Rome. It is filled with tears of blood. It will rise and increase, till its flanks will be torn by a flash of lightening, followed by a fearful peal of thunder. Then a cyclone such as the world has never seen, will pass over this country, spreading ruin and desolation from north to south. After it is over, there will be long days of peace and prosperity; for popery, with its Jesuits and merciless Inquisition, will have been forever swept away from our country. Neither I nor you, but our children, will see those things." The beloved Lincoln made the statement just given at the conclusion of the trial of Mr. Chiniquy, author of the book, Fifty Years in the Church of Rome.

The accusation that Lincoln ever said such deplorable words is a shameless lie, a despicable smirch of the character of that great man, and a reprehensible defamation of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church which Christ Jesus our Lord founded on the Rock of Simon the Fisherman.

Here is the truth about the words falsely attributed to Lincoln and about his very public attitude towards Catholics in the USA, from They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, & Misleading Attributions, by Paul F. Boller Jr. & John George (Oxford University Press, 1989), pages 79-80, emphasis added:

"These words, entitled 'Lincoln's Warning,' have circulated among Catholic-haters in this country since the late 19th century, but there is nothing of Lincoln in them. They were written by Charles Chiniquy, a Canadian-born priest who settled in Kankakee County, Illinois, in 1851, as head of a Catholic colony, and then abandoned his faith, began spewing out hatred for his former religion, and invented anti-Catholic utterances for Lincoln as part of his anti-Catholic campaign.

"But Chiniquy did know Lincoln, though not very well. In 1856, Lincoln and Leonard Swett handled a case for Chiniquy in Springfield, Illinois, and years later, after Lincoln had become famous, the recusant priest falsely claimed he had been an intimate friend of Honest Abe and that the latter had secretly confided to him his fear and hatred of Catholicism. The false quote appeared in Chiniquy's Fifty Years in the Church of Rome (Chicago, 1886), a lengthy and bitter attack on the Roman Catholic Church.

"Lincoln of course had nothing of the bigot in him, and the kind of views Chiniquy attributed to him were entirely foreign to his thinking. In June 1844, Lincoln wrote a resolution condemning the intolerance of the Know Nothing movement: 'The guarantee of the right of conscience as found in the Constitution, is most sacred and inviolable, and one that belongs no less to the Catholic, than to the Protestant.' And in a much-quoted letter to his friend Joshua Speed on August 24, 1855, he expressed his dismay over the bigoted views of the Know Nothings and warned that if they triumphed the Declaration of Independence would be corrupted into reading: 'All men are created equal, except negroes and foreigners and Catholics.'"

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), July 01, 1999

Answers

Thanks for confirming what I suspected as well. Your research skills are excellent sir.

-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blazenet.net), July 01, 1999.

Lane,

You win the coupons which will be sent in the mail for three yes THREE Big Macs (joke of course) for the superb work on Abe. I for one never thought for a moment he would have this mindset for was a Great Man A Solid Christian and his dignity is our heritage. - Jean B.

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 01, 1999.

Lane, i most warmly congratulate you in dispelling the lie about lincoln's quote.

somewhile ago i made some very (conscious) sarcastic comments about that quotation to make people realise that such words could only come from someone with a very little mind, and therefore they could not come from the great mind lincoln had. by the way i'm not north american, but i always had and have a great admiration for him.

Now, ufff!(sigh of relief) i, a catholic, can visit the USA without being thrown out or shot as a traitor!!!!!!

if someone posted that quotation consciously knowing it was a lie, what was the point: scaring catholics? throwing mud on lincoln? throwing mud on somebodyelse's face? what a dirty trick!!!!!

ENRIQUE

-- ENRIQUE ORTIZ (eaortiz@yahoo.com), July 02, 1999.

I have studied the history of the church for many years.When I was first saved, I prayed to the Lord to help me to find the truth concerning the history of the church. I started in 1983, and am still involved.I am a christan first and then a Baptist.I have found out that a church doesn,t make a christan, but the Holy Sprit, and the saving grace of the blood of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The Bible says that we are all priest.One of my favorite books is the 50 Years In The Church Of Rome

-- Richard Bridges (dickiebr@hotmail.com), January 11, 2003.

I have studied the history of the church for many years.When I was first saved, I prayed to the Lord to help me to find the truth concerning the history of the church. I started in 1983, and am still involved.I am a christan first and then a Baptist.I have found out that a church doesn,t make a christan, but the Holy Sprit, and the saving grace of the blood of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The Bible says that we are all priest.One of my favorite books is the 50 Years In The Church Of Rome.May the Lord guide you and direct you, God Bless!

