Follow
[NOTE: for those wishing to subscribe, the subscription function at the lower right of your browser has been fixed and is now active]
Last week, we discussed the propensity of Roman Catholics to rely on visions of Mary “to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation” despite the clear instructions of the Catechism of the Catholic Church not to do so (paragraph 67). Taylor Marshall relied on several visions of Mary to bolster his argument that Jesus was born on December 25th, and Fr. Livius relied on a private revelation to help him determine the meaning of the writings of several Church Fathers. But as apologist Fr. William Most has said, “In public revelation, the Church has the promise of divine protection in teaching,” while on the content of private revelation, including apparitions, “the Church does not have such a commission.” Thus it is true that while Roman apologists cite apparitions of Mary to bolster their arguments, it is also true that Roman Catholics “can refuse assent to such revelations … provided this is done … for good reasons.” It is not uncommon (in our experience) for a Roman Catholic on the one hand to cite the many examples of apparitions as evidence that Roman Catholicism is the true church, and then, on the other hand—when the actual content of the visions is brought forward—to dismiss those same apparitions “because we are not required to believe them anyway.”
But the freedom to reject the teachings of the apparitions as “private revelation” is not so simple as that. Rome does, after all, allow “an absolute and infallible certainty” of knowledge received by private revelation on the matter of one’s final perseverance (Council of Trent, Session VI, Canons on Justification, Canon XVI). Further, Fr. Charles Balic, who presided over multiple International Marian Mariology Congresses, believed that “the official approbations of [the apparitions of Mary at] Lourdes [1858] and Fatima [1917] by the Pope surpass that of a simple permission… For what concerns the fact of Lourdes, its supernatural character is not one of a tenuous probability, but of moral certitude” (emphasis added).
For this reason, Roman apologist and priest, Fr. William Most, finds the “private/public” distinction to be rather archaic and unhelpful, precisely because on the surface it diminishes the value of the teachings of the vision of Mary at Fatima, relegating them to the status of private revelation only. Fr. Most believed that the Fatima vision was part of public revelation. Therefore, regarding the term “private revelation,” he writes, “The term is not too good, for we use that term even for Fatima [1917], which is addressed to the whole world.” Thus it is clear that within Rome, it is possible for private revelation to enjoy the same infallible certitude that Rome attributes to its public teaching, and multiple Roman apologists believe that the Marian apparitions are either exceptional cases of private revelation, or that they are simply public revelation. Their messages therefore may enjoy “the promise of divine protection in teaching,” after all.
If that is not the case, we might ask why Pope John XXIII insisted that it was not only his right, but also the duty of all popes, to commend the apparitions of Mary to the flock: “The Roman pontiffs, guardians and interpreters of divine Revelation … have a duty also to recommend to the attention of the faithful” these visions of Mary (Fr. Bertrand Buby, Marian Apparitions: Facts and Theological Meaning). If it is true that Roman Catholics can refuse assent to approved apparitions of Mary, it creates a rather awkward tension in which the Pope has a duty to commend the visions to the faithful, but the faithful are free to reject his commendations as long as they do so “for good reasons.” That would fly in the face of what the esteemed Mariologists, Frs. Most and Balic, have understood about the apparitions of Mary at Lourdes and Fatima, for there can be no “good reasons” for rejecting these apparitions of Mary.
But what of the apparitions of Mary at Rue de Bac, Paris (1830)? Are Roman Catholics free to reject those visions? The fact is that Roman Catholics are required to believe the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which was defined “infallibly” in 1854, and that doctrine was promulgated with the help of those visions. In 1830, a vision of Mary appeared to Catherine Labouré in Paris France, and provided the design of a medal to be struck, now known as the Miraculous Medal. On the circumference of the medal are the words of the prayer, “O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.” The wearing of the medal was to be accompanied by great graces:
All those who carry this will receive Grace in abundance, especially if they wear the medal around their neck and say this prayer confidently, they will receive special protection from the Mother of God and abundant graces.
Thus was the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception—until then merely a pious tradition—taught to the Roman Catholic faithful as a matter of fact by an apparition of Mary. The Miraculous Medal itself was an overnight sensation, according to the Miraculous Medal Association:
With approval of the Church, the first Medals were made in 1832 and were distributed in Paris. Almost immediately the blessings that Mary had promised began to shower down on those who wore her Medal. The devotion spread like wildfire.
