Follow
We concluded our last series on The Sacrifice Challenge with a few citations from Cyril of Jerusalem, so we thought it opportune to use him to demonstrate one of the ways Rome “finds” her doctrines in the Early Church. As we noted last week, Cyril’s Catechetical Lectures were part of a late-fourth century trend during which Rome’s novel Mass Sacrifice was invented. Catholic Answers used a few select quotes to prove Cyril’s belief in transubstantiation, but as we demonstrated, those quotes were truncated in order to isolate them from their context, and Cyril—even in the midst of his other errors—nevertheless maintained his conviction that the elements of the Lord’s Supper were only figuratively Christ’s body and blood, and remained so even after the consecration.
But in his 23rd Catechetical Lecture, Cyril also instructed the neophytes in such a way that he appears to be telling the new converts how to adore the elements of the Lord’s Supper as they receive them. Cyril’s 23rd Lecture is often used to support eucharistic adoration, and Rome has pressed Cyril’s language past its breaking point in order to get him to affirm the idolatrous practice. By way of example, we will cite Alban Butler’s Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs and other Principal Saints, volume 3:
“We learn the manner of receiving the blessed sacrament from his Catech. 23. ‘Putting your left hand under your right,’ says he, ‘form a throne of your right hand to receive the king; hold it hollow, receiving on it the Body of Christ. Answer, Amen. Carefully sanctify your eyes by touching them with the holy Body, being very watchful that no part of it fall. Approach to the cup of the Blood, bowed in a posture of adoration and reverence; saying, Amen, take of the blood of Christ. Whilst yet something of the moisture sticks on your lips, touch them with your hand, and by applying it then to your eyes, forehead and other senses sanctify them.’ ” (Butler, Lives, Vol. III, Dublin (1866) p. 185).
Approach the cup bowed in a posture of adoration? That certainly sounds like eucharistic adoration, does it not?
As we noted last week, Cyril rejoiced in the manifold figurations of objects and events within the Scripture and within the liturgy, calling Jesus’ body a figure for bread (Lecture 13, paragraph 19), and bread a figure for His body and wine a figure for His blood (Lecture 22, paragraph 3). He said in Lecture 23, the same lecture cited by Butler, in the Lord’s Supper we “are bidden to taste, not bread and wine, but the anti-typical Body and Blood of Christ” (Lecture 23, paragraph 20). By way of a refresher, “antitype” (αντιτύπου) means “something that is represented by a symbol.” To Cyril, the elements of the Lord’s Supper were figures for His body and blood, and what we eat and drink is symbolic of what they represent.
But might his “commendation” of eucharistic adoration in the same lecture inform us of the limits of his figurative language? Maybe the elements of the Lord’s supper are a figure for His Body and Blood, but nonetheless, a transubstantiated figure. After all, one does not approach the cup “bowed in a posture of adoration” for a mere figure! In Rome’s vain imagination, that is what Cyril must have said, and in her proud imagination that is what Cyril must have meant. But Cyril did not say that.
We can see evidence of Rome’s tampering when we read what Cyril was actually talking about. Butler cited two successive paragraphs (21 and 22) from Cyril, largely omitting his main point, and then fused the two paragraphs together to make them seem to confirm eucharistic adoration. Here is paragraph 21 in its entirety, starting immediately after his insistence that what we eat and drink is an antitype (αντιτύπου, symbol) of Christ’s body and blood:
“In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended (τεταμενοις), or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest you lose any portion thereof ; for whatever you lose, is evidently a loss to you as it were from one of your own members. For tell me, if any one gave you grains of gold, would you not hold them with all carefulness, being on your guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Will you not then much more carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from you of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 23, paragraph 21)
The first point we will make is that these are catechetical lectures for the newly converted. They have never received communion before in their lives. Cyril is telling them how to do it. The term we highlighted, τεταμενοις, literally means “hanging” and is so rendered in the Septuagint regarding hanging banners or ribbons in Esther 1:6. This is not advice for the experienced Christian on how to adore the eucharist. It is advice to the neophyte to make sure he does not come forward to receive the bread with limp wrists and splayed fingers. Rather he is to hold his fingers together and make a cup out of his hands, forming a hollow in the palm, so that the presbyter may have an obvious place to put the bread. Rome may read what she will into his words, “make your left hand a throne for the right,” or “form a throne of your right hand,” but since Cyril preceded that description with a caution against limp wrists and spread fingers, his meaning is obviously for the catechumen to form a hollow in his palm to receive the bread so that none falls through. His use of such an analogy is a useful illustration to ensure that the sacrament is approached reverently, but what he does not do, curiously, is have the catechumen bow to the bread when receiving it.
That Cyril is concerned here with the operational rather than the dogmatic implications of the liturgy is shown by how he goes on making sure that the neophytes do not drop the bread. Limp wrists and spread fingered are just asking for a eucharistic accident. He does not, for example, say
“Don’t come limp-wristed with spread fingers, but rather bowed down in adoration, lest you spill something.”
He says, rather,
“Don’t come limp-wristed with spread fingers, but with closed fingers and firm hands, lest you spill something.”
Forming a “throne” is a way to keep those fingers together and those hands firm. He is merely talking about how to receive the Lord’s Supper without spilling something in the process. This is what Butler left out of his citation from Cyril.
The significance of the omission from paragraph 21 is seen plainly when Cyril proceeds with his advice on how to receive the cup in paragraph 22. Again, because the core of his message is not “how to adore the eucharist,” but rather how to receive it without spilling it, Cyril again instructs them on how to hold their hands. Here is paragraph 22 in its entirety:
“Then after you have partaken of the Body of Christ, draw near also to the Cup of His Blood; not stretching forth your hands, but bending (κύπτων), and saying with an air of worship and reverence, Amen, hallow yourself by partaking also of the Blood of Christ. And while the moisture is still upon your lips, touch it with your hands, and hallow your eyes and brow and the other organs of sense. Then wait for the prayer, and give thanks unto God, who has accounted you worthy of so great mysteries.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 23, paragraph 22)
In paragraph 21, Cyril was giving advice on how to arrange one’s hands so that one does not spill the bread when receiving it. Here in paragraph 22, he explains that one is not to reach out to the wine with extended hands, but rather should “draw near to the cup” with hands near the body. On the one hand, leaning toward the cup avoids the likelihood of spillage when the catechumen translates the cup to his lips. It would be consistent with his advice for receiving the bread—the further the catechumen has to move the cup to his lips, the higher the likelihood of a eucharistic accident.
On the other hand, the word Cyril uses here, κύπτων, which we have highlighted above, means to bend forward, or to stoop. Is he prescribing that the catechumen bow down in adoration to the wine? The term is used in another form in the Septuagint to refer to crouching down: “He croucheth (κύψω), and humbleth himself” (Psalms 10:10), and in the New Testament for the same, as in John being unworthy to stoop down to loosen Jesus’ sandal (Mark 1:7) and Jesus stooping down to write in the sand (John 8:6,8). The term is used in the apocrypha to refer to “the one who is grieved, who goes about weak and bent over (κύπτων)” (Baruch 2:18).
Chrysostom uses the term to refer to a penitent man “shedding tears, and bending toward the ground” (John Chrysostom, On the Statutes, Homily 21, paragraph 6). Elsewhere, he uses it to refer to a wicked man, when he is found out, bowing his head in shame, broken and in need of mercy (Chrysostom, Homily 88, Migne’s PG, Book 8, p. 603). Basil uses the term to refer to someone who has been humbled from high places, and cast to the ground (Basil, de Hominis Structura, Oration II, Migne’s PG, Book 30, p. 57).
What is notable about its typical usage, is that while it can be used to describe the head bowed down for worship, i.e., “then they bowed (κύψας) their heads and worshiped” (Exodus 4:31, Septuagint), it is more often used to describe a posture of contrition. As noted in the link to the Liddell-Scott lexicon, above, it means to hang the head from shame, sorrow or thought, or to bow down under a burden.
Cyril’s meaning in both paragraphs 21 and 22 is plain. When taking the bread, do not hold your wrists limp and your fingers spread, but rather adjust your hands to receive the bread with reverence, making sure you do not spill anything. When receiving the wine, instead of taking the cup at arm’s length, one ought rather to draw near in humility with an attitude and a posture of contrition. The “air of worship and reverence” for the catechumen is in the saying, not in the bending. Nobody disagrees that the Lord’s Supper should be received with a worshipful reverent composure. What is denied is that the worship is to be directed to the elements, and we deny that Cyril was so directing his adoration in Lecture 23.
One thing that makes Cyril difficult for Rome is that he only has the catechumen bending while receiving the wine. Since Rome’s argument is that Cyril is bowing before the Eucharistic Christ in adoration, and since Rome generally prefers to administer the Lord’s Supper under the species of bread alone, it is fair to ask why Cyril does not have the catechumen bowing to the bread as well. Additionally, because Cyril has the catechumen saying “Amen” over the the cup “with an air of worship and reverence,” it is fair to ask why Cyril only has the catechumen saying “Amen” over the bread in the hollow of his palm, without “an air of worship and reverence.” Why bow to the wine and not to the bread? Why say “Amen” with worship and reverence over the wine, but not over the bread? In context, Cyril appears to be instructing the neophytes to approach the Lord’s table respectfully, with contrition and reverence to receive “not bread and wine, but the anti-typical [symbolical] Body and Blood of Christ” (Lecture 23, paragraph 20), being particularly careful not to spill anything. We need not read anything further into his words than the context will allow.
But that was not enough for Bellarmine, who wanted to see Eucharistic adoration in Cyril’s 23rd Lecture. Bellarmine translated the Greek “κύπτων” into the Latin “genu flexo” (bending the knee), as if Cyril had been prescribing a gesture of kneeling to the consecrated wine. Here, Migne corrects Bellarmine, and rightly so because the post-Nicene Church insisted on taking the Lord’s Supper standing up, not genuflecting (see Migne’s Patrologiæ Græcæ, Volume 33, col. 1126, n. 3). The Early Church, after all, insisted that Christians do not kneel on the Lord’s Day (Council of Nicæa, Canon 20). As we explained in our article, “It’s Complicated,” the Early Church’s custom was “not bending the knee upon Sunday” (Irenæus, Fragments, 7), which is to say, “not genuflecting.” There had been some occasions of kneeling in the ante-Nicene church, but the Council had put an end to the practice. It would make no sense therefore to suggest genuflection in Cyril at precisely the point that the Early Church insisted on not genuflecting.
Another remarkable irony that makes Rome’s quest for Eucharistic Adoration in Cyril so futile is what he actually recommends that the catechumens do with the elements they receive. When taking the bread in the hand, the catechumen is to touch it to his eyes, and thus “hallow” them:
“So then after having carefully hallowed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 23, paragraph 21)
Then, after taking the wine, while it is still on the lips, the catechumen is to take it on his fingertips and touch his eyes, forehead, nose and ears with it:
“And while the moisture is still upon your lips, touch it with your hands, and hallow your eyes and brow and the other organs of sense.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 23, paragraph 22)
In other words, the catechumen is instructed to rub “Jesus” on his face and ears while partaking of His Body and Blood. In Rome there is only one possible word for this practice:
“Sacrilege!”
Among the Roman Catholic faithful there is a continuing controversy about whether communion should be taken on the tongue or in the hand. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal says “The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand” (GIRM, 160), but this has not quelled the firestorm. To receive the eucharist with true reverence, says Bishop Athanasius Schneider, one must receive it on the tongue, on one’s knees:
“The reverence and awe of Catholics who truly believe they are receiving Jesus in the Eucharist should lead them to kneel and receive Communion on their tongues, said a bishop writing in the Vatican newspaper.” (Catholic News Service, Bishop says Catholics should kneel, receive communion on tongue)
Others see the reception on the hand as a sign of irreverence and disrespect for the Body and Blood of Christ. These Last Days Ministry, an apologetics ministry devoted to the messages of the Apparitions of Mary, cites the preferences of the last three popes (Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI) who “encouraged solely, kneeling and on the tongue, as the preferred way of receiving Holy Communion,” and then has the vision of Mary weigh in on this abominable practice:
“Communion in the hand has not been, and will not be accepted by Heaven. This is a sacrilege in the eyes of the Eternal Father, and must not be continued, for you only add to your punishment when you continue on in the ways that have been found to be unpleasing to the Eternal Father.” – Our Lady of the Roses, June 30, 1984 (These Last Days Ministry, “Kneeling and Communion on the Tongue” Will Bring Back True Devotion)
Others say that communion in the hand is an invention of the Protestants during the Reformation to repudiate the belief in the Real Presence. Michael Davies, writing at CatholicTradition.org writes,
“Communion in the hand … was introduced in the 16th century by the Protestant Reformers specifically to repudiate belief in … the Real Presence.” (Michael Davies, Communion in the Hand and Similar Frauds)
Communion in the hand is sacrilege? Disrespectful? Irreverent? Fraudulent? An unacceptable Protestant invention? What then are we to do with Cyril of Jerusalem’s instructions that we receive the symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ in the hands, and then rub “Him” all over our face?
There is no difficulty at all, say the proponents of communion on the tongue. Cyril’s advice is so thoroughly incompatible with the reverence that is due the Lord in the sacred species, that we must assume that Lecture 23 has been corrupted by a heretic:
“Considered in context, it becomes suspect. For it speaks of a strange custom entirely alien to the highest veneration which the faithful have always had for the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist. … In view of this unheard of liberty which is incompatible with the total veneration due to the Sacred Species, those who are learned in these matters think of an interpolation … made by the Patriarch John, the successor of St. Cyril in Jerusalem … [who was] of suspect orthodoxy. ” (Receiving Communion on the Hand is Contrary to Tradition, The Catholic Voice, 2001)
“This rather odd (or even superstitious? Irreverent?) recommendation has caused scholars to question the authenticity of this text. Some think that perhaps there has been an interpolation, or that it is really the saint’s successor who wrote it.” (Jude Huntz, Rethinking Communion in the Hand, parentheses in original)
“The description of such a bizarre Communion Rite … was most certainly not preached by St. Cyril in the Church of Jerusalem, neither would it have been licit whatsoever in any other Church. What we have here is a rite which is a product of the imagination, oscillating between fanaticism and sacrilege, by …an anonymous Syrian, a devourer of books, an indefatigable writer who poured into his writings, indigested and contaminated figments of own his imagination. … a crypto-Arian, influenced by Origen and Pelagius…” (The great Catholic horror story: the pseudo-historical deception of Communion in the hand)
We actually agree with these Roman Catholics who are offended at Cyril’s instructions—his instructions are incompatible with Eucharistic adoration and a belief in the “Real Presence.” However, they are consistent with a belief that the bread and wine are only symbolically Jesus’ body and blood, which is exactly what Cyril said they were:
“[F]or they who taste are bidden to taste, not bread and wine, but the anti-typical [symbolical] Body and Blood of Christ.” (Lecture 23, paragraph 20)
If Cyril’s practice of rubbing the consecrated bread and wine on his face is grossly inconsistent with a belief in the Real Presence, then his instructions to approach the cup bowing certainly cannot be construed as support for the Real Presence. One does not worship the wine and then rub it on one’s face. What one touches to one’s face is that which he holds to be symbolic of something else, which is why Cyril uses the same symbolic language for the Eucharist as he does for the Holy Oil, which is symbolically applied to one’s forehead (Lecture 21, paragraph 3), and baptismal Water, in which we are symbolically dipped (Lecture 20, paragraph 3). Sure, the oil, the water and the bread and wine are “holy” to Cyril, but only because they symbolize something else, not because they are what they symbolize. Because of Whom and what the elements symbolize, they ought to be approached with humility, reverence and contrition. That is what the context of Cyril tells us, and it is that context that Roman Catholics find so abhorrent that it must be ignored.
