Follow
Those who have been following this blog have at least some passing familiarity with the eschatology we espouse. As we have written in many entries thus far, we hold that Papal Rome is the Beast of Revelation (Revelation 13:1-10), that the Apparition of Mary is the False Prophet (Revelation 13:11-14), and that the Eucharist is the Image of the Beast (Revelation 13:14-16).
We addressed these in the following posts:
What the Fathers Feared Most
Like the Sun Going Down on Me
If This Bread Could Talk
One Kingdom Too Late
A See of One, and
The Rise of Roman Catholicism
To summarize our position, Daniel and the Apostles foresaw that the archnemesis of the Church of Jesus Christ would soon arise at the division of the Roman Empire and would have an accomplice, the False Prophet, that would erect an image that all were expected to worship on pain of death. Those who worshiped the image would receive a mark on their hands and foreheads, and the image would come to life and be able to speak. The False Prophet would have the power to work wonders, even to make the fire of heaven come down to earth in the sight of men and in the sight of the beast.
We hold that the Papacy, and Roman Catholicism as a whole, arose in the latter part of the 4th Century, just after the division of the Empire into thirteen “dioceses.” The accomplice we mentioned, the False Prophet, is the Apparition of Mary that has appeared to Roman Catholic saints and visionaries throughout history. The apparition of Mary at Fatima is famous, among other things, for causing the sun—the fire of heaven—come down to earth before 70,000 witnesses in 1917. The Image of the Beast is the Eucharist, erected for worship throughout the world. During the Inquisitions, people were put to death for not worshiping it. The Eucharist has come to life in that it turns to flesh, and bleeds and pulsates in what are called Eucharistic Miracles. As the Scriptures tell us, “the life of the flesh is in the blood” (Leviticus 17:11). The Eucharist also has the ability to speak in that it has been known to speak audibly to those worshiping it. The Mark of the Beast, which is received on the forehead or the hand as John described it in Revelation 13:16-17, is simply a reference to the feast of unleavened bread, which Moses said would be as “a token upon thine hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes” (Exodus 13:16). John has forewarned us of the unleavened bread idol that Roman Catholics erect for worship—the Image of the Beast.
One of our readers recently asked a rather penetrating question about Eucharistic Adoration and the phenomenon of the Apparitions of Mary. His question is our focus this week. He asked,
“What happened first? Was it the apparitions of Mary or the development of the Eucharistic adoration? In Revelation it sounds like the second beast brings forth the image of worship but I thought historically the Eucharistic adoration preceded the apparitions.”
What is so poignant about this question is that it drives at the very heart of Roman Catholic claims of doctrinal development. It is true that the Apparitions of Mary are a later phenomenon. It is also true that Roman Catholics claim Eucharistic Adoration can be traced all the way back at least to the 4th Century. Consider a few examples of the claim:
“Some writers trace the first beginnings of perpetual [Eucharistic] adoration to the late fourth century, when converts to the faith in some dioceses were to adore the Blessed Sacrament exposed for eight days after their baptism.” (Fr. John Hardon, The History of Eucharistic Adoration).
“Probably the earliest and longest instance of perpetual adoration on record is the continuous adoration of the Blessed Sacrament in the Cathedral of Lugo, Spain, for more than 1,000 years in expiation of the fourth-century Priscillian heresy.” (Joan Carrol Cruz, Eucharistic Miracles and Eucharistic Phenomena in the Lives of the Saints, p. 284).
“Eucharist Adoration is an ancient, prayerful devotion believed to be in existence as early as the 4th century with St. Basil.” (St. Monica Catholic Church web page).
What we notice on further inspection, however, is that the evidence for early Eucharistic adoration is complete conjecture. John Hardon says “some writers trace the first beginnings of it to the late fourth century,” but he does not tell us who those writers are.
St. Basil is offered as an example of the early practice of Eucharistic adoration, but the only evidence we have is that he acknowledged that some of the communion bread was set aside for later use, a practice referred to as “reservation”. He wrote, “All the solitaries [hermits] in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home” (Basil, To the Patrician Cæasaria, concerning Communion, Letter XCIII). This is hardly proof of adoration.
As regards Cruz’s example of perpetual adoration at the Cathedral in Lugo, Spain, the earliest attestation of it is from an 1895 letter from Cardinal Vaughan to the Cardinal Primate of Spain (Joan Carrol Cruz, Eucharistic Miracles, p. 284). We suspect that the 1,500 year gap between the start of the alleged adoration in Lugo and the letter attesting to it was merely a highly imaginative exchange of mutual admiration between Cardinals, and not based on any actual historical data. Surely it ought to take less than 1,500 years to produce evidence of a practice so central to Rome’s liturgy.
The dearth of early evidence for Eucharistic Adoration becomes painfully obvious when its defenders attempt to trace it back even further. Fr. John Hardon wrote, “Already in the second century, popes sent the Eucharist to other bishops as a pledge of unity of faith; and, on occasion, bishops would do the same for their priests” (Hardon, History of Eucharistic Adoration). Exchanging sacramental bread is hardly evidence that Christians were “already” practicing Eucharistic Adoration as early as the 2nd century. Cruz makes a similarly futile attempt to show early proof of Eucharistic Adoration from loaves and drawings of loaves and fishes found in the catacombs:
“As proof of this early veneration we have only to study the frescoes in the catacombs which were constructed beneath the city of Rome between the 1st and 3rd centuries. Here we find numerous symbols representing the Holy Eucharist. The most persistent of these are baskets of bread in conjunction with fish, recalling Jesus’ miraculous multiplication of the loaves and fish, an event which led up to His feeding of souls with His own flesh and blood. In the catacomb of Callistus is a painting of a large fish beside a woven basket, and on top of the basket are pictured round loaves of bread; the front part of the basket has a square opening in which is seen a glass containing red wine. In the catacombs of St. Priscilla, archeologists have found sculptured loaves (about the size of a fist) indented on the top with a cross, the mark of salvation.” (Eucharistic Miracles and Eucharistic Phenomena in the Lives of the Saints by Joan Carroll Cruz:p. 274)
We extend our condolences to these apologists who, lacking early evidence for the practice, must see in every custom, every painting and every hot cross bun the “proof” of early Eucharistic veneration they wished to find but could not. To see just how much Cruz has to read into the frescoes, we offer the hyperlink in her citation above, so that our readers can see for themselves the painting to which she refers. Sculpted loaves “the size of a fist” are leavened, and even a child can see that the loaves pictured in the fresco are leavened loaves, as were the loaves that Jesus multiplied in His miracles (Matthew 16:6-12), but the Lord’s Supper is celebrated with unleavened bread. Could the saints in the catacombs—so familiar with the life of their Lord and Savior—have been ignorant of His use of unleavened bread at the Passover? We suspect, rather, that the loaves and fishes depicted in the catacombs are intended as references to exactly what they look like: the miracles of loaves and fishes in which the leftovers were collected in baskets (Mark 6, Mark 8, Luke 9 and John 6). The fact that Cruz has to inform her readers that the “multiplication of the loaves and fishes” was an event that eventually “led up to” the Lord’s Supper shows plainly that she brought Eucharistic Adoration with her into the catacombs. She did not find it there.
Perhaps the most compelling evidence that Eucharistic Adoration was not practiced in the early church is from Church Fathers and Popes who denied the “real presence” of Christ in the Eucharist. Since what is alleged to be worshiped in the Eucharist is His “real presence,” it is notable that these men denied that the bread ceased to be bread in substance and nature, and by denying it, they denied the very foundation of adoration:
John Chrysostom (d. 407): “As the bread before it is sanctified, is called bread, but after the divine grace has sanctified it by the mediation of the priest, it is no longer called bread, but dignified with the name of the body of the Lord, though the nature of bread remains in it.” (Ad Cæsarium, book iii).
Augustine (d. 430) on John 6: “Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth.” (Augustine, An Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8).
Pope Gelasius (490 AD): “yet the substance and nature of bread and wine do not cease to be in them” (Against Eutyches and Nestorius)
If Chrysostom, Augustine and Gelasius denied that the bread ceased to be bread in nature and substance, then the argument for Eucharistic Adoration goes away, for the Eucharist remains what it was before consecration—just bread—and thus is not to be worshiped. Its defenders and practitioners are therefore left appealing to Ignatius of Antioch in the early 2nd century because he is alleged to have believed “the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ” (Ignatius of Antioch, To the Smyrnæans, 7). However, as we noted last week in Eating Ignatius, they appeal to him in vain, for his preferred mode of communication was itself metaphorical, not literal. Likewise, as we noted in The Rise of Roman Catholicism and In Vain do They Worship Me, Justin Martyr and Augustine are of no help to them either.
So lacking is evidence of early Eucharistic Adoration that its defenders and adherents are forced to acknowledge, at least implicitly, that the most ancient actual evidence for it is completely lacking until the 11th Century. Notice how John Hardon skips from “reservation” in the late 4th century to an explosion of Eucharistic Adoration in the 11th century, with very little to say of the yawning seven-century gap between them:
“It is interesting to note that one of the first unmistakable references to reserving the Blessed Sacrament is found in a life of St. Basil (who died in 379). … Toward the end of the eleventh century we enter on a new era in the history of Eucharistic adoration. … Suddenly a revolution hit the Church.” (Fr. John Hardon, The History of Eucharistic Adoration).
A revolution indeed, and one that was 1,000 years too late by Rome’s standards. Such a revolution was due in the first century if Transubstantiation and the “real presence” was truly taught by Christ and His apostles. We invite our readers to consider the remarkable historical gloss committed by Fr. John Hardon as he explains that until the 11th century, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was simply “taken for granted.” Despite the language of Chrysostom, Augustine and Gelasius he claims that the “real presence” of Christ in the bread was “never seriously challenged,” and thus “the Church’s first definitive statement” on it was not necessary until the 11th century:
“Toward the end of the eleventh century we enter on a new era in the history of Eucharistic adoration. Until then the Real Presence was taken for granted in Catholic belief and its reservation was the common practice in Catholic churches, including the chapels and oratories of religious communities. Suddenly a revolution hit the Church when Berengarius (999-1088), archdeacon of Angers in France, publicly denied that Christ was really and physically present under the species of bread and wine. Others took up the idea and began writing about the Eucharistic Christ as not exactly the Christ of the Gospels or, by implication, as not actually there.
“The matter became so serious that Pope Gregory VII ordered Berengarius to sign a retraction. This credo has made theological history. It was the Church’s first definitive statement of what had always been believed and never seriously challenged. The witness came from the abbot-become-pope, whose faith in the Blessed Sacrament had been nourished for years in a Benedictine monastery. …
“With this profession of faith, the churches of Europe began what can only be described as a Eucharistic Rennaissance. Processions of the Blessed Sacrament were instituted; prescribed acts of adoration were legislated; visits to Christ in the pyx were encouraged; the cells of anchoresses had windows made into the church to allow the religious to view and adore before the tabernacle. … From the eleventh century on, devotion to the Blessed Sacrament reserved in the tabernacle became more and more prevalent in the Catholic world. At every stage in this development, members of religious orders of men and women took the lead.” (Fr. John Hardon, The History of Eucharistic Adoration)
The late development of Eucharistic Adoration is actually common knowledge among those who are willing to study the history of it. Consider this remarkable acknowledgment by Victoria Tufano at US Catholic, as she makes the same 700-year leap from “reservation” of the communion bread, to “adoration” of the bread in the 11th century:
In about the fourth century monasteries began to reserve the Eucharist, and by the 11th century, reservation—still mainly for the sick and dying—was a regular feature of churches. While reverence was certainly given to Christ present in the sacrament, it was not yet customary to pray before the reserved sacrament.
In the 11th century the French monk Berengar of Tours began to teach that the bread and wine in the celebration of the Eucharist could not change physically into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Pope Gregory VII demanded a retraction from Berengar saying that the body and blood of Christ were truly present in the Eucharist. This resulted in a refining of the church’s teaching on the real presence. In response, eucharistic devotion burst forth throughout Europe: processions, visits to the Blessed Sacrament, and other prayers focused on the reserved sacrament became part of Catholic life.
– See more at: http://www.uscatholic.org/church/2011/02/whats-history-adoration-blessed-sacrament#sthash.2qZ3UsFv.dpuf
“In about the fourth century monasteries began to reserve the Eucharist, and by the 11th century, reservation—still mainly for the sick and dying—was a regular feature of churches. While reverence was certainly given to Christ present in the sacrament, it was not yet customary to pray before the reserved sacrament.
“In the 11th century the French monk Berengar of Tours began to teach that the bread and wine in the celebration of the Eucharist could not change physically into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Pope Gregory VII demanded a retraction from Berengar saying that the body and blood of Christ were truly present in the Eucharist. This resulted in a refining of the church’s teaching on the real presence. In response, eucharistic devotion burst forth throughout Europe: processions, visits to the Blessed Sacrament, and other prayers focused on the reserved sacrament became part of Catholic life.
“Around the same time, elevations of the bread and the wine were added to the eucharistic prayer at Mass. For some, the moment of seeing the consecrated host overshadowed the rest of the liturgy. Times of extended exposition of the Blessed Sacrament outside the Mass grew out of this action, and eventually a blessing with the exposed Eucharist, or benediction, developed.” (Victoria M. Tufano, What’s the history of adoration of the blessed sacrament?, US Catholic)
What’s the history of adoration of the blessed sacrament? – See more at: http://www.uscatholic.org/church/2011/02/whats-history-adoration-blessed-sacrament#sthash.2qZ3UsFv.dpuf
In about the fourth century monasteries began to reserve the Eucharist, and by the 11th century, reservation—still mainly for the sick and dying—was a regular feature of churches. While reverence was certainly given to Christ present in the sacrament, it was not yet customary to pray before the reserved sacrament.
In the 11th century the French monk Berengar of Tours began to teach that the bread and wine in the celebration of the Eucharist could not change physically into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Pope Gregory VII demanded a retraction from Berengar saying that the body and blood of Christ were truly present in the Eucharist. This resulted in a refining of the church’s teaching on the real presence. In response, eucharistic devotion burst forth throughout Europe: processions, visits to the Blessed Sacrament, and other prayers focused on the reserved sacrament became part of Catholic life.
– See more at: http://www.uscatholic.org/church/2011/02/whats-history-adoration-blessed-sacrament#sthash.2qZ3UsFv.dpuf
As is plainly obvious, actual Eucharistic Adoration did not occur until the 11th century, and that is when a “Eucharistic Renaissance” took place, “a new era in the history of Eucharistic adoration” began, and a veritable “revolution hit the Church” when “eucharistic devotion burst forth throughout Europe.” “Renaissance,” however, is hardly the right word for it, as it implies a renewal or revival of a previous devotion. As we have seen, there was no precedent to the 11th century “revolution.” We can therefore read in their words the relief of the Roman Catholic apologists who finally have actual, verifiable historical proof of Eucharistic Adoration. Unfortunately for their arguments, it cannot be traced back to the 4th century at all. It is a phenomenon of the 11th century, no earlier.
