President Trump’s Remark on [Expletive] Countries: Another Chance for Insufferable Virtue-Signaling

By John Zmirak Published on January 11, 2018

People are calling for President Trump to apologize. In fact they won’t be happy until he has crawled face down on broken glass all the way to the future site of the Giant Obama Takeout Bag in Chicago, singing “We Shall Overcome” in Spanish. Why?

For bluntly speaking his mind, and that of tens of millions of voters. And it was certainly imprudent for the president to use a phrase like “sh**hole countries” when speaking to his enemies. (I prefer the more urbane construction “Cacastan.”)

Or when speaking to his friends, as we can see in the wake of the leaks-based Wolff book. Or to whisper it to Melania across their Neiman Marcus copper pillowcases. Given how keenly the Lidless Eye of political correctness can see into our lives, it’s probably not even safe to whisper such thoughts in the shower. “The Master of the Precious will punish, yes he will. …”

Let the Moral Panic Commence!

Let’s watch as pundits and pseudo-moralists strut and preen across the stage, pretending that they don’t know what President Trump really meant. They will point to Arabic numerals, chicken mole, the Pyramids of Egypt and the Salvadoran handicrafts they bought at their Unitarian churches. … “Are these things  ‘sh**ty’?”, they’ll thunder. “Are those cultures worthless?” And the answer, of course, is no.

Donald Trump has visited many of those countries, even invested millions in some of them, creating jobs. These people know that Trump didn’t mean to say otherwise. And they know that we know it. But everyone will pretend because that’s how the truth gets processed in America: through a long, intestinal corridor of reeking, toxic lies.

Next the chubby wubby bishops and pinch-faced feminist harridans will weigh in. Then the investment class and information elites will have their say. They’ll rise up and point to all the people from the countries which the president had in mind.  To those who clean their homes at very reasonable wages (off the books) and babysit their 2.1 insufferable children. “Are these people  ‘sh**ty’?”, they’ll thunder. And the answer, of course, is no.

Donald Trump grew up in the same multicultural Queens, NY, that I did. He hired and worked closely with thousands of construction workers of every origin. Heck, he even staffed some of his resorts with foreign workers! Thinking of kids whose parents smuggled them into the country, who now want to stay, Trump’s letting himself get misty-eyed with Democrats. That’s always dangerous. Those creatures can scent tears as sharks smell blood, and it puts them into a feeding frenzy. If Trump despised immigrants as people, he wouldn’t be turning all mushy when it comes to sending illegal ones home to where they are citizens. His base (me included) wouldn’t be sharpening knives, preparing in case he betrays us on immigration.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

A Time for Preening

But the same folks who joke about “white trash,” “rednecks” and “bible-thumpers” and complain that inner-city Americans are “too lazy” to do certain jobs will step forth now. They’ll pull the robes off the Statue of Liberty, and wrap themselves in the U.N. flag. They will rear up on their hind legs and grunt for truffles.

They’ll demand that Trump snivel and beg forgiveness for what he didn’t say, or mean, or even imply. Because that’s how America works nowadays. You pretend to be offended on someone else’s behalf. I pretend to be sorry and apologize. And you pretend not to believe me. But you’ll have made your point: that you have the power to punish me, and I’ll crawl back under the table.

Democrats Treat Mexico as a Death Sentence

Who is it exactly that’s comparing Mexico to a medical waste dumpster full of dead babies? Well, that would be Bishop Daniel Flores of Brownsville, TX. He equated deporting people to Mexico with aborting unborn children. (So did Cardinal Blaise Cupich of Chicago, who compared returning immigrants to selling unborn baby parts in Styrofoam coolers like KFC.) Who considers living in Muslim countries a fate worse than death? Why, that would be Pope Francis, who compared Europeans who want Muslims to live in those places with Herod, stacking high the piles of dead babies in Bethlehem.

Imagine a place that’s so poor, chaotic, or violent that millions of people would rather live in an American city governed by Democrats.

Which party is shrieking now that it’s “cruel” to send people back to El Salvador, folks to whom we gave TEMPORARY refuge after an earthquake 17 years ago? Do they think that the country has earthquakes every week? Or do they assume it’s a Cacastan, where no human being should ever be asked to live?

Which party warns us that much of the rest of the world is a vast, unlivable hellscape of persecution and poverty? So trying to limit refugees and immigration is “inhumane” and “anti-life.”

Why, that would be the Democrats.

What Makes a Place a Cacastan?

When President Trump spoke of certain countries as Cacastans, what was he really saying? I know you don’t need me to say this. Neither do the liberals having fake nervous breakdowns tonight, with great big grins on their pasty, Pharisaical faces. But just for the record, I’ll point it out:

Certain countries have rotten political arrangements. Bad economic systems. Cultures that replicate poverty. Mosques that churn out terrorists. All those things drive people to leave. But too many of them bring with them the bad ideas and habits that turned perfectly decent countries into Cacastans. And our machines for assimilation have all been sabotaged by leftists. So inviting in lots of Cacastanis will transform our own states to be more like the places they’re fleeing. (See California, Sweden, and Belgium.)

In fact, I may just have stumbled onto what makes a country a Cacastan: It’s a place that’s so poor, chaotic, or violent that millions of people would rather live in an American city governed by Democrats. When you put it that way, it really is shocking and sad.

