Follow
Catholic Answers is a ministry that exists “to explain & defend the faith,” and seeks to “help good Catholics become better Catholics, bring former Catholics ‘home,’ and lead non-Catholics into the fullness of the faith.” The ministry began in 1979 when its founder, Karl Keating, grew annoyed at a local Protestant church’s efforts to evangelize the Catholics in his parish. The Protestant church had put flyers on the windshields of the parishioners’ parked cars during Mass, and the flyers were allegedly “riddled with misinformation.”
Keating responded by writing a tract rebutting the claims, and leafleting the cars of the offending Protestant church’s parking lot with his response. The tract was called “Catholic Answers,” and thus began Karl Keating’s ministry, which is now “one of the nation’s largest lay-run apostolates of Catholic apologetics and evangelization.”
Because Catholic Answers’ goal is to correct misinformation, explain and defend the faith, and “lead non-Catholics into the fulness of the faith,” we were surprised to read the Catholic answer to a Protestant’s question on kneeling during Mass:
“Why do Catholics kneel during their services? This seems unnecessary. Why not just sit still and listen to the preaching of God’s word?”
The response from the Catholic Answers staff explained that Catholics do listen to the preaching of God’s Word—both sitting and standing—and that kneeling is just one part of the Mass. But the answer went further than this and made a rather startling claim:
“Your question is a surprise because you probably should be asking yourself why you don’t kneel in your Protestant services. Scripture suggests you should. In Ephesians 3:14 Paul says, ‘I kneel before the Father,’ and in Acts 9:40 Peter ‘knelt down and prayed.’ The Catholic habit of kneeling is consistent with Scripture and is another manifestation of the continuity between the Church of the first century and the Catholic Church of today.”
The claim is remarkable not merely because of its haughtiness, but because of its protestations of continuity, of all things, on the issue of kneeling on Sunday. A survey of history will demonstrate just how preposterous the Catholic Answers response was.
We begin first in the catacombs, not for any appeal to authority but to register the shocked disbelief of the Catholic Encyclopedia when it is discovered that the ancient church entertained practices at variance with Rome’s current norms. Pay special attention as Rome dismisses the standing posture of prayer as merely symbolical of actual kneeling:
“It is remarkable that the ‘orantes’ (praying figures) of early Christian art are in the catacomb frescoes invariably depicted as standing with arms extended. Some remarks of Leclercq (Manuel d’Archéologie chrétienne, I, 153 sqq.) suggest that a probable explanation may be found in the view that these ‘orantes’ are merely conventional representations of prayer and of suppliants in the abstract. They are symbols, not pictures of the actual.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Genuflexion)
Since the saints of the catacombs in the second century left no written explanation of the frescoes, we have to wonder how Leclercq knew the ‘orantes’ were even praying in the first place. If their posture is merely symbolic standing and not actual standing, then on what grounds does he suppose that their praying posture is actual prayer and not merely symbolic of something else? But we digress.
We suspect those depictions were quite “actual” indeed, since Irenæus, also in the second century, wrote in his treatise, On Easter, that “we do not bend the knee [on Pentecost], because it is of equal significance with the Lord’s day” (Irenæus, Fragments, Fragment 7). Kneeling on Sunday was prohibited early in the Church.
Fast forward to the third century, and we find that Tertullian considered it “unlawful” to pray kneeling on the Lord’s Day. He wrote, “We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord’s day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday” (Tertullian, De Corona, Chapter 3 (204 A.D.)) Note well that kneeling was considered unlawful not only on Sundays (all year round) but also on every day from Resurrection Sunday to Pentecost.
A little more than a century hence, and the prohibition against kneeling on the Lord’s Day would be codified into law. At the Council of Nicæa in 325 A.D., the 318 assembled bishops declared that some people had been found to be kneeling on the Lord’s Day, and the bishops insisted that such kneeling must cease in order to bring the Church into a uniformity of worship:
“Forasmuch as there are certain persons who kneel on the Lord’s Day and in the days of Pentecost, therefore, to the intent that all things may be uniformly observed everywhere (in every parish), it seems good to the holy Synod that prayer be made to God standing.” (Canon XX, Council of Nicæa, 325 A.D.)