What, then, have the apparitions of Mary to do with this? Notably, the visions of Mary have been known to speak on many topics, but are chiefly invested in the expansion of the practice of Eucharistic Adoration. So intimately associated are the two phenomena of Apparitions and Eucharistic Adoration that Fr. Peter Julian Eymard led a successful movement in the 19th century to assign to Mary the title, “Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament.” Reading from Fr. Eymard’s Month of Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament, we note not only that he connects Mary to the Eucharist, but that he connects the Apparitions of Mary to the propagation of Eucharistic Adoration:
“It is Mary who multiplies Churches. … In how many places, indeed, has Mary wrought prodigies, appearing in marvelous apparitions, most frequently to request the building of a church in certain places, where crowds of pilgrims, … find the Holy Eucharist, and glorify It by the numerous Masses there said … . Such is Mary’s aim. Ah, how well does this most prudent Mother know how to attain it! Who can say the glory that the Blessed Sacrament has received, and does receive, every day in the sanctuaries of Loretto, of Laus, of La Salette, of Lourdes, of Notre-Dame des Victoires, and of so many other celebrated pilgrimages?” (Eymard, Month of Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament, pp. 244-45)
Note well that when Eymard refers to Loreto, Laus, La Salette, Lourdes and Notre-Dame des Victoires, he is referring to sites of famous apparitions of Mary. In each place—and in so many more—the apparition asks for perpetual eucharistic adoration and devotion to “her son” in the Eucharist, and thus “saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast” (Revelation 13:14). Fr. Eymard himself “had a special devotion to Our Lady of Laus,” and was persuaded to establish the title of Mary as “Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament” due in no small part to the influence of the apparitions there. As Gerald Francis of the Real Presence Eucharistic Education and Adoration Association explains in his article, “Our Lady and the Eucharist,” the Apparitions and Eucharistic Adoration and highly correlated phenomena:
“Marian Shrines are Eucharistic Shrines: …perhaps nowhere is the close link between Mother and Son, Immaculate Virgin and Eucharistic Christ, more apparent than in the Marian shrines that are found throughout the world. When our Lady came for the first time in her many modern-day apparitions at Rue du Bac in Paris in 1830, she told St. Catherine Laboure to come to the foot of the altar where great graces would be bestowed on all who ask for them. Our Lady asked that a church be built on the site of her apparitions at Lourdes, which of course indicates that she wanted the Eucharistic Sacrifice to be celebrated there as well as Christ’s Presence in the tabernacle. In every one of Mary’s great sanctuaries Mary is not venerated in isolation. She brings all the pilgrims to the foot of the altar where they may gain great graces from her Divine Son. This is particularly true at Fatima and Lourdes, as it is at these great Marian sanctuaries that there are large processions in which the Eucharist is carried…”
With this close link between visions of Mary and Eucharistic Adoration, we are not surprised to find that the 11th century Eucharistic “Renaissance” in Roman Catholicism coincided with the sudden increase in frequency of the apparition phenomenon. The Miracle Hunter, which boasts that it is “The Internet’s Top Resource
for Marian Apparitions,” has helpfully compiled a catalogue of apparitions of Mary throughout history. Although The Miracle Hunter takes occasional liberties (i.e., Revelation 12 is considered a Marian apparition of the 1st century, and others in the first three centuries are clearly the stuff of legend), we find that the data collected is quite exhaustive and otherwise reliable. Based on these data from a reliable Roman Catholic source, Marian apparitions were extremely rare during the first 10 centuries. Then in the 11th century, apparitions of Mary increased to a level that is still seen to this day. We have collected the data for the first 17 centuries in the figure below, “Total Apparitions of Mary by Century.” We have noted in the figure, as we hope our readers will as well, that the increase in apparitions of Mary coincided with the 11th century “Eucharistic Renaissance” when “eucharistic devotion burst forth throughout Europe.”
Thus, to answer our reader’s question, “What happened first? Was it the apparitions of Mary or the development of the Eucharistic adoration?”, clearly the Apparitions came first, and Eucharistic Adoration followed them as certainly as night follows day. As Revelation 13 warned us, the Beast comes first (Revelation 13:1), the False Prophet follows (Revelation 13:11), and worship of the Image of the Beast follows the False Prophet (Revelation 13:14-15). The historical fulfillment of these is documented in our recent posts,
What the Fathers Feared Most
Like the Sun Going Down on Me
If This Bread Could Talk, and
One Kingdom Too Late
We invite our readers to revisit those articles at their leisure, and as always, we appeal to whatever Roman Catholics may have ears to hear and eyes to see…
“Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” (Revelation 18:4).
As certainly as Eucharistic Adoration flows from the False Prophet, so those who worship the Eucharist will share the same fate with the Apparition they follow (Revelation 19:20; 20:15).
Remember, you can’t cast out Beelzebub by the power of Beelzebub.
Jim,
You must also remember that Satan masquerades as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14).
The pharisees claimed that Jesus cast out devils by the chief of devils (Matthew 12:24-26; Mark 3:22-26; Luke 11:15-20). Jesus responded that their argument was foolish and inconsistent: “because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub” (Luke 11:18). Jesus’ behavior was consistent with what had been prophesied of His coming:
This was a fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah, who said that God would come with signs of healing and preaching the gospel of salvation by faith, liberty and freedom to captives:
The difference with the apparitions is that they were prophesied to come working miracles, signs and wonders and teaching a false gospel:
The error of the pharisees was assigning to the work of the devil that which was prophesied in the Scriptures to be a signal of God’s coming.
The error of Roman Catholics is assigning to the work of God that which was prophesied in the Scriptures to be a signal of the devil’s deception.
There is no inconsistency with identifying the Apparitions of Mary with the works of evil. Miracles in themselves mean nothing. It’s what Scripture says about the miracles that assigns their proper meaning. The scriptures warned of an evil being that would cause people to set up and worship an image that comes to life and has the power of speech, the worship of which leaves a mark on the hand and forehead. That is sufficient for me.
Thanks as always,
Tim
Tim, You point to the rise of Marian devotion and doctrine in the 4th century as a sign that these things were innovation.
What about the rise of doctrines about and devotion to Jesus?
I don’t see alot of devotion to the Sacred Humanity of Christ early on. Are we to conclude the doctrine of the Incarnation was paganism seeping into the Church too?
Jim,
Clement of Rome (d. 99 A.D.) wrote much on the humility and humanity of Christ. For example,
See also, Ignatius of Antioch (late 1st or early 2nd century):
Thanks for writing,
Tim
What else have you got Tim?
Tim,
Why didn’t you tell us this stuff on Jason Stellman’s when I asked you about it a few nights ago?
You are trying to warn people right? Why did you dummy up rather than sounding the alarm a few nights ago? You had an audience then. Over here, all you’ve got is Kevin. But he is no prize. He is a mindless zombie who has already swallowed this hook,line and stinker.
I will tell you why mum was the word on Jason’s; you are embarrassed of it!
Take it over there. ( If you really believe it ).
Jim,
On Jason’s blog I had been referenced by name regarding my belief that Roman Catholicism had fallen into apostasy in the latter part of the 4th century. I acknowledged that as my belief, and even corrected the date. The rest of the comments were about transubstantiation and my recent post on Ignatius, so I responded on topic.
If I was embarrassed about any of this, do you think I would even blog at all?
Thanks,
Tim
Right Tim, you sure did. Like a lion too.
Oh Jimmy boy, oh Jimmy boy…
You surprise me more and more when I read your posts how you really have bought the whole Romish idea hook, line and sinker. It must be your so fearful to learn the Scripture by yourself, and/or you are being highly compensated to defend Rome at all costs. The problem is the most Romish faithful often take a vow of poverty, so I assume you the former is the case and the latter would not be possible under the vow.
There has to be more to your taking what Rome teaches you with such thick blinders on. You seem like you have a spirit of diligence to defend what you believe, but not a spirit of humility to learn what you don’t understand.
Tim,
Kevin isn’t posting his usual praises as he is hiding. He knows his latest remark on the other blog just may have been over the top.
Maybe not. He gets away with a lot. He knows how to go into grovel/apology mode and then feign good behavior for a day or two. It’s worked before.
Most of the Catholics on that blog have grown indifferent to Kevin’s slurs and don’t seem to mind. Not me though.
Tim,
I really like your new pictures of Mary. Tell me again about why Beelzebub would use Beelzebub to cast out Beelzebub in Mexico. Seems like he would have like the human sacrifice, cannibalism and demon worship. Why would he cast himself down with the image of Mary?
The tell me why he would use O.L of Fatima to defeat masonry in Portugal and Communism world wide.
Tell me about O.L. of Victory at Lepento. Wouldn’t Beelzebub have preferred Islam?
Why at Lourdes does she cure so many cripples? Why not let them despair, be bitter, doubt God and maybe even hate Him. Why cure people if it makes them see God as good?
Tim, this is REALLY fascinating. I’m not sure why I missed this as I might have been traveling in Indonesia at the time. I did not know any of this…this is really helpful…thanks.
Is there any link between the Latin Vulgate and the Douay-Rheims that expanded the errors in translation?
In 382 A.D., Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus I to translate the Bible into what would later be called the Latin Vulgate. Jerome was a false prophet and a dreamer of dreams. One dream in particular—in which he claimed he was scourged and tortured before the judgment seat of Christ until his “shoulders were black and blue” to pay for his sins—is repeated over (The Apology of Rufinus, Book II, ch. 6) and over (Apology against Rufinus, Book I, ch. 30) and over again (Letter XXII, To Eustochium, ch. 30).
Jerome also was guilty of “steal[ing] My words every one from his neighbour.” Jerome allegedly translated the Scriptures from the original Hebrew, but there is evidence that “he hardly knew that language. …in those passages whose sources are known Jerome simply transferred the reports of Origen or Eusebius respectively to himself.” (Hieronymus, in: Theologische Realenzyklopädie, Vol. 15, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin – New York 1986, p. 304-315). As the Jewish Encyclopedia notes, “His knowledge [of Hebrew] was really very defective. Although he pretends to have complete command of Hebrew and proudly calls himself a ‘trilinguis’ … he did not… attain to the proficiency of his simple Jewish teachers.”
Jerome also added to God’s Word on a whim. For example, in Revelation 9:11, the name of the destroying angel is rendered in both Greek and Hebrew, but Jerome added yet a third rendering in Latin. He also omitted Acts 23:25 altogether. As we noted here, the Latin Vulgate gave rise to the perception that it is Mary, not Jesus, who crushes the head of the serpent in Genesis 3:15. As we have also noted, the Latin Vulgate’s rendering of Psalms 98:5, “adore his footstool, for it is holy,” confused Augustine, whose confusion was then used by Pope Paul VI to justify Eucharistic Adoration as if had always been the practice of the Christian Church (Mysterium Fidei, 53)
Perhaps the most devastating effect of Jerome’s work is how his translation changed the Gospel. Instead of “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is hand,” Jerome gave us “Do penance (poenitentiam agite): for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (see Matthew 3:2), and “they preached men should do penance” (Mark 6:12). (See also Matthew 4:17; Luke 13:3,5, 16:30, 17:30; Acts 2:38, 8:22, 26:20). And instead of having Christians “declared righteous” in justification, Jerome’s rendering in the Latin was justificare, or “to make righteous”:
“One of the problems that led to confusion was the meaning of the word justification. Our English word justification is derived from the Latin justificare. The literal meaning of the Latin is ‘to make righteous.’ The Latin fathers of church history worked with the Latin text instead of the Greek text and were clearly influenced by it. By contrast, the Greek word for justification, dikaiosune, carries the meaning of ‘to count, reckon, or declare righteous.’ ” (R.C. Sproul, Resurrection and Justification)
Jerome’s translation was devastating to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Because the Vulgate had men entering the kingdom of God by “doing penance” and being “made holy,” instead of through repentance and by believing, the glorious gospel of Justification by faith alone was veiled to many for more than a thousand years. Indeed, “many men died of the waters” that had been made bitter, for they were left trying to earn God’s grace by doing penance and hoping that God would make them holy enough to deserve heaven. In this darkness brought about by the Vulgate, they further stumbled into Eucharistic Adoration, and trusting in Mary to deliver their souls, as well as a great many other errors particular to Roman Catholicism.
By the time Jerome’s translation was underway, the Diocesan Division of the Roman Empire was complete, and as we noted in A See of One, Roman Catholicism had claimed three of them—the Diocese of the East, the Diocese of Egypt, and the Diocese of Italy—for its own as the Three Petrine Sees. Jerome had settled in the Holy Land, in the Diocese of the East, to render his Vulgate translation. Thus the lamp that “fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters” refers to the Diocese of the East where Jerome completed his bitter translation, and from there it spread to the rest of the world:
“Behold, I will feed them with wormwood, and make them drink the water of gall: for from the prophets of Jerusalem is profaneness gone forth into all the land” (Jeremiah :23:15)
Walt,
Yes, there is a direct connection, as the Douay-Rheims is the English translation of the Latin Vulgate.
You can see here, for example, how the Douay-Rheims renders Psalm 98:5, “adore his footstool, for it is holy.” The proper translation is (Psalm 99:5, KJV), “Exalt ye the LORD our God, and worship at his footstool; for he is holy.” As I’ve noted elsewhere, Jerome’s mistranslation confused Augustine who tried valiantly to figure out how to obey the Psalm without worshiping what is created. He concluded that the incarnated Christ’s flesh was of “earth” which is God’s footstool (Matthew 5:35), and therefore we must worship Christ’s flesh. But, as we have noted above, Augustine denied that the bread of the Eucharist was the footstool that we are to worship.
Thanks for your comment and question,
Tim
Yes, Tim, it is interesting. I guess I never made that connection in the Scriptures, but it certainly makes sense.
It would be interesting to find out at what point of time and place did the manuscripts move to Iona Scotland while Jerome’s text flooded the Romish world. What a fascinating split that would be to figure out to map the true and faithful word of God from that of Jerome’s text going out to deceive millions as Jim rightly points out.
Walt,
Jerome’s contribution to the Vulgate ended in 404 or 405 when he completed the Old Testament Translation, as you can read about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/405
But if Ninian started his work at Candida Casa in Scotland in 397 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/397 ), it is certain that he did not have the Vulgate with him when he did.
Likewise, when Vigilantius departed from Jerome and his last known location was the Cottian Alps, the date was 396 A.D., so he could not have carried on his ministry using the Vulgate translation either.
Pretty interesting timing.
Thanks,
Tim
Very, very interesting timing…that is starting to make sense.
And the Church Christ promised to be with until the end of time bought into Jerome’s error for well over a thousand years and taught a false doctrine of justification and goddess worship because of it which cost millions of souls to be damned.
Tim, join the Mormons. the Witnesses and a who can count how many other cults.
Kevin,
you misspelled “whoring” you dummy.
Jim, im on vacation thats why I havent posted. Trust me I have read Tims article and hopefully will get some time.Walt is right Jim, you are stuggling and maybr Gd is working on your heart.
Walt, Erasmus admitted to Luther that jerome had mistranslated dikaiou
Tim, when Jesus told the woman at the well God iseeking worshipers who worship in Spirit and in truth, wouldnt this negate physical worship, namely the bread?
Kevin,
Not necessarily. It would have ruled out idolatry (bread worship), of course (as did the Law), but it would not have ruled out worshiping Christ in person. For example, “And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him” (John 9:38). There are many other such cases in the New Testament.
But it certainly ruled out veneration of images, icons, relics, the Eucharist, etc….
Tim
Tim, this just makes so much sense that Paul says the man of perdition would be a religious man putting himself up in the church and the Apostsy had already begun. Romanism masquerading as the true church and Satan deceiving people, costing souls. We know God elects his.
Tim,
Do you think it would be possible to work out the division in Scripture manuscripts between what was developed by Jerome to populate the western Roman (possibly the Eastern Orthodox) empire and where the “protestor” movement went?
I’m not sure I understand the following link?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/397
Religion
April 4 – Ambrose, Archbishop of Milan, dies in his diocese after 23 years in office during which he dominated the political life of the Roman Empire.
August 28 – Council of Carthage: The biblical canon is definitely declared.
September 7 – First Council of Toledo: Hispanic bishops, including Lampius, condemn Priscillianism.
November 13 – John Chrysostom is appointed Archbishop of Constantinople.