And large swathes of the world apparently qualify. According to the Gallup Poll, some 700 million people want to leave their native countries. 165 million Cacastanis want to relocate to the U.S. They’re willing to live in places like Los Angeles. Even Baltimore. I thank the good Lord I’ve never experienced that level of desperation. And that’s what the president was talking about, to tell the truth.

But when has that ever mattered?

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Patmos

    It’s pretty simple really, if those countries aren’t s***holes, then why are so many people within them trying to come here?

    • Gary

      Liberals know those countries are sh**holes. But they think its the fault of white people.

  • Paul

    This remark will be forgotten when he says the next supposedly offensive remark. Yawn

    • Patmos

      Or when more anonymous sources who weren’t there say he supposedly says it. Or maybe they can conjure up another dossier.

  • Trump could be caught in bed with a 14 year old girl and not lose the support of his base. They’d either scream “FAKE NEWS!” or just laugh and say, “At least we have a real MAN in the White House!”

    • Bryan

      The same could have been said of President Obama during his presidency with the same result. It used to be that roughly 40% of the country voted Democrat regardless, 40% voted Republican regardless, and the remaining 20% were the ones who made all the decisions and the ones you had to win. The percentages are probably different, but the same basic principle remains.

      • The same would NOT have been said about President Obama.

        • Bryan

          You think? If so, it’s probably only because it would have been covered up to prevent embarrassment. My reasoning lies along the same lines that you accuse President Trump’s supporters, the die hards won’t don’t care what is said, they still follow their choice blindly. It doesn’t matter what party you’re in.
          Since no allegations of sexual misconduct were ever discussed about President Obama (thankfully), my examples will be of those around him or before him.
          John Podesta and Pizzagate, child porn and trafficking (if I remember correctly) that was washed away as no big deal and not a real story.
          Hillary Clinton lied about various dealings at the State Department and then during testimony concerning the Benghazi situation claimed, “what difference at this point does it make?”
          Bill Clinton lied about sex with several women. The women not 14, but his base said that the story wasn’t a story or was a waste of taxpayer money.
          That’s the point: The will always dismiss the failings of their choice, either by saying the allegations are false or that they don’t matter. It happen in both parties. It’s not good, but it’s not limited to one side or the other.

          • Karen

            Pizzagate was a complete and utter fabrication. There has never been so much as a speck of evidence supporting those lies.

          • Kevin Carr

            The Iran nuclear deal is/was a complete travesty and a sell-out of America, as more info comes out he called off Hezbollah drug dealers to further the deal as well as warn the Iranian Quds force leader of an Israeli hit on him. A true patriot (a true Trojan horse) and many still think this was a great idea, (but I digress on a digression). Would you vacation in Afghanistan, Venezuela, El Salvador, Haiti, if not why not?

        • Charles Burge

          Maybe not Obama, but millions did look the other way while voting for Hillary Clinton, a serial liar who engaged in behavior that would have gotten any other person arrested and charged with multiple felonies.

    • Gary

      Now if Trump were caught in bed with a 14 year old BOY, that would shut a lot of liberal mouths.

    • Patmos

      No, but stick with your hyperbole Chuck, like most everything you put forth it serves you well.

    • tz1

      Clinton WAS caught with Monica Lewinski and that stained blue dress and… Then there were his rape victims. And Hillary stood by him and attacked his victims. And flew with Bill and Jeff Epstein on the Lolita express.
      Realize Hillary Clinton did win the majority of votes, just not the electoral college. And had no problems with their activity.
      Most Trump supporters had (and still have) large misgivings about his alleged and some actual behavior, but realize that the Left completely doesn’t care – Chuck Shumer could rape a 5 year old live in Central Park a week before the election and he would win. So would Jerry Brown in California.

      • Karen

        Oh, you mean the party that forced Conyers and Franken to resign? Those Democrats? Yeah, we should have allowed thkse guys to stay in Congress with Blake Farenthold, who will serve out his term in peace and pension-accruing.

        • Charles Burge

          They were just clearing the decks so they could have an unobstructed shot at Roy Moore. I bet they’re regretting that move now.

  • John Connor

    It amazes me that people actually defend what trumpy said. Unbelievable

    • The relentless boasting and self-glorification, combined with a complete lack of empathy and humility, apparently appeals to many Americans.

    • Gary

      Trump was right. Did you know that what Trump said is the same thing liberals say about the South?

      • John Connor

        And? This is a sitting president who has denigrated multiple countries. I live in the south.

    • Patmos

      Not being triggered in pretentious outrage is not the same as defending.

    • Kevin Carr

      Not defending, but wasn’t for public consumption, maybe he should have said deplorable.

      • John Connor

        It’s not kosher for the leader of the free world to refer to other countries In that way. I’ve been deployed also. There’s a certain amount of decorum to be observed when you’re the president

    • Ginger Li

      Why are you so sure he said it? Because Lyin Turbin Durbin said so? Not a very reliable source.

      • John Connor

        How so? He was sitting with the president when he said it.

  • Bryan

    I have to agree with the premise of the article. Whether he said those specific words or not, it is certainly not the first time the words have been said by a government official, regardless of party, about another country or countries. I’m sure it’s even said about certain cities or towns in the US. Why is the middle part of the US called “fly over”? Because the elites who coined the term wouldn’t be caught dead there unless there was a political advantage. This is not unusual speech on the part of a government official. It’s “newsworthy” simply because President Trump allegedly said it.

  • D’ Decker

    What seems to get lost in all of this is the point Trump was trying to make….
    why are we being forced to take in low level people when there are so many
    high level people wanting to come here.