Notable, at least because of its relevance to this topic, is the fact that the bishops at Nicæa did not require kneeling in order to bring everyone into conformity with those who knelt; rather they forbade kneeling in order to bring everyone into conformity with those who stood. In light of the frescoes in the catacombs, Irenæus’ proscription, and Tertullian’s objections, we suspect that Nicæa thought standing to pray was the historical standard—it was not new at Nicæa. We of course have no problem with kneeling for prayer, but the bishops assembled at Nicæa—who were certainly aware of Ephesians 3:14 and Acts 9:40—did not take the Catholic Answers position that “Scripture suggests you should.” Rather, they believed you should not.
Fast forward to 374 A.D., and Basil the Great explains why Christians do not kneel on the Lord’s Day:
“We pray standing, on the first day of the week, but we do not all know the reason. On the day of the resurrection (or ‘
standing again’Grk. ἀ νάστασις) we remind ourselves of the grace given to us by standing at prayer, not only because we rose with Christ, and are bound toseek those things which are above,’[Colossians 3:1] but because the day seems to us to be in some sense an image of the age which we expect, wherefore, though it is the beginning of days, it is not called by Moses first, but one. … On this day the rules of the church have educated us to prefer the upright attitude of prayer, for by their plain reminder they, as it were, make our mind to dwell no longer in the present but in the future.” (Basil, de Spiritu Sancto, chapter 27)
Seven years later at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D., the 150 bishops concurred with the “ancient custom … along with the regulation of the saintly fathers at Nicaea” (Council of Constantinople, Synodical Letter), and then restated their affirmation of the faith established by the bishops there:
“The profession of faith of the holy fathers who gathered in Nicaea in Bithynia is not to be abrogated, but it is to remain in force.” (Canon I, Council of Constantinople).
The prohibition against kneeling on the Lord’s Day was not rescinded.
Fast forward 50 years to the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D., and at the 6th Session the bishops reaffirm the Nicene creed, forbidding anyone “to produce or write or compose any other creed.”
The prohibition against kneeling on the Lord’s Day was not rescinded.
Fast forward another 20 years to the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D., and the very first canon reaffirms all the canons of Nicea, including the prohibition of kneeling on the Lord’s Day:
“We have deemed it right that the canons hitherto issued by the saintly fathers at each and every synod should remain in force.” (Canon I, Council of Chalcedon)
The prohibition against kneeling on the Lord’s Day was not rescinded.
Fast forward 102 years to the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 A.D., and the bishops gathered there restate their affirmation of the four preceding ecumenical councils, emphatically condemning those who do not agree with what was defined by them:
“Now that we have given the details of what our council has achieved, we repeat our formal confession that we accept the four holy synods, that is, of Nicaea, of Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, and of Chalcedon. Our teaching is and has been all that they have defined concerning the one faith. We consider those who do not respect these things as foreign to the catholic church.” (Second Council of Constantinople)
The prohibition against kneeling on the Lord’s Day was not rescinded.
Fast forward 123 years to the Third Council of Constantinople in 681 A.D., and we find the bishops assembled there “reaffirming the divine tenets of piety” of the council of Nicæa “in all respects unaltered“:
“Wherefore this holy and universal synod of ours, driving afar the error of impiety which endured for some time even till the present, following without deviation in a straight path after the holy and accepted fathers, has piously accorded in all things with the five holy and universal synods: that is to say, with
- the synod of 318 holy fathers who gathered at Nicaea against the madman Arius, and, [etc…]
Reaffirming the divine tenets of piety in all respects unaltered…” (Third Council of Constantinople)
The prohibition against kneeling on the Lord’s Day was not rescinded.
Fast forward eleven years to the local Council of Trullo in 692 A.D., and the council explicitly reaffirms that Canon 20 of Nicæa is still to be honored. The council prohibited kneeling from Saturday evening until the following evening in recognition of the day of the Resurrection:
“We have received from our divine Fathers the canon law that in honour of Christ’s resurrection, we are not to kneel on Sundays. Lest therefore we should ignore the fulness of this observance we make it plain to the faithful that after the priests have gone to the Altar for Vespers on Saturdays (according to the prevailing custom) no one shall kneel in prayer until the evening of Sunday, … and thus during an entire day and night, we celebrate the Resurrection.” (Council of Trullo, Canon 90)
Fast forward 95 years to the Second Council of Nicæa in 787 A.D., and we find the assembled bishops emphatically reaffirming everything taught by the preceding councils, especially that which was decreed at Nicæa:
“Therefore, with all diligence, making a thorough examination and analysis, and following the trend of the truth, we diminish nought, we add nought, but we preserve unchanged all things which pertain to the Catholic Church, and following the Six Ecumenical Synods, especially that which met in this illustrious metropolis of Nice, as also that which was afterwards gathered together in the God-protected Royal City.” (Second Council of Nicæa)
Pope Hadrian I, who was pope during 2nd Nicæa, in his letter to Tenasius of Constantinople, affirmed the six ecumenical councils to date, including all the canons of Trullo. The prohibition against kneeling on the Lord’s Day was not rescinded.
