Sunday, May 20, 2018

The Ten Planks of the Communist Party

By the Jewish Journalist "Mordechai Levi," via the nom de plume of "Karl Marx"

In the early 1960's during the days of the "former" Soviet Union, Russian Premier Nikita Kruschev pounded his shoe on the podium of the United Nations and shouted to the West, "We will bury you!" Fearing an invasion from the Reds, America proceeded to build the most awesome military machine in history. Unfortunately, we forgot to guard our political homefront from being taken over by socialist - communist - liberal activists who would gain office and destroy American law by process of gradually installing the Communist agenda within our legal system and separate branches of government.

The Communist program from the start has been one which sees their revolution of 1917 successful only upon total domination of the world. (See Brain Washing, A Synthesis of the Russian Textbook on Psycho-politics) Americans, being the most naive people among the nations, now believe that Communism is dead because the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain have been removed. The ironic truth is that Communism has just switched names to become more "politically correct".

Today it is called international democracy. The reason that the Berlin Wall came crashing down is not because Communism is dead but because they have achieved the planned agenda to communize the West, including America. Washington D.C. has indeed become part of the New World Order of atheist governments. With the last vestiges of Christian law having been removed from "American government" over the last twenty years, there is no longer a threat of resistance against world Communism. In reality, "American government" became part of the Iron Curtain, thus there was no more need for the likes of a Berlin Wall.

Once again, in their foolishness, the American public has believed the lies of their "leaders" who applaud "the fall of Communism", while they have sold out the country to anti-Christian, anti-American statutes and regulations on the federal, state, and local levels. Posted below is a comparison of the original ten planks of the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in 1848, along with the American adopted counterpart of each of the planks. The American people have truly been "buried in Communism" by their own politicians of both the Republican and Democratic parties.

One other thing to remember: Karl Marx was stating in the Communist Manifesto that these planks will test whether a country has become communist or not. If they are all in effect and in force the country IS communist. Communism, but by any other name...??

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

We call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

We call in government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

We call it the Federal Reserve which is a credit/debt system nationally organized by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State.

We call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) madated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

We call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture. As well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Evironmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

We call it the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920s, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

We call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136.

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

People are being taxed to support what we call "public" schools, which train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education". Click here to learn how it all came about and here to see if YOU are a practicing Communist.

Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto
Karl Marx describes in his communist manifesto, the ten steps necessary to destroy a free enterprise system and replace it with a system of omnipotent government power, so as to effect a communist socialist state. Following are the original ten planks within the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in 1848, followed by a discussion of how America has adopted each of the planks.

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.

The courts have interpreted the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868) to give the government far more "eminent domain" power than was originally intended. Under the rubric of "eminent domain" and various zoning regulations, land use regulations by the Bureau of Land Management property taxes, and "environmental" excuses, private property rights have become very diluted. As a result, private property in lands, vehicles, and other forms are seized almost every day in this country under the "forfeiture" provisions of the RICO statutes and the so-called War on Drugs. Private owners of property are required to get permission from government relative to the use of their property.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

The 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913 (which some scholars maintain was never properly ratified), the Social Security Act of 1936, Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933, and various State income taxes established this major Marxist coup in the United States many decades ago. These taxes continue to drain the lifeblood out of the American economy and greatly reduce the accumulation of desperately needed capital for future growth, business starts, job creation, and salary increases.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Another Marxist attack on private property rights is in the form of Federal & State estate taxes and other inheritance taxes, which have abolished or at least greatly diluted the right of private property owners to determine the disposition and distribution of their estates upon their death.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

We call it government seizures, tax liens, "forfeiture" Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

The Federal Reserve System, created by the Federal Reserve Act of Congress in 1913, is indeed such a "national bank" and it politically manipulates interest rates and holds a monopoly on legal counterfeiting in the United States. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) another privately-owned corporation. The Federal Reserve Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice economically destructive fractional reserve banking. This is exactly what Marx had in mind and completely fulfills this plank.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State.

In the U.S., communication and transportation are controlled and regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established by the Communications Act of 1934 and the Department of Transportation and the Interstate Commerce Commission (established by Congress in 1887), and the Federal Aviation Administration as well as Executive orders 11490, 10999 -- not to mention various state bureaucracies and regulations including State mandated driver's licenses. Federal Highway Act of 1916 made federal funds available to States for highway construction), the Interstate Highway System, 1944 (funding began 1956); Interstate Commerce Commission given authority by Congress to regulate trucking and carriers on inland waterways, 1935-40. There is also the federal postal monopoly, AMTRAK and CONRAIL -- outright socialist (government-owned) enterprises. Instead of free-market private enterprise in these important industries, these fields in America are semi-cartels through the governments regulatory-industrial complex.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

We call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture. As well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations. The Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933 provided that farmers will receive government aid if and only if they relinquish control of farming activities.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

We call it the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor and it's seen in Minimum Wage and slave labor like dealing with our Most Favored Nation trade partner; i.e. Communist China. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000. And I almost forgot...The Equal Rights Amendment means that women should do all work that men do including the military and since passage it would make women subject to the draft.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

We call it the Planning Reorganization Act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136. Food processing companies, with the co-operation of the Farmers Home Administration foreclosures, are buying up farms and creating "conglomerates."

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

Americans are being taxed to support what we call 'public' schools, but are actually "government force-tax-funded schools " Even private schools are government regulated. The purpose is to train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education". The federal influence of education is evident in "head-start" programs, school lunch programs, textbooks, and library books. Our children are being indoctrinated and inculcated with the government propaganda, like "majority rules", and "pay your fair share". WHERE are the words "fair share" in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26)?? NO WHERE is "fair share" even suggested !! The philosophical concept of "fair share" comes from the Communist maxim, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need! This concept is pure socialism. END



Martin Luther King's Communist Connections
"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." —2nd Peter 2:1

Martin Luther King was a Communist!

Some people claim that Martin Luther King Jr. was not a Communist, even though he did everything possible to promote the Communist's agenda.  That's like saying that Hitler was not a murderer because he didn't actually do the killing.  Martin Luther King Jr. was a Communist!  Martin Luther King was affiliated with 60 Communist Fronts.  He openly incited violence under the banner of "nonviolence."  King led a bizarre sex life which included acts of shocking perversion.  On Jan. 31, 1977 Coretta Scott King obtained a federal court order sealing for 50 years 845 pages of FBI records about her husband, "because its release would destroy his reputation!"  Still a cowardly, spineless Congress voted to make King's birthday a national holiday.  This is should be an outrage to all Christians.  The King Holiday act must be repealed!

The life story of Martin Luther King is shocking and disgraceful from beginning to end. He was born with the name Michael King on Jan. 15, 1929. In 1935 his preacher father, "Daddy" King, decided to name himself after the great Protestant reformer Martin Luther. He announced to his congregation that henceforth he was to be called Martin Luther King and his son Martin Luther King, Jr. "Daddy" King never bothered to have this act legalized in court. Thus, his son's real name is Michael King! The holiday should actually be called "Michael" King Day!

It was not some "right-winger" who had King's office and hotel rooms bugged. This order was signed by then U.S. Attorney General Bobby Kennedy on Oct. 10, 1963. Evidence proved that King was under the direct orders of Soviet spies and financed by the Communist Party. The Kennedy tapings continued for 5 years and also developed shocking revelations regarding King's sexual practices.