    • Linda

      The fact that he didn’t use the words you just used show his appallingly shallow thinking.

  • Mark Anthony Terra-Thomas

    Mr. Zmirck sir, I enjoy your perspective and am informed, occasionally, by your analysis. Yet I wonder, should you comment on EVERYTHING that happens in the media? Perhaps there are things that are simply indefensible, regardless of who says them or who is against who.

    • Zmirak

      Well, I write 5 days per week for a news site, so yes it actually is my job description.

    • Chip Crawford

      I noticed the commentary being about what’s happening in life in the world now. Is what is happening in the media pertinent, of interest, btw? I would protest that being “covered.”
      I dislike indefensible things too … almost as bad as intolerance and self-righteous judging, knee-jerk reactions — Perhaps you at least recognize it in others …

  • Craig Roberts

    Somebody please help me out here. If the hierarchy of the Church is made up of such a bunch of liberal pansies with their heads stuck up…(er?) in the clouds, why would any right thinking person belong to that Church? If the people that devote their lives to the administration and distribution of the sacraments derive no insight or discernible virtue from them, how can it be expected that anybody else will? In short, what separates the clergy from the politicians that I would not vote for, or even take advice from?

    Why be ‘Catholic’ if being ‘Catholic’ is no different than being an average, run of the mill, lefty lame brain?

    • Rob Abney

      Hi Craig, I’ll continue to be Catholic because I need Jesus and I find Him most assuredly in the Sacraments, even if He has to use fallen men to deliver those Sacraments. I don’t fear that will cause me to be a lefty lame brain.

      • Craig Roberts

        Good answer. Thanks Rob.

    • Because Cathocism is the truth and what we’re arguing over are temporal issues.

      • Kathy

        Hi Manny. Thought I knew all I could about the CC since I was once there, but learn something new all the time. Attended a Catholic funeral last week and the priest referred to Jesus as a “sacrificial victim”. I was totally taken aback by that.

        • Yes. It’s amazing how little most people of any denomination know about their faith. Before I had my religious conversion I would have said I knew all there was about Catholicism. After all I went to Catechism classes as a child, received all my sacraments, and attended mass for a while. But in the ten years after that conversion experience I have dug deeper and deeper and realized how little I really knew. Sunday school classes for children are not exactly thorough and complete.

          As to the sacrificial victim term, I believe that refers to Christ as being the final sacrifice that redeems mankind. In old, pre-destruction of the temple Judaism, animal sacrifices were a daily ritual to atone for sins. Christ became the final sacrifice from which no more sacrifices are needed. I don’t think Protestants would disagree with that. They may not use the terminology but this is not one of our differences.

          If you’re interested in learning more about Catholicism, I can offer you some suggestions. Just let me know.

          • Kathy

            Thanks Manny. The term victim denotes an unwillingness or being forced to become a sacrifice. Jesus laid down His life in obedience to the Father. In His human nature, He was certainly very troubled by the prospect, but was not unwillingly killed without His consent…it was all in God’s plan. That is the reason I was taken aback.

            Yes, I believe Christ became the final sacrifice as you do. Why then does it appear that the elements are being presented as a yet another sacrifice of Christ to God during every Mass if Christ already proclaimed on the cross “It is finished”, meaning no more sacrifices for sin are necessary? He accomplished all that was needed.

            Yes, I didn’t know much until just 6 years ago, perhaps because before my transformation/new birth, I was not all that interested. I don’t remember being taught anything in depth either, like yourself.

          • No, if you check the full definition of victim, you’ll see it does not have to imply “an unwillingness.” In our common experience and use of the word, it overwhelmingly refers to an willingness but it does not have to. Take this example for instance. A family is held hostage and the hostage takers are going to kill one in order to enforce their demands. The father steps forward to volunteer and be the one and is killed. Is he still not a victim? Peace be with you.

          • Kathy

            Think you are correct about the dictionary definition of victim…good analogy as well. Just doesn’t seem like the proper word to use in that context. It may be deceptive, as I found it to be when I heard it the other day. I actually used to think “Oh, poor Jesus”, when considering what “happened” to Him. So, I think that word implies an involuntary sacrifice more than a voluntary one.

            Glad you kind of “signed out” of this could go on and on, as we both know. Can I just ask you to consider refraining from saying that the CC is the only truth…that is for certain a deception. I know you were always taught that, but all born again, sincerely devoted Christ followers are His true Church. No nominal “Christians” in ANY denomination can be His church, from what I came to understand. I was once one of those unfortunate ones.

          • I don’t know if the Catholic Church teaches that it is the sole truth. That was just me speaking in a prideful moment. Mea Culpa. Actually the Catholic Church is very generous concerning non-Catholics. It accepts baptisms if done correctly from outside the church and it acknowledges salvation for all those that believe in Christ and of course repent of their sins. I’m not so sure most Protestant denominations recipricate with that generosity. Does your denomination? Lord knows I’ve heard many Protestants tell me I’m going to hell.

            As I think about it, I would modify that sentence on truth to say (and this is me speaking agian, I don’t know if the CC approves this phrasing) that Catholicism is the fullness of truth. I say because Protestants (unlike the Apostolic Churches) have by sola scriptura severed off tradition. The bible alone isn’t the fullness, it is only partial. John himself says at the end of his Gospel, “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written” (John 21:25). And in his letters he goes on to say he will speak face to face to tell all that he knows (see 2 John 12 and 3 John 13-14). St. Paul says it too in several places, for instance “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.” (2 Thess 2:15), but also see 1 Cor 11:2 and 2 Tim 3:14. And of course there is the much quoted 1 Tim 3:15 where he says the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Because Protestants had this erroneous idea that only what’s in the Bible is truth, they have jettisoned part of the truth.