Bellarmine was so disposed to find Eucharistic Adoration in Cyril that he actually edited in a genuflexion that was unlawful in the Early Church. Others who wish to use Cyril to support eucharistic adoration either ignore the fact that he (allegedly) “bowed” only to the wine, or simply assume that he must have bowed to the bread, too, though he says nothing of it. To arrive at their conclusions they must edit into his 4th century lectures an 11th century innovation, and then ignore his “irreverent,” “sacrilegious” handling of the wine and bread that he is alleged to have been worshiping only a moment ago. Those who believe that communion on the hand is irreverent, are quick to highlight Cyril’s “odd,” “entirely alien,” “fanatical, “bizarre” practice, and thereby edit out his Lecture entirely. Such are the contradictions Rome finds when she attempts to discover her novel religion in the early church.
Rome’s belief in Eucharistic Adoration and the Real Presence makes Cyril’s 23rd Lecture logically incomprehensible, because Roman Catholics must find Eucharistic Adoration wherever they look. Where it cannot be found, it must be written in, in order to make sure the ancient data agrees with Rome’s novelties. Where the data disagrees with Rome’s novelties, it must be written off as the writings of a deranged heretic. What does not occur to Rome—and indeed, what cannot occur to her—is the possibility that Cyril really believed what he said: that the consecrated bread and wine were just symbols.
As we noted last week, Cyril of Jerusalem introduced dangerous errors when he taught that we should offer Christ’s Sacrifice to God in our prayers as a propitiation for the sins of the living and the dead, and his errors opened the door for Rome’s late-fourth century novelty of the Mass Sacrifice. But he did not worship the Eucharist, and he did not believe in the “Real Presence.”
Tim,
Thanks for making this distinction again.
“As we noted last week, Cyril of Jerusalem introduced dangerous errors when he taught that we should offer Christ’s Sacrifice to God in our prayers as a propitiation for the sins of the living and the dead, and his errors opened the door for Rome’s late-fourth century novelty of the Mass Sacrifice. But he did not worship the Eucharist, and he did not believe in the “Real Presence.””
and:
“Sure, the oil, the water and the bread and wine are “holy” to Cyril, but only because they symbolize something else, not because they are what they symbolize. Because of Whom and what the elements symbolize, they ought to be approached with humility, reverence and contrition. That is what the context of Cyril tells us, and it is that context that Roman Catholics find so abhorrent that it must be ignored.”
Nice job Tim. The 4th century saw along with some of Cyril’ s grave errors, magor changes. The rise of Romanism. Its just so clear. Thanks k
Tim,
Walt and Kevin are going to go with your interpretation. They are mindless butt kissers who would believe whatever you tell them.
I think I will stick with Cyril.
Jim,
Do you apply the wine and bread to your face at Mass?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
Only an egomaniac would encourage the worship of two simpletons like Walt and Kevin. Especially over a Church Father. Shame on all three of you!
Jim,
Do you apply the wine and bread to your face at Mass?
Thanks,
Tim
Jim wrote:
“Tim,
Walt and Kevin are going to go with your interpretation. They are mindless butt kissers who would believe whatever you tell them.
I think I will stick with Cyril.”
Jim, please show me some serious documentary evidence in support of your views of Cyril. Give me some scholarship. You have deceived so many with these little one liners. You twist people’s words, and you have created a dangerous path of intentionally telling the audience what someone does not mean by what they say.
Did you read Tim’s entire series on the Challenge? He proved week after week that Rome takes all these church fathers out of context and twists their statements. Like Bellarmine who is quoted today…he actually totally changes the meaning of words to deceive. This is exactly what you do. The Reformers completely tore Bellarmine apart in their writings. They showed him for what he was, and that was an intentional deceiver paid by Rome to counter the reformation.
Tim has shown this again…in a very simple example. I’ve done the same with you quoting what you said I said, and then showing it was not what I said, but was twisting my words with your intention to deceive others. You are a master at this tactic. It seems as we read more on the history of Rome here on this site it is a major common problem.
People need to beware of old guys like you come in hoping to pick up converts by deception and twisting the truth. We all know of other priestly professions that do this with innocent children and young boys by twisting what the Scripture says to get them into their arms. There is a massive history of this in your church, and it is largely ignored so priest’s can claim a single life of celibacy, but still carry out homosexual relations.
Few are willing to stand up against this in our generation, and support this sort of behavior. The reformers stood up against Rome and they were hunted. You have your followers Jim, but it is largely due to the ignorance of your audience and their children.
THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION ON MAGISTRACY
[The Covenanter Magazine, July, 1848, 364-367]
“Finally, the government must either establish the religion of Jesus Christ, or infidelity; for if the government says that it will establish no religion, then it gives a legal establishment to infidelity. This was demonstrated in the first volume of the Covenanter [magazine]; in answering the question Has the State a religion?
Volumes might be written on this important subject; but I would briefly remark, that [John] Brown on Toleration has settled the dispute, to the satisfaction of all who desire to be guided by Divine revelation.
Permit me to notice a singular trait in the character of our opponents. Roman Catholics have slaughtered millions of Christ’s saints for their attachment to his cause. The Scottish Reformers never put a man to death for his opinions. But our opponents, to show their hatred of persecution, express a hearty abhorrence of the Reformers, and a warm sympathy for the Catholics.
I am credibly informed, that one of them, who has gained an unenviable notoriety in Ireland, by his opposition to the Westminster Confession, told the people from the pulpit on a Sacrament Monday, that he could weep tears of blood for the oppression endured by his Catholic brethren! (“Flaming hot for moderation.”)
All right, Mr. Editor, all right, who that has read Perrin’s History of the Waldenses, or D’Aubigne’s History of the Reformation, can fail to have his sympathies excited on behalf of the meek, innocent, and dove-like Catholics?
By strenuous endeavours to apologize for the most cruel persecutors that the world ever saw, our opponents manifest their hatred of persecution!!!”
Walt,
Kevin takes everything as an opportunity to rant, you take everything as an opportunity to slip in the Scottish Divines, WCF, any 17th century Protestant document as if it carries any authority. That is why I think you are nutty.
Some one will therefore ask me what counsel I would like to give to a believer who thus dwells in some Egypt or Babylon where he may not worship God purely, but is forced by the common practice to accommodate himself to bad things. The first advice would be to leave [i.e. relocate – GB] if he could… If someone has no way to depart, I would counsel him to consider whether it would be possible for him to abstain from all idolatry in order to preserve himself pure and spotless toward God in both body and soul. Then let him worship God in private (at home – ed.), praying him to restore his poor church to its right estate. – John Calvin, Come Out From Among Them, The Anti-Nicodemite Writings of John Calvin, Protestant Heritage Press, “A Short Treatise,” pp. 93-94
Amen. I’ve been needing this advice, and pleased to see Calvin had already addressed my problems.
If they will still cry that we are schismatics and apostates, because we refuse to defile ourselves with their abominations, we cannot but appeal from their corrupt sentence to the uncorrupt Judge, of whose favors we are assuredly persuaded in that point; because he has said, ‘Follow not the multitude in evil doing’. Ex. 23:2. – John Knox, Works
Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. – Colossians 2:23, KJV
Even if the pagan associations of the past or the current association with Roman Catholicism in the present were absent, the very fact that the Bible does not teach the observance of Christmas or Easter should be enough for us to avoid it. In the Old Testament, when God told the people of Israel exactly how to worship him, including the special days they were to observe, he also said, “what thing soever I command you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it”. (Deut. 12:32 cf Lev. 10:1-2) In the New Testament Christ taught the same thing: “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men” (Mark 7/7-8). The Apostle Paul also warns against “will worship” (Col. 2:22-23), that is worship that originates in what man wants to do rather than what God requires him to do. We may like to say to others, “you worship God your way, I’ll worship him mine”, but God actually requires us to worship him neither your way nor my way, but his way. The “church calendar” was never appointed by God. … This scriptural teaching that whatever Scripture does not warrant is to be excluded from worship is known as the “regulative principle”. The exclusion of the church calendar, uninspired hymns, musical instruments, vestments and unscriptural ceremonies as well as more modern encroachments such as drama and dance, all stand on this same principle. Acceptance of this principle is a mark of a Reformed Church. – – David Silversides, Why No Christmas Or Easter?
All human inventions which are set up to corrupt the simple purity of the Word of God, and to undo the worship which he demands and approves, are true sacrileges, in which the Christian man cannot participate without blaspheming God, and trampling his honour underfoot. – John Calvin
“… by all which, you see where the idolatry of worship lies. The instituting of any, though the smallest part of worship, in and by our own authority, without scripture-warrant, makes it idolatrous, as well as if we worshipped an idol” (Ex: 20:5). – The Works of John Flavel, Vol. 4, p. 527
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. – Matthew 15:9, KJV
The Regulative Principle of Worship declares that God alone is sovereign in worship. The Regulative Principle of Worship simply applies the principles of Calvinism (i.e. God’s sovereign Lordship) to worship, whereas the view that what God doesn’t forbid in worship is permitted is applying the principles of Arminianism (i.e. man’s sovereign lordship) to worship. Just as fallen man naturally seeks to impose his will in salvation (e.g. “I can cooperate with God in salvation”, or “I have a natural freedom to choose Christ”), so fallen man naturally seeks to impose his will in worship (“I can cooperate with God in worship by adding what I desire so long as God doesn’t specifically forbid it”). But just as God condemns a man-centered salvation, so God condemns a man-centered worship (Col. 2:23 specifically condemns all will-worship, i.e. all worship instituted by man).” – Greg Price, Foundation for Reformation: The Regulative Principle of Worship, p. 10
Walt,
Enough already! Nobody but you cares about the Regulative principles of Calvinist worship.
Yes Jim, nobody but Walt and every true Reformed Christian in the world, past present and future.
The human mind is, so to speak, a perpetual forge of idols. – John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book One, Chapter 11.8, Beveridge Edition
Hymns of human composition are used so commonly now in public worship by Presbyterian churches that it is difficult to believe that the practice is not a hundred years old, and that in some of the churches it is of very recent date. On the supposition that it is good and dutiful and wise to sing such hymns in worship, it is equally difficult to account for the neglect of the churches at the time of the Reformation, and for generations afterwards. What could have so blinded the reformers as to make them reject hymns and sing the Psalms alone? How could the Westminster Divines, in framing their Confession of Faith and Directory for Worship, have been so unanimous in the blunder that the service of praise is to consist of the ‘singing of Psalms?’ And apart from the aspect of duty, how could the Presbyterian churches, for about a hundred and fifty or two hundred years after the Westminster Assembly, have been so insensible to the power of hymns as an attractive addition to their public services? We cannot by any means understand how it was that, if it was dutiful to use hymns in worship, the reformers did not discover the Scriptural warrant for the duty, especially as hymns had been used for centuries by the Church of Rome. Nor can we understand how they rejected the hymns and used the Psalms alone, unless on the supposition that they believed the use of hymns to be part of the will-worship of Rome. If they were wrong on this point, then Rome and our modern Presbyterian churches are right. In that case, the Puritans and Covenanters were fanatics, and Romanists were truly enlightened! And most of our Presbyterian churches of the present day were fanatical too, and did not become truly enlightened and liberal till they got back to the Romish practice! – James Dick, Hymns and Hymn Books(1883)
The Regulative Principle of Worship declares that God alone is sovereign in worship. The Regulative Principle of Worship simply applies the principles of Calvinism (i.e. God’s sovereign Lordship) to worship, whereas the view that what God doesn’t forbid in worship is permitted is applying the principles of Arminianism (i.e. man’s sovereign lordship) to worship. Just as fallen man naturally seeks to impose his will in salvation (e.g. “I can cooperate with God in salvation”, or “I have a natural freedom to choose Christ”), so fallen man naturally seeks to impose his will in worship (“I can cooperate with God in worship by adding what I desire so long as God doesn’t specifically forbid it”). But just as God condemns a man-centered salvation, so God condemns a man-centered worship (Col. 2:23 specifically condemns all will-worship, i.e. all worship instituted by man). – Greg Price, Foundation for Reformation: The Regulative Principle of Worship, p. 10
“…which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.”
“…God here cuts off from men every occasion for making evasions, since he condemns by this one phrase, “I have not commanded them,” whatever the Jews devised. There is then no other argument needed to condemn superstitions, than that they are not commanded by God: for when men allow themselves to worship God according to their own fancies, and attend not to his commands, they pervert true religion. And if this principle was adopted by the Papists, all those fictitious modes of worship, in which they absurdly exercise themselves, would fall to the ground. It is indeed a horrible thing for the Papists to seek to discharge their duties towards God by performing their own superstitions. There is an immense number of them, as it is well known, and as it manifestly appears. Were they to admit this principle, that we cannot rightly worship God except by obeying his word, they would be delivered from their deep abyss of error. The Prophet’s words then are very important, when he says, that God had commanded no such thing, and that it never came to his mind; as though he had said, that men assume too much wisdom, when they devise what he never required, nay, what he never knew.”
– John Calvin, Commentary on Jeremiah 7:31
Tim,
Cyril said,…”Therefore do not consider them as mere bread and wine for according to the declaration of the Master they are Body and Blood. Even if the senses suggest they are bread and wine, let faith reassure you…do not judge by taste…”.
Kelvin asked for an example of Transubstantiation right after I just gave Bob two examples from ante nicene fathers so I offered another clear use of “metaballo” by Cyril.
It was voided out by your magisterial pronouncement against a Church father. You are a cult leader with two pathetic geeks in your little club, Tim.
Your control over these two stooges, Walt and Kevin, is unreal. I bet even other Protestants would disapprove as much of you Tim as of your two lap dogs.
As for touching the Eucharist to my eyes, no. If from a priest, I receive on my tongue. If from a lay person however, I do receive in my hands as if receiving my King.
Jim, just a suggestion. The whole Walt and Kevin are stupid stooges under Tim’s control sctick is tired and old. Coming from a person who kisses the Pope’s ring, this tired canard rings hollow. We are more interested in evidence that you can bring, than your opinion on the size of our brains. Thanks K
You kiss Tim’s arse.
Walt,
Read John 6 before bedtime. Then remember you are an apostate who follows Kauffman over Christ.
Jim wrote:
“Walt,
Read John 6 before bedtime. Then remember you are an apostate who follows Kauffman over Christ.”
Please give me something better than a 2 liner Jim. I need to see something from you besides your infantile remarks. Can you give us something of substance that is worth taking my time to read? I would do it if you could provide something that is really substance and not conjecture. Give me something you find that is not filled with hypocrisy and foolishness coming from your keyboard, and I promise to give it time.
The one liners, the fashionable humor, the typical slander coming from you is your patented chess move to get guys all frustrated. I know this is the best you have to give. You joke about Tim’s work on this site making light of it, and then link those of us who appreciate his scholarship and hard work as just laughable to you. However, Jim, you give us nothing but ignorant foolishness in hopes to deceive others.
Come on Jim. Give me something to take you serious. Anything that would demonstrate what Bob sees in you that I don’t see in you. He see’s your degree of Roman Catholic brilliance. I don’t see it. I read your posts and see just the opposite. I see largely just bla bla bla bla with a few twisted comments from the fathers or from those of us posting on the blog. Give me something to show me you are not some old guy at home just begging for attention day after day and week after week as you circle to blog’s around the world barking.
There is no better liner to give you that John 6.
Jim,
You wrote,
I agree, especially since Jesus was speaking figuratively. Basil, Cyril and Augustine agree:
So you’re not really asking us to read John 6, are you? You’re really asking us to read Rome’s interpretation of John 6. I’m not deferring to Augustine, Cyril and Basil to understand John 6. It is perspicuous on its own. But it’s not just we Protestants who see John 6 as figurative. Some other not insignificant people in history saw it as figurative, too.
Thanks,
Tim
Jim, Tim quoted:
“His body according to the Gospel bore the figure of bread” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 13, paragraph 19).
“Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to you His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that you by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, may be made of the same body and the same blood with Him.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetial Lectures, Lecture 22, paragraph 3)”
Can it be more clear? Please.