-- Richard Bridges (dickiebr@hotmail.com), January 11, 2003.

Dear Richard,

If your "favorite book" is from Chick Publications, you have not been studying history, and you really know very little about it. The hate- filled diatribes of the anti-Catholic bigots who publish through Mr. Chick's organization can only lead you away from the truth, which would otherwise set you free. Get yourself some real literature, burn any of the spiritual pornography you may have obtained from this ungodly source, and you will be on the road to truth.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 11, 2003.

I was a catholic and have been the target of catholic attacks against me. I am saved now and know that I need not depend on the "church" to save me. I am also glad that from learning scripture I am saved through faith. I learned the 10 commandments the way they REALLY are not the way the catechism taught them!

-- Vanessa Guilbeau (leiamra@cox-internet.com), May 01, 2003.

Dear Vanessa,

It is not the purpose of the Church to save people. The Savior does that. You should know that if you were Catholic, since that is the teaching of the Catholic Church. On the other hand, if you knew the teachings of the Catholic Church, you never could have left. The purpose of the Church is to bring people to Jesus Christ in the fullness of His truth, and to provide them with the fullness of grace through the divinely ordained Sacraments. I'm sure the church you belong to also tries to bring people to Jesus, but it has only partial truth to work with, and partial if any sacramental grace, so you really are spiritually crippled.

If you had truly learned scripture, you would not be making statements which contradict scripture. You say you are already saved, but scripture says no-one is saved unless they endure to the end. (Matt 10:22; Matt 24:13; Mark 13:13). You say your salvation is by faith alone, but scripture says it isn't (Matt 25:41-46; James 2:14- 15, 20, 24-26) You see Vanessa, manmade churches like yours don't teach you the fullness of scripture. They can't, because scripture always includes teachings which refute their false beliefs. They only teach you the specific scriptures which appear to support their manmade traditions. But real knowledge of scripture means consideration of everything the Word of God has to say on a subject, not just picking and choosing specific passages and ignoring the rest. Catholics don't have to do this, since Catholic teaching is the source of the New Testament, and there isn't a single verse of scripture which is in conflict with Catholic beliefs. Truth cannot conflict with truth. I will pray that you eventually find your way home, where your Lord and Savior calls you to be.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 02, 2003.

Dear Vanessa

One of the things that Satan does in attacking a Christian is to attack him at the point of his assurance of salvation. Satan likes to make us doubt our redemption. That's why when you put on the armor in Ephesians 6, it says put on the helmet of salvation and Paul writing to the Thessalonians further defined that by calling it the helmet of the hope of salvation. Why? Because Satan wants to deal devastating blows to your head in the area of doubt...to doubt that you're really saved, to doubt that you're really redeemed, to doubt that God is really holding you in the palm of His hand forever, to doubt that you really belong to God. He wants you to believe that SOMEHOW, or SOMEWAY (like he can make that happen)you forfeited your redemption and so he blasts away at you making you feel insecure, intimidating you. And so you must have on the helmet of the hope or the confidence that you're really redeemed.

-- ESC (Thunder_Bird_a@email.com), August 15, 2003.

Actually Satan has a double-edged sword which he can use to attack Christians. One edge of the sword is a lie called despair. If he can convince a person that he cannot possibly be saved, then there is a good chance that person may indeed forfeit salvation, by not doing what is necessary to receive salvation. The other edge of the sword is a lie called presumption. If Satan can convince a person that he is already saved, and that nothing can take that salvation away from him, then that person may indeed forfeit salvation, by not doing what is necessary to receive salvation. Both these positions represent extremes, and both of them are faulty. What the Church, and its book, the Bible, teach is that we can be assured that salvation is available to us, but we will receive it only if we continue to hold fast to the truth, to live godly lives, and to repent of our sins until the last moment of our earthly lives. There is no-one on this earth who cannot be saved; and there is no-one on this earth who is already saved.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 15, 2003.

Paul, it is not just a church book. It is thee word of God preserved by the Church.

-- Tryan Guess (noemail@none.com), August 15, 2003.