African American, Bayard Rustin is a former organizer for the Young Communist League. He spent 60 days in a California jail on a 1953 conviction for performing lewd homosexual acts in public. He also served 28 months in prison for draft evasion. Today Rustin is paid by Jewish organizations for use of his name as a "signer" of ads urging "Black-Jewish Unity." He was King's secretary and advisor from 1956 to 1960. During this period Rustin attended the National Convention of the Communist Party in 1957 as an "honored observer." King called him a "a brilliant, efficient, and dedicated organizer." It was Rustin who introduced King to a Soviet spy named Stanley D. Levison. He was a New York Lawyer and vice-president of the N.Y. Council of the American Jewish Congress. Levison's job was to launder the $1million subsidy Soviet Russia gave to finance the U.S. Communist Party. Levison proved important financial, organizational and public relations services for King. After King's death his wife, Coretta Scott King described Levison's role as, "always working in the background, his contribution has been indispensable." Levison wrote an obituary for King and described America as a "nation tenaciously racist... sick with violence...and corrosive with alienation. The civil rights liberation struggle is the most positive and rewarding area of work anyone could experience."
The money which the Soviet Union funneled to Levison came from a Jew named Isidore G. Needleman.  He was a KGB secret police agent who fronted as an officer of AMTORG, the trading company in New York City which buys U.S. goods for shipment to Russia.  There are so many Jews in the Communist Party the FBI hired two Jewish brothers, Morris Childs and Jack Childs as spies planned inside the Communist Party.  For 30 years, Morris Childs was formerly a member of the National Committee of the Communist party and once served as editor of the Daily Worker.  Childs reported that after the death of the Jew William Weiner, who was treasurer of the Communist Party, it was Stanley Levison who took over this vital post.

His [Martin Luther King Jr.'s] closest advisor Stanley Levison was a Communist, as was his assistant Jack O’Dell. Robert and later John F. Kennedy repeatedly warned him to stop associating himself with such subversives, but he never did. He frequently spoke before Communist front groups such as the National Lawyers Guild and Lawyers for Democratic Action. King even attended seminars at The Highlander Folk School, another Communist front, which taught Communist tactics, which he later employed.

In 1945 the International Labor Defense and the National Federation for Constitutional Liberties merged with the Marxist inspired National Negro Congress to form the Civil Rights Congress (CRC). The CRC was led by an open black Communist lawyer by the name of William L. Patterson who defended minority hoodlums and left wing radicals.  King knew, respected, and worked with Communists including members of the Communist Party USA. He was an admirer of Ben Davis, a fellow native of Atlanta who was elected "the first Communist Councilman from Harlem." He certainly admired William L. Patterson, a Communist leader nicknamed "Mr. Civil Rights."

King Pictured With Three Top Reds

The photo above of King is extremely important as it identifies King with Carl and Ann Branden. They are lifelong Communist Party activists out of Louisville, Kentucky.  Both were leaders in SCEF, Carl Branden was convicted of criminal sedition in 1954. He and his wife purchased a home for blacks in a white neighborhood to incite racial violence.  Later they were charged with bombing the same house to win sympathy for their cause and to raise money.  Ann Braden today is a founder of the Atlanta based "Center for Democratic Renewal" which smears Conservative patriots.
Below is a Photostat of an SCEF (Southern Conference Education Fund) check to King signed by Dombrowski and Benjamin Smith, who was a registered Foreign Agent for Fidel Castro.

Photo of King at Communist Party Training School

On this page to the right is a photo taken Sept. 2, 1957 of King attending the Highlander Folk School which the Communist Party operated at Monteagle, Tennessee Identified in the picture is No. 1 King, No. 2, Abner Berry, member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party and writer for the "Daily Worker," No. 3, Aubrey Williams, Communist Party agent and president of the Southern Conference Educational Fund (SCEF) a red front organizing blacks in southern states. No. 4, Miles Horton, head of the Highlander Folk School King was listed on the schools' letterhead as a "sponsor."   The Highlander school was financed by the Julius Rosenwald Fund. At one time Rosenwald headed Sears Roebuck Co. He spent $22 million financing civil rights groups. His daughter Edith Stern continued to give money to the SCEF and Highlander Folk School after her father's death. Her husband, Alfred stern of New Orleans, fled to Russia just before he was to be arrested on spy charges.

Communists Promoted King
A number of communists who left the party have reported they were ordered to do all within their power to support King's activities.  A black woman, Julia Brown, was a Communist in Cleveland for nine years.  She said"
"We were told to promote King, to unite Negroes and Whites behind him, and to turn him into a sort of national hero . We were to look to King as the leader in this struggle, the Communists said, because he was on our side. While in the party I learned that King attended a communist training school, that several of his aides were communists and that he received funds from Communists and took directions from them. He was one of their biggest heroes."
The U. S. Congressional Record of March 30, 1965 quotes Karl Prussian, an FBI counterspy inside the Communist Party as swearing: "At all of these (Communist Party) meetings Rev. Martin Luther King was always set forth as the individual to whom Communists should rally around... King has either been a member of, or willingly accepted support from over 60 Communist fronts... King accepted support from communist fronts , individuals and organizations which espouse communist causes."

August 12, 1993
Dear Editor, 
Salt Lake City council's announcement that they are renaming the main boulevard, 600 South, after Martin Luther King (Daily Herald, 8/11/93, p. B-3) is yet one more example of the dangerous trend to make a hero out of one of America's most vociferous traitors.
I am not expressing opinion; but fact; based on documented evidence that Martin Luther King was vigorously promoted by the Soviet-financed CPUSA (Communist Party of the USA) in order to foment a violent polarization of Americans along racial lines (divide and conquer). The subsequent raising of Martin Luther to ever more elevated hero status is only a follow-up of that initial motive. (I do not intend to address the lie that Communism is "dead," other than to merely note that this particular case is yet one more evidence that the subversion of our beloved country is ongoing and alarmingly successful.)
Here is a sample of the documented evidence of which I speak. I am referring to an essay by Evans-Raymond Pierre, a native black of New York City who earned a degree in political science and history at the University of Vermont. In it he quotes from a member (FBI plant) of the CPUSA who testified before a Senate Judiciary Committee in 1979 that "the [communist] cells that I was associated with in Cleveland were continually being asked to raise money for Martin Luther King's activities and to support his movement.... While I was in the Communist Party, as a loyal American Negro, I knew Martin Luther King to be closely connected with the Communist Party...."
Another example of M.L. King's Communist support and ties documented by Pierre was his close association with Stanley David Levison, who "assisted King in organization matters and political strategy, wrote some of his speeches, and advised in hiring personnel to staff King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference." At the time, Levison was "knowingly being used as a conduit for the Soviet funds" to the CPUSA, and also "assisted in managing the secret party coffers."
'Yet one more example of calling evil, good. Let's see if we can't convince the city council to reverse this decision.
Anyone desiring to peruse further evidence of M.L. King's close connections with the CPUSA is invited to request free (if you order within a month) reprints of Pierre's essay from The New American, P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54913. (January 13, 1986.)
Sterling D. Allan, Fountain Green, UT
and Brian Gibson, Provo, Utah
Martin Luther King Jr. was a sinister minister, a Satan-inspired imposter... NOT A CHRISTIAN!

Listen on MP3 to Pastor James Knox expose Martin Luther King, Jr. for the unsaved heathen man he really was.  FBI files are sealed on King until 2027, Why?  Brother Knox DOCUMENTS everything.  You can't argue with facts! — Scary Communist conspiracy details.

Martin Luther King Jr. EXPOSED! (much more on King's Communist activities
                                             MLK :Saint or Beast? 

Saturday, May 19, 2018


Coretta Scott King: NO HERO!
Foolishly links Gay Rights and African-American Civil Rights
 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” —Leviticus 20:13
Mrs. King was an Outspoken Supporter of homosexuals!

