Again, anyone who wanted to check on Rivera's credentials would have to go to the source who would have them. IF he was once a priest/bishop/Jesuit, and IF he went to a particular seminary, and IF he was in specific places at specific times, and IF he did claimed to do, and IF he tried to claim to be someone people said he wasn't, wouldn't it make sense for the religious organization he was from try to destroy any documented evidence and deny his claims?
Coming from an organization that has tried to cover up claims of sexual abuse of her priests (and I worked with a couple of them who were accused while in the military!) I am not surprised. And if you don't know Jack Chick why do you call him a liar? Try reading what he, and others, have to say. If you don't want to read his books, read others as outlined earlier in this thread.
Charles Chiniquy was a priest who broke away from the catholic institution at the time. If for that you label him a renegrade, well then that's what he was. Of course the same was said about Charles and John Wesley and the Methodist Episcopal movement, B.T. Roberts and the Free Methodist church, Martin Luther and the Lutheran movement, the Anabaptists, etc, etc, etc, but what the hey, lump them all in together huh? And if you accuse him of being a liar because he exposed the dealings of the priests in Chicago at that time then why not read in the papers of the era and see who's telling the truth.
And furthermore, I never mentioned John Wilkes Booth did I?? I think not.
As I said, Protestantism deserves better than to be defended by liars and reprobates like Chick, Rivera, and Chiniquy. To this all I got to is, well, there isn't much to say except, why not add the names I listed earlier and see if that statement stands up.
I'll admit that I hate lies and love the truth. Guilty as charged.
Again, anyone who wanted to check on Rivera's credentials would have to go to the source who would have them. IF he was once a priest/bishop/Jesuit, and IF he went to a particular seminary, and IF he was in specific places at specific times, and IF he did claimed to do, and IF he tried to claim to be someone people said he wasn't, wouldn't it make sense for the religious organization he was from try to destroy any documented evidence and deny his claims?
I knew that was coming! It's the classic "the dog ate my homework" non-falsifiable argument. Awesome!
So if there's evidence that Rivera was any of the things he claimed to be, or in any of the places he said he was, he's telling the truth. And if there's no evidence that Rivera was any of the things he claimed to be, or in any of the places he said he was, he's still telling the truth, because the "roman catholic institution" [sic] destroyed all the evidence that would have proven he was telling the truth!!
By the way, did I mention to you that everyone you ever knew was a Reptoid space alien from the planet Zeta Reticuli 4? Of course, I can't prove it, because the conspiracy destroyed all the evidence ... so just trust me, okay?
Incredibly ... I have. That's why I know he's a liar.