Twenty-two years later, Pope Pius IX proclaimed that the Immaculate Conception of Mary in the womb of St. Anne was a doctrine infallibly defined by the Roman Catholic Church and was to be believed by all. Four years after that, the apparition of Mary at Lourdes (1858) seemed to confirm the proclamation when it introduced itself to visionary Bernadette Soubirous by saying, “I am the Immaculate Conception.” Indeed, Pope Pius IX’s proclamation of the doctrine did not happen in a vacuum. Rather it took place in the midst of a popular movement that had been instigated by the vision of Mary itself:
Pius himself recognized that the impetus of devotion to the Immaculate Conception that led to this definition had come from France. Indeed, it is certain that the Apparitions of the Miraculous Medal to Catherine Laboure in 1830 hastened the solemn declaration of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in 1854, just as the Apparitions of Lourdes, wherein Our Lady declared: “I am the Immaculate Conception,” set the seal of Heaven’s approval on it. (Fr. Joseph Dirvin, Saint Catherine Laboure of the Miraculous Medal, emphasis added)
Thus, this matter of relegating apparitions to the realm of “private revelation” that “we don’t have to believe anyway” is not very simple at all. In fact, Fr. Bertrand Buby of the International Marian Research Institute, flatly acknowledges the roles of the various apparitions in the development of Marian Dogmas, and insists that approved apparitions simply defy current categories of revelation: “[A]ccording to the common doctrine there is no longer place for a truly new Revelation,” wrote Buby. However “a more ample exposition would have to investigate the role which apparitions can play in dogmatic development. The Rue du Bac [Paris apparition in 1830] stimulated the definition of the Immaculate Conception, while [the] Lourdes [apparition in 1858] seemed to confirm it” (emphasis added). This unique manifestation of private revelation, Buby said, probably requires a new vocabulary:
Classical theology currently distinguishes between objective, public Revelation (that of the Bible and of Foundational Tradition) and private revelations. This distinction, however, is overruled by the facts, since the so-called private apparitions often have a public character of a message ‘to be communicated,’ and which is in fact communicated (emphasis added).
Indeed, the “facts” are that the apparitions of Mary have not only assisted with the dogmatic development, but they also have introduced multiple forms of devotion to the Roman Catholic Church, including the Rosary, the Brown Scapular, the Miraculous Medal, and most recently, the Divine Indwelling medallion by the apparition calling itself “Our Lady of America” in Rome City, Indiana.
But the influence of Marian apparitions on the teaching of the Roman Church is not limited to Marian dogmas and devotions. It includes that of Papal Infallibility as well. It was not until Vatican Council I in 1870—twelve years after the Lourdes apparitions—that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility would be formally defined. But Pope Pius IX had had Papal Infallibility on his mind at least since 1846. It was during that year that the apparition of Mary in LaSalette, France, appeared to visionaries Maximin Giraud and Melanie Mathieu and directed them to forward a secret to the pope. Very little is known of that secret, save that it contained two very important words. The children, though sworn to secrecy by the apparition, knew neither the spelling nor the meaning of “infallibly” and “pontiff,” and therefore had to ask about them out loud before they could be written down (Sandra Zimdars-Swartz, Encountering Mary, (New York: Princeton University Press, ©1991) pg. 177-79). The rest of the text is unknown except to the very few who have actually seen it, but when the message was forwarded to Pius IX, the hint was clear enough and the doctrine was on its way to a formal proclamation by the Magisterium of the Church.
Twenty-four years later, just months before the first Vatican Council would define the doctrine, Pope Pius IX received visionary Don Bosco in a private audience. Bosco had received from “Mary” certain revelations about the advancement of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility and he needed to relate the contents of the vision to Pope Pius. The vision directed Pius IX to proceed with the definition of the doctrine at the Council with only two bishops supporting him. Regardless of the circumstances, the pope was to count on Mary’s protection and guidance. The vision was related to Bosco in mystical allegories, but he was able to interpret the meaning, and in light of Pius IX’s earlier secret from the apparition at LaSalette, the message was quite clear (Bosco’s annotations of the message are shown in parentheses):
Now the voice of Heaven is addressed to the Shepherd of Shepherds. (To Pius IX.) You are in solemn conference with your co-workers (the Vatican Council), but the enemy of good never stands idle… Hurry! If knots cannot be untied, sever them. Do not halt in the face of difficulties, but go forth until the hydra of error has been beheaded (through the proclamation of the dogma of papal infallibility)… Gather around you only two co-workers, yet wherever you go, carry on the task entrusted to you and bring it to completion (the Vatican Council). …the great Queen shall always assist you, and, as in the past, She shall always be the powerful, prodigious defense of the Church. (Dreams, Visions & Prophecies of Don Bosco, Brown, Eugene M., editor, (New Rochelle, NY: Don Bosco Publications, ©1986) pg. 114)
Thus did the visions of Mary also assist with the advancement of Papal Infallibility as a formal doctrine of the Church at Vatican Council I.