Tim,
Yes indeed, one can find passages from those fathers that speak in a figurative sense. Yes indeed.
The trouble is though Tim, they also speak in a literal sense too. ( You know they do as you cherry picked your quotes ). Just as we do today, we Catholics, use both literary forms to speak of the same thing. The figurative goes quite nicely with the literal. However, one use of the literal cancels out the exclusively figurative.
Just as quick one, Augustine was devoted to his mentor Ambrose, right? He never wavered from what he was taught by him, did he?
( I am using your cryptic way of planting seed by asking questions ).
Walt said ” Give me something more than you jyst some old man at home behind a typewriter begging for attention…..” Walt your on a role today.!
Walt, you’re on a roll. ( Kevin is as sloppy with his spelling as he is with his thinking, huh?
Bob,
I don’t know if we can continue our discussion on this blog. Kevin and McWalt want to keep interjecting their wild eyed sermons and Tim is egging them on.
One final comment about women’s ordination being a deal breaker as it has no scriptural support. Just the opposite. Only pagans had priestesses. Theistic religions have male priesthood as maleness represents God’s transcendence. Pantheistic religions have priestesses which stand for the deity’s immanence in nature.
Even if Anglicanism had a valid male priesthood ( they don’t ) all priests ordained by women bishops would be as invalid as their own episcopcy.
Think of it; That church also ordains and marries homosexuals. They have gone totally post Christian because of their confusion over the male or female distinction.
God made two genders for a reason.
A woman priestess cannot be married to the Church as the Church is feminine. In the OT, Israel was too. As was mother nature. Again, only the pagans had women priestesses.
Certain heretics like Marcion did too.
The woman Methodist minster I told you about is married to a Presbyterian minister, both of them gay positive. I actually think she is a lesbian.
If the Methodists are are “ordaining” women, that should be a sign to get out.
BOB,
I also look at other ancient Christian churches and how similar they are. The Eucharist, who can consecrate it, male priests, communion of saints, etc.. Tim and the rest are having to twist history into a pretzel to try to make the Fathers say things that support Tim’s position. But what they can’t point to is a true discourse.
These beliefs were there from the beginning and were not a point of contention (heresy). The question really comes down to which one of those churches Christ founded. Once you find that Church then you must submit to its teachings. It’s can be difficult.
Walt,
Go have a dish of haggis. Or maybe some butterscotch pudding.
And put on a damn pair of pants for pete’s sake. You look like a fool sitting there blogging in a kilt with those knobby old knees.
Jim said,
“Walt,
Go have a dish of haggis. Or maybe some butterscotch pudding.
And put on a damn pair of pants for pete’s sake. You look like a fool sitting there blogging in a kilt with those knobby old knees.”
That was cute and I did smile.
Give me something to use. How old are you Jim? Do you get out of the house much? I’m leaving into the deep Siberian snow and cold tomorrow. I hope I don’t miss something you post that is profound and has substance before I leave.
Please promise you will be wearing pants as your trudge through crotch deep snow Walt. Your kilt won’t keep you cajones from freezing.
Jim wrote:
“I don’t know if we can continue our discussion on this blog. Kevin and McWalt want to keep interjecting their wild eyed sermons and Tim is egging them on.”
No evidence or proof of this claim at all. It is twisting everything in hopes that Bob will understand that Jim got his tail handed to him today in the court of evidence, and the best thing he can do now is run to another blog where he will get the support he needs to dodge, weave and deceive.
Jim, grow up and give us something of substance to read from your key board. Please, I beg you. The one liners are old, and the twisting of the facts are not only old but worthless here.
As you jump to other Catholic blogs you are going to get a hero’s welcome as that is understandable. I don’t dispute that going where they need your dazzling commentaries and humor is going to score you confidence and points with the peanut gallery. Since they blocked me on the last Catholic blog I went to after asking 3 simple questions, you should be grateful you have never been blocked here. That is sort of a Roman Catholic tactic. Block out the facts and truth, and support those like you. Otherwise, come her, try to mix up the evidence, twist the facts and truth, and bop in and out day after day, weak after weak (yes, intended).
Give us something to use that has substance to the argument. Leave out the humor, crack pot remarks and slander. Give us something we can use to respond to Jimmy boy. You were handed your tail today, don’t run out so fast.
Walt,
I got my tail handed to me in the court of evidence?
What in tarnation are you babbling about now?
Not Tim’s little question about touching the Eucharist to my face, I hope?
Here is a story for Tim to discount and deny for you;
Irenaeus tells the story of a certain charlatan priest named Mark who would perform a fake Eucharistic celebrations using water or white wine. At the Consecration, he would slip some dye into the glass chalice and the liquid would turn blood color to everyone’s amazement.
This charlatan is a witness to the early Church’s belief that the wine Transubstantiates into the Blood of Christ as the priest’s words.
Now, have your cult guru Tim tell you it never happened.
Walt,
I scrolled up and saw your quote on Cyril. Is that when I got my tail handed to me?
Walt, none of the early fathers used Aristotle’s system. They were platonists. When they say “figure” or “image’ they mean it in that sense.
Nice try.
Now, juxtapose your figurative quote down by my quote from Cyril about how people were supposed to hold their hands when literally receiving their King.
One literal quote cancels out a hundred exclusively figurative quotes.
Walter,
Here is something for you to latch onto. No wisecracks.
Why did the early Christians reserve the Eucharist or take it to prisoners if only bread? Why were they careful not to let it fall into the hands of pagans?
Remember this story from when you were a little kid?
http://www.catholictradition.org/Children/true-stories3.htm
Jim,
The story is really idolatrous in many ways. It speaks about that the early Christians worshiping at a mass, and their being priests. There were no mass nor priests in the early church worshiping in the catacombs. This story was written by a Sister from Notre Dame in 1919. She was not an eye witness to these events, and she claims that Tarcisius believed that the real presence of Jesus was in the bread which he held close to his heart. There is ZERO evidence that anyone believed in the real presence of Jesus in the bread during the early days of the catacombs.
According to an article, “The Roman catacombs date from the end of the second to the early fifth century A.D.”
Tim wrote in Eating Ignatius:
“As we noted in The Rise of Roman Catholicism, the religion of Rome struggles mightily to prove that her doctrines originated any earlier than the latter part of the fourth century. On the matter of Transubstantiation and the “real presence,” Ignatius was their last, best hope to bridge that 300-year gap. As thin as the evidence is for early Roman Catholicism, we are tempted to be sympathetic to their apologists who must stretch Ignatius to the breaking point to fill in centuries of missing dogma. But Ignatius is of no help to them.”
And again in The Rise of Roman Catholicism:
“That this doctrine was not held in the first few centuries of the church is plainly evident from the words of Pope Gelasius I (d. 496), who wrote that in the Lord’s supper, “the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease” (De duabus naturis in Christo, adversus Eutychen et Nestorium). Roman Catholics will cite Ignatius of Antioch (1st century), Justin Martyr (100 – 165 A.D.) and Augustine (354 – 430 A.D.) to show early belief in transubstantiation, but they appeal to them in vain.”
Therefore, where is the evidence of this story. It sounds absolutely untrue and fabricated by this sister of Notre Dame in hopes to create another Saint. She writes:
“Tarcisius opened his eyes and recognised the soldier as a Christian whom he had often met in the catacombs.
“I am dying,” he said, ” but I have kept my God safe from them.” And he handed his Precious Treasure to the soldier, who placed It reverently inside his tunic. “Carry Him to the prison for me,” said Tarcisius, and with a gentle sigh he fell back into the soldier’s arms. His little soul was already with God, for Whom he so willingly had given his life, for Jesus Himself once said: “Greater love than this no man has, than that a man lay down his life for his friend.” Little Tarcisius gave his life for the Friend of friends, Jesus Christ.
St. Tarcisius is the patron of First Communicants and his Feast Day is August 15.”
It sounds heartwarming, but where are the facts and evidence?
Walt,
Tarcisius was actually an adult, a deacon. Or so the guys who study that stuff say.
Tim told you the Catholic Church started in the latter half of the 4th century, eh?
That’s it? Tim told you. That’s all it took to make you believe it?
Excuse me Walt, but who is Tim? I don’t see his name mentioned in the Bible. Not unless he is the guy Paul wrote to.
Tim forgot to tell you about Justin Martyr who compared what happens in the Consecration to the Incarnation itself where by a word, a “change” ( Transubstantiation ) takes place and the flesh of Christ is present. Justin spoke about 200 years before his date of 350 A.D.
Ever read of how the Roman governor tortured a couple of Christian women to find out what takes place at a Christian Eucharist? He discovered they believe in “some silly harmless superstition”.
Just eating bread is not a silly superstition. He was probably talking about what you, Tim and Kevin find to be a “superstition”.
And the story from Irenaeus about Mark the Charlatan. That was about 150 years before 350.
I could give more evidence but why should I bother? Tim will just scoff and you will believe him. And why not, after all, Tim walks on water, right?
You will be held accountable for your choosing Tim as your teacher. He already has his ticket to hell and you are throwing your fate in with his. Ponder that on your flight tomorrow.
Jim wrote:
“I could give more evidence but why should I bother? Tim will just scoff and you will believe him. And why not, after all, Tim walks on water, right?”
This is typical response from you. I read Tim’s documented evidence and his commentary the same way I read your “proofs” and Bob’s “proofs” and your analysis. The difference is that Tim uses actual source documents with links to the actual source so one can do their own research and reasoning.
You too guys seldom use any source documents, but rather quote secondary sources that have opinions on some subject matter. Bob uses bible dictionaries as a source for how bible words are defined. Bible dictionaries are helpful aides, but not source documents. They are secondary sources. He cherry picks one or two words from the dictionary to justify his interpretation, but ignores using Scripture to interpret Scripture. We just saw this tonight. He did a word search on knee, posted all the passage with the word knee in the Bible, and claims we are all required to worship God by kneeling in church or the Romish mass.
That is not how your interpret Scripture. You do the same think above by taking everyone out of context, and desperately hoping to find anyone who will get all confused and be drawn to your analysis by humor and lighthearted jokes. This is not using source documents to prove your position.
Once you start really writing a serious response to Tim’s weekly Blog posts, then others will take you serious. Now, only CK and Bob are convinced about your posts publicly, but it is possible others who only read are convinced as well. This is my concern.
Jim, you alleged:
Tim wrote in, in the very post cited by Walt,
I didn’t “forget” to tell Walt about transmutation. I just “forgot” to put the compulsory Roman Catholic spin on it. If what happens in the mass is transmutation, why wait another 800 years for the right term? You already had it with Justin Martyr.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim.
Talk about spin;
“That Cyril is concerned here with the operational rather than the dogmatic implications of the liturgy is shown by how he goes on making sure that the neophytes do not drop the bread. ”
Thus spaketh Tim!
Only Walt and Kevin lap up your spin without question.
What is amazing to me here and on CCC is the absolute preocupation, fixation, for Catholics on the Real Presence and Mary and all the parallelmania with the Mary stuff. The taking of scriptures to do springboard theology. Out of the abundance of the Heart the mouth speaks. I’m amazed. Reformed are concentrated on the sovereign grace of God. Scripture says where your heart is, there be your treasure. K
Yes we are preoccupied with the REAL presence.
CK,
Did you ever respond to me about the differences between the Roman Catholic teaching on the doctrine of salvation and the protestant reformed view I posted some time ago?
Can you repost your answer here?
Walt,
I don’t think I did. I’ll go back and look at it. I can’t speak of the Reformed view which is why I was asking what you felt were unserious questions.
It might take me till next week. Its busy time at work. I just got on to make quick retorts 😉
CK, it is fine. I’m going out of the country for 8 days. Back a week from Tuesday.
CK wrote:
“I also look at other ancient Christian churches and how similar they are. The Eucharist, who can consecrate it, male priests, communion of saints, etc.. Tim and the rest are having to twist history into a pretzel to try to make the Fathers say things that support Tim’s position. But what they can’t point to is a true discourse.”
This is not the way to interpret Scripture. This is what the TV ministers do where they take headline news to interpret the bible. You are taking church history and weighing what other Greek orthodox, Russian orthodox, Syrian orthodox, etc. ancient churches are practicing and saying “Rome must be right as everyone else is pretty much doing the same.”
This is a serious error that leads to destruction of the soul in following the crowd in hopes that the crowd must be right. In Scripture, we are taught the total opposite. The crowd and majority are nearly always wrong in Scripture. It is always the minority who are the elect and the faithful to God…as was intended by God in choosing the Jews who were a tiny fraction and minority against the whole world who stood in the majority. Then within the seed of Abraham only a small fraction were those children of Isaac that were the elect children of God.
Walt,
What you fail to see is that their beliefs are in line with scripture. It was their interpretation of scripture and sacred tradition. Your new interpretation of scripture did not come around until the reformation. That is my point of going back to the early christians.
Are you telling me that your Christian tradition can become false if it converts too many people?
CK said ” that is the pointvof going back to the Early Christians” Thats what this whole site is about, the definitive evidence from the early church. I dont blame you for not reading the claims put forward, they soundly refute the Rman Catholic position from baptismal regeneration to Marian Worship, to the sacrifice of the Mass and the Real presence. It has only solidified, after reading every article here, Roman Catholicism was an invention of man, not found in the Early church. K
I can’t find any Marian worship in the early church either (ie Catholic Church). No what else I can’t find? Bible alone!
No = Know
kelvin,
What are Tim’s credentials? Walt praises him for his source material IN ENGLISH.
Jim, asked Kevin what are Tim’s qualifications” He is a member of God’s royal priesthood according to scripture, God’s cleras, just as Walt, Eric W, and I are. He is a believer and a defender of scrptural truth. He is former RC who has commited his ministry to exposing the grave errors oi f Roman Catholicism, and her idolatries. And he is putting forward an interpretation of prophecy of how Roman Catholicism is the fulfilment of antichrist. I hope I answered yourquestion. K
CK, I found the post, but noticed you did not yet reply. Here it is again as an FYI.
CK, you wrote:
“I’m really trying to understand how you can believe in Irresistible grace when there are so many passages in the bible that don’t fit with that belief.”
Fair enough. It is not an easy doctrine as you have demonstrated debating Kevin. There are a couple things that I would suggest you to consider in irresistible grace.
First, let’s consider the Nature of Justification between Rome (Catholic teaching) and Westminster (Reformed teaching).
Let me know firstly if you believe the comparison below is accurate as both are quoted from source documents.
1. The Nature of Justification
a. According to Rome justification is a change in the moral nature of a sinner. According to Rome justification is not a judicial act of God whereby He objectively imputes the righteousness of Christ to the believing sinner and declares him to be righteous on the ground of Christ’s perfect righteousness, but rather a moral transformation by God whereby He subjectively cleanses the heart of sin and corruption and renews man within by giving to man the righteousness of God. This confusion blurs the biblical distinction between justification (an objective judicial act) and sanctification (a subjective moral transformation), thus removing the judicial nature of justification. Just as our sin was imputed to Christ, so His righteousness is imputed (not infused) to the believing sinner.
Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man (CCC, p. 536, #1989).
With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us (CCC, p. 536, #1991).
It [i.e. justification] conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy (CCC, p. 536, #1992).
Justification entails the sanctification of his whole being (CCC, p. 537, #1995).
Justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man (CCC, p. 544, #2019).
b. According to Westminster justification is not a subjective moral transformation, but rather an objective judicial act whereby God imputes to the believing sinner the perfect righteousness of Christ and declares him to be righteous. Westminster correctly distinguishes justification and sanctification.
Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God (WCF 11:1).
Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father’s justice in their behalf. Yet inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them, and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for any thing in them, their justification is only of free grace, that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners (WCF 11:3).