Mor Gabriel Monastery is founded and located on the Tur Abdin plateau near Midyat (Turkey).
Sulpicius Severus writes the earliest biography of Martin of Tours, the first known “life of a saint” ever written.
Augustine of Hippo begins his Confessions, an autobiography that recounts his intellectual and spiritual development.
Scottish missionary Ninian establishes a church (Candida Casa) at Whithorn, and begins his work among the Picts.
Hi, Walt,
The last item on the list is about Scottish missionary Ninian. And at about the same time, 397 AD, Scottish missionary Ninian established his ministry in Scotland, and established the “Magnum Monasterium” on the shores of Galloway where Columba studied the Scriptures. Columba’s connection with Ninian’s efforts is significant, I believe.
Thanks,
Tim
Walt,
Yes, I believe it is possible to find out “where the ‘protestor’ movement went?” Perhaps a project for the future here at White Horse blog.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
Do you know where this idea came from the Iona and Columbia were roman catholic?
——–
As of 2011, Canadians who are of Scottish ancestry are the third largest ethnic group in the country and thus Columba’s name is to be found attached to Catholic, Anglican and Presbyterian parishes. This is particularly the case in eastern Canada apart from Quebec which is French-speaking.
Throughout the US there are numerous parishes within the Catholic and Episcopalian denominations dedicated to Columba. Within the Protestant tradition the Presbyterian Church (which has its roots in Scottish Presbyterianism) also has parishes named in honour of Columba. There is even an Orthodox Church monastery dedicated to the saint in the Massachusetts town of Southbridge. St. Columba is the Patron Saint of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Youngstown, OH. The Cathedral there is named for him.
Iona College, a small Catholic liberal arts college in New Rochelle, NY, is named after the island on which Columba established his first monastery in Scotland, as is Iona College in Windsor, Ontario.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columba
———–
I’m with a group from our church tonight and we are going over trying to figure out where the Scriptures went before Jerome got involved in his faulty Vulgate translation.
Walter,
How is it possible for the Church to have been blinded for 2,000 years, waiting for our Tim to come along and unlock the mysteries that have baffled scholars for centuries?
You are quick to doubt and deny the Catholic Church’s claims. But you swallow whole Tim’s theories. Why is that?
Jim,
If you read Scripture, one thing is clear, that the majority is always wrong. This is what Dad and I could not come to agreement on…is that in the Scripture the majority is always wrong. There were periods of high water mark so to speak where Kings reformed the state and the church, but generally everyone was backsliding and following their flesh in religion. The largest religions were never “the best” or “the way” to faithful worship, or fellowship. They were the worst way.
I cannot say that the Catholic church does not have the world’s largest followers, because it does. It absolutely has the greatest wealth and worshipers. Islam is similar. The Mormon church is among the fastest growing. The Seventh Day Adventist is among the fastest growing.
So what are we to make of such massive global growth. Do we look at the numbers and follow the growth? Some would say by nature that is the way to the truth…the majority cannot be wrong. However, I no longer believe this observation. Dad and I would argue over the comment 1 billion catholics cannot be wrong. I am not convinced the numbers are the driver to the truth, but rather I am convinced that Scripture teaches the very small remnant are the most faithful.
Where are they? I have searched my whole life. If jumped on planes and sat in libraries pouring over research to find who are the most faithful remnant. While I loved the RCC as you do I was not entirely committed to give them my soul. I was trained from a child to give them everything I had, but inside I was being drawn to dig deeper and deeper into the Scriptures.
Even though I have watched EWTN and all the Scripture based arguments they present, I learned a long time ago when I was selected to read the bible in morning mass 3 days a week to our church and catholic school class that there was more to the 2000 year church tradition from Peter. There had to be more. There must be more. Today, I know there is much more.
With Tim I don’t agree with his eschatology as does Kevin. I believe there are some things I don’t think make sense, but I am more than willing to listen, learn and compare with what I have learned. That is the protestant, berean way.
What I am interested really intensely on is the separation he has identified in the Scripture paths. I know Columba played a major role, but I have never heard of Scottish missionary Ninian until he mentioned it. He is digging into an area of history that few have ever written about, and that is going to explain some gaps in my own research I have never uncovered.
Tim is by far, bar none, one of the best researchers I’ve ever read and don’t kid yourself…I’ve read alot. He is ignored by many in the mainstream, but this is just ignorance in the marketplace. When the hammer falls, many will pick up his thread. Until then, only a few (like you and me) will see if there is any merit to the study.
Jim, you are not grasping some of his points due to your presupposition to the history and scripture he is outlining, but I greatly appreciate your willingness to keep up the debate. I’m not sure inside (or outside) where it comes from, but I think if we map out the Scripture trail…many will see pieces we have been missing in the Romish path to the Reformation.
Separating Rome from the Reformation is a major deal, and the Scripture trail will make that far more clear. Enjoy if Tim choose to take that path. It looks like he has uncovered something few have yet seen.
I couldnt agree any more than the words of this post Walt well said.
Tim,
Do you know much about John Henry Newman?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Newman
I’ve been watching EWTN program “Catholicism” and “A Body Both Suffering and Glorious – The Mystical Union of Christ and the Church” with Father Robert Barron. You can see the entire series at Catholicismseries.com
He uses Newman to justify the church doctrine and papal infallibility. I am going to order the series as it seems to me to be filled with very interesting history, but it is really focused on the party line testified by Romish apologists. I would love to see a counter series called “Catholicism Series Debunked” or something along those lines.
MacArthur has an interesting video here. This is a very hard testimony against Roman Catholics.
Yes, Cardinal Newman is one of Rome’s “poster boys” for coming home to the “true church.” He is touted as an intellectual’s intellectual, but his epistemology is just awful. As I highlighted in ‘Truth’ Received Upon No Authority at All, Newman was a practitioner of the circularity of Roman epistemology, which is essentially, “we already know this to be true, so there is no error in creating evidence to support it.”
Thanks for writing. I’ll be sure to take a look at the series you highlighted.
Tim
Walt,
I have a ‘very hard testimony” against macArthur.
Tim,
Jerome was wrong on penance? What does it mean to fill up what was lacking in the sufferings of Christ?
Jim,
The only thing that Scripture says was lacking at the Cross was the preaching thereof:
Paul rejoiced that his sufferings were resulting in the preaching of the gospel:
Therefore, by his sufferings, Paul is supplying the preaching that was lacking in Christ’s sufferings on the cross, for Christ “was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth” (Acts 8:32). Paul is now opening his mouth for Him, and his sufferings supply the opportunity to preach the Word of God.
Thanks,
Tim
Huh?
Well, you concede there is something Christ did NOT do on Calvary in order to save us. The cross does not apply itself.
Jim,
It is no concession. It is merely a statement of fact. Jesus was led as a sheep to the slaughter, “like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth.” It’s what the Scripture says.
Jesus warned the Jews of their coming rejection (Luke 23:28-31). He interacted briefly with Pilate when he questioned Him, saying “Thou sayest” (Luke 27:11), but otherwise said nothing (Luke 27:14). None of what He said on his way to the cross, or upon the cross, can be construed as “gospel preaching” like that done throughout His ministry, i.e., “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” There was none of that at the Cross.
If you read the context of Colossians 1:24, “Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church,” you will find that Paul is rejoicing that his sufferings are making known that “now hath He reconciled In the body of his flesh through death” (Colossians 1:21-22), they “To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery … Whom we preach, warning every man” (Colossians 1:27-28).
In other words, Colossians 1:24 is about preaching “repent for the kingdom of God is at hand,” not about Paul doing penance for the kingdom of God is at hand.
Thanks,
Tim
Walt. I’ve heard that sermon by MacArthur. Its really good.
For anyone interested also, MacArthur does a whole series on Roman Catholicism, 2 parts on the Papacy, 2 parts on Mary, which is excellent, and 1 on the Priesthood.
Tim, thats it. That explanation of Colossians 1:24 is money. have never quite understood that context. Thanks brother.
Tim, i hope at some point you can address the false Priesthood of Rome and the ” Sacraments of the New Law” Thanks.
Yes, as a brief interlude between eschatological posts, next week we’ll start a 3 or 4 week series on Baptismal Regeneration in the Church Fathers.
We will then pick up on Revelation 10-11, and then the Bowls of Judgment (Revelation 15-16). At some point we’ll have to visit Daniel 8-11, as well.
Thanks so much for spreading the word,
Tim
Tim, at some point would you consider putting all these articles in a book or a journal .K
Yes, the plan is to publish at some point. For now, equipping the saints is the primary objective. The conversion to book form should not be difficult, and will hopefully help the sheep keep the wolves at bay.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
Could you please send me an autographed copy of your blockbuster when it is hot off the presses. I would like to use its pages to line the bottom of my parakeet’s cage.
Thanks, Jim. It will almost certainly be limited to a digital edition, which will be of little help to your parakeet.
Format aside, it may well be that what I publish will even be unworthy of your parakeet’s droppings. That is a distinct possibility, and time will certainly tell.
Best regards, as always,
Tim
Jim, why dont you melt those plastic rosaries down and line the bottom of your parakeet cage. Then it wil catch all the waste that comes out of your parakeet and you. You are so full of it.
What did Paul mean when he said we must discern the body of our Lord when we take the communion bread.
Charles,
Thanks for writing. Paul’s statement is to be taken in the context of his letter.
In chapter 10, Paul wrote,
Since Paul is about the walk the Corinthians through the Last Supper, in which they are instructed, “This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11:25), I simply observe the following: if the bread we break is the communion of the body of Christ, “for we being many are one bread, and one body” then by implication, the cup we drink is the communion of the blood of Christ, “for we being many are one cup, and one blood: for we are all partakers of that one cup.” In this one illustration, as he prepares to correct the Corinthians in their revelry, he identifies the Corinthians with the elements of the Lord’s supper. They are the “one bread” and “one body” of the Lord, and by implication, they are the “one cup” and “one blood” of the Lord. In fact, Paul is about to spend an entire chapter on that topic alone:
The Corinthians themselves are the Body of Christ, and in the cup and in the bread are not only signified the blood and body of Christ, but also the Corinthians themselves, as well as the unity they were supposed to be expressing. But something had gone wrong. What they were celebrating as the Lord’s supper was not the Lord’s supper at all:
What were they doing wrong? Were they failing to adore the bread and wine properly? Were they forgetting that the bread and wine were transubstantiated and offered as a sacrifice for sins? Were they forgetting to genuflect before receiving the bread, or forgetting to ring the bells at the words of institution? Were they not consecrating the bread properly?
No, none of these. Rather, they were not waiting for each other before they started gorging themselves, getting drunk in the process, and leaving some people without anything to eat at all:
Thus, in their revelry, they were eating and drinking damnation on themselves:
But what precisely were they doing “unworthily”? What was the problem and what was the solution? Look at the key verses in succession:
If the solution to eating and drinking unworthily is to “tarry one for another” and “eat at home,” we suspect that the problem was not related to Transubstantiation but rather to the fact that “every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.” We find it inconceivable, if Paul has in mind here sacrilege against the “True Presence,” that the condemnation for the sacrilege can be avoided simply by tarrying for one another or eating at home. That would not make sense. Simply put:
Problem: By rushing to the front of the line and eating before all have been served and getting drunk while others are left without food at all, they are not “discerning the Body of the Lord,” but are despising the church of God and shaming the poor (1 Corinthians 11:22), and thereby “eateth and drinketh unworthily,” and thus “eateth and drinketh damnation” unto themselves.
Solution: By “tarry[ing] one for another” and “eat[ing] at home” they will “come not together unto condemnation.”
Now let us look again at the verses in question:
I highlight “discerning” and “judge” here because they are both the same word (gr: diakrino, to separate, make a distinction, discriminate), and in fact are the same word Paul uses to rebuke the Corinthians in chapter 6, verse 5. “I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?”
In 1 Corinthians 6, the Corinthians had the ability to discern, but not the will (1 Corinthians 6:2-3), and by failing to exercise that judgment, “ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren” (1 Corinthians 6:8). Just so, in 1 Corinthians 10-11, the Corinthians had the ability to discern, but not the will:
Here, “judge” is krino, or judge, determine, go to law, as in 1 Corinthians 6.
What it comes down to is that just as in 1 Corinthians 6, the Corinthians were not using wise judgment, and were thereby defrauding the brethren, so in 1 Corinthians 11, they were not using wise judgment, and were thereby defrauding the brethren, despising the Church, which is the Body of Christ.
In 1 Corinthians 6, they are called “members of Christ.”
In 1 Corinthians 10, they are called “one bread,” and “one body,” which is Christ’s, and by implication “one cup” and “one blood,” which is Christ’s
In 1 Corinthians 12, they are called “the body of Christ, and members in particular”
Thus in 1 Corinthians 11, since failing to discern the body and blood of the Lord is the equivalent of “despising the church,” and failing to love one another in the unity to which we are called in the “communion of the blood of Christ” and “the communion of the body of Christ,” it is clear that being guilty of the body and blood of the Lord is simply the failure to defer to one another in the unity that the Lord’s supper is intended to signify.
To any that might object that by not tarrying and by not eating at home they would somehow be worthy of condemnation, I simply refer them to the warning Paul had just given them in this very context:
Their love feasts had become indistinguishable from pagan festivals, just as had happened at the foot of Mt. Sinai in Exodus 32:6, which is why some of them were sick and dying (1 Corinthians 11:30). It was just such nonsense as had overtaken the Corinthians that was causing them to suffer the same consequences as the Hebrews, who also “sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play” at a meal that was supposed to be “a feast to the LORD” (Exodus 32:5).
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, can you walk me through how Rome ties the eating of the physical lamb at the passover as justification to go ahead to eat the physical body of Christ at the supper?
Yeah Tim,
I would like to see you do that too. ( I didn’t know we said eating the paschal lamb was for justification ).
When I receieve the body and blood of Jesus at holy communion it retains its outer appearence as bread. Jesus insisted it was his flesh and blood even when followers deserted Him for saying such a thing and then reiterating it when they challenged Him (see John 6: 50-71.) He did not amend what he said He actually reinforced the literal interpretation. Jesus didn’t say, “Wait, you’ve misunderstood, bread is just a symbol of my body and blood! “They understood what Jesus said and they rejected Him because Jesus, being the Christ, meant exactly what He said. There was no revision or room for another interpretation. We know enough from the parables that Jesus frequently used apt metaphors and similes to instruct the apostles and the people. He presented the Eurcharist literally as his flesh and blood to the apostles and did not recant when their reaction was one of shock and astonishment. The early Church did indeed believe firmly in transubstantiation. Why else would they risk their lives if not to attend Mass and eat the body and blood of Our Lord? Tarcisius, a child martyred by pagans in 3rd century Rome. He was killed by pagan youths for protecting the consecrated hosts he was carrying in a satchel to condemed christians. He died protecting the Body and Blood of Christ and is known since that time as a “Eucharistic Martyr”. Faithful catholics know that Jesus is in the tabernacle, and in the monstrance at Holy adoration. If you go into an empty Catholic Church where Jesus is reserved in the tabernacle and just sit and you will soon realise that you are not alone. It doesn’t happen in other empty religious buildings. The Eucharist isn’t a what, the Eucharist a who. The person who loves you most. Go in and ask Him if its true, I did. Thank you for your time and patience. Annie.