            Now I know there are Protestant apologetics against those quotes, but they don’t hold water. Do you know why? Because look at all the Apostolic Churches, the Orthodox, the Coptics, the Armenian, and a bunch of others and see what they have in common: they all have a liturgy (another name for Mass) with the real presence of Christ in their communion, they all have a leader with the title Patriarch or Papa which is the same as Pope, they all venerate Mary as the Mother of God, they all pray before icons and images of the Blessed Mother and other saints. Clearly the evidence is there was a tradition that started at the roots and branched out.

          • Kathy

            I think the church does teach that…many Catholics have told me that. I just learned some other churches teach the same, though, for various reasons. I was raised a Lutheran, but attended the CC with my husband for many years. I am now what is considered a Biblical Christian (non-denominational), strictly adhering to Scripture to the best of our ability. I definitely would not consign all Catholics to hell. I can only go by John 3:1-21 concerning each individual in all churches.

            Concerning tradition, I’ll refer to Mark 7:7. Tradition mentioned in the other verses was to warn believers not to be duped by false teachings and prophecies contrary to what he and the other apostles taught. If oral and not recorded, how do WE know what the “traditions” were? John 21:25 does not at all call us to speculate on other things Jesus did. If someone says “MAYBE this is what took place” how would we know it really did?”

            As for other churches teaching and practicing the same things the CC does, I don’t believe that at all proves that they are correct. If what any church teaches actually contradicts the Word of God, it cannot be trusted. Adding to Scripture is bad enough, but disobeying God is quite another. That is what we all must be on our guard against.

          • Because the church has left a written record going back to the early centuries, all in the Vatican library. I’m not sure but it all may be available in some format. But do yourself a favor, at least read the church Fathers. All Christians should know what early Christianity was like. Peace be with you.

          • Kathy

            Not sure you are as familiar with my faith as I am with yours.

            We believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and cite 2 Timothy 3:15-17 and Psalm 19:7-10 as two of the many reasons. “The creature has nothing to say apart from the Creator”.

            We ascribe to Christ’s only two commanded sacraments, Baptism (for professing believers only) and, what we call, Holy Communion (the Eucharist).

            We agree wholeheartedly with the CC’s strict moral standards (what used to be anyway) and feel that the mainline Protestant churches have sadly fallen short on those and continue to go downhill in some denominations. Yes, the number of different ones is outrageous, so we agree there.

            Our service this morning focused on the Sanctity of Life…a very powerful message. My husband always says he never heard such extensive Bible teaching in the CC and has learned more than he thought possible.

            All very simple, Manny. We believe that Jesus came to “set the captives free”, not to make life more complicated for the flock as the Pharisees did. You know how Jesus felt about that. As for church fathers, it is not at all that they have nothing relevant to say, but does all they say align with Scripture? We believe, after Christ’s ascension, starting with the Book of Acts and ending with Revelation, are all we need to know.

            If you are interested, there is a website with a ton of questions and answers that explain our faith and why we don’t ascribe to CC teachings if you click on the Catholic Q & A. Just in case it’s deleted, I will send it in a separate post.

          • That is interesting. I was ready to end this here, but you have prompted a couple of more questions. One you flat out reject the St. Paul exhortations to hold on to tradition as well as scripture as I quoted and cited way above (2 Thess 2:15, 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Tim 3:14, 1 Tim 3:15). Most Protestants argue there was alternative tradition that survived under the radar so to speak. Your denomination apparently doesn’t deny the lack of tradition at all, which is refreshing actually, since the Protestants who argue the closet tradition can’t come up with any proof. My second thought that occurs to me is that you reject the Holy Spirit and its guidance to the early Christians. Christ says, “The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name – he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you.” (John 14:26). Do you reject that the Holy Spirit actually guided Christianity? And do you reject when Christ says “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matt 16:18). Even if you don’t believe Christ is referring to the CC, He is saying, both there and in the John quote, that the Holy Spirit will guide them correctly. You have an interesting denomination, Kathy, but you seem to be rejecting parts of scripture itself!

            Peace, my dear. 🙂

          • Kathy

            I figured they wouldn’t allow me to post the website, which I started reading just the other day. It explains so much of the Protestant faith and an extensive Q & A on why we disagree with many Catholic teachings.

            Forgot to mention that we don’t allow women in the clergy, only male pastors and elders. So, another agreement with the CC, and the Bible of course.

            I don’t reject Paul’s teachings at all, but the traditions he mentions are not the traditions of the CC as I know them. He doesn’t specifically reference any of the CC traditions I can think of in his writings…they were not even decreed yet by the popes, which occurred many years later.

            Matt 16:18 is one of the most controversial passages. We have another explanation for it, that it was Peter’s confession of Christ that the church is built on (we believe Christ is the rock and sole head of His church…He is often referred to as the cornerstone) and nowhere does it imply that there would be a succession of popes after Peter. That is my condensed version.

            I absolutely believe in the Holy Spirit. Our difference appears to be that you say His guidance was just for the apostles and their “successors” (is that correct?) and we believe He lives in all true believers and provides guidance to us to this day, not just the clergy, like I think Catholics believe.