Secondly, do you agree with the ORDER of salvation as explained here in ordo solutis when you see the Calvinist (reformed) view in comparison to the Catholic view?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordo_salutis
If we can at least reach an agreement that the Nature of Justification differs between us in that a judicial act “imputes” the righteousness of Christ (reformed position) and that a moral transformation takes place where god “subjectively cleanses” the heart by blending justification and sanctification together (Catholic view).
You can see specifically how this is accomplished in both theories of doctrine by the order of salvation between the Calvinist and Catholic views above.
The issue of contradiction of Scripture will be dealt with later if we can at least agree to these principle differences between us on soteriology.
Walt,
Are we discussing the Eucharist right now or not? Why are you trying to pirate the discussion over to WCF and the Scottish Coventers?
Jim,
I’m at the airport in New York waiting for the next flight.
This topic on salvation with CK goes back several weeks. Please read everything I/we wrote above…don’t just cherry pick what you want to say or question without the facts. It is really getting old … old boy.
Did you pack any trousers for your trek? When that snow gets up and under that kilt and your knox freeze,…
Rapper Delivers Treatise on Regulative Principle of Worship!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_6kn28-UiY
Knox and the Regulative Principle of Worship
This is a discussion of John Knox’s argument defending the claim that the Roman Catholic Mass is idolatry. I focus less on a discussion of the Mass than I do on Knox’s argument that it is idolatry. He powerfully uses the Regulative Principle of Worship in his reasoning.
Walt, I listened to the Rapper’s song and thought it was awesome. I’m wondering if you really know what goes on inside of our churches. My whole service revolves around the Word of God even the music. We can talk by email if you want. K
Tim,
“Forming a “throne” is a way to keep those fingers together and those hands firm. He is merely talking about how to receive the Lord’s Supper without spilling something in the process”.
Why? What’s the big deal?
CK,
Did you see how Tim tries making an issue over the discipline dealing with Communion in the hand or on the tongue? Next he will be asking about fish on Friday.
Anyway, just for a lark, let’s say we buy Tim’s theory about the Romish Church emerging after 350 A.D.
That means that right after the persecutions ended, everyone apostatized en masse. All true Christians were either eaten by the Catholics or went underground until Walt’s John Knox and and the Regulative Principles of Worship came along.
It doesn’t matter when or where one places the date of the Great Apostasy, it all comes out the same. Christ’s Church failed. That means Christ failed.
It’s time to turn out the lights and go home. Forget the Bible. It was hand copied exclusively by Romish monks for a thousand years after Tim’s magical date. Forget Tim’s “source documents” as they we in the hands of those same monks. All documents were probably tampered with, as Tim says, by Rome.
What these guys don’t seem to grasp is that if they pull the rug out from under us, they fall flat on their butts too.
Jim wrote:
It doesn’t matter when or where one places the date of the Great Apostasy, it all comes out the same. Christ’s Church failed. That means Christ failed.
Unless the Great Apostasy is predicted. A prediction that “comes out the same” is no failed prediction.
It was predicted that the promises of Christ were going to fail?
I doubt it.
Jim, Eric said the apostasy was predicted, not that the promises of Christ would. You guys do have 2 Thessalonians 2 in you bible don’t you ” Let no one deceive you, for it will not come unless the Apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction. who exalts himself above every so called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat IN THE TEMPLE OF GOD, DISPLAYING HIMSELF AS BEING GOD.” Wonder who that could be? ” For the mystery of lawlessness is ALREADY at work 11 ” For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they believe what is false.” Reformed theologians said that those who did not see the Papacy as antichrist are under a strong delusion. And this is consistent with verse 11. If someone hasn’t told you yet Jim, scripture says your under the influence of the apostasy predicted in Thessalonians, under the influence of the very man who took the titles of God and put himself up as God on earth, and you can’t see it because you are deluded according to 2 Thess.. Thats why we call God’s elect to come out from her idolatry and false gospel of gracious works to freedom of true salvation of scripture. K
“scripture says your under the influence of the apostasy predicted in Thessalonians”
Really? I am familiar with Thessalonians but I thought you were the apostate. How can we tell who is right?
What is your authority? Mine is the promise Jesus gave to the Church that he would not let it fall into error.
Correct me if I am wrong but I get the feeling you are your own authority.
Bob and CK,
Walt, who is now en route to 8 days of trudging through waist deep snow wearing only his kilts, wanted to divert the topic from the Real Presence over to Calvinist soteriology. While I objected, maybe we should take a peek at this as it stands behind the Calvinist denial of the Real Presence.
Remember, due to their erroneous view of election, they say the non elect never receive grace during their lives. If they say the non elect never receive grace, it is only logical they deny the non elect ever receive the Body and Blood of Christ as well.
Tim has cherry picked and presented various statements of the Fathers that speak of a spiritual or non carnal eating of the Eucharist in order to prove they did not believe in an actual or physical presence. While I have already explained that we Catholics have no problem with an allegorical interpretation as it does not necessarily detract from a more literal understanding, maybe a few examples of what I am saying will shed some light on the issue.
Origen said the Body and Blood of Christ are his words. Carried to Tim’s logical conclusion, in the Incarnation the body and blood of Christ were mere words with no physical reality.
He and Kevin have elsewhere appealed to Augustine. Admittedly, Augustine ( and others ) used terms like “figure” and “symbol”. But these can be taken in a totally orthodox sense.
For the sake of brevity, let me give a few examples from Augustine of the Real Presence.
He said, speaking of Mary, ” She gave milk to our Bread”. Pretty hard to misconstrue that one, eh?
Or the famous passage about Christ carrying himself in his own hands at the Supper.
My favorite, as it totally undoes the Calvinist position, is the one where he says Judas received the Eucharist just as sinners do do today.
Think of it, Judas certainly received in an unworthy manner, but he did receive physically.
The soft underbelly of the Calvinist position is their doctrine of election.
Jim wrote to BOB and CK:
Origen said the Body and Blood of Christ are his words. Carried to Tim’s logical conclusion, in the Incarnation the body and blood of Christ were mere words with no physical reality.
He and Kevin have elsewhere appealed to Augustine. Admittedly, Augustine ( and others ) used terms like “figure” and “symbol”. But these can be taken in a totally orthodox sense.
Response:
Jim’s real Master is revealed ! May I introduce the orthodox sense. It judges every word from Jesus to Augustine. No one escapes. Look at how flexible this orthodox sense really is:
(a) figure and symbol can have a “no physical reality” sense, but
they can be TAKEN in an orthodox sense.
(b) Tim’s logical conclusions, filtered through Jim’s logical mind, make Jesus’ words “mere words”. A mere word doesn’t have an orthodox sense.
(c) Augustine’s words are not charged as “mere words”. Fair play ?
—————————
Can everyone see how the orthodox sense never uses “mere words” when it expresses itself ? Or it can find itself in ANY words. Even some heretics speak the orthodox sense regarding the Eucharist.
—————————-
See everyone ? Without the orthodox sense, the world would be a different place. For example: Jesus’ words may be interpreted in non-physical sense, then Augustine’s use of figure and symbol would follow up with support. Let that sink in….I can hear John Lennon sing “Imagine”…suddenly Jim stops the record and declares, ” Orthodox Sense Lives !
Eric W,
By orthodox sense I mean one fully compatible with Church teaching. Other than that, I can’t follow your argument ( as usual ).
Depending on which particular passage from the Fathers you are quoting, the “spiritual” sense can mean
1. In the “substantial” sense as later doctors using Aristotelian language would employ. Augustine uses the term “figure” or “sign” when he means sacramental.
2. In a truly allegorical sense. Just so long as we can find a literal sense by the same Father, this is no problem at all.
3. In a sense contrary to what the unbelievers at Capharnaum thought. Here is Augustine speaking on Jn 6;
“The flesh profiteth nothing, but as they, the people of Capharnaum understood: they so understood the flesh as it is cut up in a corpse or sold in a market, not as it is given life by the Spirit…the flesh profiteth nothing, but that is the flesh alone; let the Spirit be added to the flesh, it profiteth much…as they understood the flesh, not so do I give my flesh to be eaten”.
This is what is meant by spiritual or non carnal eating. This is perfectly compatible with what the later schoolmen were to say on the substantial Body of Christ in the Eucharist.
The Father’s were just as adamant then as the Church is today that merely receiving the Flesh of Christ in the Eucharist, without receiving “spiritually” or in the right spirit, is to “eat and drink unto condemnation”. ( Just as St. Paul said ).
Jim,
I retract this statement:
Jim’s real Master is revealed ! May I introduce the orthodox sense.
——————-
I’ m wrong because you wrote:
By orthodox sense I mean one fully compatible with Church teaching.
Your real Master is the Church.
And the Church and Christ are one.
Jim, you wrote:
And the Church and Christ are one.
Response:
Please answer this question in light of your reply. If One, then why didn’t the Church (or the organs of orthodox teaching) MERELY and SIMPLY repeat Jesus’ words of consecration for her doctrine ? It would look something like this….
Unqualified Doctrine of Jesus:
(a) This is my body.
(b) This is my blood.
Unqualified Doctrine of the Church:
(a) This is my body.
(b) This is my blood.
Why does your Church give so many qualifications and explanations for the one Eucharistic teaching ? Never mind the diversity in consecration formulations.
O Great Arcane Riddler ( Eric ), Keeper of All Esoteric Wisdom and Asinine Babble,
“Saul, Saul, why do you persecute… ( Who? )
See, Eric, I can be eerie and spooky too,
Jim, you wrote:
See, Eric, I can be eerie and spooky too,
Just say you came to the end of the script. You have no answer if the script doesn’t tell you. My job is to set the script down and get you to think.
Well spoken by one who is outside the Chur…. I mean box.
BOB, you wrote:
Well spoken by one who is outside the Chur…. I mean box.
I wish RCs would excommunicate me all the way. They can stop this communist inspired Ecumenism. I want to be outside their Church because according their teaching God as Judge is outside (1Cor.5:12,13). Welcome to the real, bold world of Protestants ! We want God alone… even as Judge !
i have no answer for you because I seldom understand the question.
Jim, you wrote:
i have no answer for you because I seldom understand the question.
That’s why I want a full excommunication. You guys are not fit to judge.
ERIC W.–
You said: “I wish RCs would excommunicate me all the way. ”
Why do you think you’re not? Do you sneak communion with them every once in a while?
Bob,
Eric thinks he is important enough for big fancy formal excommunication like Richard Burton, playing Thomas Beckett did in the movie when he broke the candle and through it on the floor.
Actually, he “threw” it on the floor.
Eric,
If a man has only one match, and he must light a candle and fire, what does he light first?
From the General Instructions of the Roman Missal:
160. The Priest then takes the paten or ciborium and approaches the communicants, who usually come up in procession.
It is not permitted for the faithful to take the consecrated Bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them on from one to another among themselves. The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum, March 25, 2004, no. 91).
When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.”
I notice it is at the discretion of the person receiving and not the priest.
And from what I have seen, no one, even at their own discretion, rubs it all over their face. That’s just silly.
Bob, you wrote, “no one, even at their own discretion, rubs it all over their face. That’s just silly.”
Well, I agree. Except for the case of Cyril. That’s why I was surprised that Jim said that “I think I will stick with Cyril.” Well, Cyril thinks you should rub “Jesus” on your face before partaking of the bread and after a partaking of the wine. But Jim doesn’t stick with that part of Cyril. He only sticks with the previous sentence.
You are quite right—rubbing “Jesus” on your face is just silly if you were a moment before adoring His blood, and many Roman Catholics have concluded the same thing—that Cyril’s behavior toward the elements is so irreverent, so superstitious, so odd, so alien, disrespectful and totally foreign to the reverence that is due to the elements, that his 23rd Lecuture must be the product of a heretic. He taught,
Yes, that is quite silly indeed, if you believe it is really the Body and Blood of Christ. But if you believe it is merely symbolic of the Body and Blood, there is hardly anything sacrilegious about it.
I agree that today we do not see anyone rubbing the elements on their face, nose, ears and eyes and brow. That is true. That is why Cyril of Jerusalem does not provide evidence for Eucharistic adoration. It is rather, a case of gross disrespect to the elements, if he really believed them to be the body and blood of Christ. Based on his behavior, I don’t think he did.
Thanks,
Tim
Bob said to Eric ” do you sneak communion with them every once in awhile” Bob fixated on his idol the Jesus wafer. Cant take his eyes off of it. If he did, he could look to heaven he could see righteousness sitting next to God. And he could repeat the words of John Bunyon ” I looked into heaven and their was my righteousness.” Then every time he would take communion it would remind him where his righteousness is. This is faith.
KEVIN–
St. Stephen saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God, not sitting. Interesting. Where exactly is heaven, by the way?
KEVIN–
Also, that’s what excommunication means–banned from taking communion with the rest of the congregation. But since you believe it is only crackers and grape juice, then it’s no big deal in your church, right?
Bob, ” But since you believe it is only crackers and grape juice” We know this the RC, and you are a n RC make no mistake, schtick to get us to say hmmm, your right the bread turns into real presence. But you know that we believe that the bread is a symbol of the body that was broken, and the blood that was shed. Paul doesn’t say ” having been justified by eating Jesus physically, you have peace with God.” He says having been justified by FAITH, we have peace with God. Without faith, the Spirit, and the Word, its just bread. Augustine said we are to understand spiritually what it is. And the Reformed do understand it spiritually. It nourishes our faith, for the flesh profits nothing. And this all really is a misunderstanding on your and your mamma Rome’s part that we are incorporated into the body of Christ through the Spirit and NOT the flesh. Thats why you and Jim and CK are steeped in the idolatry of worshiping bread, the Jesus Wafer, and thats why as Tim mentioned you have received the mark of the beast. There is time to repent and believe in Christ alone as head. Understand a very serious thing Bob, Jesus said the Father is looking for worshipers that worship him in Spirit and truth, the only acceptable way to God. The flesh profits nothing. It is unbelief. And don’t confuse that with the not yet glorified flesh that died on the cross for our sins. We are talking about faith and unbelief. Faith worships through the Spirit, and unbelief understands Jesus words physically. K
Bob,
Even if he were sitting, that is okay too as sitting is a sing of authority. Judges sit when they pronounce verdicts.
We speak of the SEAT of authority.
Idol of the jesus wafer? You dumb bastard.
Bob, ever notice how Tim keeps this stupid son of a bitch around to do his slurring for him?
Jim,
You alleged, “Tim keeps this stupid son of a bitch around to do his slurring for him.”
And why do I keep you around, Jim? For Whom do you slur, Jim? Here is a sampling of your contributions:
Is this the sacrifice of praise that you “offer up” to Jesus?
You may find my position offensive—namely that the Roman Eucharist is the Image of the Beast. So be it. You may continue to revile me and my position at will (with some increasingly tedious editing, I might add). But it is my prerogative to reject Eucharistic adoration, is it not? Or shall you compel me to kneel against my will? Will the world be a better place if failure to worship the Eucharist is punishable by death? Is that what you would prefer?
What you are arguing against here is free speech. Is it your intent to stifle all dissent? Or just to color it up a little with your increasingly distasteful vulgarities?
You are welcome here, either way.
Thanks,
Tim
HA!
Nobody is compelling you , those in heaven, on the earth or under the earth to bend their knee to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament.
Nobody is compelling you to worship anything.
By the same token, don’t demand that I not rend my garments at your sacreligious excesses.
“What you are arguing against here is free speech. Is it your intent to stifle all dissent”
Spoken like Charlie Hebdod!
” Or just to color it up a little with your increasingly distasteful vulgarities?”
Vulgarities pale in comparison to profanities.
Tim, I hope your knife slips and you castrate yourself. Kevin’s tongue is menstrual rags. His head is full of a pile of dung, an open grave.
Vulgarities indeed!