Annie,
Thanks for taking the time to write. I used to worship the Eucharist, but stopped in 1990 when I became a Christian. I understand your arguments, and I suspect you can probably anticipate mine, but for the sake of conversation, here are my thoughts. You wrote,
That’s not exactly correct. He often spoke in Parables, and did not correct errant interpretations—with the explicit intent that they not hear and not understand, so that the Prophets would be fulfilled:
You continued:
I certainly agree that he used apt metaphors. In fact in John 6:35-48, He uses eating as a metaphor for “coming to Him,” and drinking as a metaphor for believing in Him:
You continued,
If your statement were true, I suspect that Augustine would not have written about John 6, “Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.” (Augustine Commentary on Psalms 98:9). You continued,
Were this true, I suspect that there would have been evidence of adoration of the Eucharist before the 11th century. As you can see from the many defenders of the antiquity of Eucharistic Adoration, there is a dearth of evidence for it until the 11th century. If Eucharistic Adoration was so prevalent prior to that, there should not have been a Eucharistic revolution in the 11th century at all. It should have been standard practice long before then. The fact is, it is an 11th Century novelty, not a practice received from the apostles.
Thanks so much for your thoughtful comment,
Tim
Annie,
Don’t let Tim bamboozle you. Here is a good one from Augustine on both Mary and the Eucharist;
” She gave milk to our Bread”. (That should settle it, huh? )
Annie,
As for Tim’s historical research about when certain devotions to the Eucharist or Mary may or may not have started, just remember, Tim denies all development of dogma. Ask him about certain doctrines and devotions to Jesus. Were they all fully spelled out in the Fathers of the first generation? Or did they develop? Did they need any councils to clarify?
Take everything our friend Tim says with a block of salt. ( and totally tune out of Kevin ‘s ravings).
And have a great feast of the Assumption tomorrow!
Jim, I challenge you to name me someone who has the Unique experience as a Mary and bread worshiper and Roman Catholic, and who has the biblical understanding and church history comand that he does. This man never went to seminary. Its agift of God. And God has given him a voice. Hes earned the right to heard and read and each Catholic should read and give his words careful consideration. They can come to their own conclusions. For me this site has clarified to me that Rome is apostate, a false church with afalse gospel, a front for the kingdom of Satan. And those who bow to it are lost. But maybe God is using this site to bring clarity to the truth.
Jim, Annie,
As regards Augustine, here is an illustration of his understanding of the bread:
This was not in the context of the Lord’s supper, but rather when He had given the Holy Spirit. When one sees every reference to “bread” as a reference to the Lord’s Supper, it betrays one’s preconceptions about bread. That Jesus is the bread that came down from heaven, I affirm enthusiastically. Just so, with Augustine’s Sermon on the Feast of the Nativity. Yes, Jesus is the bread come down from heaven. Yes, Jesus suckled at Mary’s breast. Yes, Mary fed our bread. But when Augustine preaches this on the Nativity, I deny that Augustine was advocating for a doctrine of Transubstantiation through Jesus’ words of consecration at the Last Supper. In context, rather, Augustine was marveling at just how lowly He became, Who had come to rescue us:
Thanks, as always, for your participation,
Tim
Annie, if I can add something here. Christ did not come to incorporate us into His body according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. He left us with the Spirit. Thats why the Eucharistic experience in part is remembrance of the finished work of Christ, knowing His body is in heaven and we wait for His return. The church cannot substitute itself for the natural body of Christ or a continuation of His incarnation or atonement. That belongs to Him exclusively. He left us with the Spirit to incorporate us into His body and communicates all of blessings to us thru His Spirit. The church can lead us to faith, but only the Spirit can bring Christ to the heart. And when faith receives Christ , we are justified because He is our righteousness. In Rome God sanctifies before he justifies. In scripture He justifies before He sanctifies. When we receive Christ God declares us as if we have never sinned. The supper becomes a proclamation, a remembrance and a confirmation of God’s free grace.
Tim, Catholics make the fatal error thinking John 6 is about Last Supper. It is in Galilee and years before the Lasr Supper. Jesus begins in verse 27 with his theme that it a wasnt the physical food but the spiritual food they should desire. Then He tells them the WORK of God is to believe.Many times in scripture the Jews were told to eat the word, or the scroll. These were Jewish idioms about internalizing something and here He was telling them to come and eat His flesh and drink His blood to receive Him as one would eat the scroll or the word. This isnst about eating Peasch because it is wrong place wrong time wrong circumstance. This isnt the passover. Then He tells us them in 63 it is the Spirit that gives life the flesh profits nothing, the things I speak to you are spiritual. This whole section is about telling those who were looking for the physical to come and believe. It has no connection to the last supper. Incidentally how can the disciples at the last supper eat Him, he was standing their with Him. He was instituting a comemoration of His death when He says do this in remembrace of me. If He was physically and substantially in the bread with us why would we need to remember Him. Everytime we do this we proclaim His death til he comes. Christ is with us in the Supper thru the Spirit, faith and the Word. He feeds our faith and confirms His grace. Faith saves us not eating increases of our justification. Rome called the Mass the work of the people but Paul excludes works from justification. They can only take their rightful place as the result of our saving faith.
Kevin,
Have you ever heard any catholic ever say Jn 6 took place within the context of the last Supper? No? The why do you say we do?
Jn 6 looked forward to the establishment of the Eucharist.
The flesh profits nothing? Didn’t the Flesh of Jesus, hanging on the cross, win our salvation.
By the way, since I am correcting you, why do you keep bringing up Erasmus, Dikaioo, Jerome and justification? Erasmus was hardly a Catholic apologist. Other than his dispute with Luther on freewill, he was not known as a spokesman for the Church. Who gives a hoot for what Erasmus said? ( Erasmus laid the egg that Luther hatched”.)
Annie, dont listen to Jim, he is afew bricks shy of a load. Welcome to the site. And remember the sun will come out tomorrow! God Bless.
Hi Annie,
I remember these words at Mass:
Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer,
which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.
—————
You wrote:
When I receieve the body and blood of Jesus at holy communion it retains its outer appearence as bread.
—————
If it retains its outer appearance as bread, then it also retains that characteristic of “human hands have made.” In a very real sense, you adore Jesus under the work of human hands.
In the Bible, we are warned to abstain from every appearance of evil. (2Thess. 5:22) But, there is a certain kind of evil through the work of our hands. (Psalms 135:15) Why do you knowingly adore Jesus in a way that looks like idolatry ?
Eric W, Have you received my emails. I think I’m having problems with my mail. K
Kevin, No emails recv’d
Tim, have you ever considered that Catholics view of the Eucharist is a denial of the resurection and the love of God. At the ringing of the bell Rome’s Priest pulls Christ down from heaven and sits Him on the lap of the church. The church( priest) becomes His regent and re breaks His body. Most so called knowledgable Catholics dont know that this a real sacrifice of Christ unbloody. The Priest has the power to sacrifice our Lord again and again. So instead of Him reigning high above heaven and earth being declared Son of God with power, they wont let Him off the altar, the cross. He is an eternal victim who acts at the behest of the church. They wont let Him be Lord and Savior. He was delivered over once for sins and RAISED for our justification. They wont allow the victory Tim, He will always be an eternal victim confined substantially to a piece of bread. No wonder why they cant be saved permanently. He isnt yet resurected for their sins. They are working it out with Him here still on earth. Paul says in 1 Cor. 15 if He wasnt raised your faith is useless and you are still in your sins. Listen Tim their faith is useless and they are still in their sins.
Kevin,
Do you ever wonder why I call you so many names? Because of the stupid caricature of our Faith you put out. How many times have I told you Christ is not on the cross? 20 times? 30?
You are such a liar. And you call yourself a Christian. You say this is preaching the Gospel.
By the way, on Jason’s blog, you accused me of lying about you.
Please, tell me when I have ever lied about you? If I have copy and and pasted things you have actually written, how is that lying?
Annie,
Scroll past Eric W. He was once some sort of schismatic idiot fringe Catholic. Total loose canon.
Kevin does not speak for his church either. I know as I have had several emails back and forth from his church’s ministry staff. These guys a re both wackos.
By the way Kelvin, I met Nick at Mass of the Assumption last night. I gifted him a WOODEN rosary from Fatima. ( One of the ones I could have sent to Tim’s mom ).
Jim, you met Nick last night. Cool, you should have told me. Instead of giving him a wooden rosary ( as if that is going to do anything for him) had i known I would have sent up a bible underlining the gospel so you both get saved. Jim can you use that rosary to merit some grace at confession for calling me a boor today on Jason’s blog. You have called me igor, idiot, boor, bozo, stupid, donkey, and those are the good ones. So when your on your knees worshiping the bread tonight you better say a few more hail Mary’s.
Kevin,
Calling a boorish liar who misrepresents my religion a boorish liar is not a sin.
Blasphemy is a sin.
Again, get to know the gentlemen who run BBC i Phoenix. If you are going to post the name of that church on a blog, you really should make sure your views are in sync with theirs first. Those men are anything but boorish liars. They are not Catholics but they evidence charity and sincerity. You don’t. You shouldn’t be saying you fellowship at that church if you don’t subscribe to their message. And before you run around behind their backs trying to get members of their church to join in your 5th column of hate, you really should check it out with them first. Their message is love. Yours isn’t.
P.S.
What do you call a pushy jerk who has been asked to get off the blog but keeps sneaking back on under corny names?
(hint; boorish )
You are like the loudmouth drunk who is asked to leave the party but keeps sneaking back in.
Maybe I should use more biblical terms. You are a viper and a whited sepulchre full of rotting bones.
I also called you a son of a bitch and you never caught it.
I don’t feel bad about using this language. You and Tim will answer for yours though.
I stand with Paul, James and John and Jerome. You are mealy mouthed about some words and turn around and say things that I would fear to utter.
On judgement day, lets see who will give an accounting for every idle word.
Hello again,
Thank you all for your patience and kind welcomes. If I could reply to something Kevin wrote? Kevin there is only one sacrifice. When Catholics attend Mass they are mystically transported to the foot of the cross. There is only one sacrifice. At Mass we mystically go to the foot of the cross where Jesus is crucified and offer His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity to God. Catholics believe that Christ died once. We do not believe he is crucified anew at Mass. In fact the saints say there is only one Mass. We are participating across different centuries, geographical locations, time zones etc. I know this is seldom said because people understandably prefer to keep things simple. I apologise Kevin, my explanation of the Mass is impoverished but we do agree Jesus died on the cross once, in historic time. I hope you also agree that God being omnipotent is not limited by time, he transcends time? We understand that Heaven and Earth connect at the moment of offering (consecration) Yes, it is true that the host is known as the an unbloody Sacrifice because the appearence of bread remains but as someone pointed out in a previous post the catholic church does have evidence of consecrated hosts that have ( to inspire faith) become observable human flesh: human cardic tissue. These are known as Eucharistic miracles.
Tim, I do take your point that during the course of history the practice of Eucharistic Processions and public veneration has not always been publically prominent but It has always existed. If there was holy Mass there was adoration. Adoration is the Mass extended. That is why someone must always be present in the church to adore Jesus at this time. The early Christians risked martyrdom for nothing less than to receive the body and blood of Christ.
As you see, I am a plodding and ill equiped to explain this miracle. Tim, may I ask your opinion on something? Why do the satanists go to such lengths to steal consecrated hosts? Why do you think they do such unspeakable things to the Eucharist?
The resurrection is our great hope! I am so glad that someone posted something that unites us all. Christ has conquered and it is so important and necessary for us to dwell on this great Truth. The Triumph of the Lord! I do dwell on the passion of Our Lord but it may have to do with trying to carry sad events that life has brought to all our doors. When I pray I imagine Jesus when he was most alone in Gethsemene. He wept for all of us that night. It helps me to keep going. How wonderous is the mercy and goodness of our saviour who loves us even in the misery of our sins. Please pray for all the poor peoples of Iraq, christian and muslim alike who are fleeing for their lives before the dreaded ISIS. Also, a baby of 25 weeks gestation was born yesterday in Ireland. I need mighty people to pray for her survival. God bless all. A
Annie,
Thank you for your thoughtful questions and your contribution to the conversation here. I enjoyed reading your comment. Here I will respond to your questions that were specifically addressed to me:
I might ask why Islamists go to such lengths to destroy Buddhist shrines as they did in Mali. Does this lend credence to Buddhism? Or rather is it the blind destroying the idols of the blind?
I agree that the practice “has not always been publically prominent,” but that “it has always existed” is rather the matter in dispute. One cannot prove the antiquity of a practice by assuming that the practice is ancient. When a religion like Roman Catholicism is as wedded both to its antiquity and its Eucharistic Adoration, it should not struggle so to find evidence of the antiquity of its Eucharistic Adoration. If you search for evidence of Eucharistic Adoration earlier than the 11th Century, what you will find is what the rest of Rome’s apologists have found: nothing. That is why Fr. John Hardon had to say that until the 11th Century Eucharistic Adoration was “taken for granted” and why Victoria Tufano of US Catholic had to acknowledge that before the 11th Century, “it was not yet customary to pray before the reserved sacrament.” She, too, was left with nothing when she went searching for the “ancient practice” of Eucharistic Adoration. She had to do what all Roman Catholics must: fill in centuries of missing doctrine with a grand assumption of continuity.
So when you write, “If there was holy Mass there was adoration,” and “That is why someone must always be present in the church to adore Jesus at this time,” the evidence does not bear this out. As Fr. Hardon and Vicotoria Tufano both highlighted, “Processions of the Blessed Sacrament were instituted” in the 11th century, and elevation of the Eucharist was not added to the Mass until the 11th Century. This is not evidence of antiquity but of innovation.
Unable to prove the antiquity of their religion, Roman Catholic apologists are left assuming the antiquity of their religion, and their assumption is then used as their proof, i.e., “we must have adored the Eucharist back then, because the Roman Catholic Church has always done this.” If you re-read your comment, you will find that you have done exactly that. But that is circularity—Roman Catholicism is proved to be ancient because its doctrines and practices are assumed to be ancient; and its doctrines and practices are proved to be ancient because Roman Catholicism is assumed to be ancient. In the end we have to put a stop to the circularity and ask for proof of early Eucharistic adoration. There is none. Many of Rome’s doctrines emerged at the end of the 4th Century, as I showed in The Rise of Roman Catholicism, but Eucharistic Adoration was not added for another 700 years.
Thanks again for writing,
Tim
Tim,
“Unable to prove the antiquity of their religion, Roman Catholic apologists are left assuming the antiquity of their religion, and their assumption is then used as their proof, ‘
What?!?! Unable to prove the antiquity of our religion? You have got to be putting us on!
Annie,
Good point about the satanists. Why are there Black Masses but no Black Bible studies,huh?
Tim is ready for it though as he has had your question put to him before.
I have asked him why Our lady of Guadalupe would be instrumental in the downfall of the demonic Aztec religion or Our lady of Fatima in the overthrowing of Communism for example. Human sacrifice and atheistic Communism are more to the Devil’s liking that Catholicism aren’t they? Tim says no.
Tim obviously believes one can cast down Beelzebub by the power of Beelzebub.
Jim, you wrote:
Scroll past Eric W. He was once some sort of schismatic idiot fringe Catholic. Total loose canon.
You should hear some of the things I called myself after my departure from Rome. Wretched man that I am. Who will deliver me from this body of death ? Praise be the Pope ?
Well, you know the verse and the only Head of the Church.
Eric W, classic!