Fast forward 87 years to the Fourth Council of Constantinople in 870 A.D., and we find the bishops emphatically reaffirming all the canons of the previous councils:
“Therefore we declare that we are preserving and maintaining the canons which have been entrusted to the holy, catholic and apostolic church by the holy and renowned apostles, and by universal as well as local councils of orthodox, and even by any inspired father or teacher of the church.” (Fourth Council of Constantinople, Canon I)
In light of nearly a 1,000 years of testimony from Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, popes and local and ecumenical councils against kneeling on Sunday, the response of Catholic Answers to the inquiring Protestant is simply preposterous. We provide the response again here to display the sheer magnitude of its presumptuousness:
“The Catholic habit of kneeling is consistent with Scripture and is another manifestation of the continuity between the Church of the first century and the Catholic Church of today.”
The church of the catacombs apparently preferred standing in prayer, and Irenæus did not believe we should kneel on the Lord’s day or on Pentecost, and Turtullian considered kneeling on the Lord’s Day—and every day from Resurrection Sunday to Pentecost—to be unlawful. Basil thought it was wrong to kneel on Sundays, according to “the rules of the church.” Additionally, Nicæa, 1st Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, 2nd Constantinople, 3rd Constantinople, Trullo, 2nd Nicæa and 4th Constantinople and Pope Hadrian I all rejected kneeling on the Lord’s Day. Continuity, indeed! Rather, there is a thousand years of discontinuity between Rome’s current practice, and the practice of the first century church.
For this reason, we have to admire the reluctant candor of another apologist at Catholic Answers. One participant at their online forum posed a similar question, asking whether we should stand or kneel at Mass. Catholic Answers’ reply was a little more candid this time—perhaps too candid:
“Kneeling in prayer and the liturgy has a complicated history.” (Jason Evert, Catholic Answers, Should we stand or kneel at Mass?)
Complicated?
Actually it is not complicated at all. Kneeling on Sunday was forbidden for a thousand years. “Complicated” is just a gloss to explain away Rome’s disobedience to the ecumenical councils of the church—of which it claims to be the guardian!
We say this apologist, Jason Evert, was perhaps too candid because he ties kneeling on Sundays to the Church’s growing understanding of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, something it apparently took the church more than a thousand years to figure out. He continued,
“Eventually kneeling became more common in public prayer with the increase of adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. … In the Eucharist we are invited to approach an even greater manifestation of God’s presence—the literal body, blood, soul, and divinity of God the Son—so it is fitting that we adopt what in our culture is one of the most reverential postures. Most fundamentally, kneeling at the consecration is a matter of obedience. Some may like to stand, but the Holy See does not allow for this (GIRM 21).”
By “eventually,” Evert means “in the 11th century,” but before we get to that, we must point out yet another gloss. Notice that Evert says we should “adopt what in our culture is one of the most reverential postures,” as if the reason they did not kneel on Sundays for a thousand years was because kneeling was not a cultural norm. Yet at the same time, Rome’s apologists justify kneeling on the Lord’s Day today precisely because kneeling is and always has been the cultural norm since the days of the apostles. Pope Benedict said of this practice,
“Stephen, on his knees, takes up the petition of the crucified Christ: ‘Lord, do not hold this sin against them.’ We should remember that Luke … speaks of the Lord kneeling in Gethsemane, which shows that Luke wants the kneeling of the first martyr to be seen as his entry into the prayer of Jesus. Kneeling is not only a Christian gesture, but a christological one.” (Benedict XVI, The Spirit of the Liturgy, p. 192).
According to Benedict, kneeling has been one of the most reverential postures since the apostolic era—and yet it was for a thousand years prohibited on the day the priest allegedly transubstantiates the bread into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. If the early church really believed and understood the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and kneeling has been the most reverential posture since the days of the apostles, then the early church should have required kneeling on the Lord’s Day instead of forbidding it.