            It seems to you I am rejecting parts of’s the differing interpretations we have.

          • This has been a most interesting discussion Kathy. I wish you well.

          • Kathy

            Is anyone in the CC assured of their acceptance and salvation? Are you? If there are still lots of rules to be obeyed and works to be done (rituals, extra sacraments, etc.), how much is enough? If God still required all those things, He would have just said so, no need to put his beloved Son through the extreme agony on the cross for us. The thief next to Jesus did none of those things, he just put his faith and trust in Jesus and was welcomed into paradise right there. Please think about that. No need to respond, but these are very important questions. (We do not ignore the book of James, but he is writing about care for others, generosity, etc, done in faith and obedience to God out of love and gratitude to Him, not religious obligation) What a freeing realization that is, Manny.

          • No, no, you don’t understand the Sacraments and rituals. Except for baptism all the others are aids to holiness. They are not required for salvation. That’s why the CC acknowledges the salvation of moral and faithful Protestants. Now we can argue what it means to sin or not sin. Matthew chapter 25 clearly supports James as a sin if you fail in doing works. You said above your denomination believes in the CC moral standards. Ignoring the poor and the sick is a sin, which Christ says brings everlasting fire, or however He phrases it in chapter 25. The sacraments are aids which fortify one toward morality and bring one closer to God. But they are not prerequisites for salvation. That depends on the state of your soul.

          • Kathy

            How are we faithful according to the CC’s opinion if we don’t believe or practice any of the rituals, sacraments or traditions that you do, except for the ones we can cite in Scripture? It is obviously very important for Catholics to observe all of that. Would not think we would get a pass….we would not have worked towards holiness. (Oh, my sons were told their non-Catholic relatives and friends were going to hell in their Confirmation classes.)

            The moral standards we believe in are also biblical, so naturally, we would agree with you. We would agree with any faith on those lines.

            How do you know the state of your soul? If there is still a belief in purgatory, and the cleansing of any “leftover” sin there, you can’t be sure how you are really doing until you die and go to purgatory, it seems to me anyway. The funeral prayers and songs I heard seemed to be aids in helping the person on their way to heaven. How can we improve the state of someone’s soul that is already dead? Don’t see anywhere in the Bible that we have that ability.

            I’m a pest, aren’t I? 🙂

          • Ha! You’re not a pest. I’m enjoying the conversation. I just hope Stream doesn’t mind us being off topic here. You seem like a sweet Christian lady. I’m sure we could be friends if we were to meet face to face. Plus you have the name of my dearest patron saint, St. Catherine of Siena. You should read up on her life one day.

            I don’t know if the change to welcome others into salvation occurred at Vatican II council, which I believe ended in the mid 1960s, but what your children were told was either a legacy before Vatican II or was just a misnomer. I’m not knowledgeable enough to know. But the CC did re-assess its understanding of those outside Catholicism at Vatican II and became more accepting.

            How do we know the state of our souls? No one does, but an honest confession (sacrament of penance) is a formal way to repent for ones sins. How do you repent? And how often, and what is your checklist of sins to know what you’ve been doing sinful so that you can stop them in the future? And who from the outside is assessing to make sure you’re being honest enough? Though it’s uncomfortable to go, confession is a real blessing. Purgatory yes we believe. Catholics don’t drop beliefs. The Holy Spirit may guide us to expand our beliefs but no belief has been changed since Peter was the first Pope.That’s why we can’t change on contraception and abortion. Neither of those are in the bible specifically, but they have been held as a sin from the beginning. You can read it in the Church Fathers. And yes Purgatory is in the Bible (see 2 Macabees 12:46, which I know Luther successfully dropped from the Bible, which I think was blashemous; he was unsuccessful but also tried to drop the Book of James – imagine the uproar from the Protestant world if a Pope decided to drop one of Paul’s epistles today!) but since nothing unclean can enter heaven (see Rev 21:27) then by implication there needs to be a cleaning process which is mentioned in several places but I guess the most directly in 1 Cor 3:11-15. I’ll only quote the last two sentences, “If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.”

            Without Purgatory, most people would not get into heaven. As good as you may be Kathy, I bet you sin too.

          • Kathy

            Thank you, Manny! Yes, I agree, it has been a very pleasant exchange. Not always the case, as you probably know. It sure gets heated sometimes on this website. My name is just Kathy, but since I’ve gotten older, I actually would have preferred Kathleen! Speaking of saints, Manny, did you know the Bible calls all true believers saints and a royal priesthood? That’s you!

            I will say it’s a little confusing to me when the CC tells Catholics they must participate in the sacraments, rituals, etc. to work towards becoming holy enough to be welcomed into heaven, but Protestants don’t have to do any of that and still be welcomed. Aren’t they putting an extra burden on you? I don’t understand why the faith needs to be so complicated on the CC end. Life is complicated enough without the church adding to the burden, as the Pharisees did. Jesus repeatedly chastised them for it, as you know.

            The church is basing so much on human merit and works and not giving Christ the full credit for suffering and dying for forgiveness of our sins. It’s as if we still need to “help” Him complete the process even though He said “It is finished”, the debt was paid in full, not partially so that we must do the rest.
            We can’t no matter how hard we try, you and I know it’s not possible. If you believe there must be a purgatory, you must know for sure it’s not.