The visions of Mary, clearly, have been quite comfortable communicating with the popes, and popes have been comfortable receiving their teachings. Even John Paul II received both public and private messages from the apparition of Mary at Medjugorje in the 1980s—if the testimonies of the visionaries and pilgrims can be believed. One public message was for his instruction (i.e., “You must inform … the Pope with respect to the urgent and great importance of the message for all mankind” (Message of November 30, 1983)). A confidential message was sent to him from “Mary,” as well. A pilgrim to Medjugorje recorded a “question and answer session” with one of the visionaries in her diary:
My questions to Maria were: ‘Has Our Lady given a message to Our Holy Father?’ ‘Yes,’ she replied. ‘Well, what was it?’ I asked. ‘It is for him,’ she answered smilingly. ‘Oh,’ and the whole crowd laughed. ‘It was a personal message for him,’ she explained ((Graham, Anna, Diary of a Pilgrim to Medjugorje, December 4, 1988,) pg. 8).
The popes take these messages from apparitions quite seriously, as evidenced by the response of a series of popes to the request of the Fatima apparition that Russia be consecrated “to her immaculate heart.” From 1917 to 1984, Fatima visionary Lucia dos Santos appealed to Popes Pius XI, Pius XII, Paul VI and John Paul II to consecrate Russia to Mary’s “immaculate heart,” based on the request of yet another apparition of Mary to Lucia at Tui, Pontevedra, Spain in 1929. Just last October, on the 96th anniversary of the Fatima apparitions, Pope Francis I “consecrate[d] the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary” yet again.
We, of course, are not persuaded that these visions of “Mary” are Mary at all. We are convinced, to the contrary, that these visions of Mary are demonic. They are masquerading as Mary in order to communicate with the Roman Catholic Church, to inform her councils, instruct her popes, and guide the Roman Catholic Church into the Marian age through the proclamation of Marian Dogmas. But these are merely doctrines of demons.
Christians need not harken to the apparitions, nor bend to the apologists who insist that the visions of Mary are merely upholding the Mary of the Bible, nor succumb to the arguments of the church that heeds their every command, and shapes its doctrines under the their guidance. The apparitions of Mary are merely Satan’s ministers masquerading as angels of light (2 Corinthians 11:14).
One little word shall fell them.
Tim,
I don’t have much to say on you new post. I will say a word or two on,
” Thus it is true that while Roman apologists cite apparitions of Mary to bolster their arguments, it is also true that Roman Catholics “
I have never heard any of the top gun “Roman” apologists refer to a private revelation of Mary in an argument.
As for Livius, I clicked around on line and found just a bit on a PDF file. Readers should read it. Thanks for all your work on this great book to light.
We really should chat a bit on Fatima. While it isn’t new revelation, it is prophecy. I will write something for our lurker and blogger friends on it after lunch.
Jim,
You observed, “I have never heard any of the top gun ‘Roman’ apologists refer to a private revelation of Mary in an argument.”
Here is Pope Pius X’s encyclical Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum, on the Immaculate Conception:
This was an encyclical from the Pope on the Immaculate Conception. What was his purpose of citing Lourdes? He tells us himself:
As regards Fatima, I assure you, you will find no one more persuaded than I that the apparitions and manifestations were real. I really do believe what was reported about the “miracle” of the sun. You need not remind me or convince me that the rain on the ground and on the clothes dried up that day.
Thank you,
Tim
Jim, The Apparitions are in direct assault of Jude telling us that the faith has been delivered once and for all, and revelation putting plagues on you for added revelation. Rome is under the plagues of revelation.
Not new revelation Kev! ( Prophecy is not revelation )
Okay,
I would just like to call the readers’ attention to the picture on Tim’s new thread. It is JPII and Our Lady of Czestochowa, the patroness of Poland.