Clearly, therefore, we cannot dismiss the millennium of prohibition against kneeling as if it was just a matter of cultural preference. If kneeling has been the cultural norm since the days of the apostles—as Benedict says—why the thousand year prohibition against kneeling on the Lord’s Day? If kneeling became the norm as the church grew into a realization of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, why did it take a thousand years to come to that realization? If kneeling on the Lord’s Day was prohibited for a thousand years, in what way is today’s practice of kneeling during the Mass an expression of the continuity of the church since the first century? If kneeling is the most reverential posture and the most christological gesture toward Christ in the Eucharist, then why did the church for a millennium forbid it on the one day of the week that it was ostensibly most appropriate?
These are questions Rome cannot answer, and thus she tries desperately to explain it away. Benedict, for example, in a calculated misrepresentation, states that “The twentieth canon of Nicæa decrees that Christians should stand, not kneel, during Eastertide” (Benedict XVI, The Spirit of the Liturgy, p. 192). That is a half truth. Nicæa prohibited kneeling not only “during the season of Pentecost,” but also “on Sunday”—all year long, of which practice Tertullian had plainly testified as well:
“We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord’s day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday.”
To this prohibition against kneeling, history testifies unequivocally, as Irenæus, Tertullian, Basil, Hadrian I, Nicæa and Trullo, and all the ecumenical councils of the first millennium all confirm. In the face of this testimony, Benedict cries out that “Where it has been lost, kneeling must be rediscovered” (p. 194), as if kneeling on Sundays had merely been misplaced for a thousand years, and not expressly forbidden by the ecumenical councils of the church.
For this reason, we can only sympathize with a Roman Catholic participant at the Catholic Answers online forum, who was surprised to find out the truth that worshiping the Eucharist at Mass is actually a late innovation:
“…kneeling for prayers amongst Latins was not the normal custom until quite late from what I gather (much later than I was expecting).”
Yes, much, much later actually. The reason the Roman Catholic participant was “expecting” to find Latins kneeling much earlier is because Catholic Answers has perpetuated the myth that “The Catholic habit of kneeling … is another manifestation of the continuity between the Church of the first century and the Catholic Church of today.” It clearly is not.
What is certain is that Rome now teaches people to kneel on the Lord’s Day because they are taught that Jesus’ body, blood, soul and divinity are made present on the altar at the priest’s words of consecration. As the Catholic Encyclopedia helpfully explains, the practice of kneeling on the Lord’s Day was introduced at about the same time the host began to be elevated for worship during the sacrifice of the Mass:
“The practice of kneeling during the Consecration was introduced during the Middle Ages, and is in relation with the Elevation which originated in the same period.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Genuflexion)
As we have already discussed previously in another post, elevation of the host for adoration during Mass began in the 11th century, when Pope Gregory VII demanded that Berengar of Tours acknowledge
“… 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)
At that time in the 11th century, the church not only “refined” its teaching on the Real Presence, but it also “refined” its teaching on kneeling on the Lord’s Day—dismissing a thousand years of practice to make way for its new-found idolatry of Eucharistic Adoration. Thus, the “ancient” practice of kneeling at Mass is not an expression of continuity with the early church at all. Rather it is a novelty introduced at the same time that the apparitions of “Mary” got busy pushing the Eucharistic idol upon all who would hear.
In closing, we invite our Roman Catholic readers to awaken to the inevitable realization that their religion is a novelty, and is not the apostolic church it claims to be. To this, Benedict XVI unwittingly testified when he said that “a faith and liturgy no longer familiar with kneeling would be sick at the core” (p. 194). We think Benedict’s characterization of the Nicene and Ante-Nicene church as “sick at the core” is a little uncharitable, but we will grant to him that the church of that era was an entirely different religion from the one he now practices. As we noted in The Rise of Roman Catholicism, the religion itself is an innovation of the late 4th century, and as we noted in When “Mary” Got Busy, Rome’s Eucharistic idol is an innovation of the 11th.
To that end, Catholic Answers’ protestations of continuity must be understood to be symbolic, and not representative of actual continuity, because when it comes to kneeling to adore the Eucharist on Sunday during the Mass, Rome’s “continuity” with the early church is, well, … it’s complicated.
Gadzooks Tim!
You just might bring down the whole Romish superstitious whore if this info ever gets out!
You should do a follow up up on women’s head coverings, eating meat on Friday or cremation to give the Harlot a coup de grace.
You missed just one point in this masterpiece though, Tim.
Keeling, standing or sitting are matters of discipline, not doctrine. In Portugal where I live, it is optional. Most people stand during the Canon, some kneeling only for the Consecration, some not at all.
Nice try though. Back to the old drawing board, eh Tim.