            God looks at us through Jesus’ righteousness if we just put our faith and trust in what He did on the cross for us, not our own. “There is no one righteous, no not one”. We can’t do it, Manny. God was gracious and kind enough to offer us that free gift…we just have to accept it in full. That is NOT at all a license to sin willfully, but if we are grateful for that gift, we will try to please our Father and avoid sin as much as we can.

            I know about the verses that appear to reference a purgatory. Of course, I have another interpretation of 1 Cor. Yes, Luther removed the Apochropha (spelling?) because the Jews did not accept those books as part of the OT, Jesus and the apostles never quoted anything from them, and they were not relevant to the rest of Scripture. Luther had a problem with the book of James because there was so much confusion among the faithful concerning faith and works.

            I won’t get into the claim that Peter is the first obviously don’t agree that Christ is the Cornerstone, the primary rock in the foundation, in this case of our faith. I would not rely on the church fathers as you mentioned unless what they said aligns with God’s Word. They are mere men, no better than the rest of us.

            Another thing you must know, Manny, God wants us to go directly to Him for everything, Including confessing our sins… no need for intermediaries like before the cross. The veil in the temple was torn in half to prove to us there is no more separation between God and us. Isn’t that so reassuring that we have direct access to our Father?

          • Kathy

            My reply was deleted as spam last night…maybe they are cutting us off now? I will try to send another one later and will see what happens.

          • Your reply came into my email before it was deleted, so I saw it. It seems to you know know the history of the Bible. Quck answer: Look up Septuagint and know that was the bible Jesus and the apostles quoted from. The Jewish Bible was not actually formulated until after the Temple destruction, after Jesus. We’ll have to continue this some other time.

          • Kathy

            Funny, I looked up Septuagint and one of the sources for info was the website I was trying to give you, but it said nothing about why Luther removed the Apocrypha in it. All I’ve read in a book I have is that “the Jewish authors who wrote the books never accepted them into their canon. They themselves put their books in a different category from the recognized Hebrew scriptures”. I’ve read that in other sources.

            If you remember what else i wrote, did it make any sense to you? No hurry….

          • I guess their letting us continue. Let me ask you, do you know why the Catholic Church (and all the other Apostolic Churches) use the Septuagint? Because at the time of Jesus and the Apostles there was no authorized Jewish set of Biblical cannon. The Septuagint was a gathering of all the possible Bible scriptures that were available. It was put together around the second century BC and it was created for all the Greek speaking Jews that had spread out across the Greco-Roman world. In Judea they had all the scrolls but no one ever considered what was the official Bible because the only important scrolls were the five books of the Pentateuch. In fact I believe there are types of Jews that only hold those five books (the Torah) as truly sacred and the rest as religious literature. The Tanakah, which is what you are calling the Jewish Bible, was created as a cannon after the Septuagint and after the Temple was destroyed probably two hundred years after the temple was destroyed. None of the early Christians even had that collection.

            But more importantly, all the quotes that Jesus and writers of the Gospels and Epistles come from the Septuagint. Their words are right out of there. All the Church fathers quote out of the Septuagint. It was the Christian Bible. To argue that Jesus didn’t quote from the Apocrapha is meaningless. He didn’t quote from Chronicles and Kings either, but you include them in your Bible. Why is that? He didn’t quote from lots of the books. It was only Martin Luther 1500 years after Christ who disputed the books that got thrown out. And get this, he included a number of books that are not in the Tanakah. The Tanakah has only 24 books. How many Old Testament books does your bible have? I just checked my King James and it has 37 books in the Old Testament. So thirteen are not in the “Jewish Bible.” And in my little research now I’ve come to find that not all Protestants include the same books. What a mess Luther created. That’s why you need a central authority. The only reason I can gather that Luther dropped the Apocrypha is because he didn’t like the Catholic teaching. And I’m sorry, and I hope this doesn’t offend, but Luther didn’t have all his marbles. This whole Reformation disaster was started by a guy who didn’t have his full faculties.

          • Kathy

            Wow, we could debate this all day long. I am waiting for my mom to finish the Eric Metaxas book on Luther, and I recently read another on why the Reformation still matters. I’m sure you do not think that Luther was totally wrong in calling out the corrupt church of that time. He did not want to start a new religion, but the hierarchy forced it by excommunicating him. I hope you have read an honest account of his life and not some far-fetched stuff that’s out there. There were many other Reformers as well, he is just the most well-known.

            As far as “all his marbles” there are many clergy, etc. in ALL churches that have done very questionable or outright horrible things over the centuries to this day. Sure you are familiar with all that. I always think maybe that is God’s way of showing us not to depend on any sinful human being, but only on Him.

            You may not remember what you read before my post was deleted last night, but what were your thoughts, if you can recall it, that is?

          • Kathy, I’m not making that up and I’m not being spiteful. At a minimum Luther suffered from depression and anxiety, but there are those that claim he suffered from bi-polar disorder. The fairest, most objective discussion on the topic I’ve seen was by Dave Armstrong (he does not think Luther was bi-polar or psychotic). Google: “Dave Armstrong Luther Bi-Polar” and then also Google “Was Luther a Neurotic: Protestant Biographers Say Yes.” My understandingis based on a particular scholar who studied Luther intensively and he believed Luther was bi-polar. Supposedly by this scholar (I can’t remember his name now) said that Luther would write one thing one day and a short time later would flip to the opposite view. That’s why so many suspect bi-polarism. Yes, there are clergy who are nuts in everyone’s religion, but Luther caused a disaster. And yes, there was plenty in the Catholic Church that was corrupt. He was right on that, but Luther threw out the baby with the bath water.