The Pope had a great devotion to Mary as we all know and dedicated his pontificate under the title of Totus Tuus or “All Yours” to her protection.
It is quite likely that this icon of Mary was painted by St. Luke the physician. Take it or leave it as you please.
Do notice the two “scars” on Mary’s cheek. These wounds to our Mother’s beautiful face were inflicted by a Swedish Lutheran mercenary. After slashing her face, he was struck dead.
Rather than write up the entire story of Fatima here, I will just refer the readers to any of the websites on it.
I would just say that even if the miracle of the sun can be explained away by natural causes, it doesn’t disprove the apparition and message.
Think of this; Our Lord Jesus told Peter to go and catch a fish with a coin inside its belly worth the price of Jesus and Peter’s admission into the temple. ( The only time Jesus said “us” was when He spoke of Himself and His vicar.)
Anyway, fish having shiny objects in them is nothing unusual. Ask any fisherman. No miracle here folks.
Or isn’t there? Of course there is. The fact that Jesus knew when and where Peter was to catch the fish is the miracle.
In 1917 crowd of 70,000 people saw an extraordinary sign in the sky similar to the miracle of Joshua making the sun stand still. A natural explanation is possible. I concede that.
But prophecy is from God. In the story of Fatima, three shepherd children were told months in advance the very day that this event was to take place. That is a miracle.
God performs miracles to testify to truthfulness of the person making a particular claim. The message of Fatima was and has been proven true.
Of course, Tim has written that the power behind Catholic miracles comes from the dark side. But a house divided cannot stand. The devil is too smart to do something to promote belief in God and conversion of heart. Fatima was and is all about the conversion of Russia from atheistic Communism and the myriad of lies spread by that demonic regime. Communism is not just a faulty economic system. It is an entire worldview that says the is no God, no next life and that man is just an highly evolved piece of meat.
The first laws passed when the reds seized power after murdering the Czar’s family were to legalize abortion and destroy marriage and the family.
The great Fatima Pope wrote much on God’s concept of marriage and the life issues. He was a great threat to Russia and they tried to have him murdered. Mary saved him from the assassin’s bullet taking effect. That very bullet is in the crown worn by the statue of Mary in Fatima today ( By the way, since the middle ages, Portuguese kings and queens have not worn crowns. Only images of Jesus and Mary are seen with crowns in this country dedicated to the Immaculate Heart. Drop that little bit of trivia at your next cocktail party!)
Space does not permit me to say more but I would encourage readers to google it.
A twisted religion. I told my wife last night only a false religion like Roman Catholicism can render our savior as”touchdown Jesus” in their university football stadium, and then turn around and build a mystical theology to the pagan queen of heaven in the name of Mary the mother of Jesus. Paul warned a gainst false doctrines and John gives us the test of the Spirits in 1 John. And rome fails the test. Bread and Mary in the place of our Savior. Their just end will be hell and outer darkness. Forgive them Lord they know not what they do. Tim, remember my application on Rome. Satan makes good loo evil and evil look good. Jesus is relegated to the eternal victim, strapped to the altar and kept on the cross.. weak. Mary exalted high above on the throne as queen. Sick religion.
Lurkers, After reading these ravings, is it any wonder Kevin has been given the bum’s rush from at least one other blog in the last couple of days?
Tim,
A pope that has been dead for a hundred years is not what I would call a major” Roman apologist” of today. You must know I was referring to the ilk of the Catholic Answers Live staff and guests.
Anyway, Tim, I am sad to see that you posted a new thread today. Perhaps it was just a clever way to side step the questions I had been putting to you and your Protestant blogger Walt on the previous thread. I would encourage everyone to go to thread #1 of this series for a complete routing of Tim’s assertion that Pope’s cannot speak on Marian apparitions without submitting to a panel of Bible Brean types.
Tim, you have painted yourself into a corner. As you asserted on the other thread, the Bible is to be the sole rule of faith when it comes to evaluating apparition approved by Papal statements.
Could you please show me where I am to find that in the Bible itself? Was it at the Jerusalem Council that Peter and the other Bishops had to submit to the scrutiny of some self styled Bereans in order to abrogated the law of circumcision?
Should you be able to show me, my next question is, so what? Why should I believe one word of the Bible?* Because the Bible tells me to?