Jim,
Whether it is a disciplinary canon or a doctrinal canon, aren’t you supposed to submit to the head of your church, the pope? Or maybe Benedict’s instructions don’t matter anymore since he resigned.
Do the Catholics in Portugal not realize that the pope wants them to kneel? Or if they do realize that, why do they continue to disobey? Don’t they realize that a faith and a liturgy without kneeling is sick at the core? Or maybe Benedict wasn’t saying that infallibly, so it doesn’t have to be obeyed. If Benedict wasn’t saying that infallibly, perhaps you could give me of the list of the statements that are infallible so I can tell the differennce between when the pope must be obeyed and when he can be ignored based on personal preference. Last I heard we are supposed to give him submission even when he isn’t speaking infallibly. I have heard that there are some Catholics who feel the same way about contraception as you do about kneeling–obedience is optional. I guess they don’t have the same decoder ring that you have.
It’s interesting to me to see how important it is to Catholics to have a central authority who can bring about uniformity–which is what 1000 years of ecumenical Council’s were doing by restating Nicaea’s Canon on uniformity. But now that it is inconvenient to have uniformity, suddenly submission to that central authority is optional, and it’s not that big of a deal. Silly protestants! If only they had the secret code to tell what things the pope says that have to be obeyed, and what councils they have to believe in, what things can be ignored based on personal preference.
Are there any other ecumenical Councils that made much ado about nothing? I have heard of some Catholics who think that Vatican II was one great big waste of time. Is that council on your list of ecumenical councils that don’t matter?
I know the difference between a disciplinary canon and a doctrinal one, Jim. The pope the fathers and the ecumenical Councils sure seemed to think it was a big deal to preserve the canons of Nicaea, though.
Thanks,
Tim
Oh, and I have caught CA on a couple of errors over the years too. But then, Karl Keating doesn’t claim to be infallible.
Tim, augmentation of the created. The eyes that stand and pray to heave became the knees who starred at Priest and the bread. They worship the creature instead of the creator who is bleesed forver. Vey instructive Tim, and another glarring example of read Roman doctrine, believe the opposite arrive at biblical truth, and early church father truth. It became even more cemented in my mind this week putting all the well researched stuff you have done Tim, and the stuff I read at one fold blog, Rome’s doctrines are opposite of scripture and the early church. As much difference as between kneeling and standing. Another great article Tim.
Tim said ” last I heard we were supposed to give him submission even when he isnt speaking infallibly. ” Of course the irony is that the Magisterium doesnt submit to the word of God. It cant, its infallible. It can never error. So it cant deal with sin. Thats why Ratzinger had to retire, to clean out what he said was the ” filth” in the church. False churches cant deal with sin. And they cant give the submission to the word of God that they require from their pepole to them.
Jim wrote:
Oh, and I have caught CA on a couple of errors over the years too. But then, Karl Keating doesn’t claim to be infallible.
Jim never claimed to be infallible; therefore, we can’t know if he caught error or truth.
EW, in true form.lol
Tim…excellent post !
Catholic Answers:
“Your question is a surprise because you probably should be asking yourself why you don’t kneel in your Protestant services. Scripture suggests you should. In Ephesians 3:14 Paul says, ‘I kneel before the Father,’ and in Acts 9:40 Peter ‘knelt down and prayed.’ The Catholic habit of kneeling is consistent with Scripture and is another manifestation of the continuity between the Church of the first century and the Catholic Church of today.”
——————
Roman Catholics should be suspicious about these statements.
Their logical implications come close to being anathematized:
If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema. (Denziger 954.)
JIM–
Yeah, I don’t take much stock in the postures of prayer being mandatory either. We don’t kneel at all during regular Sunday services. We either stand or we sit according to when we sing and sometimes when we pray. The only time we kneel is when we come up to the altar to receive communion once a month, and then we go back to the pew and sit down.
Some of my kinfolk are Church of Christ. They stand and sit also according to singing and sometimes praying. But when it comes to communion, although they have it every Sunday (unlike the Methodists), they sit and pass the plate of unleavened bread and the shot glasses of grape juice down the pews to one another.
An interest side note relating to schism over communion. The Church of Christ that my granddad went to above was even different than the other just a few blocks away. They were considered “one-cuppers” when his was considered “many-cuppers”. The schism is that the “one cup” is biblical and the “many cups” was not. The whole reason for the “many cups” was to prevent the spread of disease. Back then infantile paralysis (polio) was a seriously fearful disease that struck the country hard. So then some of the Church of Christ members decided it was a bad thing for the whole congregation to drink from the same cup every Sunday. That makes sense to me. But what doesn’t make sense is that the unleavened bread was in big pieces, and when passed along the pews, one would take his fingers and break off a piece to eat and then pass it along. I would think a contagion could be spread that way also. Go figger.