Coretta Scott King (1927-2006) said at the 25th Anniversary Luncheon for the LAMBDA Legal Defense and Education Fund...
For many years now, I have been an outspoken supporter of civil and human rights for gay and lesbian people.” (Chicago Tribune, April 1, 1998, sec.2, p.4).
Coretta Scott King, speaking four days before the 30th anniversary of her husband's assassination, said that the civil rights leader's memory demanded a strong stand for gay and lesbian rights...
“I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother, and sisterhood, for lesbian and gay people. (Reuters, March 31, 1998).
Speaking before nearly 600 people at the Palmer House Hilton Hotel, Coretta Scott King called on the civil rights community to join in the struggle against homophobia and anti-gay bias . . .
“Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood," King stated. "This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group." (Chicago Defender, April 1, 1998, front page).
According to the above statement, Coretta Scott King is calling God a “bigot”! She accuses Bible-believing, Christ-honoring Christians of “dehumanizing” homosexuals. I have news for you, Romans 1:26-32 condemns homosexuals. God says that homosexuality is “against nature” (Romans 1:26). God even calls them, “haters of God” (Romans 1:30). It is abundantly clear that neither Martin Luther King Jr. nor his wife had any concern for the holy Word of God. I say this with great sadness, because both King and his wife went to Hell in their unbelief. There is no evidence that either one of them truly ever became born-again by faith alone in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Martin Luther King Jr. openly denied Jesus' virgin birth, deity and bodily resurrection in his writings, making it impossible for him to be a Christian if he held to such unbelief until his death.
Please understand that I don't condemn anyone, for the Bible condemns all of us as guilty, dirty, rotten, hell-deserving sinners. I am a big sinner, just like anybody else. My salvation solely rests in God's righteousness, because of the precious blood that He gave for my sins (Philippians 3:9). My intention is not to be unkind; but rather, to expose the Homosexual Agenda which Coretta Scott King sinfully supported. Gay is not OK! God hates all sins, including homosexuality. Since the sinful world is promoting homosexuality more than other sins in America today, preachers need to address the issue more from the pulpit. Tragically, all across America religious institutions like Baylor Baptist University and the American Baptist Convention are selling their souls to Satan by bowing their knee to Baal, embracing the homosexual agenda (LGBT rights).

Martin Luther King Jr.'s Works Were of the Devil
Few people realize that Martin Luther King Jr. was involved in at least 60 Communist fronts. Please read, Martin Luther EXPOSED! Also, Saint or Beast?  And, Martin Luther King denies Jesus Christ! (in this article King denies the Sonship of Christ and Jesus' virgin birth, providing human reasoning to explain away the Word of God).
I realize that such articles are shocking to the average American who has been BRAINWASHED by the public school system. What do you expect? The public school system itself is the fulfillment of the 10th plank of Karl Marx's COMMUNIST MANIFESTO! America has become a Communist country because MOST of the American people have become extremely complacent and indifferent about everything. Who would have imagined 100 years ago that God-hating homosexuals would be honored one day as outstanding citizens in America. Now the homosexuals are even trying to REDEFINE God and His Word (Romans 1:25), by claiming that the Biblical account of God's judgment upon the sexually deviate (Jude 1:7) inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah is only a legend or fable. The homosexuals have even come out with their own corrupted Bible which removes all condemnations upon homosexuality.

Homosexual Rights verses African-American Civil Rights
Coretta Scott King, wife of the late Martin Luther King Jr., diligently promoted “rights” for homosexuals, in spite of the Bible's condemnation upon such wickedness (Leviticus 20:13). Coretta even went as far as to link homosexual (gay)-rights with African-American civil rights; but there is a world of difference. A world of difference! No one has a “right” to be immoral. The problem is that when man rejects the Holy Bible and chooses to decide for himself what is good and evil, moral standards keep changing because men keep changing. This is why America is waxing worse-and-worse, allowing Hollywood to dictate our nation's moral code instead of the UNCHANGING WORDS OF GOD!!!

Homosexuality is an entirely different matter! Why? Because it is CONDEMNED in the Bible. When civil rights activists were fighting relentlessly to free African-American slaves from the bondage of cruel enslavement, they weren't fighting against the Word of God. Even Christ Himself said He came to give us freedom, "If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed" (John 8:36). But Jesus NEVER would have fought for the "rights" of homosexuals, because Leviticus 20:13 clearly proclaims the death penalty upon them. For that matter, Romans 6:23 sentences all humanity to death because of sin. It's not just about homosexuality, but sin in general. Homosexuality is a horrible sin which brings the judgments of God, as do all sins (Romans 1:32). 
Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed as an EXAMPLE of what would happen to those who commit homosexuality and rebel against the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Jude 1:7). John 3:20 teaches that it is sin which keeps men from coming to the Light (Christ and His Word, John 14:6, 17:17). There is NO way that Jesus or the Apostles would have embraced homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle! 
Yet, Satan is such a powerful deceiver that even many of today's churches are becoming gay-friendly!!! This is a result of Christians not studying and standing upon the Word of God (Ephesians 6:11). Tragically, many professed "Christians" are NO Christians at all. According to 2nd Thessalonians 2:10, those who refuse to LOVE THE TRUTH, will be deceived by Satan.

Homosexuality Harms Children!
NAMBLA are a siI believe in rights too, but NOT for homosexuals to promote their filth. No child should ever be taught that it's “normal” for two men or two women to have sex. It is sickening! The demonic feminist movement has generated millions of lesbians all across America! Feminism! Lesbianism! Abortion! Homosexuality! Demonic Rock-n-Roll music! Adulterous Country music! Legal prostitution! Drug abuse! Alcoholism! Gambling! Pornography! Divorce! Child abuse! How much more of this debauchery will God tolerate? The Family Research Institute provides statistics on the evils of homosexuality. Their website is being systematically banned because they tell the truth about homosexuality.  Please read Violence and Homosexuality
Homosexuality is almost as evil as it gets. The infamous Cheshire, Connecticut, rape and murders of a mother (Jennifer Hawke-Petit) and her two young daughters (Michaela, 11 and Hayley, 17) in 2007, were committed by two thug assailants who both later confessed to authorities of having been sexually abused by homosexuals as youth. Don't you dare tell me that homosexuality is harmless. Evil begets more evil. All homosexuals have pederast (desiring young boys) tendencies. That's why NAMBLA exists (North American Man-Boy Love Association), who are trying to lower the age of consent so that they can sodomize America's sons. Jeffrey Dahmer (16 murders) was a homosexual deviant, as was John Wayne Gacy (33 murders). All 49 known victims were boys and young men.
Parents, teach your children the signs of homosexual behavior and how to protect themselves if lured. I admire Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has signed laws protecting Russia's children from homosexual propaganda and has banned the adoption of children by queers! Amen for that!!! Where's Anita Bryant when we need her more than ever in 2015?
Comparing “civil rights” to “gay rights” is like comparing apples with oranges! The big difference is that everything about homosexuality is IMMORAL, UNNATURAL, and a THREAT to society. The fact that two like sexes CANNOT reproduce is solid evidence that homosexuality is VERY abnormal. No one is born gay, because God doesn't make mistakes. The FACT that two men, or two women, CANNOT bring forth a natural child is irrefutable evidence against them. The very idea of such reprobates of society adopting children is unthinkable. How is a growing child supposed to develop properly when they are missing either a father or a mother?
I would also like to point out a FACT that is purposely avoided by the Godless newsmedia. The Catholic church has been PLAGUED with child-molesting priests; BUT, what the media won't stress is that most of the offenders are homosexuals too! Homosexuality and pedophile are virtually INSEPARABLE! Regardless of what the American Psychiatric Institute or other “experts” may claim, the daily news reports that we keep hearing about are self-evident PROOF!