Tim,
Of course you can be pushed into slurring under your own steam. The provocative name of your blockbuster, ” Graven Bread” proves it. But you like to play the mealy mouthed well scrubbed and sanctimonious gentleman. That’s where Bozo comes in with his rude farting noises and sulfuric belchings. He likes to wallow in the pig sty. That is where he is most comfortable. He then vomits up the slop he learns from you in your Pulitzer prize winning best seller. He can only get away with it here as even other Protestant blogs don’t want his embarrassing shenanigans and laughable misspellings on their sites.
I had to have him thrown off of Creed Code Cult for puking up his blasphemies on that blog. I am so proud of myself for doing it and enjoyed his swinish pleadings to Jason Stellman for mercy much as the demons begged Jesus not to cast them into nothingsness but pleaded to be allowed to enter the herd of swine. ( I wish Kevin would rush off of a cliff. )
Tell me Tim, as an expert on the Church Fathers, how you would reconcile the words of the early martyrs on the Eucharist with this tongue chewing, knuckle dragging derelict’s brayings?
OOPS! I forget to end by saying to Kevin, ” God bless”.
Bob,
En route to Rome to face the lions, Ignatius of Antioch yearned to for the ” Jesus wafer”, right?
Justin Martyr wrote, in Dialogue with Trypho, ch 70: “Now it is evident, that in this prophecy to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks FOR THE JESUS WAFER”.
Tertullian wrote, “In about 200 (Against Marcion IV. 40): “Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is a ‘figure of my body.’ On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body.” He went on to call it the “Jesus Wafer”.
In AD 400, Augustine quotes Cyprian (AD 200): “For as Christ says ‘I am the true vine,’ it follows that the blood of Christ is wine, not water; and the cup cannot appear to contain His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened, if the wine be absent; for by the wine is the blood of Christ typified, …”[3
Augustine then goes on to quote Cyprian as called the Eucharist a “Jesus wafer”.
If you delve into the writings of the Fathers you are sure to find terms such as jesus wafer, death wafer, graven bread, and other such bulls–t.
Nevertheless, the Eucharist you worship is the Image that was prophesied, and you have received its mark. Unless you repent, you will be cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 14:9-11).
Thanks,
Tim
And you and the toad will be cast into outer darkness.
Bob,
Over on William Webster’s site he has a quote from Cyril of Jerusalem on John 6 where Jesus says that unless the people eat the death wafer, they will have no life in them.
The level of scholarship on this blog as presented by Dr. Timothy J, Kauffmand and his esteemed colleague and boot licker, Dr. Kevin von Balloni is truly impressive. You can tell by the use of such biblical terminology as “Jesus Wafer” and Death Wafer” found nowhere else on the internet but this prize winning website.
Jim, you wrote,
I’ll summarize your objection in Copernican terms:
Yes, what a fool Copernicus was—because everyone knows that science is determined by popular consent! Silly Copernicus!
Indeed, if the Eucharist is not the Image of the Beast, then you have absolutely nothing to worry about.
But if it is (and it is), then you do indeed worship a bread-god, and it is a wafer of death to you. I make no apologies for saying so. If I truly believe it to be true, do you not think I am obligated to warn others that they ought not worship it? And if I am a fool (and I may well be), then at least I am a consistent one.
Thanks,
Tim
Please, Tim and Bozo, no castigations for my righteous ire. I see myself as Phineas when he drove the spear through the other two wicked people and merited much in so doing for defending the honor of God against those who would brazenly mock Him.
No apologies will be coming from this end.
God bless.
Jim, many Catholics believe Jesus will return as a Roman Eucharist. Do you believe this ? God bless K
He is already here as the Roman Eucharist.
KEVIN–
You said to Jim: “many Catholics believe Jesus will return as a Roman Eucharist. Do you believe this ? God bless K”
WOW! Who taught you that? Where did you read that? I gotta see this.
From Bud Macfarlane’s Pierced by a Sword, which belongs to the genre of Apocalyptic fiction, he describes how Christ might return to earth in Eucharistic form for His earthly reign:
You can read more about a belief in Christ’s millennial reign in Eucharistic form at the Apostolate for Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration:
Another such profession:
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
Fascinating read! But, like your stuff, I’ll take it with a grain of salt. Did you notice the “disclaimer” in the second article?
“It is important to note that the Magisterium has not yet made a definitive pronouncement about the “millennium” or “temporal kingdom”. Especially significant are the words of Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in this regard. Theologian Martino Penasa, presented him with this question of Christ’s spiritual millenary reign (not millenarianism), and the Cardinal reassured him that the matter is still open to discussion and that “the Holy See has not yet made any definite pronouncement in this regard.”
So freedom of expression will prevail…..just like on your blog here.
Bob, you said,
Of course it will. Nobody said all Catholics, or even most Catholics, believe the Christ will return in Eucharistic form. The statement was that many Catholics do, and that statement has been substantiated.
Thanks,
Tim
Bob,
I just clicked back in the middle of doing some late night work and saw this stuff.
Fr. Gobbi? I heard him speak a couple of times, 25 or 30 years ago in Portland. He was very dynamic. I heard him give a talk about a year before he died over here in Lisbon too. I liked him BUT his locutions are binding on nobody. Some folks thought he was??????????
I also see Tim references Garabandal. I drove high in the Pyrenees out of curiosity once and found the countryside breathtaking. That’s all I will say positive about it.
It may even be in the same category as the officially condemned Bayside stuff Tim was promoting a few days ago as an orthodox Catholic source. I don’t really know for sure.
You are right to mistrust everything Tim puts out.
As I told Paisano Balloni, Christ is in our midst now. In every tabernacle, in every Catholic Church he is present.
By coincidence I just so happened to see the Blessed sacrament exposed in three different churches for adoration yesterday.
Just like in the OT, God lives in the midst of his people.
I am not waiting for his Eucharistic return. In America, unless you live in a big city like New York that has lots of catholic churches, you may not notice it. But in a Catholic country like Portugal, the Eucharistic Presence is everywhere. NOW. In downtown Lisbon, there are churches every couple of blocks, open for adoration.
I will spend Holy Week in Paris this year. High atop the city, in Monmarte, is the church of the Sacre Coeur. They have Perpetual Adoration, 24/7. And the place is a major tourist sight in Paris, always full.
Tim scours the net for material to use against the Church. He misunderstands about 80% of what he reads. Kevin misunderstands over 100% ( normally this would be impossible but in his case…).
Jim said ” as I told paisano Failoni Christ is in our mits now.” Indeed He is Jim, just not in the way your church proposes. We are the Temple of the Spirit. Christ dwells in us through his Spirit. Grace comes through the Spirit, as all of Christ’s victory spoils. He isnt physically with us. Augustine said the church has been deprived of the body of Christ until He returns. Rome has a faulty view of the Trinity. Grace and fallen human nature are not compatable. It comescfrom heaven through the Word by the work of the Spirit. We are incorporated into his body through the Spirit, NOT the flesh. Rome’s incarnationalism through fallen creation is bogus. K
Jim, I grew up in a small town in Illinois a block away from a Catholic church. My dad is a son of an imigrant from the north of Italy. All of my Aunts were big blond strapping women, beautiful, but tall strong people. Austrian looking. I, m 6″ 4 myself. They spoke fluent Italian, as do I. My dad shoveled 20 tons of coal a day, and all of both of my parents families worked in the coal mines in my town and surrounding towns. Me twin broher and I were the star basketball players on the high school team. My oldest brother was a musician, and we all went that route professionally, moving to LA when we got out of college. My Aunts were devout Catholics. But my dad was not. We grew up pretty much atheist. My mom’s parents had a bad experience with the Catholuc church and had left generations before. My whole youth was plaing whifleball and football in the Catholic churchyard. The Priest used to invite us in and gave us candy. But he was straight, although his housekeeper was always there for years, she was beautiful, and the talk in the town was something was going on. But I had no connection to Catholicism. As I look back God was protecting me. I always thought it was just ritual, all these people living it up all weekend and heading in to Mass on Sunday. I could see the hypocrisy. God saved me at Grace Community church, John MacArthur’s church in LA out of a sinful music lifestyle. Over the last few years I have become Reformed. Thats my story Jim. And incidentally, I dont dislike you, I like you and pray for you. I probably would have beat your butt bad when I was young and gotten some of that rude out of you. But as a believer I have great love fo r you. I pray for you all the time. I just hate your church, your idolatry, and how your church wounds Christ. I hate it like Spurgeon did. Thats all. K
I am not interested in your basketball playing. I am curious how a Catholic man, your father,…
Your father was a Baptized Catholic, yes? ( I know he didn’t bother to…
Jim, neither of my parents were baptised. My mom believed at 85, now she is 91. My dad believed we think on his death bed. My brother shared the gospel with him when he was dying. He was 89. K
I didn’t ask for your MacArthur testimony.
I am still waiting for you to square the Jesus Wafer with what the Fathers said on the Eucharist.
Again, how is the OT type and shadow of the Manna fulfilled in your bread and wine/crackers and grape juice memorial meals?
Give me the miraculous manna any day over mere bread.
And yes, you can stand by to do some more editing as I know your toad will vomit up more demonically inspired ravings. I will respond appropriately.
Thank you for the welcome and remember, God bless.
Kevin,
When you have a moment, I would like to talk about your dad. You know, the dead guy. I have some thoughts I would like to share with you.
Ordinarily I would never say something about a person’s dead relative but this is Tim’s blog where free speech is not to be stifled. He said I am welcome here no matter how much I dump on you.
If this were CCC or C2C, they would ban me for what I want to say to you. But those are Romish blogs.
Over here on Tim’s Toilet, we say whatever. And we do it in the name of the Lord.
We say things to intentionally give offense here and then duck behind a Bible. Death Wafer is considered normal Catholic/Protestant apologetics.
Normally it is considered socially unacceptable to defecate in the middle of someone’s living room. Bathrooms are for that. But here on Tim’s site, no holds are barred. We don’t actually argue religion, we just hurl invectives and puke at one another. so it’s de rigueur to say what would get us banned elsewhere.
Your Aunts were practicing Catholics right? That means… well, I will save it for when I have your undivided attention.
I also have some questions about your brother. He is your twin, right?
Jesus wafer, eh?
Bob, congratulations on your response to Tim’ s post on Eucharist return. Your recall of Ratzinger and other Catholic details goes beyond the normal Methodist recall. Lol God bless thanks for the discussion today. K
KEVIN–
You said: “Your recall of Ratzinger and other Catholic details goes beyond the normal Methodist recall.”
I don’t understand what you mean…..?
Jim wrote to BOB:
You are right to mistrust everything Tim puts out.
It’s time to shut you down. Jim is not a true Roman Catholic Christian (Visible/Invisible elements) ; therefore, everyone is right to mistrust everything he puts out.
Please provide confirmation from the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church that Jim is a true RC.
Riddler Rick,
I could scan you my baptismal certificate.
Please provide evidence that you are one of the elect. And I don’t mean your warm fuzzy feeling.
Jim, you wrote:
I could scan you my baptismal certificate.
Sorry, not going to be enough. I wrote Visible / Invisible elements. BC falls under the visible. You are shutdown until more and sufficient evidence is provided. I don’t need to be elect to shutdown the mistrustful.
The BC is the best I can do. No one can tell about the invisible element, including ourselves.
The BC proves I have been incorporated into Christ and that as a nipper, I had the invisible element of grace.
The BC, 60 years on, still holds good for the visible only as nobody knows who is in a state of grace.
Don’t worry about my foul language ( it’s just a remnant from my youthful days in the USMC ). It hardly falls into the range of what Tim and Kelvin belch. Worry about them.
Jim, you wrote:
The BC, 60 years on, still holds good for the visible only as nobody knows who is in a state of grace.
You concede. A true RC is one inside and outside. No one knows if Jim is a true RC. Where’s the infallible magisterium now ? If you try to answer any pistic question, then we have grounds to doubt the answer’s verity. It’s time to leave this bloated RCC.
I can hear you heart crying, ” Infallible Magisterium, where are you” ?
I suppose as long as Tim doesn’t kick Jim off of this sight for using the foul language that he does, then he won’t be shut down. I would think that a devout Catholic would bridle his tongue better than that.
I kind of understand his point, though. If Tim and Kevin can use language that is offensive to Catholics, then Jim should be able to reciprocate accordingly.
Bob,
Yes, the naughty words I say hardly rise to the level of blasphemy.
Bob,
Bridle my tongue? On the contrary, I have to goad myself in responding thus.
Bob, over on CCC, I had to agitate and irritate to get my fellow Catholics to dump Kevin for his anti-Eucharistic rhetoric. They were languishing lethargically in Tim’s “free speech” doldrums and threatened me with dismissal for sounding the tocsin and jerking them awake.
Like the frog in the pan of boiling water, they had been desensitized by Kevin’s ratcheting up his slurs only incrementally. By the time the troll was uttering things like he says daily on this blog, the CCC Catholics just taking it in stride.
Bob, we all, myself included, have to work at not becoming caught up in relativism. To say that, for me, the Host is Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, but for the next guy, a Death Wafer, and both opinions are of equal merit, is the first step in losing my own belief in the objective Real Presence.
Bob, the fact that you are more offended by me calling Kevin a few puny names than what he says is, well, troubling. But then, we really don’t see eye to eye on this despite our common ground against Calvinism.
Even if you don’t mind that he is intentionally trying to get your goat by slurring the Real Presence ( he acts as if you were a Catholic ), the doctrine of the “REAL” Presence means that it objectively true. If you believe it is true, your emotions should follow and then actions too. Even if they don’t evoke an emotional response from you, you should act as if it does until it becomes real.
Unlike Tim’s ersatz scholarship, Kevin doesn’t bother with any sort of chivalry or Marquis of Queensbury rules. He never rises above an intentional slur. Never. He is too base to not know how.
Kevin is obviously a sicko and has found an outlet in the theater of religion. If we lived in the deep South a generation ago, you can bet this bigot would be in in a hooded sheet.
You and Eric the Riddler are scratching your heads as to why Tim doesn’t slap me down. You guys don’t get it do you?
I, Jim, am the raison d’etre of this blog. Not you. Not Eric. and definitely not Kevin. Me. Me. Me.
Bob, think about it. Why do the ISIS people make videos and post them of burning and decapitations? Why?
Why do perverts risk imprisonment and public shaming just to expose themselves to women or children?
What is the purpose of graffiti on the bathroom stall door?
Tim and Kevin are not about religion. Not at all.
Kevin loves to bore us with his conversion story and life history. Think about his two Catholic aunts. Think about how John MacArthur brought him to Jesus. Did Mac have to teach him to hate those two aunts too? Was it hard?
I have said many times I don’t classify either of these men as Protestants. Not committed Christians who may have doctrinal issues with Catholicism, even on the Eucharist. Please tell me you don’t think they are seriously engaging in apologetics. If you do, I am dumbfounded at your naivete.
Tim has emotional issues and for sure, Kevin may have mental problems, but they definitely both have spiritual issues they are working out on this blog. One need not be a Viennese psychiatrist, priest or even just a good listener- bartender to see that.
You gotta admit, this blog is like no other. Almost zero emphasis on anything but the hot button issues like Mary and the Eucharist. It’s all Tim’s got.
Now do you understand why Tim rolls out the red carpet for me, Bob?
Jim wrote to BOB:
I, Jim, am the raison d’etre of this blog. Not you. Not Eric. and definitely not Kevin. Me. Me. Me.
Yes, but we still don’t know if you are a true RC raison d’etre of this blog.
Jim, you said,
I am but a fool. Perhaps I am tangled in an emotional Gordian knot of my own making, unable to piece together even a semblance of a normal productive life between sessions on the couch in my psychologist’s office.
That said, if I believe the Papacy is the Beast, the Apparition of Mary is the False Prophet and the Eucharist is the Image of the Beast of Revelation 13, then yes, there will be almost zero emphasis on anything but those hot button issues. You might as well complain that Fox Business News hardly ever covers anything but business news.
I published Graven Bread long before I met my wife. That she married me at all is remarkable. I am unworthy of her.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim wrote:
That she married me at all is remarkable. I am unworthy of her.