            And frankly, if you compare Lutheranism with Catholicism, the rituals that you keep bringing up aren’t that much different, especially in Luther’s day. Bach’s (the Lutheran composer) Masses are nearly identical to a Catholic Mass. And that’s another point I’ve been wanting to ask. How many rituals do you think we actually have? You make it sound like millions. We have the Mass and we have the seven sacraments. Don’t you have church service? I’ve never been to a Protestant service but as I understand it, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Methodists all have similar type of service to a Mass. But I’ve never been to one to know firsthand. But even if you have a service like I’ve seen Evangelicals on TV have, doesn’t it follow a set order? Don’t you have opening hymns, followed by a sermon, more hymns, an altar call, and possibly the Lord’s Supper? Isn’t that a ritual? So how many of the seven Catholic sacraments do Protestants also do in rituals? Baptism, I know for sure. The Lord’s Supper is similar to Communion, marriage I’m sure you have, and I bet your pastors have a ceremony when they sanctioned, just like our priests get Holy Orders. So the only ones you don’t do in some fashion are confirmation and anointing of the sick. That’s hardly millions of rituals.

            Getting back to the Bible, so do you understand why Catholics (and I think everyone else other than Protestants) use the Septuagint?

          • Kathy

            I will be reading Eric’s book soon enough and will draw my conclusions from that. He wrote an excellent biography on Dietrich Bonhoeffer and does extensive research, so I trust his writings. I’ll have to beg to differ on Luther causing a disaster…he absolutely did the right thing. You do know he was far from the only Reformer.

            You are right, Manny. I was raised a Lutheran, but am no longer. I actually went back there for a while. There are some things that are similar to the CC, like infant baptism, following the liturgy and liturgical seasons, Confirmation, reciting the Apostle’s or Nicene creeds and the Lord’s Prayer (Our Father for you) Yes, I think the other denoms you mentioned are very similar. With the exception of infant baptism, I don’t think there is anything questionable at all with their practices. Oh, that church had a female minister, so another issue. And the ELCA has ordained at least one practicing gay bishop and affirms the BDS movement against Israel, from what I’ve read. Glad I’m out of there!

            I have learned to be very discerning regarding evangelical pastors and have weeded many out. Many on TV are questionable, some are legit. There are “prosperity gospel” ones, liberal progressive ones, way-out-there Charasmatics (spelling?), etc. Don’t think I go with the flow and accept just anyone as legit. Far from it. Our only sacraments are Baptism for professing believers and Holy Communion or the Lord’s Supper. Nothing else is considered a sacrament because Jesus never commanded the others .

            Rather than list all of the things I have issues with regarding the CC, that site I mentioned has answers to a myriad of questions regarding most all faith matters you can think of. There is a lengthy Catholic Q & A that would thoroughly explain why I have doubts about it. I can’t do that here, it’s too much.

          • That’s fine. I have no interest in leaving the CC. Like I said, it’s the fullness, and I love the fullness, but one thing I’ve learned from this exchange is that there are gradations to the fullness. That never occurred to me. You seem to not want any of the features to fullness. You want it as bare as possible. I don’t know why you feel that is more satisfying, but apparently you do. Like I’ve pointed out, it’s not more original. The other churches have very similar traditions, which shows you they started together, and it’s right there in the Bible in terms of tradition and scripture as I’ve quoted St. Paul.

            But you are missing my point on the “rituals.” Like I’ve said, you have your own rituals, which I guess you don’t realize are rituals. Your church service is a ritual, and besides the sacraments you acknowledge, your pastors are ordained in some fashion I assume, and I’m sure you have marriages as part of the religion. Those are rituals.

            So with that (I think I’m repeating now) I want to wish you well. I hope you weren’t offended my reaction against Luther. I do have an element of respect for him, but I do feel what he brought on was a disaster. John chapter 17 has Jesus pleading for unity, “And now I will no longer be in the world, but they are in the world, while I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are” (John 17:11). Are we Christians one as Jesus and the Father are one? Thousands of denominations tells us no. Read that chapter, it’s very important. God bless you Kathy, perhaps someday we will meet. I’ll be down at the pro-life March in DC Friday. It will be a madhouse but if you’re there perhaps we will run into each other. Peace in Christ.

          • Kathy

            Sorry, I never answered your question on the rituals, but did think of something else just now. I mentioned Confirmation (no mention of in the Bible), which we don’t do at our church because only professing believers are baptized. I was baptized as an infant and Confirmation was an affirmation of it. Didn’t mean much to me at the time, it was just protocol at age 13.

            Not what I meant by rituals. Rather than naming all of them that I can think of like I started to do, the Mass seemed very repetitive and robotic, with lots of reciting and responding on cue. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, it just tends to be a going-through-the-motions experience for a lot of people. They concentrate on the externals rather than on the internal, and are they really paying attention to what they are doing and saying? You most likely do, Manny…all Catholics I personally know do not know squat about what they are doing and why, and I commend you that you do.

            The Mass is very beautiful and I miss the palatable reverence for God in the CC church. The problem lies with if that is the focus…the rituals, the aesthetics, if you are “performing” correctly, revering other human beings like Mary and saints, etc…rather than a total focus on God. You know what He says about Himself in the Bible…NOTHING should come before Him. There is not much to distract us like that in our church, our enemy does enough to attempt to distract us from God as it is. The more “extras” in the church, the more difficult to focus on Him.