The Homosexual Agenda is Anti-God, Anti-Bible and Anti-Family!
Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to promote their demonic filth and Godless lifestyle to the children of America in the public school system. It is not surprising that the same wicked school system that allows the fable of evolution to be taught, while refusing to allow the Biblical account of creation, would also promote homosexuality and every other form of wickedness. The public school system in America is straight out of the pits of Hell.
I agree 100% with Concerned Women for America (CWA) who state...
"To compare rich, privileged homosexual lobby groups allied with transsexuals and sadomasochists to brave civil rights crusaders — who risked their lives to advance freedom — insults every black American who overcame real injustice and poverty, said CWA President Sandy Rios. Miss Rios goes on to say, "It’s time for the homosexual lobby to stop co-opting the black civil rights struggle. The [National Gay and Lesbian] Task Force’s agenda of promoting perversion — including public homosexual sex, sadomasochism and bisexuality — would offend the vast majority of African-Americans who understand the difference between God-designed racial distinctions and changeable, immoral behavior.” CWA press release, 9/9/02
Coretta told 600 people at the Palmer House Hilton, days before the 30th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination on April 4, 1968...
"I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy."  She said the civil rights movement, "thrives on unity and inclusion, not division and exclusion." (Chicago Sun Times, April 1, 1998, p.18.)
Homophobic attitudes? Martin Luther King Jr. and his wife were two of the biggest imposters of the 20th century. They may have had religion, but they did NOT have Jesus Christ. This is evidenced by their own words. Just as Coretta speaks lies concerning homosexuality, Martin Luther was a heretic who denied Christ's Sonship and the virgin birth. Martin and Coretta were opportunists! The Bible says that the world hates Jesus because He testifies against it's evil works. John 7:7, “The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.” Romans 1:24-32 plainly condemns homosexuality as “vile” behavior that brings the judgment of God.
Homosexuality is a wicked sin, and NO professed Christian should ever support the rights of those who want to teach that it's ok to sin. It's not! Children's minds are being brainwashed in public schools across America that it's ok to spit in God's face by committing the vile sin of homosexuality. Teens are now being taught “fist sex.” You call this freedom Miss King? Freedom for who? Where does God fit into this picture? Or does He? Clearly, this is a battle of the homosexuals against God, and God's children (born again believers).
HOMOSEXUALITY IS ABNORMAL AND AGAINST NATURE - When you sit down and really think about homosexuality, it would be a laughable matter if it were not so serious. The thought of two men sodomizing each other in the name of “love” is gross, sickening and highly offensive. It is lust. Although it is possible for two men or two women to sincerely love each other, homosexual desires are animalistic in nature. Something clearly seen amongst homosexuals is that one partner always assumes the male role (domination) and the other assumes a female role (submission). The male homosexual role for a woman is known as a “dyke.” The female homosexual role for a man is known as “effeminate.” The existence of dyke lesbians and effeminate homosexuals proves that something is very unnatural, barbaric and wrong with homosexual behavior. God created the human body and the institution of marriage to be between one man and one woman. The fact that two men cannot cohabit without one assuming a female role is overwhelming proof that something is abnormal and biologically wrong about homosexuality. A dominant homosexual desires female qualities in the other male homosexual. Likewise, a submissive lesbian desires dominant male qualities in her dyke lover. Natural will not allow them to reproduce (have children), thank God. Homosexuality is the lowest point that any society can descend to, which without rule of law is guaranteed to result in pedophilia, bestiality and gangbanging rapes as in Genesis 19:1-11. Christians will be targeted. Even now, the hatred against Bible-believing, so-called “homophobic and bigoted” Christians is growing across America.
At the Opening Plenary Session, 13th annual Creating Change conference of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Atlanta, Georgia, November 9, 2000--King said...
"Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination."
"We have to launch a national campaign against homophobia in the black community," said Coretta Scott King, widow of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., the slain civil rights leader. -(Reuters, June 8, 2001).
NO ONE, has a fundamental "right" to commit sin. God gives us the freedom; but not the right. Acts 17:30, "God... commandeth all men every where to repent." God may give us the freedom to sin, but we will give account for doing so. God has created mankind as a free agent, able to decide for himself what to do; yet, God has commanded all men to repent and come to Christ for salvation (John 3:3; Acts 4:12). For those who reject Christ, Hell will be their eternal destiny (2nd Thessalonians 1:8; revelation 20:15). Each individual makes their own choice.
Coretta Scott King, quoting her husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. said,
I have worked too long and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral concern." Coretta Scott King, remarks, press conference on the introduction of ENDA, Washington, DC, June 23, 1994.
Martin Luther King, in his own words, stated that unity was more important than morals. The Bible teaches that it's better to be divided by truth, than to be united by error (2nd Corinthians 6:14-17). Jesus said that He came to separate families (Matthew 10:35), fully realizing that the Truth of God's Word often SEPARATES families, friends, churches, cities, and even nations. The truth often makes people angry (Galatians 4:16). The Truth which many people don't want to hear today is the Biblical Truth that homosexuality is a sin. God has given mankind the freedom to choose God or Satan. 
Homosexuality is the road to Hell. Those who promote homosexuality, and promote rights for people to commit such wickedness, are in league with Satan! Committing sin is NOT a fundamental human “right.” For anyone, like Coretta Scott King, to honor and praise homosexuals is an abomination unto God! Homosexuals should be ashamed of what they are doing; homosexuality is abnormal, ungodly, and destructive to the moral character of any nation. Coretta Scott King is NO HERO, she was a wicked person and the enemy of God (James 4:4).
 “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the ENEMY OF GOD.” —James 4:4
Civil rights is one thing, sinful rights is another.

The Real History of the evil Roman Catholic Church

The Roman Catholic Teaching on Salvation and Justification
by William Webster
       Roman Catholic theology does not embrace the interpretation of salvation and justification as that presented by Scripture and the Protestant Reformers. The Roman Church does teach that we are justified by grace through faith on account of Christ. What is missing, however, is the word alone. By omitting this word the Roman Church redefines grace, faith and justification in a way that undermines and invalidates the teaching of Scripture. This will become clear as we examine the specific definitions given these terms by the official Magisterium of the Church of Rome.