Tim is from noble stock !
You are also unworthy of your long suffering mother who has to watch her grandchildren being raised outside of the Church, never to see them receive their first Holy Communion.
Did you pay out of pocket to publish Stale Graven Bread?
Have you gotten rich off of it yet?
Tim, over on the other Prot blogs, they are arguing JBFA and SS. Here, you are haggling about Catholics receiving Communion in the hand or on the tongue.
Of what interest is that to any serious Protestant?
Denziger’s? ( By the way, I found mine. It was under a bunch of other books on the steps going upstairs ).
Garabandal? Bayside? Michael Davies? Apocalyptic fiction? Fr. Gobbi’s locutions ( voices in his head that only he can hear. No way to verify them as authentic ).
Tim, please. These ain’t your standard Protestant/Catholic debating topics, now are they?
And Kevin does you a great service doesn’t he? Although you probably find his as repugnant as I do.
Maybe I am not your target audience. Maybe it it our moms.
Jim,
You observed:
I am unaware of any law that requires me to be like other Protestant blogs. You continued,
I am hardly “haggling” anyone. I said communion on the hand is controversial within the Roman Catholic Church, and as it turns out Cyril of Jerusalem’s description of how to take communion in the hand, and then touch the sacred species to one’s ears, eyes, nostrils and forehead is actually the flashpoint of that controversy. Catholic proponents of Eucharistic Adoration cite Cyril’s “bending” toward the wine as evidence of early Eucharistic Adoration. Catholics who believe in communion on the tongue cite his next sentence as evidence that his 23rd Lecture cannot possibly be taken seriously as a legitimately within the deposit of faith. You say you “stick with Cyril,” and yet you do not rub the sacred species on your face, which is precisely what Cyril instructs you to do. I do not understand how you can stick with Cyril and at the same time reject his clear instructions. You say communion in the hand is a matter of discipline. Very well. Is rubbing Jesus on your face a matter of discipline as well? If your demand is that I not discuss internal divisions within the Roman Catholic church on matters relating to the Church Fathers, you have seriously misunderstood this blog.
Paul VI, in Memoriale Domini, wrote,
Sure, he went on to allow communion on the hand, but also acknowledged that the vast majority of bishops was against the practice because “the change would be offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many of the faithful.”
No, communion on the hand doesn’t sound like a big deal at all.
You continued,
I am sorry that I do not comply with your standards of interaction, which appear to be that Protestants must discuss what Roman Catholics tell them to discuss, and even then, only with respect for the Eucharist, the Pope, the seven sacraments, Holy Mother Church, the deposit of faith and the “sovereign holy queen of the universe” whose command even God must obey, and in comparison to whose fiat to “allow” God to become man, even His fiat, “Let there be light” pales in comparison. I regret to inform you that I will largely continue to disappoint you.
The Bayside devotees, Michael Davies and others were simply expressing the same reservations that Paul VI did, above. Is it your position that Paul IV and the vast majority of bishops of the Church had no reservations about the disrespect to the species when administered in the hand?
The apocalyptic fiction of Macfarlane was provided as evidence that many Roman Catholics believe Jesus will return to reign in Eucharistic form. Is it your position that no Roman Catholics believe that?
Thanks,
Tim
Jim, have you ever once considered how you blaspheme the Lord worshiping a piece of bread, bwhen the scripture tells you Christ is at the right hand of God. I approach communion for what the bread symbolizes, I dont worship the elements. And all you have encountered from the proof on this site from the early church is not to offer the elements to God, nor worshipnthem. Augustine says ” understand spiritually what I tell you” and yet you and Bob and CK defy and worship the elements. So the things you say to God are much worse thanbyou ever say to me, or us. K
Yes, Kelvin would blaspheme if I worshiped bread. Yes indeed.
But what neither you nor Timothy have proved is that I worship bread.
Jim, you wrote:
But what neither you nor Timothy have proved is that I worship bread.
Response:
Did you get me that evidence for being a true RC ? I’m patient.
Argument:
The Eucharist is true bread.
Jim worships the Eucharist.
Therefore, Jim worships true bread.
Proof for P1:
Read 1Cor.11:26.
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
The Eucharist is called bread after the “words of consecration.”
——————-
Proof for P2:
I don’t have proof because I need to take Jim on his word. I will grant the truth of P2 for the sake of argument.
——————-
Proof for P3:
This is my favorite part. I offer Jim’s words from CCC. BTW, that blog is the most fair-minded, truth-telling blog in the universe.
Jim’s words:
…..syllogistic thinking is indeed, practically infallible. If it weren’t, the distinction between truth and error could not exist.
——————
Jim, are you tired of me shutting you down ? I would be angry enough to repent of bloated Rome.
Jim, I know its a little late in life, but have you considered being a fictional novelist. You got allot of material here to draw from. You could be the lead character, and we could be semi magor characters. You could be the raison hell d’etre of fictionalist. No one can make up a story about some one like you. You got me as some klu klux guy who hates his aunts and etc. Sounds like you got a plot. God bless k
Kevin wrote to Jim:
You could be the raison hell d’etre of fictionalist.
Your fat head says some funny things.
Well, EXCUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuUUUUUUUUSE, ME!
Kelvin,
Ha! I don’t believe you are so ignorant of history!
You wrote above, ‘Rome has a faulty view of the Trinity”.
Really? You pea-brain dufe, the only view of the Trinity anybody has is Rome’s!
Ever hear of Nicea? Chalcedon?
Where did Calvin and Luther get their ideas of the Trinity? From us!
Have you ever read a book?
Jim, The Roman Catholic church is as different from Nicea as Mormonism. And yes its a faulty view of the Trinity. It collapses the head into the body and usurps the work of the Spirit. The scripture tells us the Spirit blows where and how He wills, not at the behest of a secondary cause, a regent. The church is the recepient od grace, not the provider. It is the Spirit who brings fiducia to the heart, not the church. The Spirit brings all the victory spoils, not the church. Churches dont connect us to God, no church owns God, He comes to us in the Gospel by his choosing. The church is NOT the same as Jesus Christ in the world. And churches arent continuations of incarnation. Rome cannot usurp the uniquely finished work of Christ. That belongs to HIM only. Rome is a false church, with a false gospel, and a false head. And you are connected to that head by your baptism. K
Somebody should collapse your fat head into your body.
Jim wrote to Kevin:
Somebody should collapse your fat head into your body.
This is a sign of Jim’s repressed anger. Jim is angry because he doesn’t know if Jim is a true RC. Remember, Jim told us that no one can know if someone is in a state of grace. He cried out to a silent Magisterium. I guess God is the only one left to cry out to.
Tim, move over please. Jim needs that couch.
EarWax,
Being a true RC and being in a state of grace may or may not be one and the same thing.
I can’t believe you don’t know this since you were once a member of the visible Church.
While on this topic, Tim has an interest in fringe groups. He thinks every sedevacantist whacko is a Catholic in as good standing as the Pope.
I delegate you to instruct him as you were one of those whackos, right?
My anger isn’t all that suppressed, is it? I thought I wore it pretty well on my sleeve.
Tim,
Your problems may be greater than I realized!
You mean, while you were single and free to pursue fast cars and hot women, you were in some stinky basement stooped over a keyboard making up Graven Bread?
Where did you imbibe the Kool-Aid, Tim? Who gave it to you? Was he wearing a long trench coat? Did he have a thick foreign accent?
Why didn’t you obey your mother? Why did you talk to him in the first place?
Tim, oh my! That quotevfrom Paul VI he was admitting as the Eucharist was seen more and more real presence the RC changed the bread in the hand to not doing it anymore. What else will they change? Maybe the Pope will become the Eucharist, or the faithful. Oh wait thats what Benedict thinks now. We will all be one big Eucharist. K
EarWax,
Being a true RC and being in a state of grace may or may not be one and the same thing.
I can’t believe you don’t know this since you were once a member of the visible Church.
While on this topic, Tim has an interest in fringe groups. He thinks every sedevacantist whacko is a Catholic in as good standing as the Pope.
I delegate you to instruct him as you were one of those whackos, right?
Jim, you wrote:
Being a true RC and being in a state of grace may or may not be one and the same thing.
Only a person who doesn’t know themselves in a state of grace would write that. This statement is the fruit of your doubtful situation. Pride causes you to ignore it.
Riddler,
You ask if I am in a state of grace.
I will answer as St. Joan of Arc did when this same impertinent and presumptuous question was put to her;
“If I am, may God keep me there. If I am not, may God put me there.”
Jim, you wrote:
You ask if I am in a state of grace.
I will answer as St. Joan of Arc did when this same impertinent and presumptuous question was put to her;
“If I am, may God keep me there. If I am not, may God put me there.”
Response:
That’s right Jim. There’s nothing better to attack “impertinent and presumptuous” than the opposite of a very active cooperation with grace. Her words, and now your words, perfectly signify a passive cooperation with grace.
What is so comical about you is how you answered that “state of grace” question. Do you even know that the CC calls on works and a “very active cooperation” to deal with things “impertinent and presumptuous” ?
Just like Joan, you melt when godly aggression advances against you.
Ask Tim about this. He thinks he is an expert on the Fathers. He will tell you that they said by eating the flesh of Christ we become the Body of Christ. And not just individually, but as the Church.
So as flippantly stupid as your comment was,…
Quite right. You cannot simultaneously maintain that Cyril bowed to the wine after receiving communion in the hand because of an innate understanding of the Real Presence in it, and that communion in the hand was eventually abandoned as people began to appreciate “the presence of Christ in it.”
Tim,
Have you ever read anything ( other than Bayside trash ) on the history of the reception of Holy Communion?
Just a few weeks ago I had to go through all of this because a fellow from the Czech Republic came to conduct my wife’s orchestra and gave a long and wrong account of the Hus affair before conducting Smetana’s Modlau. I had to rise to the occasion then as I do now with you.
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTKsHwqaIr4
( You really need to give a damn about the info you are putting out Tim. You should try to get it right rather than just look for ammo against the Church. )
As Cardinal Angelo Scola wrote in Building Eucharistic Amazement,
“…And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.” (Revelation 13:14).
Tim,
You hi-lited some but not all of the Cardinal’s statement. You skipped the part where he said it had been present in the consciousness of the people.
Innuendo, inference, hint, half quotes and seed planting little questions to imply you know a little secret the reader is not privy to.
Kevin,
Does your twin brother know how to punctuate?
Jim, yes my twin brother is a corporate mogul. I know how to punctuate, I just see it as rather useless. My writing in perspicuous. lol
You know how to punctuate and spell but you hold readers in such contempt that you don’t bother with details. To hell with them. Let them scramble to make sense out of what you scribble. You don’t have time to show them the respect of using standard American English.
This fits with your boorish barging into Stellman’s blog where even the Protestants find you obnoxious with your off topic prattle and rudeness.
Earwig.
“Did you get me that evidence for being a true RC ? I’m patient.”
My scanner is down. I can’t send you my BC. Baptism is the entry into the Church. I did it may moons ago and have the papers to prove it.
“The Eucharist is true bread.”
No. The entire substance of the bread is changed into the Body of Christ. Ask Tim. He will tell you the Fathers compared this conversion, by the Holy Spirit, to the conversion of Mary’s flesh into that of the Christ’s.
All that is left of the bread are the appearances, taste, location, etc.
“Jim worships the Eucharist.”
I do. Well said, Riddler.
“Therefore, Jim worships true bread.”
The major premise of your syllogism is off. Ergo, the conclusion is too.
“Read 1Cor.11:26.
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”
I know the passage well.
“The Eucharist is called bread after the “words of consecration.”
It is. But it is not “normal” bread. It has been transformed. It just looks like bread. Just as Christ is called “sin” because he took on the appearances of a sinner.
Read further, Riddler. Paul says if one eats unworthily *OR* drinks unworthily, that are guilty of eating *AND* drinking unworthily. This conforms with Catholic teaching on “concomitance”. It means that what appears to be thebread is both the Body and Blood and the “wine” is too.
——————-
“I don’t have proof because I need to take Jim on his word. I will grant the truth of P2 for the sake of argument.”
Please don’t take me at my word on the Eucharist. Take Christ’s words.
——————-
“This is my favorite part. I offer Jim’s words from CCC. BTW, that blog is the most fair-minded, truth-telling blog in the universe.
Jim’s words:
‘…..syllogistic thinking is indeed, practically infallible. If it weren’t, the distinction between truth and error could not exist.’ ”
Do you doubt it , O Sage Riddler? You tried a syllogism above on me but it fell flat as Kevin’s collapsed head because your major premise was false.
If both the major and minor are true, the conclusion is too. Infallibly so.
One need not be the Pope to speak infallibly. Even on morals. For example, is it always wrong, in every circumstance, in every universe, to torture babies for fun?
Ponder that, O wise and dread Riddler of the Universe.
——————
“Jim, are you tired of me shutting you down ? I would be angry enough to repent of bloated Rome.”
I am indeed weary of you, Little Riddler.
Here is a parting riddle for you; Why don’t flies land on the computer?
Because they are afraid of the world wide web.
Maybe you should get offline and stay there too.
Jim, you wrote:
My scanner is down. I can’t send you my BC. Baptism is the entry into the Church. I did it may moons ago and have the papers to prove it.
Response:
Get that scanner working. No excuses please. I will accept the BC on the following conditions:
1. It proves that you have the infused habit of faith
2. You know you have the infused habit of faith.
Failure to meet these conditions means the BC is evidence for only visible elements. A true RC includes visible and invisible. Just admit that pride tells you everything’s OK on the inside.
———————–
You wrote:
No. The entire substance of the bread is changed into the Body of Christ. Ask Tim. He will tell you the Fathers compared this conversion, by the Holy Spirit, to the conversion of Mary’s flesh into that of the Christ’s.
All that is left of the bread are the appearances, taste, location, etc.
Response:
That’s a very confident NO. Ok, let’s break this down. Substance change and conversion left bread appearances, taste, etc. How do we know what’s left ? Our senses tell us. Why did God allow connatural harmony of the senses be interrupted ? The hearing no longer works together with the other senses. Also, the hearing is forced into a tense, unnatural situation when it’s called bread before and after supposed conversion. There’s a fundamental disharmony at the “nominal” level. The word bread is taking an unneccesary beating. The real sin of Transub is dishonor to human senses and their Creator. The objective world serves at the order of efficient causes. Aquired knowledge depends on that.
———————–
You wrote:
It is. But it is not “normal” bread. It has been transformed. It just looks like bread. Just as Christ is called “sin” because he took on the appearances of a sinner.
Response:
Stop bread-beater ! Your example of Christ is inadmissible. Please stick to examples of Transub. You guys don’t say Christ was transub in some way and retained the appearances of a sinner !
———————–
You wrote:
Please don’t take me at my word on the Eucharist. Take Christ’s words.
Response:
No way! If I did that, then even Paul calling it bread would be excluded. Think about it. If Paul kept your advice, then he would have never called it bread.
Kevin,
You like to talk about how John MacArthur brought you to Christ.
I have worn many hats in my life. I worked in mental health for a while with criminals and addicts and witnessed many men undergo profound conversion experiences from lives of crime and drugs to Christ, either as Catholics or Protestants.
I also believe men have ersatz conversion experiences. I have known guys who went from lives of crime and violence to being Black Muslims. They got off the dope and cleaned up their acts to some degree but I would not call them conversion experiences. They just transferred their criminal aggression elsewhere.
In Europe today we see lots of street youth from North Africa or the East turn to Islam, the religion of their fathers, for direction. They start to frequent the mosque, eat hallel, spurn booze, dope, porn, instist their women dress modestly, etc. etc. They even seem to pray five time a day.
But the proper term for their transformation is ” radicalized”, not converted.
Just for the lurkers, you can admit or deny that Death Wafer and such rhetoric is not intended to bring me, CK, or any Catholic on board. We all know where you are coming from and what your motives are.