            Luther is just a broken man (my mom said there was no mention of bi-polar in the book, but bouts of depression, yes) that God used for His purposes, just like Peter was. Look at Peter’s character flaws, especially cursing and denying our Lord like he did. That’s the point, not to put our trust in what ANY mere man says unless it aligns with God’s Word…He is the only perfect One. Another point, knowing that, why would He tell us to give veneration to anyone else, like Mary? That contradicts what He says…He wants our FULL attention. So much of it is just common sense to me.

            As for experiencing fullness, I used to think the term “born again” was some weird fundamentalist thing…I did not even know Jesus said we must be to enter the Kingdom. Sparing you too much detail, after leaving the CC and studying to confirm or refute my doubts about it, God opened by eyes and heart to him. I suddenly began to understand His Word, felt a strong conviction to repent (it was not fun), felt an overwhelming presence of His love and peace, a drawing to surrender to Him, and I am a committed follower of Jesus ever since. I actually want to learn all I can about Him, want to obey Him and not grieve Him, etc. I learned it was the work of the Holy Spirit in me almost 6 years ago, something I never imagined before. So, Jesus is my fullness, I guess.

            I agree about the unity in certain areas, but if there is such a discrepancy concerning doctrinal issues, you can’t have that in full. Someone would have to renounce their convictions if that were to take place. I believe the unity is of all true believers in all denominations. You may be suggesting we all go to the CC to have that unity? Is that your thought?

            My son and daughter-in-law live in DC, but we will not be there for the march. Unfortunately, they will not be either. ): That’s another story. Hope I explained myself better this time. Thanks for defending the babies, Manny! We support organizations that provide ultrasounds, support the mothers, etc. I think we could hang out and get along nicely, Manny. Nice to have civil conversations, isn’t it? May our Father bless you and keep you as well!

          • Sorry, I was typing fast. I meant it seems you’don’t know the history of the Bible.

  • jgmusgrove

    I love the line: “what makes a country a Cacastan: It’s a place that’s so poor, chaotic, or violent that millions of people would rather live in an American city governed by Democrats.” Choice!

  • Karen

    The use of the obscenity is much less a problem than his opinion that we should get all our immigrants from Norway. There is one obvious difference between Norwegians and Africans, and Trump clearly stated he prefers the former.

    • Kevin Carr

      His main point was that (and he didn’t just say African countries), was why get them from 3rd world countries, most of what we will get is welfare ready people. I don’t completely agree with his position but he has a point. Uncontrolled, unlimited reception of unproductive people is unsustainable. Many of the countries he spoke of are a mess, and those that are able to leave agree with that by leaving and don’t return. The UN has Norway as one of the more developed countries where the people are better educated and would be self sufficient.

      • Karen

        Then why did he even mention Norway? Norway has the most generous welfare system on Earth. Presumably any immigrants from there would expect similar treatment here.

        • Kevin Carr

          You could ask the UN the same question. Why even bother to rank them. Unlimited immigration is not sustainable, it must be controlled. I do think sometimes he should hold his tongue. I do think he should exhibit a certain restraint. I’m just saying what he said is true.

          Norway has an excessively high rate of taxation, too, do you want that? Should we become like Germany and Sweden, with the crime that come with what they have done? The Katie Steinle’s of this world are of no concern, right?

          Why do the ones that can leave their home countries? The general answer is for a better life, why is that better life not possible there?

        • Kevin Carr

          You mentioned Norway’s generous welfare system, is that the key? to make them wards of the State, don’t be self-sufficient, come here and you will be taken care of .

        • Kevin Carr

          By “kosher” do you mean politically correct?

  • Paul Trey

    What he said!

  • Now I realize why my comment yesterday wasn’t published. I mention Sen Durbin’s first name… lol. There was no vulgarity meant in my comment. I guess the gist of it was that Durbin should never be trusted again with private conversation.

  • Howard Rosenbaum

    Trump is just playing these guys for the scoundrels they often appear to be. Haiti ? Sure it’s something less than a vacation spot. It’s also been victim to two recent natural disasters. An earthquake of mega proportions & Bill & Hillary.
    So, intentially or otherwise Trump has accomplished two things. One he has the libs & the MSM talking about sh**t -something they excel at. Two he has given fresh pause to the devastation both that earthquake & the Clintons contributed to that location where seemingly not enough toilets exist ….

  • Chip Crawford

    Remember in school when the “finks” (word at the time) would tell on people all the time. The worst would practically light up when relating their tales. Ummmm … Being so bereft of ideas and goals, the Dims have added this practice to their playbook. There’s this action of rubbing one index finger in perpendicular direction over the other to indicate naughty, naughty. I half expect to see that as well.

  • Hmmm…

    Let’s see – there was something Trump did a few days ago — hmmm, what was it — Oh well, it might have been the uproar of the day before that I’m thinking about ,,, There’s no time to fret about the latest before the next. I think I’ll live in the space between them – yeah, that’s what to do. Heard about outrage fatigue? Got it? Want to beat it, too? Let’s try living in the small spaces between, stretching those out, feeding on the good news that slipped in there. Then the next good news that got some play. Yeah. On a roll here !! lol

  • Elizabeth Litts

    If the Dems are waiting for our President Trump to ‘snivel’ they better not hold their breath–or maybe they better–maybe they will suffocate!

Do Not Sin Against the Child
Charles Spurgeon
More from The Stream
Connect with Us