How can you, Tim, have absolute assurance that the book you call the Bible has been faithfully transmitted down through the centuries and is not as much of a demonic farce as you allege the apparitions to be? Let us not forget that the transmission of the Bible was in the hands of Catholic ( Romish?) monks for centuries. They might have tinkered with certain passages,right?
If Peter ( a.k.a. the Pope ) is the visible head of Christ’s Body on earth, commissioned to feed and shepherd the lambs and sheep, given the keys of binding and loosing doctrine, the infallible final court of appeal to an infallible Church, why can he not speak on these apparitions with authority?
Kevin says that St. Jude said that all of the faith had already been revealed by the time of the writing of that epistle. Wouldn’t that then rule out the book of Revelation?
Who says the Bible has been completed? Where does the Bible say that? Who says new revelations have ceased? Is is possible archaeologists might uncover lost books of the New Testament like the lost Epistle to Laodicea? Maybe Mary is bringing new revelations. Prove from the Bible other wise.
Tim, you are out on a limb. I am going to enjoying sawing it off very slowly as you try to answer my questions. Please don’t slip before I do. ( Maybe Kevin can catch you in a net? )
* Of course I, as a Catholic, believe the Bible. I also believe all public revelation ended with John the Apostle’s death. I am being rhetorical with Tim in order to show him the fallacy of his position.
Thank you, Jim.
You did not say, “I have never heard any of the top gun ‘Roman’ apologists of today or who are featured on Catholic Answers Live refer to a private revelation of Mary in an argument.” You said, “I have never heard any of the top gun ‘Roman apologists refer to a private revelation of Mary in an argument.” I simply answered your universal negative with a single instance of a Roman Apologist who happened to be the pope when he said it.
You continued…
You are free to impute to me whatever motives you wish.
Sola Scriptura is axiomatic. If I could prove it, it would not be an axiom. I do not claim that my position that “The Bible alone is the Word of God” is anything other than an axiom.
I agree that even if I could prove it, your next question would be “So what?” That is because you have an axiom of your own, but I do not think you realize what it is.
Because it is the Word of God.
I have assurance because the Bible is the Word of God (axiom) and the God in the Scriptures preserves His Word for ever (deduction). “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever” (Isaiah 40:8). There is a reason “Sola Scriptura” is the first Sola. It is Axiomatic. All the other “solas” are deduced from the axiom.
Well, I don’t believe the Vulgate translation was without error, if that’s what you mean.
You are asking me to prove my axiom. If I could prove an axiom, it would not be an axiom.
Have you compiled a list of infallible papal statements yet? I am eager to see them, Jim.
You are always welcome here, Jim. Thanks for your note.
Tim
Jim, its his blog. You’re sorry that he made another post here? So what, who asked for your opinion. You and Debbie have disparaged him enough on Jason’s blog. You both should be ashamed of yourselves. You have lied about Tim. He treats you with love and kindness. And the both of you attack his motives because he is going to the heart of your idolatry. Your an attack dog like Debbie. Anybody attacks a man for giving his view is crazy. But you can’t silence the truth. And this man is one of the few Protestants leaders who are willing to fight the false gospel of Rome. I got kicked off of Jason’s site and wear it as a badge of honor. They are about to kick Eric W off too, if they haven’t done it.” With their lips they praise me, but their heart is far form me” You and Debbie are more interested in the mysticism of Mary and the deadly wafer than knowing Christ thru faith alone.
Kevin, I don’t want to leave you out of the fun so I will post some similar questions to you as Tim.
In Acts, we see Peter have a private revelation. He saw a net full of animals forbidden to the Jews to eat that said for him to eat them. This was an obvious violation of what the Bible had been teaching on kosher laws. He didn’t submit
his vision for evaluation by Bible scholars or a panel of rabbis. Instead, he opened the Church to Cornelius and the gentiles ( without Paul’s help by the way ).
Paul also had a vision on the road to Damascus. Later, in Galatians, we see Paul consult Cephas as if the Pope were an oracle ( the word is “istorei” )for confirmation. Later, In a Papal encyclical,Peter gives his imprimatur to Paul’s letters as being scripture.
So, we see in scripture that Peter submits to no human tribunal when expounding doctrine, even if it seems to counter scripture at first look ( the law of circumcision was binding for all time yet Peter presided at the council that abrogated it )
Why do popes have to submit to Tim’s reading of the Bible when it comes to Marian apparitions? Popes have had visions. Tim mentions one who consulted St. John Bosco. Who is Tim that Popes must answer to him? Is he not like Dathan and Kora?