Dear Tryan,

Not just preserved by the Church, but written, discerned, defined, compiled, defended, published, disseminated, and INTERPRETED by the Church and for the Church, all under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Those who do not belong to the Church are of course free to use the Bible, but they can never use it properly or understand it accurately, for those gifts were given only to the one Church to which God gave the Bible itself, the Church Jesus Christ founded upon the Apostles to serve as the spiritual guide and channel of salvation for all men, the Holy Catholic Church. I don't deny that others can derive some benefit from reading the Bible, but they can never discover the fullness of truth, and will inevitably arrive at a mixture of truth and untruth through personal interpretation. Hence, denominationalism.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 15, 2003.

What a great speach. I am saddaned by the claim that Lincoln never said such a thing. However, who ever said that statement is a great man.

-- Wesley Mcgranor (wesleymcgranor@excite.com), November 11, 2003.

I ALSO WAS RAISED CATHOLIC BUT WHEN I WAS PRESENTED WITH THE BIBLE AND ASKED TO READ IT I DID THAT WAS ABOUT 28 YEARS AGO I HAVE READ IT FAITHFULY EVER SINCE.THE FIRST YEAR I READ IT,I WAS SO CONVICTED,I READ IT THROUGH TWO MORE TIMES THE SAME YEAR FROM GENESIS TO REVELATION AND HAVE BEEN READING IT DAILY EVER SINCE.DO NOT EXCEPT WHAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES YOU SEARCH IT FOR YOURSELF THEN MAKE THE DECISION WHO YOU WILL FOLLOW THE POPE OR JESUS.REMEMBER ON JUDJEMENT DAY THERE WILL NOT BE NO EXCUSES THAT YOU DID NOT KNOW THE TRUTH.JESUS SAID I AM THE WAY THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE NO MAN COMETH UNTO THE FATHER BUT BY ME.REMBER SINNER ON THE CROSS IN PARADICE

-- william santora (willies333@comcast.net), February 16, 2004.

Willam,

You are very confused. Christians worshiped in unity and in truth for 1,500 years before your manmade tradition was founded. ALL Christians before that time followed Jesus Christ AND accepted the guidance of His personal vicar, the Pope, for ALL Christians were Catholic. Following the Pope IS following Jesus Christ, since Jesus Christ personally appointed the first Pope, and told us to follow his guidance. You can find that in your Bible. The Choice you make through personal interpretation of the Bible is not between following Jesus or following the Pope, since these are one and the same. The choice you make is between following Jesus Christ or following Martin Luther, or Henry VIII, or John Knox, or Samuel Seabury, or Robert Brown, or John Wesley, or Theophilus Lindley, or Joseph Smith, or John Smythe, or Michaelis Jones, or William Booth, or Mary Baker Eddy, or any one of thousands of other human founders of unauthorized, manmade, semi-Christian churches. You are trapped in a tradition which is exactly the opposite of that which Jesus described. Jesus said all His followers would be ONE in faith, ONE in worship. Your tradition says that thousands of conflicting, contradicting denominational groups is perfectly acceptable. It isn't. Jesus said the TRUTH would set us free. Obviously, conflicting beliefs cannot represent truth. Truth can exist only in unity. Such unity of doctrinal truth can be found only in the Church Jesus personally founded for all men, the only Church that can trace its roots directly to the Apostles and to Jesus Himself, the Holy Catholic Church.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 16, 2004.

why is it that everytime someone disagrees with your way of thinking, it is they who don't understand what scripture has to say????? Jesus did not name a sucessor to himself, or put any one of the deciples above another. The church by puting a man in the place of christ has gone against scripture. It is not the only time eather!!! The lies of the church, reaches up to the throne of God. The church takes it's own beliefs and put's them on a equal plain with the word of God, and even tho they contadict Gods guidence,are accepted.God warns of such a church in Daniel and Revellation.

-- Dennis a smith (caluyanne@earthlink.net), June 10, 2004.

Dennis- Your beliefs are? At some point, you'll maybe realize that concentrating on what not to believe (Catholicism), really does not lead you to what you should believe. Are you really able to understand the whole bible and decide for yourself the correct interpretation? Have you no unanswered questions? Which authority can you trust? Do you really believe God would leave us with 32000+ different interpretations of his word? Look around, who besides the Pope takes the tough stand on the critical issues of our time?

-- mark a (stillasking@middle.age), June 10, 2004.

I never evn heard this quote form Lincoln...oh wlel...

Now. Paul, not to disagree, but with respect, you are wrong.