Anyway, because the Church of Christ holds closed communion, members of the same denomination cannot inter-commune. And all because of the communion cup. I think that is absolutely ridiculous! But that is what we Protestants do.
If you don’t like what’s going on in your church, go find another one that suits you better or start one of your own.
It’s an inconvenient truth. We Protestants are born schismatics.
Bob, “we Protestants are born scismatics” Your not a Protestant Bob, you are a Roman Catholic. No Protestant would call himself a schismatic. That is a Catholic term for Protestants. And actually the Reformers belived Rome had made themselves schismatic when it rejected Christ’s true church.
Bob,
That was an interesting piece of information. I knew about the schism over musical instruments.
By the way, I love to hear debates on Baptism between Church of Christ and Baptists. The C of C always win.
JIM–
In my opinion, the Church of Christ teach from the bible better than any other Protestant–bar none. It would be great to get a real CofC preacher on this blog to give what fer. I really enjoy a guy called Phil Sanders of “In search of God’s Way.” He is really solid.
Bob wrote:
“JIM–
In my opinion, the Church of Christ teach from the bible better than any other Protestant–bar none. It would be great to get a real CofC preacher on this blog to give what fer. I really enjoy a guy called Phil Sanders of “In search of God’s Way.” He is really solid.”
This is very interesting. The Church of Christ denom. is one of the most heretical teaching sect outside of Rome and the eastern Orthodox churches.
It is worse than the pentecostals and evangelicals.
It is interesting you see Rome as the best, and the Church of Christ as her perfect daughter.
Jim wrote:
“You should do a follow up up on women’s head coverings, eating meat on Friday or cremation to give the Harlot a coup de grace.”
Jim, what is the teaching of Rome on women’s head coverings?
Walt,
No plaid tam-o-shanters allowed in church..
Yes, excellent post. Incredible to read all these facts, and then to read how Jim goes on the defensive and kneels in denial.
Jim, the issue I take from this article of Tim’s is not that catholic answers makes mistakes, it how Roman Catholicism is the antithesis to Christianity under a Christian mask. It is antichrist because its doctrines are contrary to scripture. What Rome calls development is in reality change in doctrine. Thats why the quote from Newman is exactly right, only Catholics can see doctrines that arent there. Just like one mediator in scripture means many in Romanism, standing means kneeling. Tim’s article is powerful in a simple thing like the church taught standing, and Rome changed it to kneeling. The early fathers clearly didnt teach thereal presence or sacrifice of the supper bread, but you Ck and Bob read they did. Its the deception we are warned of in scrpture where we are told Satan will make good look evil and evil look good. It is I ntersting to me that Tim, Walt, and Eric W came out of Rome because they all have one thing in common, they searched the scriptures and in them found eternal life. It was all a work of God. God must lift the veil on your eyes so you may see the truth of scripture. And for this end I pray. We worship the whole Christ thru the Spirit. The Spirit regenerates us thru the Word and brings us repentance and faith and all things pertaining to life and Godliness. K
Bob wrote:
“If you don’t like what’s going on in your church, go find another one that suits you better or start one of your own.
It’s an inconvenient truth. We Protestants are born schismatics.”
Those Christians who have been involved in both the Church of Christ and the Methodist churches actually are not just schismatic, but in many ways are destructive heretics in preaching and teaching anti-biblical doctrine, worship, and government. Heresy and schism are great sin, and clearly you don’t see any problem in teaching both on this site. I do hope one day you will learn the Scriptures and faithful church history to understand your errors, and repent from your views.
WALT–
You said: “This is very interesting. The Church of Christ denom. is one of the most heretical teaching sect outside of Rome and the eastern Orthodox churches.It is worse than the pentecostals and evangelicals.It is interesting you see Rome as the best, and the Church of Christ as her perfect daughter.
Do not confuse the Church of Christ with the Disciples of Christ. They are truly different beliefs. So, Walt, what do you think about the Seventh Day Adventists and the Branch Davidians? Or how about the Free Church of God in Christ in Jesus Name? They all think that they are better than you at interpreting the Scriptures.
Don’t pull any punches, ok?