Jim, I corinthians specifically tells us that certain gifts and gifts of prophecy will be done away with. 1 Corinthians 13: 8 ” but if there are gifts of prophecy , they will be done away with, if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge , it will be done way with” Towards the end of acts we see the doing away with theses gifts. So if you claim prophecy and tongues then verify it. I believe as Tim does that Popes are the sons of perdition spoken of in Thessalonians who have put themselves up as God in the church. Therefore what they say is of Satan and not of God. Mormons claim added revelation, can they verify it. Some Pope who had a thing for Mary, who couldn’t find any biblical support nor support in the magisterium for the assumption, just proclaimed it such. Are we not supposed to think this is from satan to further the idolatry that has kept men from saving faith in Christ. Because you cannot dullia Mary and be saved.
Kevin,
You want me to be moved by, ” Jim, I corinthians specifically tells us that certain gifts and gifts of prophecy will be done away with. ”
How do I know this is true? Maybe the Bible is wrong. Maybe this passage was inserted in the text in the dark ages by romish monks high on eating death wafers.
St. Paul wrote Corinthians. His books are considered scriptural only because Peter said so right? What difference does it make if some Pope said Paul wrote truthfully? Those same Popes endorse Mary worship and eating the death wafer.
Thessalonians? You quote another letter of Paul’s. Why? Those Peter endorsed books speak of extra Biblical Tradition. Can we trust them?
Kevin, you and Timothy need to prove why the Bible is authoritative before using it in an argument with a death wafer eater like myself. ( Or like Tim’s mom who also, according to you, is going to be in hell with me for replacing the savior with the death wafer).
Mormons? Can I trust them? They, like Protestants, say that Christ was unable to keep His Church from falling away into apostasy.
Besides, why do you dislike Mormons? Joe Smith was just as inspired as Luther and Calvin as far as I am concerned. Maybe he was more inspired than Luther as Luther ate the death wafer.
As for “dullia”, you misspelled it. Only on e L.
Jim, how do you know 1 Corinthians is true. Your willing to believe a forged list of Popes that has been revised more time than Obama’s state of the union, but you question the words of Paul. Need I say any more. How about because the scripture says its God breathed.
Kevin,
The list of Popes from the time of the Fathers goes Linus, Cletus, Clement …
Pull the rug out from Pope #3 and you lose a big proof for the early dating of the Gospels as he quotes from them in his letter which was written while John the Divine was still alive. What is interesting is that although John was alive and well in the eastern Church, it was the Bishop of Rome who settled the dispute there.
As for Obama, remember, it is my Church, the one established by Christ, not yours, that is being persecuted by this tyrant.
Now, you say the Bible is true because the Bible says so.
I say the Catholic Church is true because the Catholic Church says so. And the Pope is infallible because the Pope says so.
Is that it?
Aren’t you going to quote all of 2nd Tim 3;16 so I can pick it apart? Shucks.
Kevin, if Bible Only is true, you should be able to bury me in scriptural references. But as it isn’t , you can’t.
You cannot undermine the authority of the Catholic Church without undermining the Bible. It is our book. We added 27 books to the Bible.
Kevin, you say all of scripture is God breathed. When St. Paul wrote that, there were no books of the New Testament. The Bible that Timothy had known from boyhood was the Old Testament.
Just for the fun of it, I will say you are right. The Bible is God breathed and sufficient ( it doesn’t say this but I am having fun ) for doctrine, teaching reproof, etc.
Material sufficiency is not sufficient Kevin. If it were, you and Tim wouldn’t be in different denominations.
Not only can’t you argue from the Bible Kevin, without the Church of Rome, you cannot even tell me which books make up the Bible. ( Remember R.C. Sproul’s fallible list of infallible books I told you about? )
Tim know this. That is why he is laying low, and trying to side step my questions to him. He is letting you take his spanking.
And you are rash enough to come charging in only to impale yourself upon my pikes.
Son, your whole foundation is built on sand. Mine is built on the Rock.
Jim,
As to your comment, “Tim knows this. That is why he is laying low, and trying to side step my questions to him,” you are free to impute to me whatever motives you wish.