Annie, you said ” there is only one sacrifice” Not true Annie. And since you won’t take my word for it, I ask you to ask you Priest what official Trent doctrine says. And if he is as honest as Bryan Cross was with me he will confirm Trent says it is a real sacrifice ( sacrificium) that is efficacious for sins. In fact Annie Trent anathematizes anyone who says it isn’t a real sacrifice. Many Catholics try to say its a re presentation because they are unwilling to believe church doctrine. But it is truly a re breaking of our Lord’s body, unbloody. The interesting thing Annie is the scripture says without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. So it is of no effect. Then you said ” we are transported to the foot of the cross and offer up His body, blood, soul, divinity to God. Why? The one and only sacrifice, once at the consummation of the ages perfected us and put sin away according to the writer of Hebrews. And he tells us there are NO more sacrifices for sins. The Word became flesh, not you. You didn’t die on a cross, so how can you offer anything up for your sins. He does not share His incarnation or atonement. He died on the cross and He is the word, you are not qualified to mediate your sins or offer Him up or you for your sins. “We do not offer up him anew at the Mass” Wrong, as i told you it is itself a true sacrifice. If it weren’t Rome couldn’t say it was efficacious for your sins. But if your like my ex friend Debbie who swallows hook line and sinker with implicit faith in Rome, you won’t even take time to check it out. It truly is a re breaking of our Lord’s body, a denial of the cross and the atonement. Why would you need to participate across time zones, centuries, etc. Tim already addressed this with you. The crucifixion took place in time at the consummation of the ages, once, and is a blanket across history. Rome called the Mass historically ” the work of the people” So lets put it in perspective. It is a work on the part of a participant to earn an increase of grace and justice and a sacrifice on the part of the participate to propitiate your sins. Its really a lack of faith. Because you are taught you have to back to the trough to earn more increase. A complete repudiation of the perfect one time sacrifice. I mean perfect is perfect. rome is saying it is an imperfect sacrifice because you can do it 1000 times and not have enough grace for heaven. You believe that the sacrifice for your sins was the bread of the Supper not the death on the cross. Annie this is very important what I’m about to tell you. The writer of Hebrews calls the need for the physical a absence of faith. Jesus said He would not drink of the fruit of the vine or eat with us until he returns. Scripture says now we see as if in a mirror, dim, then we will see face to face. Blessed are those who don’t see yet believe. Christ incorporated us into His body thru the Spirit, not the flesh. The need for a physical altar, physical sacrifice, and physical Priesthood is a lack of faith. Christ’s Priesthood, sacrifice, and altar are in heaven and in FAITH we go to the throne room and with Him. The Mass and the sacrifice and the Priesthood is just a replay of the OT Priesthood and imperfect sacrifices that could not save. Priests die and are from the order of Aaron. Christ priesthood is permanent and his intercession perfect. He is from the order of Melchizadek. The Pope can’t be head of the church because Popes die, and how can the church live if its head were dead. ” Im so glad someone posted something that unites us all.” This site isn’t about uniting Roman Catholicism with Protestants. Its about warning Roman catholics they are in a false religion and on their way to hell, and its a call to come out of here my people Revelations. Tim isn’t doing this for all of us to hold hands and sing kumbaya. He is doing this so Catholics will give up their idolatry and believe the gospel and be saved. Maybe Annie one day you will stop looking at the bread and Mary and look at the up at the Word, the gospel. therein lies salvation. God Bless.
Annie,
Go ahead and answer Kevin point by point just to exercise your apologetic skills.
When Kevin remains non-moved, don’t feel you have failed. On this blog and Creed Code Cult, Kevin has been corrected on his misunderstandings of the Mass scores or even hundreds of times.
You will not get through to him.
Also, after the initial honeymoon of meeting you is over, Kevin will become impatient with your “romish obduracy” and will ratchet up to insulting you and slurring the Blessed Sacrament.
Don’t think your being a member of the fair sex will save you. The man is a cad (as is evidenced by his tittering slurs about Our Lady). He has a special hatred for another woman on his blog and CCC ( He is a misogynist ).
He is a combination of demonically possessed, stupid, and mean. ( His own church distances themselves from him ).
PS Annie,
Kevin will try to disarm you by saying he would like to cook and Italian dinner for you. He does it to everybody as if someone is actually going to travel to Phoenix for a plate of pasta and his company.
I am sure you think I am being a bit harsh. Stick around. You will end up agreeing with me.
Jim, do you deny tha the sacrifice of the Mass according to Trent is a real sacrifice that is sfficcious for sins?
Hi Kevin,
I will write a considered reponse to your questions as soon as possible. As you know I am not terribly articulate and it takes time to say what I wish to convey. I will say that I am a sinner. Christ’s suffered and died on the cross to save us. God is love. Each one of us began as a thought from God. It says in the Bible, Jeremiah I think that “You will seek me and you will find me, if you seek me with your heart”
How did you find God Kevin and how do you seek him everyday? Forgive me if this question is intrusive.
Annie,
I hope you don’t mind if I ask you a question. Tim wrote:
“So when you write, “If there was holy Mass there was adoration,” and “That is why someone must always be present in the church to adore Jesus at this time,” the evidence does not bear this out. As Fr. Hardon and Vicotoria Tufano both highlighted, “Processions of the Blessed Sacrament were instituted” in the 11th century, and elevation of the Eucharist was not added to the Mass until the 11th Century. This is not evidence of antiquity but of innovation.”
If for example your comment and Tim’s correction was true, would you feel a desire or need to look into it further?
I ask because I’ve seen Jim posting here now for many months, and over these months I’ve never witnessed someone so hardened to the gospel message and to simple evidence leading the average intelligent reader to investigate Rome’s claims. I guess there are other Roman Catholic blogs where the vast majority are as hardened as Jim, or I understand worse. You could lay out the evidence of the truth, and they would reject it because Rome is all they know, all they love, and everything in their lives. Truth is not important, Rome is.
However, what about you? Could you ever see yourself falling in love with the Lord and the Scriptures to beg Him to show you the truth? Is it within you to say “the truth and no further?” I hope and pray it is within you to study these things to show yourself approved a women worthy of the Lord’s mercy.
2 Timothy 2:15 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
Walt,
Do you know the difference between innovation and development?
Please, stop with the Scottish nonsense. It is beyond corny.
Jim, you wrote:
“Please, stop with the Scottish nonsense. It is beyond corny.”
Oh my goodness…here I am posting the greatest source documents about the greatest period in history ever witnessed in the Visible Christian Church outside the period of the Apostles, and you are posting this stuff:
“I have asked him why Our lady of Guadalupe would be instrumental in the downfall of the demonic Aztec religion or Our lady of Fatima in the overthrowing of Communism for example. Human sacrifice and atheistic Communism are more to the Devil’s liking that Catholicism aren’t they? Tim says no.”
Your mind is really so far gone. You rely on a few children to prove your “great events” in Catholicism and when it comes time to see entire nations (e.g., Scotland and England) debate at great lengths the true and incredible word of God you find it corny. Yet, these unproven, mystical and heretical Satanic visions have carried you away. I just don’t understand how you are so caught up with mystic blindness, and reject hard evidence and truth.
I’ve learned so much just reading your comments on this site as it has really shown me how entirely lost the followers of the RCC is in our generation. I knew how hard it was for my mother and father, but they never had the basic evidence before them that Tim has produced to see.
In your case, and I’m sure most other Catholics, they just cannot see the evidence…only the mystical Satanic miracles.
Jim, you wrote:
“I also called you a son of a —- and you never caught it.
I don’t feel bad about using this language. You and Tim will answer for yours though.”
Why do some hardened Catholics at some point in most all debate and discussion regress to using this type of language and type of demeanor?
At some point you have got to hear what you are listening to on this site, I hope.
James 1:19 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
You know, my dearest brethren. And let every man be swift to hear, but slow to speak, and slow to anger.
Walt,
$0n 0′ !@#$% is not so bad, is it? Were you ever in the service?
Vulgarity, obscenity and profanity are all different. Profanity is the worst ( although vulgarity is the grossest ).
Kevin uses hyper-profanity all the time and you sit mute.
I would notmock Protestant Communion (which I don’t adhere to ) while he mocks the Catholic Eucharist.
Shame on you for your hypocrisy. You strain at gnats and swallow worse.
Jim, your justifying your sin.
Annie asked how do you find God and how do you seek Him everyday? ” Good questions. I did not find God, He found me. What remains inviolable Annie is the “election of grace” a gift of God rather than a given of historical experience. . A Pastor once told me the older you get the more its about God and the less its about me. I would say its all of God. Even my cooperation with his will is from God. Our sanctification is a work of God. We simply work out the miracle. Each day I seek God through prayer, love of God and love of neighbor, all these a work of the Holy Spirit in our heart. Thats why Roman Catholicism is such contradiction to the Gospel of the Scripture and the early church. God’s salvation is a free gift Rom. 6:23, all of it. In your church its a righteousness born out of, worked out by love in merits/ demerits. It is a trust in active obedience, but not that of Christ but oneself. Rome’s people can’t take from Christ ( His incarnation and atonement) what is uniquely only His. He became the Word, we didn’t. And to say that His incarnation is still going on in the acts of the church reduces Christ from Lord and Savior to imperfect, still on the cross. He is Risen! Thats the good news. He saved us and is now applying it in our lives thru intercession of his perfect one time sacrifice. He will lose none. Men persevere because God perseveres. Romans 8 says nothing created can separate us from the love of God, not even our sin. 8:37 says by all these things we overwhelmingly conquer thru Him who LOVED us. Past tense. God has elected a people for himself to be holy and blameless before Him. And He will lose none of His elect. There salvation is up to Him, not us. Our sanctification or becoming Holy in this life is simply our reasonable service of worship to the glory of God that our practice might meet our position, perfectly righteous before God. Annie go read Hebrews 10:14, 9:26, 28, it is finished. Its like a marriage that the wife brings all the debt into and the Husband all the wealth. The wife’s debt gets paid and she inherits the Husbands wealth. Welcome to the free gift of eternal life. Tim, Walt, Eric W can all attest you can never find this in Rome because they don’t have the gospel. God Bless.
Kevin said,
“Each day I seek God through prayer, love of God and love of neighbor, all these a work of the Holy Spirit in our heart. ”
In addition to this, I would encourage everyone to spend at least 20 minutes to 60 minutes daily in the reading and study of the Scriptures. I started this in 1997 and can usually read the bible cover to cover 4-5 times a year. It is consistent bible study that allows God’s Holy Spirit to speak His revealed will to us daily, and to sanctify and mortify our heart, soul and mind…as our hearts are desperately wicked.
“Now therefore in the sight of all Israel the congregation of the Lord, and in the audience of our God, keep and seek for all the commandments of the Lord your God: that ye may possess this good land, and leave it for an inheritance for your children after you for ever.
And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the Lord searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever.” (1Chron.28:8-9)
And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept. (Mk.14:72)
Our minds and thoughts need to be in what the Scriptures teach day after day, night after night. We need to be learning doctrine, discipline, form of worship and form of government as revealed in Scripture. There is nothing more important during our short stay on this earth. DO NOT rely on any priest, bishop, cardinal or pope to teach you “the truth” of what God’s word teaches you DIRECTLY from the Holy Spirit of God revealed to you.
“We say that the Christian Church has no more liberty to add to the commandments of God than the Jewish Church had; for the second commandment is moral and perfect and perpetual, and forbids us as well as them the addition and inventions of men in the worship of God” (George Gillespie, A Dispute Against The English Popish Ceremonies Obtruded On The Church of Scotland, pg. 289).
“Possibilities in Worship should not have more precedent than certainties” (author withheld)
Walt, very good. Reading Scripture and theological books are so much of my daily doing that I forgot to add it. It just seems like that hunger is just normal. Also reading Tim’s articles have been so fulfilling and clarifying, also the things you have sent me. I had a great talk with Eric W on the phone yesterday. Iron sharpening iron. God Bless.
Big Kev…don’t know if you are anvil or hammer
EricW, probably to much of both. Thx
Walt, This was the one subject of my conversation with Eric W yesterday how the Spirit teaches us thru His Word. We were discussing how can the Roman Church consider it a dead letter. I said because it is a dead letter to them. What is alive to them is the church because that is their Savior. Eric pointed out that 1 John 2:27 is a revealed truth and to deny this is to deny a revealed truth of God. The verse literally says we have no need for anyone to teach us but we have an anointing , the Holy Spirit, who teaches us all things and they are true and nor a lie. It doesn’t mean we don’t listen to our Pastors and teachers, but that in the end it isn’t the church or the men with the words, it is the Spirit. To believe the bible is a dead letter goes against the scriptures teaching it is living and active like 2 edged sword.
Walt, sit back and try to comprehend Rome’s view of the bible being a dead letter. Amazing!
Kevin,
“It is a moral duty to abjure all the points of Popery, which was done in the national covenant; and it is a moral duty to endeavour our own reformation and the reformation of the church, which was sworn to in both covenants; it is a moral duty, to endeavour the reformation of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government, which was sworn to in the league and covenant; it is a moral duty to purge out all unlawful officers out of God’s house, and to endeavour the extirpation of heresy and schism, and whatsoever is contrary to sound doctrine, which was sworn to there also; it is a moral duty to do what God had commanded towards superiors, inferiors and equals, which, by the league and covenant, all were bound unto; and, therefore, the covenants are strongly obliging, being more absolute than other covenants, because they bind et vi materice et vi sanctionis, –both by reason of the matter and by reason of the oath, and so are perpetual, Jer. l.5. And, therefore, a breach of these must be a greater fault than the breach of such covenants as are about things not morally evil, which only bind vi sanctionis [by reason of oath], and so, it is beyond all doubt that the breach of these covenants is a most heinous and crying sin” (John Brown of Wamphray, An Apologetic Relation, p. 173, emphases added).
Copies of the Covenant were carried into every corner of the land to be subscribed, and were looked upon as tests of faith in Christ. . . . The Presbytery of Kirkcaldy resolved, 1st August 1639, that no ‘wilful non-Covenanters should be admitted to the Sacrament’ (James King Hewison, The Covenanters, A History of the Church in Scotland from the Reformation to the Revolution, Vol. I, p. 272, emphases added).
At length, on 2nd August 1643, the epoch-making Assembly met in the east division of St. Giles’ Church, Edinburgh, when Sir Thomas Hope had the unique distinction of sitting as Commissioner, and Henderson, for the third time, filled the Moderator’s chair. They began business by enacting that the National Covenant of 1638 should be issued in a little quarto volume, with blank leaves, to be subscribed in every synod, presbytery, and parish, and that non- subscribers of it should be censured (Hewison, The Covenanters, Vol. I, p. 377, emphases added).
Furthermore, those accounted as having defected from these covenants (the defectors were called “malignants”) were censured by the Church of Scotland.
On 12th July [1648], the Assembly met in Edinburgh, George Gillespie being Moderator, approved of the Argyll policy, and condemned the ‘unlawful engagement’ as sinful and censurable. The Church opposed the Engagement because it violated the Solemn League and Covenant, inasmuch as it proposed the reinstatement of an Episcopal monarch, the formation of a party of Covenanters in alliance with their opponents, and the delegation of power to a government who ‘mind not religion.’ The Assembly further declared the Engagers to be malignants, non-Covenanters, sectaries, and enemies to the one righteous cause. . . . The Covenant was to be the sole test of patriotism and of religion. Other bonds and the toleration of sects were to be avoided like the pest. Favourers of any other policy were to be excommunicated if unrepentant. Ministers approving of the Engagement were to be deposed. . . (Hewison, The Covenanters, Vol. I, p. 446, emphases added).
It [the joint General Assembly of Protesters and Resolutioners–PRC] met in St. Andrews on 16th July. . . . Rutherford, and other twenty-one sympathisers, protested against the meeting as unconstitutional. . . .
There [later at Dundee, where the General Assembly of Protesters, who had separated themselves from the Resolutioners, was now meeting–PRC], on 22nd July [1651–PRC], Rutherford’s cogent Protest declining the Asembly was read. Balcarres [a Resolutioner– PRC] in vain demanded that the twenty-two absent Protesters should be reported for civil punishment for their reflections on the King, Parliament, and Church. The Assembly [of Resolutioners–PRC] ordered Presbyteries to deal with them. It was ultimately agreed to cite [James–PRC] Guthrie, Patrick Gillespie, James Simson, James Naismith, and John Menzies. They did not compear [i.e. appear at the Resolutioner assembly–PRC].