The Roman View of the Work of Christ
Rome says that Christ made an atonement for sin, meriting the grace by which a person is justified but that the work of Christ is not the exclusive cause of an individual’s justification and salvation. Ludwig Ott makes this statement:
Christ’s redemptive activity finds its apogee in the death of sacrifice on the cross. On this account it is by excellence but not exclusively the efficient cause of our redemption....No one can be just to whom the merits of Christ’s passion have not been communicated. It is a fundamental doctrine of St. Paul that salvation can be acquired only by the grace merited by Christ (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 185, 190).
According to the Church of Rome, Christ did not accomplish a full, finished and completed salvation in his work of atonement. His death on the cross did not deal with the full penalty of man's sin. It merited grace for man which is then channeled to the individual through the Roman Catholic Church and its sacraments. This grace then enables man to do works of righteousness in order to merit justification and eternal life. Robert Sungenis expresses the Roman Catholic perspective in these words:
What did Christ's suffering and death actually accomplish that allowed the Father to provide the human race with salvation? Did Christ take within himself the sin and guilt of mankind and suffer the specific punishment for that sin and guilt, as Protestants contend? The answer is no...Christ did not take upon himself the entire punishment required of man for sin. Rather, Scripture teaches only that Christ became a 'propitiation,' a 'sin offering,' or a 'sacrifice' for sins...Essentially, this means that Christ, because he was guiltless, sin-free and in favor with God, could offer himself up as a means of persuading God to relent of his angry wrath against the sins of mankind. Sin destroys God's creation. God, who is a passionate and sensitive being, is angry against man for harming the creation. Anger against sin shows the personal side of God, for sin is a personal offense against him. We must not picture God as an unemotional courtroom judge who is personally unharmed by the sin of the offender brought before him. God is personally offended by sin and thus he needs to be personally appeased in order to offer a personal forgiveness. In keeping with his divine principles, his personal nature, and the magnitude of the sins of man, the only thing that God would allow to appease him was the suffering and death of the sinless representative of mankind, namely, Christ (Robert Sungenis, Not By Faith Alone (Santa Barbara: Queenship, 1997), pp. 107-108).
What Sungenis is saying is that Christ's death merely appeased God's anger against man. He persuades God to relent of his anger and to offer a means of forgiveness to man. And that means is through man's own works cooperating with the grace of God. Grace is not the activity of God in Christ purchasing and accomplishing full salvation and eternal life and applying this to man as a gift. And it is not a completed work. Rather, grace is a supernatural quality, infused into the soul of man through the sacraments, enabling him to do works of expiation and righteousness. These works then become the basis of justification. In the Roman theology of justification there is an ongoing need to deal with sin in order to maintain a state of grace, and a need for positive acts of righteousness, which originate from that grace and then become the basis for one’s justification. So man’s works must be added to the work of Christ, in particular, the work of the sacraments. Consequently, justification is not a once–for–all declaration of righteousness based upon the imputed righteousness of Christ, but a process that is dependent upon the righteousness of man produced through infused grace.

The Sacraments
In Roman Catholic teaching there is no salvation apart from participation in the sacraments mediated through its priesthood. The Roman Church teaches that she is the mediator between Christ and the individual. Saving grace is mediated through these sacraments. John Hardon, author of The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism (which carries the official authorization of the Vatican) says this:
Why did Christ establish the Church?
Christ established the Church as the universal sacrament of salvation.

How is the Church the universal sacrament of salvation?
The Church is the universal sacrament of salvation as the divinely instituted means of conferring grace on all the members of the human family.

What does the Catholic Church believe about the forgiveness of sins?
She believes it is God’s will that no one is forgiven except through the merits of Jesus Christ and that these merits are uniquely channeled through the Church He founded. Consequently, even as the Church is the universal sacrament of salvation, she is also the universal sacrament of reconciliation.

How does the Church communicate the merits of Christ’s mercy to sinners?
The Church communicates the merits of Christ’s mercy to sinners through the Mass and the sacraments and all the prayers and good works of the faithful.

Are the sacraments necessary for salvation?
According to the way God has willed that we be saved the sacraments are necessary for salvation