Whether MacArthur radicalized you or you twisted his message, I can’t say.
But you have no knowledge of Christ. Zero, You are just a hoodlum with a computer.
Amen.
Jim, or maybe Im just a normal guy who is trying to warn people about the evil and deception of Roman Catholicism. In the words of John MacArthur ” it has bewitched the gullible world.” K
Jim, said ” Kevin, you have no knowledge of Christ, your just a hodlum with a computer.” I guess it takes one to know one. As far as no knowledge of Christ, I know enough to know your in a false religion, and Im thankful for that revelation. K
Tim,
Just for the lurkers, you can affirm or deny my allegations too.
You have no interest in bringing any Catholic over to Protestant Christianity.
Readers can scroll through your articles and see none of them promote Protestantism. They just trash Catholicism.
The Eucharist, Mary and the Pope, objects as much of devotion as doctrine are ridiculed and undermined. But you offer nothing positive to replace the Catholicism you intend to destroy. You don’t have a positive thing to say about Protestantism, other than it ain’t Catholic.
While your demeanor is “nice” you spew hate just like your one devoted follower.
Oh, Tim and Kevin, I forgot to say, ‘God bless”.
Bob,
Did you notice that after embarrassing him about it, Kevin cleaned up his spelling and punctuation. He did skip one apostrophe in contracting “I am “, but let’s not get picayunish. He did say he was capable of punctuating ( Tim’s does have spell-check activated after all ), just that he didn’t care to bother conforming to everyday standards of protocol.
Last week Kevin crashed security on CCC posting under the false name of “Mitch”. As his spelling was fine, all that gave him away was signing off with the phony, “God bless”. and his initial K.
So we have an insight into how the guy ticks.
We have all walked into a public toilet in an airport or gas station only to find the previous individual had rendered it unusable either by vandalizing it or leaving it in such a filthy condition nobody could stand being there without vomiting.
Why? Who is the person so angry that he purposefully leaves his defecation for the next user to flush or the janitor to have to deal with?
No one wants to use the foul restroom above and no Catholic wants to engage someone who peppers their arguments with slurs as offensive as that nasty toilet. And Kevin knows it.
Kevin, cannot or will not engage in dialogue on the Eucharist without shutting down the discussion by turning the discussion into a toilet overflowing with 6 rolls of toilets paper, feces on the floor and slurs graffitied on the wall.
Oh, for sure, Kevin will counter with how much he hates idolatry. He will say zeal for the Lord compels him to shout anti-Catholic slurs. The Holy Ghost gets into him and moves his pen, tongue and keyboard automatically.
Funny thing is, the Holy Ghost doesn’t compel him to do it all the time. He would be arrested if he followed the Holy Ghost’s inspirations 24/7.
Tim gives Kevin a safe place to follow the Holy Ghost’s biddings. Tim too is on fire for the Lord. Just on a lower, more appropriate flame.
Bob, it all fits together. The spelling, the punctuation, the Jesus wafer crap, the blog crashing.
Everyone knows to spell sufficiently well with spell check.
Everyone knows to flush the toilet after themselves.
Everyone knows how to engage someone on sensitive issues without giving unnecessary offense.
Everyone knows you don’t crash a party after having been asked to leave.
Kevin thinks because he CAN insult, crash a blog or disregard conventional rules of grammar, he SHOULD.
The next time you walk into that disgusting restroom, think Kevin Falloni.
JIM–
I can see your anger is definitely NOT suppressed.
You said: “No one wants to use the foul restroom above and no Catholic wants to engage someone who peppers their arguments with slurs as offensive as that nasty toilet.”
Why do you keep coming back?
I have an addiction to this, somehow. I keep telling myself “Stop responding! You must stop responding to Kevin, Bob. BOB! STOP IT!!!” I’ve even been to several KA (Kevaholics Anonymous) meetings and they don’t seem to be working even though we stand in a circle holding hands and chant “It works! It works! It works!”
It doesn’t work.
I’m a hopeless Kevaholic. My wife has gone to KevAnon meetings and she seems to be coping better with my addiction. Alas, I must continue to give it up to a Higher Power because I simply can’t do it myself. Will somebody please call Anti-Kevin and tell him to come over to this blog?
And I wait in eager anticipation for Tim’s new post tomorrow to see who will be the first responder–Kevin or Walt.
Bob,
“God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change those I can and the wisdom to know the difference”.
You are so right. I think I will take a hiatus from this blog. and deprive these two icky sickos of the the pleasure of spitting in my face and hi-fiving each other over doing “the Lord’s work”.
A discussion on the Church Fathers and the Eucharist, once again, reduced to sleazy taunts like “Jesus Wafer” has done it for me.
As I have said, the sole purpose of this blog is not to promote Calvinism. It exists solely to taunt and offend Catholics. I hope this is obvious to all by now.
Tim’s pathetic research into the early Church depends on Kevin to bail him out whenever his arguments from history break down. It is almost as if they plan it out together. When Tim is backed into a corner on his 350 A.D. nonsense and is about to be exposed as the crack-pot conspiracy theorist he is, he gives a wink and the Kevin Kavalry comes to his rescue and shuts down all discourse with a well placed slur. In the ensuing fracas Tim slips out the back door and lives to write another day, leaving a triumphant Kevin to gloat and preen over his skills as an apologist.
What a sick joke.
Just as I opt not to stand in filth and urine in a public latrine, I am taking my marbles and going elsewhere.
Jim, you said,
May I ask when this has ever happened here? You seem to revisit your unsubstantiated allegations on a regular basis. Here is my response to the accusation from last year at CCC:
Can you cite any specific example of any “icky sickos” congratulating each other for insulting you on this blog? I don’t know of any such occasions.
You also wrote,
Backed into a corner? You have “backed me into a corner” by proving that there was a true Christian Church prior to 350 A.D., that there was a bishop in Rome prior to 350 A.D., that there was a church in Rome prior to 350 A.D., and that sometimes people traveled to Rome prior to 350 A.D., and that sometimes the bishop of Rome had opinions and advice for other bishops prior to 350 A.D., and that the bishop of Rome sent a legate to Nicæa in 325 A.D. That’s about it. If there are more “proofs” that Roman Catholicism existed prior to 350 A.D. you have yet to convince me and you have yet to prove it.
Thanks,
Tim
I’m out of Siberia…but not yet home. I guess I will be the first to post as I will be watching for the article while Kevin is still sleeping. Bob, while you are at it, please learn something on this site except how to bash Tim and Kevin. You can bash me as my skin is thick as a former Catholic, but come on brother, learn something while you are here beyond how to cope with addiction. See below…and learn some bible truth. Your note going to find these truths here from Tim or Kevin on this blog, so I will stop by from time to time to testify to true reformed teaching on biblical truths. The early Church Father were only infants to a large extent when compared to the full biblical doctrine that came out of the true reformers.
“It cannot be denied by any student of church history or of the Westminster Standards, that the Puritans taught Exclusive Psalmody. In the following compiled works the student of Reformed Theology will find able directives for Exclusive Psalmody, as well as a number of arguments they might not have thought about before. These works are a treasure trove of bible doctrine and able exegesis (by Thomas Ford, Cuthbert Sydenham, Nathaniel Holmes and John Cotton). The Puritans did not, in their age, teach anything that was not widely accepted. They are formulating no new doctrine. They are simply defending the truth of psalm singing originally commanded in God’s word. This is the first time in the history of the church that these four works are now available to be read (much less read together). May this book be a breath of fresh air for the serious student of God’s worship. Such truths direct those who are hungry for the truth of the word to Jesus Christ, who requires our obedience in the supreme human act of His sacred worship.” (The Puritans On Exclusive Psalmody By Dr. C. Matthew McMahon (Editor and Publisher), by Thomas Ford (Westminster Divine), Cuthbert Sydenham (Presbyterian Divine), Nathaniel Holmes (Reformed Minister) and John Cotton (New England Colonist, Minister and Theologian)
Jim wrote the following:
Walt,
Kevin takes everything as an opportunity to rant, you take everything as an opportunity to slip in the Scottish Divines, WCF, any 17th century Protestant document as if it carries any authority. That is why I think you are nutty.
and:
Walt,
Enough already! Nobody but you cares about the Regulative principles of Calvinist worship.
and:
Walt, you’re on a roll. ( Kevin is as sloppy with his spelling as he is with his thinking, huh?
and:
Bob,
I don’t know if we can continue our discussion on this blog. Kevin and McWalt want to keep interjecting their wild eyed sermons and Tim is egging them on.
and:
Walt,
Go have a dish of haggis. Or maybe some butterscotch pudding.
And put on a damn pair of pants for pete’s sake. You look like a fool sitting there blogging in a kilt with those knobby old knees.
and:
Walt,
I got my tail handed to me in the court of evidence?
What in tarnation are you babbling about now?
Not Tim’s little question about touching the Eucharist to my face, I hope?
————————
For anyone with the ability to discern please get a snapshot of what type of mind makes up the true followers of Rome. Jim really is an ideal example of the “dedicated” Roman Catholic brain that is largely visible in the anti-christ religion.
They hate biblical doctrine, they hate and scorn the reformed, they make fun of anyone who desires to be faithful to Scripture in hopes others will discount the pure and undefiled reformed Christian religion.
Rome has literally brainwashed their followers like Jim. It is becoming evident the more you read Jim’s posts here that he really is suffering badly. Bob is as well by his own admission. Jim and Bob are so deeply misled by Rome and her Satanic practices that it is effecting their entire being and mind.
Please everyone pray for both Jim and Bob that the Lord would remove the scales from their eyes as He did Paul. This is the example we need where Paul began to see the light of how desperate he was in his Romish (e.g., today) Pharisaical anti-biblical religion:
“And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. ***And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.*** And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.” (Acts.9:17-19)
Walt,
Thanks for the post card you sent me from Siberia of you on holiday.
Mind if I share it? Just fast forward to about 58 seconds into the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3DvmX3spz0
( I thought I told you to wear pants, you damn fool! )
Jim,
I loved that video. Thank you. It truly demonstrates the greatness and history of Scotland. The uniqueness of the bag pipe’s to the Scots and the mighty history of her greatness.
Compare this with what you see in Rome. Priests chasing young boys in hopes to find love and affection. A culture of evil and wickedness and debauchery going back almost 3,000 years in history.
The differences between Scotland and Rome are so vast in history it was such a joy to watch that video. Thank you.
Jim posted a few comments that is FINALLY starting to show me that he is seeing the connection between the truth of the reformed Christian religion, and the antichrist of the Romish religion. Notice how he starts to connect for Bob and CK the significance of the TRUE REFORMED religion.
———
Walt,
Are we discussing the Eucharist right now or not? Why are you trying to pirate the discussion over to WCF and the Scottish Coventers?
CK,
…
Anyway, just for a lark, let’s say we buy Tim’s theory about the Romish Church emerging after 350 A.D.
That means that right after the persecutions ended, everyone apostatized en masse. All true Christians were either eaten by the Catholics or went underground until Walt’s John Knox and and the Regulative Principles of Worship came along.
It doesn’t matter when or where one places the date of the Great Apostasy, it all comes out the same. Christ’s Church failed. That means Christ failed.
Bob and CK,
Walt, who is now en route to 8 days of trudging through waist deep snow wearing only his kilts, wanted to divert the topic from the Real Presence over to Calvinist soteriology. While I objected, maybe we should take a peek at this as it stands behind the Calvinist denial of the Real Presence.
————–
CK has never responded to the distinctions on soteriology between Romish (e.g., antichrist tradition based since ~350AD based) and Westminster (e.g., bible based from Apostles to reformers), but at least Jim is seeing the connection in history.
Jim, you wrote (and Walt quoted you),
It seems to me that you are insisting that Christ fails in one way in order to keep Him from failing in another. You are basically saying that there can never be a great apostasy, or else Christ’s promise to preserve His Church is broken. But if there can be no Great Apostasy, His revelation to John and to Paul fails.
Perhaps you may one day find that neither His promise nor His prophecy can fail, for Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35). There must be a great apostasy, and His Church can never be overcome. We are not forced to choose between His promise and His prophecy, but that is precisely what you ask us to do.
Your insistence that Rome is that unfailing church contains within it a latent belief that Paul was wrong to say that the apostasy would come when wolves enter into the church, and “of your own selves shall men arise” to deceive the sheep (Acts 20:29-30). Your conviction that Roman Catholicism cannot fail is in itself a rejection of Paul’s warning that the antichrist would “opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God…. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie” (2 Thessalonians 2:4-11).
In the end, you will find—hopefully not too late—that Roman Catholicism being the antichrist is the only logically consistent Scriptural position.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim said, ” in the end you will find, hopefully not to late- that Roman Catholicism being the Antichrist is the only logically consistent scriptural position” I believe it was Cotton Mather who said any Christian who does not see this is under strong delusion. Spurgeon said no sain man can look and see, if it be not the church of Rome, it can be no other. K
Jim wrote:
“Just as I opt not to stand in filth and urine in a public latrine, I am taking my marbles and going elsewhere.”
Wow, I could not have posted his quotes more timely. It takes anyone to read his quotes and slander, then to see his enormous hypocrisy complaining about others! Incredible.
Jim, while Bob has an addiction to Kevin, you have an addiction to hypocrisy. Let’s see what it means.
noun, plural hypocrisies.
1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.
WALT–
You said: “Bob, while you are at it, please learn something on this site except how to bash Tim and Kevin. You can bash me as my skin is thick as a former Catholic, but come on brother, learn something while you are here beyond how to cope with addiction.”
It is unfortunate that your skin had to be thick to be a Catholic.
I’ve learned a lot on this blog, Walt, I really have. I have learned:
1) that the Reformed are the best at bashing Catholics
2) that Tim draws conclusions from the Fathers writings much differently than most others do and he misrepresents Catholic doctrine
3) that Kevin draws conclusions from the Bible that are contradictory and simply cannot learn or understand Catholic doctrine. If he does, he is really good at hiding it.
4) that the true Reformed usually come across as self-righteous and snooty. I get that from you, Walt. I have known Methodists that are also snooty and self-righteous, but I have never met a Catholic that was. (disclaimer–I’ve never met Jim. But I would imagine he is weary of having rocks thrown at his church. Maybe his skin is not as thick as yours.)
All of these things I have learned from this and other blogs. I have also learned how deeply divided Christians are and we ALL claim to be led by the one and only Holy Spirit that inspired the Bible.
Gen 11:1ff At one time all the people of the world spoke the same language and used the same words. As the people migrated to the east, they found a plain in the land of Babylonia and settled there.
They began saying to each other, “Let’s make bricks and harden them with fire.” (In this region bricks were used instead of stone, and tar was used for mortar.)
Then they said, “Come, let’s build a great city for ourselves with a tower that reaches into the sky. This will make us famous and keep us from being scattered all over the world.”
But the LORD came down to look at the city and the tower the people were building.
“Look!” he said. “The people are united, and they all speak the same language. After this, nothing they set out to do will be impossible for them! Come, let’s go down and confuse the people with different languages. Then they won’t be able to understand each other.”
In that way, the LORD scattered them all over the world, and they stopped building the city. That is why the city was called Babel, because that is where the LORD confused the people with different languages. In this way he scattered them all over the world.
And to this day, we still can’t understand each other, even when we speak the same language.
Bob, you wrote that you have learned
May I ask in what way I have done so? I have disagreed strongly with what Rome claims to believe, but I have represented what they believe accurately.
I find that it is a common criticism to say that because one does not adhere to Roman Catholic doctrine, that therefore one must not understand it. Or similarly, if one disagrees with Roman Catholic doctrine one must therefore be misrepresenting it. Can you cite specific examples of me misrepresenting Catholic doctrine?
Thanks,
Tim
You misrepresent the Eucharist as bread worship. Catholics do not worship bread. They worship Christ. You may have worshipped bread while you were Catholic, but every Catholic I have talked with knows the difference. Your seeing it as bread worship is the most shallow and superficial way of expressing their belief. There are mounds of writings available to prove you otherwise and a lot of them on the internet for all to read.