The [Resolutioner–PRC] Assembly deposed Guthrie, Gillespie, and Simson, suspended Naismith, and referred Menzies to the Commission. After the meeting of the Assembly at St. Andrews, a work was published entitled A Vindication of the Freedom and Lawfulness of the late Assembly [by James Wood, a Resolutioner–PRC], etc. This was answered by The Nullity of the Pretended Assembly at Saint Andrews and Dundee [signed by 40 Protesters including Rutherford and Guthrie–PRC](Hewison, The Covenanters, Vol. II, pp. 34,35, emphases added).
https://archive.org/stream/nullityofpretend00guth#page/n7/mode/2
John 12:40 ” He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their Heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them.” Walt this is why Jim has called me every name in the book and now an SOB. Its not me he hates, its the gospel. Someone told me on Jason’s site today that having the security and assurance of one’s salvation is ” riding on Christ’s coattails as a freeloader” and that keeping the commandments gets one to heaven. My mind flashed to the story of the rich young ruler and Jesus. When asked by his disciples; then how can someone get to heaven? , He said with man its impossible but with God all things are possible. They have to earn their way in Walt because the alternative is to have faith and to trust Christ as a freeloader and ride His coattails in. I admit I’m a freeloader riding His coattails not mine. I strive to obey God, but only Christ’s imputed righteousness allows me to stand righteous before almighty God. The sacrifices of God are a broken and contrite heart. But to get to that point one must see his sin. You can’t understand how much you need the imputed righteousness of Christ until you understand your utter depravity. In rome man’s not so bad and God’s not so mad.
Tim, Eric mentioned to me one of the great errors of Rome is baptism ex opere operato, the magic soveriegnty of the Priest and church to Christianize babies. Taking the control of God to save whom He has chosen and putting the decision in the hands of men. Men determining who have faith. So God acts at the Sovereign hand of man. ThecSpirits ability to blow where He wills as Jesus says to bring true faith is usuurped by Rome to initiate children into Satan’s kingdom. Is this not some type of mark of the beast? I told Eric you are about to deal with baptism.
Thanks Jim for reaching out. I send a friendly flare across the sea. I am, alas, pressed for time. So many things to say and ask. Its difficult time wise to respond to everything, but Kevin I thank you sincerely for taking time to talk about your relationship with the Lord. Its good to hear that people are spending time in prayer. I think its wonderful that people savour the word of God and are committed to devoting time to Bible study each day. You have inspired me to do just this. It is a simple and beautiful way to be disposes to the will of God. Usually when I take up the Bible I say a prayer to the Holy Spirit to direct my reading before starting. I apologise for my vicious spelling and shambolic paragraphs!
A question for all present. How do you discern the Holy Spirit and His inspirations?
Also, Tim? I am reading that Fr. Hardon article you referenced and I do understand where you are coming from, that historically Adoration is a liturgical practice that came into being in the 11th century and there is no historic evidence before then. I also hear what Jim is saying. I think where we differ is the wording: Tim, you say “innovation”, Jim says “development.” We must always, as Kevin says, strive towards the Truth, and sometimes that is a frightening place. There is a strong devotion to the Eucharist in my country. Tim, I was sloppy. When you said adoration (as in the liturgical practice) I was thinking veneration. The Eucharist has always been venerated, as Fr. Hardon illustrates with many examples but the practice of Eucharist Adoration (as a liturgical practice) comes later. To explain myself, and with a nod to Jim. I don’t know if you’d agree with me Jim but for me The consecration at Mass, Holy adoration, and the Real Presence of Jesus reserved in the Tabernacle are so interconnected to me. Tim, if there is no definite historical documentation that reveals that adoration was a liturgical practice then there is no historical documentation. Fr. Hardon’s article references the reverence for the Blessed Sacrament among the early christians, hermits, bishops etc. What did you make of that in the same article? Annie
Annie,
Very nice response to Tim and Kevin. Thank you…it is refreshing.
You wrote:
“A question for all present. How do you discern the Holy Spirit and His inspirations?”
Let me start with the very basics:
“3. Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second,[a] commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him that they may be saved,[b] and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.[c]
a. Gen. 3:15, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” Isa. 42:6, “I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles.” Rom. 3:20-21, “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets.” Rom. 8:3, “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” Gal. 3:21, “Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.”
b. Mark 16:15-16, “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Rom. 10:6, 9, “But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above)…9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” Gal. 3:11, “But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.”
c. Ezek. 36:26-27, “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.” John 6:44-45, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.”
————————
Therefore, in God’s providence, He gave to those of us who He has ordained to eternal life, before the world was created, the Holy Spirit to change our dead will to a FREE WILL to believe in Jesus Christ.
The Holy Spirit then breathed on men to cause the in infallible and inerrant writing of all of God’s revealed will about mankind, and then insured it was delivered to man so that man has no excuse to reject God. During the time of the law (the Old Testament period) and the time of the gospel (New Testament period) the Covenant of Grace was begun (Gen. 3:15). According to the Westminster Confession, it says:
3. Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second,[a] commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him that they may be saved,[b] and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.[c]
This Covenant of Grace shortly started AFTER the fall at Gen.3:15 and is a promise made between the Lord and us sinners that Jesus Christ would crush the serpents head.
This is a big problem for Roman Catholics and Protestants, because RCC believe that “MARY” is the one that will crush the head of the serpent. According to A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (Bernard Orchard, et al., ed.s):
“It can hardly be doubted that the feminine pronoun had its origin in the error of an early copyist of Vg. In his Lib. Quaest. Heb. in Gen. St Jerome quotes the Old Latin version of this text with the masc. (ipse) and translates the Hebrew with the same, PL 23, 943, and ipse is the reading of various Vg MSS. It is therefore highly improbable that he translated ipsa here [comment on Gen. 3:15b].”
However, Protestants believe that Christ’s was given this role to destroy the serpent per the 1647 Westminster Confession.
“6. Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ till after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefits thereof were communicated unto the elect, in all ages successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices, wherein he was revealed, and signified to be the seed of the woman which should bruise the serpent’s head, and the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, being yesterday and today the same, and forever.[a]
a. Gen. 3:15, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” Gal. 4:4-5, “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.” Heb. 13:8, “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” Rev. 13:8, “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”
From the beginning to the end, the Holy Spirit, is one with the Father and the Son, and cannot give you ANY new revelation, new imagination, new visions, nor extraordinary miracles, that in any way conflict with the one true intended meaning of Scripture itself. Anything in conflict with Scripture is from Satan, and it not from the TRUE SPIRIT of God, but is a false spirit of Antichrist and Satan himself. 1 Jn.4:1-2 says:
1 Dearly [a]beloved, believe not every [b]spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: for many false Prophets are gone out into the world.
2 [c]Hereby shall ye know the Spirit of God, [d]Every spirit which confesseth that [e]Jesus Christ is come in the [f]flesh is of God.
Footnotes:
a) 1 John 4:1 Taking occasion by the name of the Spirit, lest love and charity should be separated from the worship of God, which chiefly dependeth of his true knowledge, he returneth to that which he spake in the second Chapter touching the taking heed of Antichrists. And he will have us here to take heed of two things, the one is, that seeing there be many false prophets, we do not lightly give credit to every man: the other is, that because many men teach false things, we should not therefore believe any. We must then observe a mean, that we may be able to discern the Spirit of God, which are altogether to be followed from impure spirits which are to be eschewed.
b) 1 John 4:1 This is spoken by the figure Metonymy, and it is as if he had said, Believe not everyone that saith that he hath a gift of the holy Ghost to do the office of a Prophet.
c) 1 John 4:2 He giveth a certain and perpetual rule to know the doctrine of Antichrist by, to wit, if either the divine or human nature of Christ, or the true uniting of them together be denied: or if the least jot that may be, be derogate from his office who is our only King, Prophet, and everlasting high Priest.
d) 1 John 4:2 He speaketh simply of the doctrine, and not of the person.
e) 1 John 4:2 The true Messiah.
f) 1 John 4:2 Is true man.
To be more clear on the idea that RCC teaches that Mary will crush the serpents head and not Jesus Christ, see here:
In the same way, Benedict XVI continued his discussion of the passage by stating:
It [Gen. 3:15] is the announcement of revenge: at the dawn of the Creation, Satan seems to have the upper hand, but the son of a woman is to crush his head. Thus, through the descendence of a woman, God himself will triumph. Goodness will triumph. That woman is the Virgin Mary of whom was born Jesus Christ who, with his sacrifice, defeated the ancient tempter once and for all. This is why in so many paintings and statues of the Virgin Immaculate she is portrayed in the act of crushing a serpent with her foot [ibid.].
So both pontiffs acknowledge a Marian dimension to the text: It is through her Son that Mary crushes the serpent’s head.
http://jimmyakin.com/2014/07/who-will-crush-the-serpents-head.html
Jim, what do you think about this statement compared with Romish teaching?
Though it is not necessary that a truly constituted church be absolutely pure as to the doctrine taught or embraced, as to the ordinances administered, or the public worship performed, it is, however, necessary that its constitution be founded upon and agreeable to the Word of God and that its constitution reflect the light attained to by the purest of Reformed Churches (for all reformation must be biblical reformation if it is reformation at all, otherwise it is not a reformation but a deformation, cf. Phil. 3:16). Wherefore, to adopt a constitution that corrupts the light of Scripture or the light of reformation is to adopt a false constitution. A false constitution renders a church and its courts unconstitutional. When the Confession of Faith (25:4) speaks of degrees of purity among particular churches within the “catholick church”, we believe it designates degrees of purity within truly constituted churches. For example, though the church of Corinth was plagued with division, immorality, and false doctrine promoted by some within the church (and therefore manifested a lesser degree of purity than other truly constituted churches, cf. the church of Smyrna in Rev. 2:8-11), it was, nevertheless, a truly constituted church for it was constituted by apostolic authority (with apostolic doctrine, apostolic worship, apostolic government, and apostolic discipline). Thus, for a church to constitutionally adhere to Arminianism, Dispensationalism, or Charismatic experientialism (false doctrine), singing uninspired hymns or using instrumental music in public praise (false worship), Episcopacy or Independency (false government), or unrestricted communion (false discipline) is to qualify as a constitutionally false church. That is not to say that there are no believers in churches that are not truly constituted (there may be many in some cases). Nor is it to imply that ministers or elders within those churches do not courageously stand for many truths taught in Scripture. It is simply to say that authority to rule in the church must come from Christ, and if a church does not have a constitution of which He approves (as King of His church), then there is no lawful authority to rule or to administer the ordinances on His behalf. Authority to administer the divine ordinances on behalf of Christ flows directly from the King and His constitution. Authority used within His church on any other grounds is an usurped authority. It is tyranny. For this reason, the magistracy and the church (during the Second Reformation) did not recognize the constitutional viability of any other church within the realm of Scotland than the Church of Scotland:
. . . there is no other face of kirk, nor other face of religion, than was presently at that time, by the favour of God, established within this realm: “Which therefore is ever styled God’s true religion, Christ’s true religion, the true and Christian religion, and a perfect religion” (The National Covenant of Scotland, emphases added).
Annie, I will take your failure to provide your promised respone on the sacrament of the Mass being a real sacrifice according to Catholic official doctrine a concession to my assurity that it is. Generally when I have people go back t their Priest and ask what is meant by sacrifium in Trent’s statement on the mass I dont hear from them any longer. Annie just so you know the Catholic Mass is the most abominble thing before God. It reduces Christ to imperfect, powerless to save completely, it is justification by works, idolatry worship in putting a piece of bread up in the place of the Savior, it wont allow Christ off the cross to be Lord and Savior, and it is an atempt to usurp His atonement and incarnation. It is a rejection of the cross.
Kevin,
Annie will tell you herself but until then;
The Mass is a “relative” sacrifice. It is totally dependent of Calvary.
Remember, the Paschal Lamb died once and then there were 8 days of sacrifice using bread. 8 days of the same feast. representing eternity.
Jim wrote:
The Mass is a “relative” sacrifice. It is totally dependent of Calvary.
You have no safety in the Scriptures or the true sacrifice of Christ. Also, you are wrong about RC teaching. Rome teaches the latreutic and propitiatory sacrifice began “on the night he was betrayed.” The unbloody sacrifice occured at the same time as the betrayal, then the bloody mode was added. Calvary stands alone, so keep these extraneous lies away.
Annie,
Kevin knows rhetoric like this is designed to offend.
“Annie just so you know the Catholic Mass is the most abominble thing before God. ”
He is not acting in good faith. Don’t be his fool. Kenneth W. on CCC and his own blog thinks he can win Kevin over by turning the other cheek and patiently enduring his slurs.
HA! Kevin is not sincere. He is sick. He lives to slur and craves a Catholic to spill his vile vomit in front of.
Gandhi was once asked if his passive resistance would have worked against the Nazis. He replied that it wouldn’t have. He said it worked against the British only because they were civilized.
If Kevin were standing in front of me I would spit in his eye. But you try your way ( until he wears you down ).
Hi Kevin,
my family is here for the weekend with the little ones so I haven’t had time enough to study and digest what you’d written in depth before embarking upon a reply. I do want to do justice to what you’ve already written and write a considered reply. At present I’m answering off the top of my head and this is such a profound subject. I was very interested to read about your prayer life and how you live your faith. You believe that God alone saves. That you cannot “earn” your salvation. That it is God who decides. I hope I am faithful to what you conveyed thus far? Yet you also chose God through the exercise of your free will which God granted. So loving God and following God was a personal decision dependent on a human action or response to God. What I understand is that in the life you lead, devoted to God, you are co-operating with divine grace and providence. You are good to your neighbours, you contribute to the social good, you defend the weak and innocent. You do Good. This is because you love the Lord dearly and have studied the Gospel. You are directly inspired by the example of Christ. You are doing good not because it will get you anything, not because it will earn you brownie points for Heaven but because loving Jesus and conforming ourselves to his will means that His will is your will and that is what happens when you sincerely and humbly follow Him.
Kevin, you know I am a catholic. God is the only one who saves. I cannot earn redemption but I can love God and respond to the grace he grants me. I can choose to co-operate with divine will. If I love Jesus then it is a natural thing to help others, to spend time in prayer, to do good, to strive to be good because devotion to Christ compels us to love, to act, to become. If I buy a homeless person a sandwich or hold the hand of someone who is dying do you think (as I am a catholic) that I am doing it to gain brownie points to work my way to Heaven or because, like you, in loving Christ I am compelled to love others and serve them. If you have faith in Christ then you love Him, if you love God you’re compelled to act to love others. If Christ is our Lord and we follow Him we must also try to imitate Him. He asked us to be perfect. ” To Be” That’s a verb, a verb is an action. Kevin you do good because your faith moves you to love others. Because you have the great gift of faith and the love of God is in you. I am no different. Annie
Annie,
I don’t believe Kevin has any love for God in him. If he did, he wouldn’t hate his fellow amen so much.
Hi Walt,
thank you for your response I am a slow reader but I’m trying to take my time going through your post. One question I have is how your belief in The Holy Spirit is lived out in your daily life? Do you pray to the Holy Spirit? Do you wait for inspirations from the Holy Spirit? How do you discern the Holy Spirit in day to day life to do God’s will? Thanking you for your time and consideration. Annie
Annie,
I’ll let you digest the points I made on the authority of the Holy Spirit and the distinctions between Christ’ role in the life of a Catholic vs. Protestant in the Covenant of Grace. While Mary has a role, she is certainly not the one who will bruise the head of the serpent and act as co-redeemer in the Covenant of Grace. As a Catholic, I was taught this growing up about Mary, I read the Bible in Catholic School and it did not teach any of this thankfully. Fortunately you might not have been taught much about Mary’s role compared to Christ’s role in RCC.