(John Hardon, The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism (Garden City: Image, 1981), Questions # 401, 402, 461, 462, 1119).
These words clearly express the official position of the Church of Rome. There is no salvation apart from participation in the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church. There is no other means of obtaining saving grace. Hardon’s words echo the teaching of the Council of Trent:
If any one saith that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation...and that without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain from God, through faith alone, the grace of justification...let him be anathema (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Found in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1919), Canon IV, p. 119).
According to Rome, there are three main sacraments necessary for justification and ultimate salvation. These sacraments supposedly communicate grace to an individual and help to maintain him in a state of sanctifying grace. They are baptism, penance, and the eucharist/mass. Through baptism, an individual is brought into a state of regeneration and sanctifying grace. The guilt and punishment for original sin and for all sins committed up to the point of baptism are forgiven in the sacrament of baptism. However, sins committed after baptism must be dealt with through the sacraments of penance and the mass. This is especially true for mortal sin which is said to kill the spiritual life in the soul and cause the loss of sanctifying grace and, therefore, of justification. In order to regain the state of grace the individual must participate in the sacraments. As Ott stated, the atonement of Christ is not the exclusive cause of man’s redemption. Man must supplement the work of Christ for sins committed after baptism by partially atoning and expiating his own sin through penance. Trent states that no one can be justified apart from the sacrament of penance (the confession of sin to a Roman Catholic priest, receiving his absolution and performing the required penance):
As regards those who, by sin, have fallen from the received grace of Justification, they may again be justified...through the sacrament of Penance...For, on behalf of those who fall into sins after baptism, Christ Jesus instituted the sacrament of Penance...and therein are included not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation thereof, or, a contrite and humble heart, but also the sacramental confession of said sins...and sacerdotal absolution; and likewise satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of the spiritual life...for the temporal punishment, not always wholly remitted.
If any one saith that he who has fallen after able to recover the justice which he has faith alone without the sacrament of Penance...let him be anathema (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Found in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1910), Decree on Justification, Chapter XIV. Canon XXIX.
John Hardon also emphasizes the necessity of penance as a work of expiation:
Penance is...necessary because we must expiate and make reparation for the punishment which is due our sins...We make satisfaction for our sins by every good act we perform in the state of grace but especially by prayer, penance and the practice of charity (John Hardon, The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism (Garden City: Image, 1981), Question #1320).
In addition to Penance the Church teaches the necessity for the mass as an expiation for sins committed after baptism. The mass is the re–sacrifice of Jesus Christ as a propitiation for sin. It is declared by Trent to be a propitiatory sacrifice and necessary for salvation:
In this divine sacrifice...that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner who once offered himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross...This sacrifice is truly propitiatory...If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice...and that it ought not to be offered for the living and dead for sins, pains, satisfactions and other necessities: let him be anathema (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Found in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1910), Doctrine on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Chp. II, p. 180, Canon III).
John Hardon says:
The Sacrifice of the altar... is no mere empty commemoration of the Passion and death of Jesus Christ, but a true and proper act of sacrifice. Christ, the eternal High Priest, in an unbloody way offers himself a most acceptable Victim to the eternal Father as He did upon the Cross...In the Mass, no less than on Calvary, Jesus really offers His life to His heavenly Father...The Mass, therefore, no less than the Cross, is expiatory for sins (emphasis mine) (John Hardon, The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism (Garden City: Image, 1981), Questions #1265, 1269, 1277).
Note the assertion here that in the mass Christ offers himself as a Victim for sin in sacrifice just as he did on Calvary. The mass, no less than Calvary, is expiatory for sin because the mass is supposedly the same sacrifice as Calvary. According to Rome, then, the offering of Christ in sacrifice is not finished but continues and is perpetuated through time. But such teaching contradicts Scripture. The word of God teaches that Christ has made a complete propitiation for sin through his once–for–all sacrifice of atonement. It is finished. The Greek word translated once–for–all is ephapax. It is used in particular with reference to Jesus’ death and communicates the thought that Christ’s death is a finished work which cannot be repeated or perpetuated:
Knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin, once for all; but the life that He lives He lives to God (Rom. 6:10).
Jesus' death was a unique historic event which is completed and therefore he can never experience death again. In addition to Paul’s affirmation of this, Jesus himself states: ‘I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore’ (Rev. 1:18). The word used to describe the death of Jesus as a finished work—ephapax—is the same word used to describe his sacrifice and the offering of his body (Heb. 10:10; 9:25–26). Just as Christ cannot die again, neither can his body be offered again or his sacrifice be continued for sin. This is because apart from his death there is no sacrifice that is propitiatory for sin. What made his sacrifice propitiatory in God’s eyes was his death. Hebrews 9:22 makes this point: ‘Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.’ As a result then of this one sacrifice, the bible teaches that God has accomplished a sufficient and finished atonement. Since Christ cannot die again there is no more sacrifice for sin and therefore the mass cannot be the same sacrifice as Calvary. On the basis of that finished work God now offers complete and total forgiveness to man.
There is no more sacrifice for sin: ‘Where there is forgiveness of these things there is no longer any offering for sin’ (Heb. 10:18). And since there is no need for further sacrifice, Scripture also teaches that there is no need for a continuing sacerdotal priesthood. Christ has fulfilled the Old Testament ceremonial law and it is now abrogated (Heb. 7:11–19). He has become our Sacrifice and Priest and the only Mediator by which we approach God (1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 7:22–25). Christ’s atonement has completely removed the guilt of our sin and its condemnation because he has paid the penalty in full. To suggest that a sacrament is necessary to continue to offer Christ’s body and blood to make sacrifice for sin is completely antithetical to the teaching of Scripture, and undermines the sufficiency of Christ’s work. This teaching of the mass as a perpetuation of the sacrifice of Christ which is propitaitory for sin was a point of universal opposition by the Reformers. They vigorously objected to this teaching on Scriptural grounds that it made void the cross of Christ. These comments from Scottish Reformer, John Knox, and English Reformer, Nicholas Ridley are representative:
John Knox: How can you deny the opinion of your Mass to be false and vain? You say it is a sacrifice for sin, but Jesus Christ and Paul say, The only death of Christ was sufficient for sin, and after it resteth none other sacrifice...I know you will say, it is none other sacrifice, but the self same, save that it is iterated (repeated) and renewed. But the words of Paul bind you more straitly than that so you may escape: for in his whole disputation, contendeth he not only that there is no other sacrifice for sin, but also that the self same sacrifice, once offered, is sufficient, and never may be offered again. For otherwise of no greater price, value, nor extenuation, should the death of Christ be, than the death of those beasts which were offered under the Law: which are proved to be of none effect, nor strength, because it behooves them often times to be repeated. The Apostle, by comparing Jesus Christ to the Levitical priests, and his sacrifice unto theirs, maketh the matter plain that Christ might be offered but once (John Knox, A Vindication of the Doctrine That the Mass Is Idolatry. Found in The Works of John Knox (Edinburgh: James Thin, 1895), Volume III, p. 56. Language revised by William Webster).
Nicholas Ridley: Concerning the Romish mass which is used at this day or the lively sacrifice thereof, propitiatory and available for the sins of the quick and the dead, the holy Scripture hath not so much as one syllable...Now the falseness of the proposition, after the meaning of the schoolmen and the Roman Church and impiety in that sense which the words seem to import is this, that they, leaning to the foundation of their fond transubstantiation, would make the quick and lively body of Christ’s flesh, united and knit to the divinity, to lurk under the accidents and outward shows of bread and wine; which is very false...And they, building upon this foundation, do hold that the same body is offered unto God by the priest in his daily massings to put away the sins of the quick and the dead. Whereas by the Apostle to the Hebrews it is evident that there is but one oblation and one true and lively sacrifice of the church offered upon the altar of the cross, which was, is and ever shall be for ever the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and where there is remission of the same there is (saith the Apostle) no more offering for sin (Nicholas Ridley, Examinations of the Eucharist. Found in The Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966), Volume XXVI, pp. 314–315).
In addition to expiation through personal penance and the mass, the Roman Catholic Church also teaches that sin can be expiated through the sufferings of purgatory after one dies and through indulgences. Many are acquainted with the fact that the doctrines of purgatory and indulgences were the catalyst for the Reformation but are unaware that they are still part of the official teaching of the Church. While the abuses of the doctrine of indulgences which led to the Reformation have been repudiated, the actual doctrine itself is still in force. The Church of Rome teaches that through indulgences the temporal punishment for sin can be expiated. Indulgences are applied through the authority of the pope from what is known as the Treasury of Satisfaction or Merit. This treasury consists of the merit of Christ in addition to the merit of all the saints and can be applied to individuals as remission for sins thereby mitigating the punishment due them either here or in purgatory. In 1967 Pope Paul VI issued an encyclical on Indulgences entitled Indulgentiarum Doctrina. This encyclical reaffirms the medieval teaching:
The doctrine of purgatory clearly demonstrates that even when the guilt of sin has been taken away, punishment for it or the consequences of it may remain to be expiated and cleansed. They often are. In fact, in purgatory the souls of those 'who died in the charity of God and truly repentant, but who had not made satisfaction with adequate penance for their sins and omissions' are cleansed after death with punishments designed to purge away their debt...Following in Christ’s steps, those who believe in him have always tried to help one another along the path which leads to the heavenly Father, through prayer, the exchange of spiritual goods and penitential expiation. The more they have been immersed in the fervor of love, the more they have imitated Christ in his sufferings. They have carried their crosses to make expiation for their own sins and the sins of others. They were convinced that they could help their brothers to obtain salvation from God who is the Father of mercies. This is the very ancient dogma called the Communion of Saints...The “treasury of the Church” is the infinite value, which can never be exhausted, which Christ’s merits have before God. They were offered so that the whole of mankind could be set free from sin and attain communion with the Father. In Christ, the Redeemer himself, the satisfactions and merits of his Redemption exist and find their efficacy. This treasury includes as well the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are truly immense, unfathomable and even pristine in their value before God. In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have made their lives holy and carried out the mission the Father entrusted to them. In this way they attained their own salvation and at the same time cooperated in saving their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body...God’s only-begotten Son... has won a treasure for the militant Church... he has entrusted it to blessed Peter, the key-bearer of heaven, and to his successors who are Christ’s vicars on earth, so that they may distribute it to the faithful for their salvation. They may apply it with mercy for reasonable causes to all who have repented for and have confessed their sins. At times they may remit completely, and at other times only partially, the temporal punishment due to sin in a general as well as in special ways (insofar as they judge it to be fitting in the sight of the Lord). The merits of the Blessed Mother of God and of all the elect ... are known to add further to this treasure (Paul VI, Indulgentiarum Doctrina, January 1, 1967).
Through its doctrines of confession and penance, the mass, purgatory, indulgences the Church of Rome adds sacramental and moral works to the work of Christ. Justification and salvation are not through Christ alone but are instead a cooperative effort between Christ and man. Rome claims that it teaches justification by grace alone through the merits of Christ alone. The problem is that her interpretation is not the Scriptural teaching of grace alone and Christ alone. Just using the word does not mean that one is using it in a scriptural way. After all, Pelagius did not deny the need for grace. He used the term and affirmed it.
The problem was not in the use of the word but in the interpretation he applied to it. Though he used the word his interpretation undermined its biblical meaning. This is precisely what the Roman Catholic Church has done with respect to its interpretation of grace and the work of Christ. While affirming these biblical doctrines, its interpretation of what they mean actually undermines their biblical meaning. When scripture says that justification is by grace on account of Christ it means on account of Christ exclusively, completely apart from the works of man or sacraments.