You are very confused. Christians worshiped in unity and in truth for 1,500 years before your manmade tradition was founded. ALL Christians before that time followed Jesus Christ AND accepted the guidance of His personal vicar, the Pope, for ALL Christians were Catholic.

This is not true. Not only was their a schism in 1060, but their where always noncahtolic Chrisyains. Such as the Waldenses, among other isolated groups. Luther was no the first to be Christain and not Catholic.

-- ZAROVE (ZARPFF3@JUNO.COM), June 10, 2004.

Zarove,

Yes, I should have been more specific. I didn't mean to suggest that every individual Christian person before Luther acepted the teaching of the Pope. Of course there have always been heresies and heretics. What I should have said is that there was never a Christian church that was not in submission to the Pope, for the first 1,000 years after Christ. I'll accept your correction regarding the schism. It would not be correct to say that Christians worshipped in unity after the schism, even though their doctrine and their worship remained essentially unified until the Protestant Rebellion.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 10, 2004.

Peter was most certainly set ahead of the others. Throughout the gospels, Peter's name appears first on every list of apostle's names, while the others are mixed up somewhat.

Jesus says TO Peter ONLY: "Thou art Kepha (Aramaic for rock), and on this Rock I will build my Church". (MT 16:18-19) "Feed my sheep" (Jn 21:15-17) "Bind & Loose" (MT 18:18) "Key of David" (Isa 22:22)

During the apostolic debate re: Non-kosher foods, Saul advises Peter, and once Peter speaks, the decision has been made. (Acts)

There are other references, but it's late and I'm tired. Suffice to say that it's obvious that Peter is not only mentioned the most of the Apostles, but he recieves very special and specific instructions from Christ Himself. Any argument that Christ is speaking figuratively is an act of willful ignorance: It is written that Christ is speaking TO Peter. If you're a biblical literalist, then you MUST accept that statement.

Secondly, how can anyone logically attack the Catholic Church as anti-biblical, when for 1600 years the original (and replicated) Greek and Aramaic texts have been sitting in the Vatican basements? If the Catholic Church were so afraid of the contents of the scriptures refuting her claims, what the heck is she still doing with them??!??! Especially if she's as evil as some of you claim. Don't you think some monk, somewhere during the last 1600 years, would've said "Hey, let's burn these letters from Paul, or change this passage because it exposes us for a hoax?

Finally, Salvation. We as Catholics are not saved by works of our own. Nor are we saved by faith in Christ alone. We are saved by God's grace alone, which is a combination of Faith, Works, and the Ultimate will of God. We can wash feet and feed homeless all our lives, and professing our faith. But the moment we think we DESERVE heaven, is the moment we condemn our souls to hell. Only God decides who goes, and our acknowledgement of that is the only thing we can do for our part. Faith without works is dead (James), and Christ repeatedly teaches about people who cry out 'lord lord', but He ignores them, because they did not LIVE their faith. We're either Christ's cheerleaders as he carries the cross, or we're the Simons who help shoulder His burden.

For those who attempt to attack the Church, especially ex-catholics (who probably weren't real catholics to begin with), think before you write. Read before you write. And I don't mean the latest Tract or Davinci Code novel. I mean ORIGINAL SOURCES. Commentaries are people's opinions, and living on a diet of other people's opinions will make you look real foolish, real fast. Have any of you ever actually READ the Catechism of the Catholic Church? How about writings of the early church fathers, like Justin Martyr, Orogin, or Augustine? Have you ever listened to the opposing side with an open mind, weighed the facts fairly and without bias before making a decision? If that's what you expect from a court judge, why would you settle for less when dealing with something much more important: your life, your faith, your soul, and your eternal future.

I'm not saying you're going to hell by not being Catholic either. No-one has the authority on earth to do as such. However, you do owe it to yourself, and to God, to do a little more research before attacking fellow Christians, don't you think?

FIAT VOLUNTAS TUA

-- Clayton Morrell (c_morrel@hotmail.com), June 24, 2004.