I’m leaving at 4am to the airport to fly to Colorado and Florida, I will be returning on Saturday this week. If I don’t reply soon, please know I will when I return as I have a bit of a hectic schedule. I’ll be home the following week, and then have to fly to Europe for 2 weeks…so bear with me.
Annie,
While I don’t want to jump into your discussion with Kevin, in reading your post it seems you might be trying to figure out the distinction between justification and sanctification. I’m not really sure based upon what you wrote to him, but let me help you read about what I am (five point calvinist) and what I used to be (Roman Catholic) on the doctrine of justification.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordo_salutis
If you can understand just this doctrine between between our vastly different religions, that will help you understand the good works that come from me are due to my justification, and sanctification, as God commanded and the spirit of Christ. I’m working out my sanctification by the Holy Spirit of God after being fully justified in Christ alone as the elect chosen of God. WCF says:
1. Good works are only such as God hath commanded in his holy Word,[a] and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men out of blind zeal, or upon any pretense of good intention.[b]
2. These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith;[a] and by them believers manifest their thankfulness,[b] strengthen their assurance,[c] edify their brethren,[d] adorn the profession of the gospel,[e] stop the mouths of the adversaries,[f] and glorify God,[g] whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto,[h] that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.[i]
3. Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ.[a] And that they may be enabled thereunto, ***besides the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit to work in them to will and to do of his good pleasure;[b]*** yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.[c]
4. They who in their obedience attain to the greatest height which is possible in this life, are so far from being able to supererogate and to do more than God requires, as that they fall short of much which in duty they are bound to do.[a]
5. We cannot, by our best works, merit pardon of sin, or eternal life at the hand of God, by reason of the great disproportion that is between them and the glory to come, and the infinite distance that is between us and God, whom by them we can neither profit nor satisfy for the debt of our former sins;[a] but when we have done all we can, we have done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants;[b] and because, as they are good, they proceed from his Spirit;[c] and as they are wrought by us, they are defiled and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection that they cannot endure the severity of God’s judgment.[d]
6. Yet notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in him,[a] not as though they were in this life wholly unblamable and unreprovable in God’s sight;[b] but that he, looking upon them in his Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.[c]
7. Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others;[a] yet because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith,[b] nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word,[c] nor to a right end, the glory of God;[d] they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God.[e] And yet their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God.[f]
Hi Kevin, just in brief. We have the liturgy of the word at Mass. At the Sunday liturgy there is a reading from the Old Testament, followed by a psalm, followed by a reading from the Gospel. Our priests and religious have to say set prayers every day, they sing Psalms and read from the Bible. I was present at a homily last year and the priest told how a man described Catholics as “People of the Book” and his response was “We are the People of the Word, and the Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us.” Kevin in truth and sincerity I don’t know any catholic who considers the Bible a “dead letter” I have never heard of that expression in my life. We consider it to be a living text. That God reveals Himself to us in and through scripture.
Hi Tim, back again.
On the satanic situation. If someone came in and smashed up statues then I’d write that off as vandalism. Going to great lengths to take a consecrated host is different. It would be simple to order unconsecrated hosts to destroy but they don’t want unconsecrated hosts, they want Jesus. Unconsecrated hosts are worthless to them. The satanic blass mass is an inversion of the catholic mass. That means they mock every act of worship and reverence at Holy Mass. They do something blasphemous or depraved instead at the Black Mass. They don’t do inverted versions of other religious services. Why do you think this is? God Bless. A.
Annie,
The distinction you make between Islamists smashing statues of Buddha (vandalism) and Satanists only stealing consecrated hosts (sacrilege) is an arbitrary one. There is a statue of Abu Rayhan al-Biruni in Laleh Park in downtown Tehran. Nobody vandalizes that statue, as it commemorates one of the greatest academicians of the medieval Islamic era. But the Buddist statues were commemorating someone from a religion that Islam considers idolatry. It was not a random act of vandalism—it was a rejection of the religious convictions of another group of people. The fact that members of one false religion rejected the sacred statues of another false religion does not validate Buddism. So to your question, “They (Satanists) don’t do inverted versions of other religious services,” I merely point out that the Islamists don’t defile the statue of Abu Rayhan al-Biruni. Does that validate Buddhism?
Just so, I do not commend Christianity to you because our doctrines are rejected by the world and our brethren are persecuted. Many religions can claim that. I commend Christianity to you because it is the religion revealed by God to man in the Scriptures.
This is precisely why I pull back the veil of Rome’s alleged 2000-year antiquity here. Papal Primacy, Roman primacy, the perpetual Virginity of Mary, sinlessness of Mary, intercession of Mary, invocation of the saints, the papal title of Pontifex Maximus, veneration of relics, priestly celibacy, monastic asceticism—all extrascriptural and all date from the latter part of the 4th century, no earlier. Even your own apologists know and acknowledge this. Eucharistic Adoration came up much later than that, as your apologists also know well enough. Roman Catholicism is thus in the same category as Mormonism: it has to be very creative in how it covers the gap between its practices and its claims of antiquity. That is why the “development of doctrine” doctrine had to be developed—because Roman Catholicism cannot be traced any further back than the late 300s. If Roman Catholics are “People of the Word” because “the Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us,” we would expect to be able to date your many practices to the time of the incarnation. But we cannot. There is a reason for that.
One thing the early church did agree on was that Antichrist would soon rise from their very midst, and that his deception would be so crafty, even the church fathers were afraid they would be fooled by him. Many were. The Antichrist they feared is Roman Catholicism herself, and she came up right on schedule. That antichrist was to speak arrogantly (the Papacy) have a false prophet (the visions of Mary) that can even make the fire of heaven come down to earth in the sight of men (Fatima “miracle of the sun”), and a image (the Eucharist) that comes to life and can speak (Eucharistic miracles) and results in a mark on the hand or forehead (the unleavened bread ritual does this—Exodus 13:9), and that people were expected to worship on pain of death (the Inquisitions). The false prophet was to establish devotion of the image of the beast, which is what happened in the 11th century, when the apparitions of “Mary” got busy, and eucharistic devotion suddenly flourished where it had not before. Annie, you are member antichrist’s religion, and you worship his image, believing that you have found the truth of God. You most certainly have not, and all the defiled eucharistic wafers in the world cannot change that fact.
Thanks,
Tim
Good point.
Annie, it sounds (if I can read between the lines) you believe in supererogation?
“In the theology of the Roman Catholic Church, “works of supererogation” (also called “acts of supererogation”) are those performed beyond what God requires. For example, in 1 Corinthians 7, Saint Paul says that while everyone is free to marry, it is better to refrain from marriage and remain celibate to better serve God. The Roman Catholic Church holds that the counsels of perfection are supererogatory acts, which specific Christians may engage in above their moral duties. Similarly, it teaches that to determine how to act, one must engage in reasonable efforts to be sure of what the right actions are; after the reasonable action, the person is in a state of invincible ignorance and guiltless of wrongdoing, but to undertake more than reasonable actions to overcome ignorance is supererogatory, and praiseworthy.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supererogate
In the true Protestant church and Scripture, we are taught.
4. They who in their obedience attain to the greatest height which is possible in this life, are so far from being able to supererogate and to do more than God requires, as that they fall short of much which in duty they are bound to do.[a]
a. Neh. 13:22, “And I commanded the Levites that they should cleanse themselves, and that they should come and keep the gates, to sanctify the sabbath day. Remember me, O my God, concerning this also, and spare me according to the greatness of thy mercy.”
Job 9:2-3, “I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God? 3 If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand.”
Luke 17:10, “So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.”
Gal. 5:17, “For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.”
Walt,
Jesus told the Rich Young Man who had indeed kept the 10 commandments to do works of superogation if he wanted to be perfect. ( remember, the Law did not require anyone to sell all their possessions ).
Annie sai ” that you also chose God and exercised your free will” Lets let scripture answer that ‘ i chose you , you did not choose me” So no I did not choose God but He chose me. You continued ” so loving God following God was a personal decision” The bible says we are dead in sins, blind unable to choose God. ” Catholics are poorly catechized. They misunderstand that although we can exercise our free will, morally the bible says we are dead in sins and unable to come to the truth of the gospel apart from the spirit of God. Please don’t think so highly of yourself. Apart fro God we are dead in sins. That you can’t “earn” your salvation that is for God to decide” He has decided. Its not ambiguous, Paul says works or anything as coming from ourselves can’t save us. Titus 3:5 even eliminates righteous deeds as being “Merit” orious in salvation. ” You are doing good things not because it will get you anything, or earn you brownie points for heaven but because you love Jesus” Either you are being disingenuous or you refuse to understand Rome’s doctrine. Its all about earning brownie points. Your church says you must cooperate with grace to earn increases of grace and justice. Grace is the means of exchange on the church’s merit system. You are not justified by Christ’s active obedience but a works righteousness born out of love that increases by merits and demerits. And if you didn’t believe this or that you earn heaven in some way ( brownie points) you couldn’t stay there one more second. Annie Rome calls the Mass ” the work of the people”. You went on ” You know I’m Catholic and God is the only one who saves.” Your living in denial Annie and its just not a river in Egypt. If you believed this you could not stay in that church which teaches you are saved by faith as it is activated by your doing, your being, earning merits thru sacraments and increases of salvation. You continue ” I cannot earn redemption” Again your disingenuous” You are in a church that specifically teaches that you do thru “cooperating with grace”. You finish ” because you have faith and the love of god is in you we are no different” We are completely different. I believe faith alone in Christ alone saves, you believe faith formed in love saves. Two different gospels and two different worlds.
Annie,
Come on over to Creed Code Cult, jason Stellman’s blog. On this blog, the bad guys have you outnumbered ( but not outgunned as you are holding you own quite well ).
Kevin, you wrote:
“Grace is the means of exchange on the church’s merit system. You are not justified by Christ’s active obedience but a works righteousness born out of love that increases by merits and demerits. And if you didn’t believe this or that you earn heaven in some way ( brownie points) you couldn’t stay there one more second. ”
I don’t think Annie knows what Rome teaches. This is the nice thing about Tim’s blog as he quotes EXACTLY what Rome teaches so those who are typically ignorant Catholics (e.g, like Jim seems to lack understanding of what Rome teaches), this blog makes it crystal clear what Rome teaches.
Annie will need to study what Rome teaches on the order of salvation (ordo solutis):
Faith (willed assent to the Church’s dogmata, not fiducial faith as in Protestantism)
Contrition
Regeneration (in the Sacrament of Baptism)
Penance (after the Sacrament of Reconciliation)
Sanctification
Purgation
Theosis
Theosis in the Christian West
Although the doctrine of theosis came to be neglected in the Western Church, it was clearly taught in the Roman Catholic tradition as late as the 13th century by Thomas Aquinas, who taught that “full participation in divinity which is humankind’s true beatitude and the destiny of human life” (Summa Theologiae 3.1.2).
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis
Walt,
Annie seems to understand perfectly.
Jim,
I do hear you and you have experience of this, but you also know what Jesus said if people persecute you in His name. There is good in everyone. In everyone there is also a potential monster. Let us call out the good. There is so much hate in our world at present. Hate begets hate, it is insatiable. If we walk with Christ we love and we give. We listen and then explain our faith as clearly as we can. We’re all sinners. God has done so much for me. I’m not angry at things people said. I’m puzzled by the strong reponses though. I have never traded insults with people regarding their faith. I am from Europe. From the names and the language style are the people here American?
I have read a book on Guadalupe. It was amazing. Modern science is wonderful how it can endorse and verify such phenomena. Did you read about the star constellation on the Tilma? Thanks Jim for your kindness and goodwill. keep praying. God is generous and merciful. He lavishes grace upon us.
Yes Annie, I do know about the star constellations on the tilma. Awesome, huh?
Tim rejected all this wonderful stuff in order to have guys like Kevin fawn all over him. Bad trade.
Annie, you wrote:
“I am from Europe. From the names and the language style are the people here American? ”
What country are you from? My family is from Scotland and Germany…e.g., Europe. I’ve traveled in 50 countries.
Please don’t let our defending the Scriptures offend you and Jim as the Word of God is often highly offensive to those who are not truly saved, and can conflict with the Rome’s religion.
You must not, like Jim, have any knowledge of the Protestant Reformation in Europe. It was a very famous event that brought about the true and faithful interpretation of Scriptures, and the true gospel of Christ. I assume you do have some limited knowledge of the inquisition, and the terrible history of the Roman Catholic church. Have you ever seen or read Foxe’s Book of Martyr’s?
Kevin,
Annie wrote: “I do hear you and you have experience of this, but you also know what Jesus said if people persecute you in His name.”
Watch today’s sermon at 1:12 (the second main point) as it goes into detail about what Rome teaches, and before 1:20 will highlight how Roman Catholics look to their own persecution (see above written from Annie to Jim to support each other as they suffer here in this site) and suffering that is meritorious toward their salvation.
This sermon could not have been given at a better time.
Here is the link:
Walt, Ya im quite familiar that they offer up their sufferings and as Annie told me they offer up Christ body, soul, divinity, bbloodcagain and again. They co mediate with Christ at the Mass for their sins I mention in another post they really take from Christ what really belongs to Him, namely His incarnation and atonement. In the RC the incarnation is being continued and finished thru the acts of the church. Thats why I told Annie she didnt die on a cross or she isnt the Word who became flesh. Walt thats the whole thing, they wont let Him off the cross or the altar. He is an eternal victim. They wont let Him be Lord and Savior. Christ didnt come to make salvation possible, He saved us. He didnt come to put us in a state of redemption. He redeemed us. Romans 5 says we have been reconciled by His blood and by faith. Walt have you read Murrays book Redemption accomplished and applied. Must read.
Kelvin,
You are so correct. We say Christ is an eternal victim. ( But not on the cross).
Check out Rev 5.
Walt, im not buying Annie’s naivity. In my exchanges with her she knows exactly what her church teaches. She just thinks we misunderstand Catholicism. I know with Debbie, likemost Catholics it is implicit faith in their church. They dont see their doctrine for what it really is a false gospel. They wont even allow for the argument. Theircdefense mechanism goes way up. They have been taught they are part of the infalible church that Jesus built. Thats why I love Tim’s approach. He knows He must show how Rome is the apostate church and maybe they will see. Instead of going after Nick’s bait on Romans 4 and justification. If Catholics will read all of Tim’s articles theyvwill see he dismantles all of Rome’s claims and is cutting the legs out from under the structure. It cannot stand. Tim is drawing distinctions clearly. My personal rule is read Romes doctrine and believe the opposite and arrive at biblical truth. Great example Tim’ article on baptism today. Called to Communion position was exactly opposite of the truth. Satan makes good look evil and vice versa.
Hi Walt.
Speaking of Nick, he turned me on to BURGER WEEK PORTLAND. For 5 bucks you could get a honkin’ burger at participating diners, drive ins and dives. The deal ended yesterday but not before I managed to stuff my face twice.