Bob said ” the only time we kneel is when we come to the altar to take communion” Methodist churches dont have altars Bob, nor a sacrifice of the Mass. Mthodist from Texas? I say this to you in all love, but how do you continue to call yourself a Protestant and defend the Roman Catholic church like your dad was a Pope? You sound more like a Catholic from Indiana than a Methodist from Texas. God bless you K
And you sound more like a bat outa hell than a Christian of any stripe, Kelvin.
LOL
Walt said – Jim, what is the teaching of Rome on women’s head coverings?
Me – cover or don’t cover. It’s up to the individual. It was a church discipline pre Vatican 2
Test
KEVIN!
From the United Methodist Church website:
ALTAR
Historically, an altar has been the table or structure on which a sacrifice is offered. In the liturgical Christian groups, such as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, the altar has been the table upon which the bread and wine are placed during the celebration of the Mass. For liturgical denominations, the Mass represents again the sacrifice of Christ for the world. Strictly speaking, United Methodists do not have an altar in this sense. The Methodist tradition has been to have a Lord’s table or communion table upon which the elements are placed during the service of Holy Communion. In recent years, with the building of United Methodist churches with “divided chancels,” the communion table has often been referred to, albeit incorrectly, as the altar. The word altar has been used in another way in United Methodist tradition. Often, those in the congregation are invited to come to the altar for prayer or for special services such as baptism or reception into membership. Here the usage means that people are to come to the chancel rail. Altar in this sense has symbolic meaning. http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/altar
You know about as much about the Methodist Church as you know about the Catholic church. Your arrogant ignorance is showing. You think CK is a woman. You accused Debbie of being somebody else. You accuse me of being a Roman Catholic even though I told you why I defend them. You don’t know how to bridle your tongue!
I expect an apology from you.
Bob, God has changed my heart in a major way thru an email conversation I had with Tim. My attitude has been loving to you, and CK and Jim. But I’m not going to allow you to put yourself forward as a Protestant, when everything you say and do is Roman Catholic. It is charitable to call you on these things. When you say “we” Protestants are schismatics, or that Methodists have an altar with a sacrifice, I’m going to call you on it. Those are things Catholics say about Protestants. I am a professional trumpet player. I’ve been in more churches earning money during my life than Billy Graham has been to stadiums. Every Methodist Pastor I have ever played for, never referred to the communion table as an altar, or communion as the sacrifice of the Mass. I don’t believe your being honest on here, buts its immaterial because its not important and its not my website. You said ” For Liturgical denominations, the Mass represents again the sacrifice of Christ for the world” This is what I’m talking about. You are being sly, trying to get Reformed to say the Mass is a sacrifice for sins. Lutherans have a Liturgy and they don’t believe communion is a sacrifice for sins. In fact their confession, as ours say Rome is antichrist. One of the main reasons is the Catholic Mass. I will explain this to you one more time, and then you will make the choice. When one attends a Catholic Mass ( the summit of their salvation) he or she is denying justification by faith alone, is admitting Christ’s one time sacrifice for sins wasn’t sufficient to save them, are performing a work to merit increase of grace and justice for their salvation, and adoring the bread in idolatry. The worst thing a person could ever do is participate in a Mass. As Knox said, it is an invention of man’s brain, an abominable in the eyes of God. So to go to Mass is to deny God and his accepted manner of worship. Protestant communion is the antithesis of a Mass. It is the confirmation of God’s free grace thru faith alone in Christ alone, it is a commemoration of the blood already shed for our sins, and it is remembrance. We offer up sacrifices of prayer and thanksgiving for this GIFT, and we confess our sins, not to merit more salvation, but to restore our communion with God and others. But our status never changes. We are saved. And finally you can attribute to me any ignorance or motive you want. Yes I know who you and CK and Debbie are. And I’m not apologizing for that. God bless you Bob. K
Sorry, Kevin. You don’t know as much as you think you know.