The irony of this whole conversation is that the person who is not attacking anyone and being charitable is Paul...it looks like this conversation has been going on for some time. Paul has answered all of you with charity. I agree with Paul, but am disturbed by the Protestants being so angry. I guess that stems from the word "PROTESTants" Why are you angry? Seek the Truth and the Truth will set you free. I am a revert to the Catholic faith, I left for awhile went to every different denomination practically except Mormon, and Jehovah W. and was was set free when I came home to the Catholic Church, each of those churches had some truths but none of them had the fullness of the Truth. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, and I believe Jesus is speaking of the Church he founded, the Catholic Church. No where in the Bible does it state "sola scriptura". Jesus never said that he would found a church on the Bible, He said upon this Rock (Kephas) Peter I will build my Church. It is not what I say or you say that matters, it is what is the Truth? What did Jesus say and do before his death. He prepared the apostles to carry on his work and the Church.

-- R Schneider (navysandog@comcast.net), October 09, 2004.

I woidl be more content if dialouge and cooperation replaced the resetnment and fingerpointing on either side of the protestant- Catholic debate, that way we coidl actually manage civil talks and actually begin to work togather for the things that matter in this world, but oh well...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 09, 2004.

Not all PROTESTants are angry R. Schneider. You say "Truth"..what then is "Truth". The truth of what you speak of is in the text...read the passage in it`s entirety and then you will see the "Truth" verse 13 Jesus said,"Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" then you have the following "And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus answered Peter with, "Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Now if you look at verse 13 what did Jesus ask not just Peter but the disciples..."Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" They the disciples responded with "Mat 16:14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets." Jesus then asked, "Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?" Notice the word "them"

Then Peter before anyone answered said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.." verse 16, Jesus then said..."for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." Jesus said "Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Now the point here is not that Jesus made Peter the Pope, Peter`s name little rock or stone, is like this, your name is little stone but, what you have just said about Jesus being the "Son of the Living God", now that is the Rock, that is the foundation upon I will build my Church. The fact that Jesus is the Son of the Living God and that the gates of hell shall never prevail against it, He rose from the dead, death being the sword and Satan`s greatest weapon upon all on this earth, Jesus was victorious and rose in the third day from the grave, thus stamping that event for all time that He is the one and only Lamb of God. Upon this Rock He is building His Church, the fact that He is the Son of The Living God. Peter is not or ever was the first pope, if you remember your history the Emperor Constantine was the first self appointed Pope of Rome, and it is from that point in history that the Pope has it`s beginning. All who are born again spiritually are all saints, through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Protestants are not angry we are saddened to see others who are so close to knowing God in a real way, yet so far away. As far as Mr. Lincoln`s quote, I believe it to be true.

ESC Texas Republic

-- ESC Texas Republic (Thunder_Bird_a@email.com), October 31, 2004.

we had the Peter argument before, and on this thread where it is not needed, it will serve only as a mean of dovision, so if you will please, save it for a different thread? Or Ask Jesus Board?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 31, 2004.

ESC,

Your post reveals ignorance of both Scripture and history - two prerequisites for practicing Protestantism.

You say "the truth of what you speak of is in the text". Yes, that is correct - the truth is indeed in the text. But what Protestants fail to recognize is that the only possible means of getting the truth OUT of the text is authoritative interpretation. The doctrinal chaos of denomination religion clearly confirms this fact.

Yes, Jesus addressed the question to "them". But "they" did not have the answer, except for one man, the Apostle Simon. You don't seem to realize that his name was Simon, not "Peter". He was never addressed as "Peter", that is "Rock", until that very moment. Jesus wanted to say something about the foundation of His Church, but before He did so He took the time to tell Simon that he is Now "Rock"; then, in the same sentence, He proclaims that He will build upon the Rock He identified earlier in that sentence. Nothing could be clearer to those who read the Scriptures under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; or for that matter even with a sense of basic logic. There would be absolutely no reason to change Simon's name to "Rock" in the beginning of the sentence if Simon was not the "Rock" referred to later in the same sentence. You stretch Scripture to the breaking point, in your desperate efforts to support your manmade traditions.

Constantine was not a Pope, and in fact never held any official position in the Church. He was simply the emperor. There were 26 Popes before Constantine was BORN - Saint Peter and his first 25 successors. There were 9 more Popes during Constantine's lifetime, and he was not one of them. That line of succession continues to the present day, the current Pope being the 264'th successor of Peter. This is fully documented historically for anyone interested in overcoming ignorance and learning the truth. Posting absurdities such as you posted above just makes Protestants look ignorant, though many of them are far more knowledgeable than you apparently are.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 31, 2004.

That`s right Paul....That`s exactly what the Pharisees and the Scribes used to down Jesus also, those exact words. And who was right in the end. Until then...

-- ESC (Thunder_Bird_a@email.com), December 03, 2004.