Hi Annie, you said ” He asks us to be perfect” Yes Annie and He also said if you even lust in you r mind you have committed adultry. Jesus set the bar of the law, it requires perfection. None of us can keep it. The purpose of the law was not to save but to show us our sinfulness and drive us to the gospel. The Law kills, the gospel saves. God’ law is perfect and Holy but beccause of our flesh, our sin, it could only condemn us and bring death. The whole of Paul’ argument is the antithesis between works and believing in justification. Paul does not allow Rome to smuggle their character into God’work of grace. Works, love and obedience can only be the result of saing faith but not the condition for justification. If you dont believe you earn your salvation then you must leave that church immediately. You are participating in a church that teaches you get to heaven by you works and merits. No one will be justified by observing the law Paul says. It is clear our works can play no role in being right before God. If you stay there Annie, you are condoning that system. God Bless
Kevin, Please. Nobody is lusting after you in their mind. You have told me how women think you are a heartthrob. Ha! In your mind only!
Hi Kevin,
I am reading The Latin Mass Explained by MSGR George Moorman. Its profound and very moving. By virtue of this site I am really studying the mystery of the Mass and the nature of the Sacrifice. I think that what I have written is faithful to the catholic Church’s teaching thus far. I think its vital to examine what the Church professes rather than our perception of what it teaches regarding the Mass. Kevin, I include myself in that statement. I am, in my ignorance, capable of not explaining things faithfully or well. I have never studied theology as a subject. I will post again in a few days. If you look at the number of questions and objections that have been raised and consider that I know little about the faith practices and beliefs of Walt, yourself or Tim you would grant me a little space and time as Walt has done. Kevin, I don’t know what church or religion you are or what you profess. Can you tell me about that? God Bless and keep you. Annie
Annie, I applaud your admission of ignorrance of your religion. You have come to the right place. Everything you ever need to really know about Roman Catholicism you will find here. Tim, Walt, Eric W are former RC’s. Take your time with responses to me. Im good. I am a Christian trusting in Chrisr alone for my salvation. I attend a bible church in Phoenix and have attended a Reform Presby. Church.
Yes, Annie, you have come to the right place as Kelvin says. I am here to rebut his lies, foolishness and hate.
Annie, that Bible church Kelvin attends in Phoenix wants nothing to do with his hate-filled delivery. They consider Catholics “brothers in Christ” and one of the preaching staff admires the Pope. K. is not really a member of that church so they can’t take him to task for embarrassing and misrepresenting them on this blog. ( I know as I have written to them ).
Hi Everyone,
I just read a few of the recent posts. I thank you for your time and courtesy. At times I was amongst gentlemen and you are all sincere in your love of Christ. I thank you for challenging me to study exactly what The Catholic Church teaches in her encylicals and at the various councils. I would urge you to go to the original Church documents for yourselves, as Kevin so rightly says, we must seek the Truth in all things. I came to share my faith and to listen. I am not helping anyone here by my posts. I came in goodwill and I leave in peace.
It is only honest to say that although I have an imperfect knowledge of Church Doctrine and teachings I do believe that Jesus founded the Catholic Church and sent the Holy Spirit to the apostles to guide and direct the Church through time. This means I believe the teachings and doctrines of the Church come from the direct inspirations of the Holy Spirit. This is what it means to be Catholic. Kevin is right, a Catholic trusts The Church and believes the Church has the full deposit of faith and is led by the Holy Spirit. It isn’t a church of personal, subjective opinions it is Christ’s Church.
Thank you for your kindness and patience. Keeping you in my prayers. God Bless. Annie
Annie, thanks for allowing us to share with you and you sharin your thoughts. We agree with you that the “catholic” church was founded by the Holy Spirit built on the once and for all faith delivered as it says in Jude. Unfortunately that isn’t the Roman Catholic church which looks nothing like the real church. Christ’s church has always been marked out by God and separated itself from your system. Only the Holy Spirit can remove the veil from your eyes to see the gospel of scripture, and it looks nothing like the one in Rome. Claims to history, infallibility, dubbing oneself the the true church really won’t mean anything when the gospel of scripture is abandoned. I ask you one thing Annie, when the Philippians jailer asked Paul what must I do to be saved? and Paul told him believe on the Lord and you will be saved, could he have ever meant a life of sacramental treadmill ex opere operato earning one’s place in heaven? If you answer yes, then you are in the right spot. But if in scripture you can’t find this sacramental system of earning salvation, or Popes, or nuns, or Cardinals, or indulgences, or Masses, or scapulars, or the worship of Mary, or salvation by one’s own works, or pilgrimages, and you only find that faith alone in Christ alone Rom. 10:9,10 then you must come out of her Annie. God Bless
Kelvin,
You forgot mark 16:16. ( The jailor was immediately baptized that very night. He didn’t wait til dawn. )
Annie said ” Kevin is right a Catholic trusts the church” Annie this is an honest admission. Truly you put your implicit faith in the Roman church, but as Tim constantly reminds us a church can’t save you only the Word. And we are trusting the Word alone for our salvation. Not Masses, indulgences, Mary, our own works, but Christ who imputes his righteousness to our account by faith alone in Christ alone. The bible never says we are justified by love. Love can only be the extension of saving faith which already justified us permanently and forever. This does not eliminate the judgment but allows us to pass thru in Him.
Kevin,
Romans 5:5 says we are justified by love. Jesus says so too.
Kevin,
You can’t be saved without the Church can you? Christ came to save a people. a Church, right?
I thought Ephesians says we are elect IN IN IN IN IN IN Christ?
IOW, in His Body the Church.
God can’t save someone without the church? Augustine said there were believers outside the church. I think you may be confusing the Roman Catholic church with the Spirit and the Word which alone brings Christ to the heart thru faith, not thru church. The church cn lead people to faith but its the Spirit who blows where and how He wants to bring fiducia to the heart. Jim, the Roman church can’t substitute itself for the natural body of Jesus or the Spirit by collapsing the head into the body. Its God who has control of the conscience, not the church, and the church is the recipient of God’s grace, not the provider, that belongs to the Spirit who doesn’t take orders from your scoundrel Priests. Clavin and Hodge recognized the baptisms of a evil Priesthood of the Roman church, but both agreed it was in the same way the Jews were brothers with the Ebonite’s, external, not brothers in the Lord. Spurgeon said ” call yourself a Priest sir, I dare think someone would take the name, when I consider all the crimes and villainies committed under a special Priesthood, I would rather a man looked at me in the street and call be the devil than a Priest. When a man comes to you and says he is a Priest, the poorest child of God should say stand off and don’t interfere with my office, I am a Priest. I do not know who you are, for the only mention of vestments in scripture is with Baal. But God calls all his saints a royal Priesthood, God’s Cleras. There is no salvation coming thru your scoundrels and their church. We need to pray for these men who are cut off from the natural Godly function of marriage, forced to go in a box and listen to horrible things, and go out and commit unspeakable crimes and pedophilia etc. We need to pray for those men Jim, they are lost and alone. K
Kevin,
God doesn’t save anyone without the Church including pagans and Protestants.
As for pedophilia, I think you evidence an unhealthy fascination with child molestation. Would you like like to know the lurid details of seduction so you can say, ” my, my, how naughty. Tell me more. This is sooooooo wicked. Tell me more”?
I told that I worked in mental health. I would say ministers molest 3 times more than priests ( and they are married ) and public school teachers molest 24 times as often as priests.
If you are haunted by images and temptations to molest, I would encourage you to speak with Brad your minister for counselling before you act out.
Exodus in an excellent 12 step group for Protestants struggling to overcome sexual addictions like the one you may be dealing with.
I will keep you in my prayers.
Jim, as regards your comment,
It is very interesting that you would lay that charge at the feet of someone who made no such inquiry. But the Catechism of the Council of Trent demands confession in precisely the terms you ridicule:
Knowing what we know now about how the confessional booth has served its occupants, we can only chuckle at this hopeful, but naive, comment on the sacrament from the Catechism of Trent:
With 500 years of this behind us, I think the confessional booth speaks for itself.
Thanks, as always, for your participation. You are always welcome here.
Tim
Jim, you can make 5:5 saying anything you want. I bet you can make a Roman Eucharist talk too huh?
When you were blogging under assumed names on CCC you had a penchant for women’s name. Do you cross dress? Are you considering gender realignment?
Jim, no I’m happily married. How about you did you cross dress?
Jim, don’t make excuses for your Priests. The history of the Papacy and the Priesthood reads like a bad novel. Ratzinger just resigned because he couldn’t deal with the homosexuality that is rampant in the Priesthood. There is an apartment in Rome where some 15 Cardinals are housed near the vatican. Right bellow this upstairs apartment is a gay bar. Rome is hiding it Jim. They don’t know what to do about the problem its so bad. Its like the Emperor with his new clothes. It appears on the outside to be a church, but its full of dead men’s bones. Get out while you can Jim.
Jim, I think Tim gave you a little lesson in Roman Horricular confession.
Tim,
Do you deny Kevin has a morbid preoccupation with pedophilia?
This blog has no Seal of the Confessional. You have his email address. You should report him before he hurts a child.
And while you are at it Tim, report yourself for covering up for a man who scours the blogs looking for filth.
Jim, I point out the that your Priesthood has a preoccupation for pedophilia. And its despicable. How many have we probably heard about. But it doesn’t bother you. You stand behind your scoundrels because you try to accuse me a happily married man of the crime I’m trying to expose in your Priesthood. Pray for those men Jim. They are lonely and lost. Many perverted. I’m praying God will clean out the filth and the false gospel of your church. And i pray it everyday just like Spurgeon urged us to do. Jim, your not the brightest build on the porch. Anti Traitor had to explain on Jason’s site hot cliff asked you to drop over. LOL
Kevin,
People obsessed with other people’s perversions are often projecting.
You are off of Jason’s for you interjection of pedophilia into a discussion on a totally unrelated topic.
Keep telling me how happily married you are. ( I am starting to wonder if you are. Why are you insisting so much? I don’t want to know anything about your life with your wife. )
Jim, you really don’t want any facts, you just want to pontificate like Chick. Your the Roman Catholic version of him, except if he trusted Christ alone for his salvation then actually he is better off. He was saved. You are a phonograph with the false gospel. So your worse off, all you really have Jim is a bunch of plastic rosaries to pass out, allot of stories from history, and jumping on my case and Tim’s case continually. But thats ok, we ware trying to get you to give up your idolatry and follow Jesus. And its worth put up with all your nonsense if by the ned of your life you repent from Roman catholicism and believe the gospel.
pssst! wooden rosaries, Kevin, wooden rosaries!
Whatever the subject being discussed, grace, justification, Law, your mind is on pedophilia. Why?
Luther had a fascination for poop ( s— in his words ). In his Table Talks, in Cranach’s pictures commissioned by Luther, and he even had his awaking in the latrine. His view of righteousness is just crap covered in snow.
You and Luther deserve each other.
Tim,
If you get some time to answer my message of yesterday, assuming you have time, it would be helpful. There is a group here from our church going over your comments and many of us are former Roman Catholics who left the church for various reasons, but mostly due to the fact that we have all be saved by grace alone. However, most of the families have still a lot of brothers, sisters, parents still in the Romish church and are overly ignorant beyond what we see here in the 3 posters who are blinded to these issues of grace over real presence.
The big problem with everyone is how to determine where the Scriptures went in history before or at the time of the prophetical falling away by the Romish church. As we are all historical post millennialists the real issue is to determine this period of falling away, and how the Scriptures via Rome were all converted to Latin only language and filtered throughout the empire, but the original scripture majority manuscripts went elsewhere. The Latin only bible text began when? Do you when this started, and how much it was enforced?
For the Catholics to claim Iona and Columba is really incredible to us on wikipedia. Is this a modern day game played by the Jesuits and Romish apologists to link their reach into Scotland as their “homeland” as well outside the Romish empire?
Thanks.
Thanks, Walt, I did receive your message, and will look into it as time permits. I’ve got several deadlines pressing, but you’re right, it is an important issue. The Vulgate was commissioned in 382, but did not become the “official version” of Roman Catholicism until the Council of Trent (1545–1563). Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
What date did the office Latin language become imposed upon the church hierarchy in Romish church?
This Latin “only” focus seems to be another root of evil that severely impacted the Romish church who made significant changes to the text without anyone able to translate into another language they could understand.
Dear Tim,
Fascinating articles and amazing to see how the minds of theologians work. For those of us who are not theologians, all we can offer is our own experience. At the age of 9, I would occasionally attend Catholic Mass with an adopted uncle of mine – the Mass was very boring but, mercifully, short … but the experience of being in that chapel enveloped me with such peace, and love, and belonging, that I decided, at that age, that when I grew up, I would become Catholic (at the time, I was Anglican, familiar with the ritual of the Mass …). Every single church I encountered since then, I would know whether it was Catholic or other, (simply?) by the aura it exuded. I finally discovered the source of it one year, when I was 21. It was a newly built Catholic Church with a modern design – and it didn’t feel “Catholic”. The three priests present assured me it definitely was Catholic, and we were taken on a tour around the church. Then, suddenly, I sensed that “Catholic” presence, that peace and love and … oh, that beautiful assurance, and I told the priests, that, “here, it feels Catholic”. And one of them said, “Oh, this is the side chapel – we keep the tabernacle here.” The tabernacle, as you know, has the “reserve” consecrated hosts … I love Jesus, in my heart, in the Eucharist, in adoration … amazing that 2000 years from now, Jesus’ most controversial statement, is still controversial today, still so difficult to understand, still creating so many stumbling blocks … See John 6:35-69. I wish to reference, in particular, verse56, 60, 66 “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in that person”…Apparently, for you scholars, the original Greek is even more shocking (whoever masticates /gnaws at /chews on my living flesh …) … “After hearing it, many of his followers said, ‘This is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it?” … “After this, many of his followers went away and accompanied him no more” … and never once did Jesus call them back and say, “this is the palatable explanation …” (no pun intended) ,,, instead, He turns to the 12 and asks them, “do you want to leave too?”
Actually the ones who understood him literally walked away because they couldn’t appraise his words spiritually. He said his words were spirit and life. Coming and believing his words save a man. Roman Catholics are in the unbelieving crowd that missed the message.
Tim, what should we do with Eucharistic miracles that happened BOFORE THE 11th century? Like the miracle of St Legontian in the 7 or 8 hundres?
An interesting question. Why do you believe those miracles to be problematic?
oh, ehm, because i thought that the beast which came with the image which is described in Rev 13 who gave the image life came in 11th century.
Thats why i thought that miracles should happen from 11th century up until today
Thanks, I figured that’s what you meant, but I wanted to be sure I understood before answering.
Eucharistic Adoration did not arise until the 11th century. The reason it became obligatory to worship the eucharist (and the reason people continue to believe they should worship it) is because of the miracles. Saying that Eucharistic Adoration began in the 11th century is not the same as saying that Eucharistic Miracles began in the 11th century.
It is a remarkable thing that even when the miracles began to happen, it still did not immediately occur to people to worship the Eucharist. The “Eucharistic Renaissance” took place 300-400 years after the eucharistic miracles began.
Notably, Gregory IX’s papal inquisition of 1233 was started because he interpreted the eucharistic miracle of 1228 “as a sign against the widespread heresies regarding the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.” So inspired by that miracle, he instigated the inquisition of 1233, and one of the penalties for the “heresy” was that the offenders “had their property confiscated, as well as were banished from public life,” just as had happened 70 years earlier at Toulouse:
Anyway, Eucharistic miracles came first, then adoration in the 11th century, then killing people and cutting them off economically when they refused to worship the Eucharist. Notably, the Albigensians, against whom Gregory IX directed his ire, had the same doctrines as the Waldensians who denied the Real Presence as well: “They do not believe the body and blood of Christ to be the true sacrament, but only blessed bread, which by a figure only is called the body of Christ, in like manner as it is said, and the rock was Christ, and such like.”
oh, Timothy Kauffman… Its always so nice when you give an answer, were i never thought someone can give a satisfied answer… amazing! O totally agree. Its outstanding
Thank you!❤️