The Roman Teaching of Grace and Justification
When Rome states that an individual is justified by grace she means that grace has been infused into the soul of man. This makes him righteous before God and enables him to perform acts of righteousness. These then become the basis of justification and the means whereby he merits heaven. Justification is a process then by which the individual is made righteous in a moral sense. The Roman Catholic Church interprets the phrase the righteousness of God to mean a human righteousness which has its source in the grace of God, channeled through sacraments. But the righteousness itself is the work of man cooperating with that grace. The righteousness of God then is not the righteousness of Christ but rather the righteousness of man which results from the gift of grace, the source of which is God. The Roman Catholic theologian William Marshner explains the Roman Catholic position in these words:
Now, if what Paul means by dikaiosune theou (righteousness of God) is not something to remain in God but something to be conferred on us, then we must reckon with that mysterious possibility: a quality of man which is the property of God! Does St. Paul say anything to indicate a knowledge of this possibility? Indeed he does: ‘God has made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, so that we in him might become justice of God’ (II Cor. 5:21)...It is not a question of replacement but of participation, and the participation is real in both directions. First in Jesus: just as really as the Word took our humanity, just that really his humanity became God. And then in us: just as really as Christ–God took our sins (so really that even the Father forsook Him—Mark 15:34), just that really we receive God’s justice. For if we dare to believe that in the Incarnation our nature, without ceasing to be a human nature, received God’s subsistence, then we may easily believe that we, in Christ, receive God’s justice as our quality. In fact, St. Paul even has a name for this quality. In the very next verse (II Cor. 6:1) he says: ‘As God’s co–workers, we beg you once again not to have received God’s grace in vain.’ What we should not ‘receive in vain’ is exactly what Paul has just said we have ‘become’ in Christ. God’s justice is His grace, a gift given to men. That is why the justice of God is identically ‘the justice which comes from God through faith’ (Philippians 3:9). What emerges from these texts then, is the existence in man of a justice conferred by God (William Marshner, Justification by Faith. Taken from Reasons for Hope: Catholic Apologetics (Front Royal: Christendom College, 1978), pp. 232-233).
Marshner equates the righteousness of God in justification with the righteousness of man in sanctification. This view is a fundamental contradiction of the biblical teaching that the righteousness of God in justification is the righteousness of Christ in his work of atonement. Marshner is correct in stating that just as our sins were imputed to Christ, so a real righteousness is given to the believer. However, it is a righteousness that is already complete and not something that must be worked out by man. We can agree with him when he says that ‘God’s justice is His grace, a gift given to men.’ This is the point the Reformers made in their controversy with Rome. God’s grace in justification is the provision of a completed, finished righteousness given as a gift which eternally justifies us in the eyes of God. But Marshner misinterprets the Scriptures when he refers to this righteousness as the process of sanctification in the life of the believer, rather than the righteousness of Christ himself. By defining justifying grace as God’s gift of the righteousness of sanctification, Marshner, and Roman Catholicism as a whole, misinterprets the biblical meaning of grace with respect to justification.
The Council of Trent explicitly condemned the biblical teaching of the imputed righteousness of Christ himself for justification:
If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby he merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just, let him be anathema (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Found in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1910), Decree on Justification, Chapter VII, Canons X, XXXII).
Trent teaches that men are justified by the righteousness of Christ only in the sense that in his atonement he has merited the grace which is infused into man for salvation. Trent denied that men are justified by the righteousness of Christ alone imputed to the believer. Trent taught that the righteousness which justifies is the work of the regenerated believer cooperating with the grace that Christ merited. So justification is equated with regeneration and sanctification. Rome does not acknowledge sanctification and justification as separate works of God in salvation. It makes human works the basis for justification which merit eternal life: not the remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man.
If any one saith, that the good works of the one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, and does not truly merit increase in grace, eternal life, and the attainment of eternal life, if so be, that he depart in grace, and an increase in glory, let him be anathema (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Found in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1910), Decree on Justification, Chapter VII, Canons X, XXXII).
Ludwig Ott emphasizes this in these words:
Justification is the declaration of the righteousness of the believer before the judgment seat of Christ...The Council of Trent teaches that for the justified eternal life is both a gift or grace promised by God and a reward for his own good works and merits... According to Holy Writ, eternal blessedness in heaven is the reward...for good works performed on this earth, and rewards and merit are correlative concepts (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp.254, 264).
John Hardon likewise confirms this point of view when he writes:
Habitual or sanctifying grace is a supernatural quality that dwells in the human soul, by which a person shares in the divine nature, becomes a temple of the Holy Spirit, a friend of God, his adopted child, and able to perform actions meriting eternal life (emphasis mine) (John Hardon, The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism (Garden City: Image, 1981), Question #1074).
So Roman Catholic theology teaches that justification is obtained by receiving grace through baptism, and is maintained through the sacrament of penance, the mass and the works of sanctification which in turn merit eternal life. It is important to point out that sanctification in Roman Catholic theology is not only the righteous acts of individuals cooperating with the grace of God but participation in the sacraments of the Church. A state of sanctifying grace, by which a person is justified, cannot be maintained apart from the sacraments. Justification then is not by grace alone (in the biblical sense) or on account of Christ alone (in the biblical sense). Therefore it is not by faith alone (in the biblical sense). In fact, the Council of Trent condemned the teaching of justification by faith alone stating:
If anyone saith that by faith alone the impious is justified in such wise as to mean that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtaining the grace of Justification...let him be anathema...After this Catholic doctrine on justification which whosoever does not faithfully and firmly accept cannot be justified...(The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Found in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1910), Decree on Justification, Chapter XVI, Canon IX).
John Gerstner gives a clear and concise summation of the Roman Catholic view of justification in contrast to the Protestant view in these words:
Some Romanists will say that they too teach justification by grace—by Christ’s righteousness, in fact. But the righteousness of Christ which they claim justifies is not Christ’s own personal righteousness reckoned or credited or given or imputed to believers. Romanists refer to the righteousness which Christ works into the life of the believer or infuses into him in his own living and behavior. It is not Christ’s personal righteousness but the believer’s personal righteousness, which he performs by the grace of God. It is Christ’s righteousness versus the believer’s own righteousness. It is Christ’s achievement versus the Christian’s achievement. It is an imputed righteousness not an infused righteousness. It is a gift of God versus an accomplishment of man. These two righteousnesses are as different as righteousnesses could conceivable be. It does come down to the way it has been popularly stated for the last four and a half centuries: Protestantism’s salvation by faith versus Rome’s salvation by works...The Protestant trusts Christ to save him and the Catholic trusts Christ to help him save himself. It is faith versus works. Or, as the Spirit of God puts it in Romans 4:16 (NIV), ‘Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace, and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring.’ It is ‘by faith so that it may be by grace...’ If a Romanist wants to be saved by grace alone, it will have to be by faith alone. ‘The promise comes by faith so that it may be by grace.’ You can’t be saved ‘sola gratia’ except ‘sola fide.’...We agree with Roman friends—salvation is by grace. That is the reason it must be by faith. If it is a salvation based on works that come from grace, it is not based on grace but on the Christian’s works that come from grace. The works that come from grace must prove grace but they cannot be grace. They may come from, be derivative of, a consequence of, but they cannot be identified with it. Faith is merely union with Christ who is our righteousness, our grace, our salvation. 1 Corinthians 1:30, ‘It is because of Him that you are in Christ Jesus who has become for us wisdom from God,’ that is, our righteousness, holiness, and redemption. Christ is our righteousness. Our righteousness does not result from His righteousness, it is His righteousness (Justification by Faith Alone, Don Kistler, Ed. (Morgan: Soli Deo Gloria, 1995), John Gerstner, The Nature of Justifying Faith, pp. 111–113).
We need to be clear about the fact that justification is only one aspect of the overall work of salvation. Scripture teaches that salvation means more than justification and also involves election, regeneration, adoption, conversion, sanctification and glorification, all applied as a result of union with Christ. Each of these is a separate and complete work in its own right. That is, justification is not the same as sanctification. They are completely independent works though they cannot be separated because they both come from union with Christ.
The error of Roman Catholicism is that it equates sanctification with justification stating that the two are interchangeable terms resulting in a perversion of the biblical teaching of justification. This is equivalent to the error of some in the early Church regarding the person of Christ. They failed to maintain the integrity of Christ's person because they did not retain the biblical balance of the truth of his humanity and deity. They subsumed either his deity into his humanity thereby denying his true deity, or his humanity into his deity thereby denying his humanity.
The biblical and orthodox teaching is that Christ is both God and man, two truths which must be held in conjunction with one another. Similarly, the biblical teaching of salvation is that justification and sanctification are different aspects of the overall work of salvation which also must be held in conjunction with one another. If we subsume sanctification into justification we will deny the biblical teaching on the necessity for the works of sanctification. On the other hand, if we subsume justification into sanctification we will pervert the biblical teaching on justification.
To fail to maintain a proper balance between justification and sanctification leads to the perversion of the biblical teaching on salvation, just as failure to maintain the biblical teaching on the humanity and deity of Christ leads to perversion of the biblical teaching of the person of Christ. The Protestant Reformers emphasized the Scriptural truth that in salvation an individual not only possesses an imputed righteousness which eternally and completely justifies but also the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which results in the works of sanctification. It is a misrepresentation of the teaching of the Reformers to imply that their concept of salvation was limited to justification only and that faith alone meant the denial of works. Please refer to the article on the teaching of the Reformers on works and sanctification.