Bob,
What you have described as a “misrepresentation” is actually a rejection of an accurately stated a Roman Catholic doctrine. Roman Catholics worship the Eucharist. That is a true statement. The Eucharist is bread. That is a true statement. Yes, “There are mounds of writings available to prove” that Roman Catholics worship the Eucharist and that Roman Catholics believe that the bread is transubstantiated into Christ. All of that is Roman Catholic doctrine and at no point have I ever stated that it is Roman Catholic doctrine to worship bread, or that it is not Roman Catholic doctrine to worship transubstantiated bread. Therefore, I have not “misrepresented Catholic doctrine.”
I disagree that the bread changes at the words of invocation. Since I deny that transubstantiation is true, I cannot conclude otherwise than that Roman Catholics worship bread, thinking that they worship Christ. The fact that they think they are worshiping Christ does not change the object of their adoration.
That is hardly a misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine. Their doctrine is that they worship Christ’s body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist. The doctrine of transubstantiation is false. Therefore they worship bread, believing sincerely that they are worshiping Christ. But all their sincerity cannot possibly change the bread into Jesus, or change the object of their adoration.
There is indeed a great deal of evidence of what Roman Catholics believe to be true, of course, but absolutely no evidence that transubstantiation actually happens …. except for the eucharistic miracles where the host pulsates and bleeds and talks. Which is to say that the only evidence for transubstantiation is that the object of their adoration comes to life and can speak, which is what we were warned of in Revelation 13:15—an idol that comes to life and can speak.
To maintain that I have misrepresented Roman Catholic doctrine because I have rejected an accurate statement of Roman Catholic doctrine is a logical inconsistency. You might as well say that God misrepresented the idolater in Isaiah 44, saying that he “fall[s] down to the stock of a tree” (Isaiah 44:19), knowing full well that the man had just said to the tree, “thou art my god” (Isaiah 44:17). Surely, the man’s doctrine was that he was worshiping his “god.” Did God “misrepresent” the idolater by saying he was in fact just worshiping a tree?
Jim will respond (and has responded) by referring to the Last Supper narrative, where Jesus says “This is my body” (Mt 26:26, Mr 14:22, Lu 22:19, 1 Co 11:24). Which is to say that his (and your) only proof that I “misrepresent” Roman Catholic doctrine is an appeal to the doctrine of transubstantation, which is the very thing that cannot be proved—except by showing that Rome’s eucharistic idol actually fulfills the prophecies of the image of the Beast, which is precisely what they worship.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM says: “Which is to say that his (and your) only proof that I “misrepresent” Roman Catholic doctrine is an appeal to the doctrine of transubstantation, which is the very thing that cannot be proved—except by showing that Rome’s eucharistic idol actually fulfills the prophecies of the image of the Beast, which is precisely what they worship.”
You are exactly right. By definition, transubstantiation cannot be proved and neither can it be disproved. It can only be a revealed truth. That is the nature of spiritual things.
So, as a logical conclusion, if the host actually bleeds and speaks, then it would actually be a work of the Holy Spirit if transubstantiation is true, OR just a trick of Satan if transubstantiation is false.
Are you willing to risk your soul by blaspheming the Holy Spirit? I am not.
Bob, there is a term in psychology caled projection, and you have to be king. You project your chamelion like discontentment on everyone on this site. You said the reason you keep coming back is because your addicted to me, a kevinaholic. You say Tims misrepresnts Cathokicism, Walt is self righteous, and nobody understand Roman Catholicism and misrepresents it. Your goal is a unified world where everybody hols hans and sings kumbaya. Here is a memo. We live in a sinful world. Men are sinful and desperately wicked. Haters of God. And anothers memo. God gave us his word to understand the gospel and living Christian life. And a final memo, we are warned of the apostasy and the antichrist and told to keep ourselves away from idols. These are things we must search the scriptures to know. And God is a God of clarity, his word is clear. When we read Jesus wept, we dont need an infallible magisterium to tell us that means Jesus cried. The Bereans understood his word and so do we. Here are the three things that are clear to me from my study of scripture. God’s work in the gospel is apart from all human effort, love, or merit. It is a work of God to the praise of his glory. Men are incapable of cooperating with grace to achieve salvation, they will always fail. Rome is the very antichrist and idolator that scripture warns to recognize and stay away from. And these things I have been consisten on, even thouh you acuse me otherwise. Unfortunately Bob you have chosen to set your affections on Rome, its your security blanket, you think. But the Reformed position has always been there is only one true security blanket, Jesus Christ. Sola Christus versus Christ plus church and its works. Sola fede versus faith plus good works and whatever else the Papacy piles on. Sola scriptura versus stm, Sola grazia versus works to merit grace. Sola gloria God gets the glory versus Mary, special heiarchy of saints. Popes etc. These systems are as different as night and day. Unfortunately you have set your faith and affection on what I believe is the wrong one K
KEVIN–
You said: “Bob, there is a term in psychology caled projection, and you have to be king.”
And Mel Brooks said “It’s good to be d’ King!”
Projection? Oh please, Kevin, what in the world do you think Tim and you are doing here on this blog Not projecting?
NOW THAT’S COMEDY!
Bob,
May I ask in what way I am “projecting”? To “project” (psychologically) is to accuse others of your own faults or inadequacies—like a person who is rude constantly accusing other people of being rude.
In what way am I doing this?
Thanks,
Tim
Bob, maybe you mistaked out of His mouth thinking Tim was refering to the papacy. If someone hasnt told you yet Out of His mouth is designed to uncover RC error. Do you like go to a Yankee game at Yankee stadium and complain that the fans arent rooting for the Red Sox. Cmon Bob. Lol God bless.
TIM says–“In what way am I doing this?”
Telling others they err while spouting error to them.
You can’t possibly know what is in a Catholics heart when they worship. Which makes you in error when you tell them they worship bread.
BOB wrote to Tim:
You can’t possibly know what is in a Catholics heart when they worship.
Response:
Cuts both ways. You don’t know if they worship the true God. They may not be a true Catholic. So when they confess together (We Confess), each “Catholic” may not be telling the truth.
You just lost all foundation to challenge Tim. Your challenge rests on, not just any given heart, but a Catholic heart that YOU identified. You take their open confession for granted without knowing their heart.
Now, if you say that the objective words of confession are a good way to measure internal movements, then we might arrive at something fruitful. Tim seeks to use things “objective” to measure the truth. The Catholic THINKS they are confessing the creedal teachings with right internal movements. Also, they THINK they worship Christ in the Eucharist.
BOB, you are smart enough to know that if the creedal teachings are true, then their confession abides in the truth. Well, what about the objective truth of the Eucharist ? If it’s bread, then they abide in a falsehood. That falsehood, as a THOUGHT, is the first punishment on the Catholic who doesn’t THINK with the Truth.
I got news for you. If you can read their heart, then it would cry, “Leave me alone in my deception.” How do I know this ? Well, I didn’t get it from reading their heart. I just know the following:
Alleged Catholics worship the Eucharist.
The Eucharist is true bread.
Therefore, Alleged Catholics worship bread.
Their open worship, granting them the status of true Catholic, is a open confession with a falsehood. Falsehoods deceive. Their hearts are deceived. Add a pinch of obstinate manners and you get….
“Leave me alone in my deception.”
ERIC W. —
You also THINK that you are right. So what? You may or may not be telling the truth, either. What makes you so special?
Thanks, Bob,
You wrote,
Well, I suppose I could respond by saying that since you cannot possibly know what is in a Catholic’s heart when they worship, then you are in error when you tell them that they don’t worship bread.
But Bob, we are not disagreeing about what is in their hearts. You and I and all Roman Catholics all agree that what is in their hearts is to worship the transubstantiated Christ. And what is in the heart of a fool is that there is no God (Isaiah 53:1). What is in their hearts is hardly the standard by which Eucharistic adoration should be judged, but it is certainly not the point of our disagreement.
What we are talking about is what is in the bread. And since by your own acknowledgment, you cannot possibly know what is in the bread either, you cannot possibly know that the Eucharist is not bread, and therefore you are in no position to criticize me for my expressed belief that it is mere bread that they worship. All I have ever said is that the object of their adoration remains bread, and since by definition, people worship the object of their adoration, what Roman Catholics are worshiping—the object of their adoration—is a host that has not become Jesus. It remains bread. That is my expressed belief.
The irony here is that in your attempt to prove that I have misrepresented Catholic doctrine, you have actually misrepresented my criticism of Catholic doctrine. You wrote,
But I have never actually “expressed their belief” as bread worship. I know very well, and have been only too eager to point out, that they worship the Eucharist, believing it to be Christ. I have never, ever, ever, expressed their belief as bread worship. I have only stated that their practice is bread worship.
Sure “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Isaiah 53:1). But what is in the heart of man is not the standard of truth. The Scripture is, and the Scripture commands that we not bow down before and worship what is made by human hands. The Eucharist is an idol made by human hands. You continued,
That’s an interesting argument, Bob. On that basis, nothing could ever be criticized by anyone—including the contents of this blog—because it “might be the work of the Holy Spirit.” In other words, accepting transubstantiation as true, by your standard, may actually be attributing to the Holy Spirit “signs and lying wonders” of the Devil (2 Thessalonians 2:9). But you are clearly willing “risk your soul” for that. On what basis? Longstanding tradition? Popular consent?
Surely you can come up with a better standard of judgment than that.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM says: “But I have never actually “expressed their belief” as bread worship. I know very well, and have been only too eager to point out, that they worship the Eucharist, believing it to be Christ. I have never, ever, ever, expressed their belief as bread worship. I have only stated that their practice is bread worship.”
Now your splitting hairs. Belief vs practice. Catholics will tell you they believe by definition the Eucharist is Christ under the appearance of bread. So they practice (worship) the Eucharist being Christ.
Catholics worship the Eucharist.
The Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.
Ergo, Catholics worship Christ.
Tim, do you practice what you believe?
So now it comes down to who anyone believes. Does Tim Kauffman have a stronger case than the Catholic Church?
Only in the minds of those who believe you.
Does the Catholic Church have a stronger case than you?
Only in the minds that believe the Catholic Church.
Bob,
Before you wander off onto another unsubstantiated accusation, why not just provide evidence that I have said that Roman Catholics believe they are worshiping bread. Your accusation was that I misrepresent Catholic doctrine, and your proof was that “bread worship is the most shallow and superficial way of expressing their belief.” Where have I ever expressed that their belief is that they are worshiping bread?
You say I’m splitting hairs, but I stand accused, and you are the accuser. Now prove your accusation. In what way have I misrepresented Roman Catholic doctrine. Surely you must have more substantial evidence of this, beside that I think that a Roman Catholic doctrine is in fact an erroneous doctrine.
If by “misrepresent” you mean “disagreed with,” well then I suppose you could make the case. But among all participants at this site, you have delighted more than any other in providing definitions of words to us. Perhaps now would be a good time to define your terms rather than making baseless accusations and then saying the accused is just splitting hairs when he defends himself.
Yes, Roman Catholics worship the Eucharist. They think it becomes Christ. I believe the Eucharist remains bread. Therefore I believe they worship bread, which is idolatry. There is no misrepresentation of Roman Catholic doctrine in that. Are you resting your entire case of “misrepresentation” on the bare and obvious fact that I disagree with Rome?
It’s not as if I have attempted to conceal that fact.
Thanks,
Tim
Surely you can come up with a better standard of judgment than that.
TIM says:
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them:” (Exodus 20:4-5)
And you should know that God says have no OTHERgods before Him. What He is referring to is that the graven images men make and bow down to are other than Him–Baal, Zeus, Ishtar, Diana, Osiris–those whom a man believes to be god other than Jehovah the Creator.
Christ is God. Catholics worship Christ as God. The Eucharist is Christ as God. Thus adoration is the logical conclusion.
I’m moving on to the Fifth Element now to see what damage I can do.
TIM–
Ran across this today from the Early Fathers. It is evidence of belief in the Real Presence plain and simple. It it can even be construed as evidence of transubstantiation.
THEODORET SECOND DIALOG WITH ERANISTES
Eran.— One ought to stir every stone, as the proverb says, to get at the truth; above all when it is a question of divine doctrines.
Orth.— Tell me now; the mystic symbols which are offered to God by them who perform priestly rites, of what are they symbols?
Eran.— Of the body and blood of the Lord.
Orth.— Of the real body or not?
Eran.— The real.
Orth.— Good. For there must be the archetype of the image. So painters imitate nature and paint the images of visible objects.
Eran.— True.
Orth.— If, then, the divine mysteries are antitypes of the real body, therefore even now the body of the Lord is a body, not changed into nature of Godhead, but filled with divine glory.
Eran.— You have opportunely introduced the subject of the divine mysteries for from it I shall be able to show you the change of the Lord’s body into another nature. Answer now to my questions.
Orth.— I will answer.
Eran.— What do you call the gift which is offered before the priestly invocation?
Orth.— It were wrong to say openly; perhaps some uninitiated are present.
Eran.— Let your answer be put enigmatically.
Orth.— Food of grain of such a sort.
Eran.— And how name we the other symbol?
Orth.— This name too is common, signifying species of drink.
Eran.— And after the consecration how do you name these?
Orth.— Christ’s body and Christ’s blood.
Eran.— And do you believe that you partake of Christ’s body and blood?
Orth.— I do.
Eran.— As, then, the symbols of the Lord’s body and blood are one thing before the priestly invocation, and after the invocation are changed and become another thing; so the Lord’s body after the assumption is changed into the divine substance.
Orth.— You are caught in the net you have woven yourself. For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. But they are regarded as what they have become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be. Compare then the image with the archetype, and you will see the likeness, for the type must be like the reality. For that body preserves its former form, figure, and limitation and in a word the substance of the body; but after the resurrection it has become immortal and superior to corruption; it has become worthy of a seat on the right hand; it is adored by every creature as being called the natural body of the Lord.
Eran.— Yes; and the mystic symbol changes its former appellation; it is no longer called by the name it went by before, but is styled body. So must the reality be called God, and not body.
Orth.— You seem to me to be ignorant— for He is called not only body but even bread of life. So the Lord Himself used this name and that very body we call divine body, and giver of life, and of the Master and of the Lord, teaching that it is not common to every man but belongs to our Lord Jesus Christ Who is God and Man. For Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Thank you, Bob. This is certainly an interesting citation, and I appreciate you providing it here. You observed,
That is a matter of some debate, especially since Theodoret said, as you have cited him, “even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form.” The reason this is so significant to the discussion is that earlier in Dialogue 1, he explicitly denies that the divinity of Christ is present in the elements:
It’s no simple thing to sort out Theodoret’s meaning—Lutherans and Catholics have been known to object to him—but I do want to look closer at this. It seems to me that if Theodoret does not see the bread and wine to be symbols of the soul and divinity of Christ, then he can hardly support transubstantiation, since transubstantiation refers to the elements becoming the Body, Blood and Soul and Divinity of Christ.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: ” It seems to me that if Theodoret does not see the bread and wine to be symbols of the soul and divinity of Christ, then he can hardly support transubstantiation, since transubstantiation refers to the elements becoming the Body, Blood and Soul and Divinity of Christ.”
Theodoret is building up to establishing the proof of the hypostatic union piece by piece and thought by thought.
Jesus divinity is impassable, but His Body was not. Jesus divinity did not die on the cross, His Body did.
However, after the Resurrection, Jesus Body and Blood and Soul and Divinity were concomitant–never to be separated ever again. Jesus’ Flesh doesn’t exist separate from His Spirit; thus, His substance is complete with all four components–100% man and 100% God.
Looks to me like it takes 3 dialogues for Theodoret to state his case, but taken in their entirety, one could make the case for transubstantiation providing the hypostatic union is true.