What a bad apology. Tsk Tsk
Bob, I just told you we confess our sins at the communion table and then you acuse us on the other post of saying we dont offer up our sins. You acuse me of ignorance, but I consider that I have a firm understanding of Catholicism. You cant seem to understand that for Reformed the supper is a means of grace thru faith, th Spirit and the Word. It is a confirmation of grace and a salvation that we already posess thru the already shed blood. Its far different in Rome. Its a sacrifice of Christ again that is efficacious for sins and it is wherd the participant must go to merit increase in his salvation. Sometimes you will hear Catholics try to pull slight of hand by saying it is a representation. But the official doctrine of Trent says it is a true sacrifice, unbloody, for sins and anathematizes anyone who says it isnt. Ask the Priest what it means by sacrificium and he shuts up fast. Tim has aptly said the sacrifice for a Catholics sin is the bread of the supper. The flesh that died for Christians was on the cross, once, before glorification. Rome attempts to re sacrifice the glorified Christ. But it is of no effect because without the shedding of blood there is no sacrifice for sins. God bless
KEVIN–
You said: ” I just told you…”
” and then you acuse us…”
“You acuse me of…”
“You cant seem to understand…”
“try to pull slight of hand by saying…”
Which is the pot calling the kettle black! How’d that feel? Your “holier than thou” attitude reeks of triumphalism.
And then you said: “anathematizes anyone who says it isn’t”
Tell me, Kevin, why does your church have closed communion?
Bob, At the Bible church where I attend, before communion , the Pastor encourages only believers to participate and discourages unbelievers. The reason we don’t have closed communion is the leadership can’t determine definitively who is and isn’t a believer. K
Bob said ” How’d that feel Your Holier than thou attitude” I detect some bitterness. Are you bitter Bob? Don’t harden your heart. You must turn to Christ in faith alone and have the peace God wants to give you. Happy Thanksgiving.
KEVIN–
You said: “The reason we don’t have closed communion is the leadership can’t determine definitively who is and isn’t a believer.”
That’s one reason why there is confession, because unbelief is considered anathema. You don’t want to commune with unbelievers.
” its worse than pentacostals and evangelicals.” Last time I checked Presbyterian s were evangelicals. Evangel means gospel.
Evangelicalism is a world-wide Protestant movement maintaining that the essence of the gospel consists in the doctrine of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ’s atonement. The movement gained great momentum in the 18th and 19th centuries with the emergence of Methodism and the Great Awakenings in the British Isles and North America. Pietism, Nicolaus Zinzendorf and the Moravian Church, Presbyterianism and Puritanism have influenced Evangelicalism.
Influential leaders in the English-speaking world have included John Wesley, George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards. The United States has the largest concentration of Evangelicals by country, with over 30 percent of the world’s Evangelicals (between 90 and 100 million). Many Evangelicals now live outside the English-speaking world and over 42 million live in Brazil alone. The movement continues to draw adherents globally in the 21st century, especially in the developing world.
Tim, I read an article today W RobertGodfrey a seminary professor at Wesrminter Calif. It was excellent. Worship: Evangelical or Reformed” He explains similarities and differences in worship. Much of which I knew. Im trying to understand how much Reformed Pres consider themselves members of broader evangelicalism? If you get a chance to read it, will you let me know what you think, even in an email. If you have time. If not, dont worry. I tend to agree with Reformed service and worship, and the bible churches I have attended have had a strong focus on Godcspeaking thru His word and confirming His grace thru sacrament. K
Kevin Failoni–
You said: ” I detect some bitterness. Are you bitter Bob? Don’t harden your heart. You must turn to Christ in faith alone and have the peace God wants to give you. Happy Thanksgiving.”
And I detect sarcasm, are you sarcastic, Kevin? Humble yourself and I will absolve you of your sins, E Nomini Patre, Et Filio, Et Spiritu Sancti.
Makários Eucharistia, to you too.
Bob, you have a fixation on the Mass and the realpresence, because you believe that you are saved by continually knawing on Jesus glorified physical body. You do know He is glorified now, so your church can let Him off the cross. Ephesians 2:8 is clear ” for by grace you have been saved thru faith, it is not that of yourself, it is a gift of God, not a result of works.” But for you and your Romish church that verses read ” for by continuouly knawing on His physical glirified body, you earn and merit enough grace and forgiveness to get to Purgatory. Is that why the gospel is c alled good news Bob? Get busy, get to tgat trough as often as you can and eat Jesus so you can get to heaven. Of course the other alternative is come and believe, this is what it means to eat and drink. Without faith it is impossible to please Him. You will have to give up the abomination of desolation to believe Bob. The bible you own doesnt become the physical body of Christ, and neither does the bread, Bob. Faith alone in Christ alone. K
Remember Kevin, I now have a rule………blahblahblah.
Tim, Beggars all had a review of a book that he said is the best written in the last 50 years called ” Roman Catholic Theology and Practice: An Evangelical Assessment” by Greg Allison. He said the goal of this book is to call into question of seeking ecumenincy that is going on with Rome. K
Thanks, Kevin. This looks interesting.
Tim