Roman Catholicism teaches that saving faith is not trust in Christ alone for justification and salvation. While the Church of Rome affirms the necessity for faith in the justification of adults, her definition is different from that of the scriptures and the teaching of the Protestant Church. To a Roman Catholic, justifying faith is called dogmatic faith. This has to do with the doctrinal content of the faith necessary to be believed for salvation. Essentially it means intellectual assent to everything the Church teaches. In order to be saved an individual must believe and hold to every doctrine dogmatically defined by the Roman Catholic Church. This entails not only the teaching of the Creed, the sacraments and justification but also the doctrines related to the Papacy (papal rule and infallibility), Mary (immaculate conception and assumption), the canon of scripture and purgatory. Vatican I states that it is necessary for salvation that an individual believe not only all that is revealed in Scripture but also everything defined and proposed by the Church. To reject anything officially taught by the Roman Church is to reject saving faith and to forfeit both justification and eternal life:
Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed. And since, without faith, it is impossible to please God, and to attain to the fellowship of his children, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will any one obtain eternal life unless he shall have persevered in faith unto the end (Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council, On Faith, Chapter III. Found in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (New York: Harper, 1877), Volume II, pp. 244-245).
Ludwig Ott explains the relationship of Dogmas defined by the Church and faith in these words:
By dogma in the strict sense is understood a truth immediately (formally) revealed by God which has been proposed by the Teaching Authority of the Church to be believed as such. Two factors or elements may be distinguished in the concept of dogma:
A) An immediate Divine Revelation of the particular Dogma...i.e., the Dogma must be immediately revealed by God either explicitly (explicite) or inclusively (implicite), and therefore be contained in the sources of Revelation (Holy Writ or Tradition).
B) The Promulgation of the Dogma by the Teaching Authority of the Church (propositio Ecclesiae). This implies, not merely the promulgation of the Truth, but also the obligation on the part of the Faithful of believing the Truth. This promulgation by the Church may be either in an extraordinary manner through a solemn decision of faith made by the Pope or a General Council (Iudicium solemns) or through the ordinary and general teaching power of the Church (Magisterium ordinarium et universale). The latter may be found easily in the catechisms issued by the Bishops.
Dogma in its strict signification is the object of both Divine Faith (Fides Divina) and Catholic Faith (Fides Catholica); it is the object of the Divine reason of its Divine Revelation; it is the object of Catholic Faith...on account of its infallible doctrinal definition by the Church. If a baptised person deliberately denies or doubts a dogma properly so-called, he is guilty of the sin of heresy (Codex Iuris Canonici 1325, Par. 2), and automatically becomes subject to the punishment of excommunication (Codex Iuris Canonici 2314, Par. I).
As far as the content of justifying faith is concerned, the so-called fiducial faith does not suffice. What is demanded is theological or dogmatic faith (confessional faith) which consists in the firm acceptance of the Divine truths of Revelation, on the authority of God Revealing...According to the testimony of Holy Writ, faith and indeed dogmatic faith, is the indispensable prerequisite for the achieving of eternal salvation (emphasis added) (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 4-5, 253).
And John Hardon says:
What must a Catholic believe with divine faith?
A Catholic must believe with divine faith the whole of revelation, which is contained in the written word of God and in Sacred Tradition.

Can a person be a Catholic if he believes most, but not all, the teachings of revelation?
A person cannot be a Catholic if he rejects even a single teaching that he knows has been revealed by God.

What will happen to those who lack ‘the faith necessary for salvation’?
Those will not be saved who lack the necessary faith because of their own sinful neglect or conduct. As Christ declared, ‘He who does not believe will be condemned’ (Mark 16:16).

Why is divine faith called catholic?
Divine faith is called catholic or universal because a believer must accept everything God has revealed. He may not be selective about what he chooses to believe.

(John Hardon, The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism (Garden City: Image, 1981), Questions #44, 45, 46, 47).
The dogmatic teachings of Vatican I are a perfect example of this point of view. After giving extensive teaching on the need to be submitted to the bishop of Rome for salvation the Council makes this statement:
This is the teaching of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation (Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council. Found in The Creeds of Christendom by Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1910), Chapter III, On the Power and Nature of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff).
There are similar statements made by the Bishops of Rome in their decrees on Mary, as well as numerous anathemas which have accompanied the doctrinal promulgations of Trent and Vatican I on the sacraments and the papacy on papal rule and infallibility. According to Rome, all these dogmas must be believed and embraced for salvation. But where are these teachings found in scripture? Where are we told that it is necessary to believe in the assumption of Mary or papal infallibility in order to experience salvation? Such teachings not only are absent from scripture, but from the teaching of the Church historically. Not one of these doctrines was taught in the early Church.
From a Roman Catholic perspective, the concept of saving faith is far removed from the biblical teaching of commitment to and simple trust in Christ alone for salvation. The Roman Catholic Church has distorted the gospel of grace. It has fallen into the same Galatian error of legalism (a sacerdotal/sacramental/works salvation) addressed by Paul in his letter to the Galatian Churches. In that letter Paul dealt with the heresy of the Judaizers, who attempted to add the Jewish ceremonial law to faith in Christ as a basis for salvation. Temple worship and the ceremonial law included circumcision, an altar, daily sacrifices, a laver of water, priests, a high priest, special priestly and high priestly vestments and robes, candles, incense and shewbread. In the routine religious life of the average Jew there were feast days, prayers, fasts, adherence to the tradition of the elders and certain dietary restrictions.
All of these things were included in the Judaizers’ teaching on salvation. So it was Jesus plus the Jewish system. How does this relate to Roman Catholicism? The doctrines of salvation embraced by Rome are, in principle, identical to the Judaizers. The Roman Church teaches that salvation is achieved by believing that Jesus is the Son of God who died for sin, by being baptized, by being a part of the Roman Catholic Church, by striving to keep the Ten Commandments and partaking of the sacramental system (which involves ongoing sacrifices, altars, priests, a high priest, along with the exercises of prayers, fasts, almsgiving, penances and until recently adherence to certain dietary regulations).