Regarding “Pope” Clement, I understand that you can read his letter in such a way as to infer that Clement is acting as an arbiter of a doctrinal dispute in his role as the chief shepherd. But Papacy is in the eyes of the beholder. I’m sure you’ll agree that Protestants might read the same letter and conclude that because Clement taught justification by faith alone, that he must not have been a “pope” the way Roman Catholics define it:
It is notable here that he had just described Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac in the previous chapter—this was the opportunity to appeal to James to show that Abraham was justified by his works.
But more to a point of recent notoriety on this blog, Clement at the same time teaches that we are justified by our works, for he writes,
But wait. Did not Jason Stellman recently conclude that we are justified by our words, per Matthew 12:37? And here is the first Pope saying we are not justified by our words. What to do? Does “Pope” Clement disprove Protestants by saying we are justified by our works? Or does “Pope” Clement disprove Roman Catholics by saying that we are not justified by our words?
The answer is quite simple. “Pope” Clement is using “justification” in Chapter 30 the way I described it in my post, Justification by Works, for he goes on to say that he is talking about consistency between words and deeds—as James does—and proving before men that our faith is real. He insists, that, instead of talking about them, “Let testimony to our good deeds be borne by others.” He wrote:
As I read Clement, I can certainly see how Rome can make an argument for the early Papacy (I do not believe the argument is sound), but I read Clement and I see him making the same arguments I do for justification by works (consistency between our words and our profession) and justification by faith alone apart from the works of the Law (imputed external righteousness).
But it does take a careful reading, I don’t deny it. Certainly we wouldn’t say Clement was refuting Jesus in Matthew 12:37? Of course not.
I just don’t think the context is that of an infallible Pope speaking ex cathedra to the Universal Church.
Well, thanks, as always, for your contributions.
Tim
Tim,
Semper Fi Bro! You must have been a Marine.
I see you learned well what was beaten into us at the bayonet
training field, ” The Best Defense Is A Strong Offense”. Don’t answer my questions but just aggressively keep slashing, stabbing and smashing!
Tim, don’t kick sand in the eyes of the readers with Jason Stellman, justification, Clement, or how bad the coffee is at the mess hall.
Kevin, must have been a jar head too as he tried parrying the same question by feinting with his Romans 9 (?) thrust on sanctification. Pathetic! The gunny is going to kick his @$$ for such a girlish performance.
What you two “maggots” ( oh, the memories!) have to do is show this Marine why you are calling Papal statements on Marian apparitions to stand tall before the Bible before having established the Bible’s authority.
You guys are acting like drunken sailors in a bar fight, flailing out Bible verses and irrelevant facts of history.
Stay on target. Give an accounting for your appealing to the Catholic Church’s book while discrediting the Church’s authority.
Would you have saluted some guy in civilian clothes who merely said he was a officer? Wouldn’t you have demanded that he prove his rank first?
Okay, Tim, this has been fun. But we both know I gotcha’.
Just yell, “Aye Aye sir” and admit it.
Tim and Kevin,
Just to be clear, this particular article, of which this one is the second installment claims that private revelations can be accepted or dismissed by the faithful willy-nilly yet various popes have referenced them in defining dogmas binding on those same faithful.
In the first installment, Tim attempted to show from scripture that these apparitions are from the devil.
Tim lists Liviius and Church Fathers, Taylor Marshall, Fr. Most, and even Mel Gibson to show how deeply he has studied the issue.
The Rue de Bac, Lourdes, and Fatima are among those apparitions. For good measure, Tim sprinkles in an apparition in Rome, Indiana that even I had never heard of and just to clinch things, an unapproved apparition in Yugoslavia that has pretty much been discredited.
In his rebuttals to my postings, Tim has accused the Church of circular reasoning and has tried to show the whole business to be contrary to the Bible. ( Okay, so far Tim?)
Kevin has taken up Tim’s cause and has repeatedly tried to run interference for Tim by his “death wafer” comments.
I am staying in hot pursuit of Tim and demanding that he demonstrate from scripture ( as it is his supposed authority ) his case.
I am asserting that it is Tim and not Rome who is guilty of circular reasoning. ( Kevin actually proved his circular reasoning by saying yesterday that the Bible is true because the Bible says so ).
I have asked where in scripture is Peter ever dragged before a tribunal or asked to supply from scripture his justification for defining dogma not on someone else’s vision but his own. ( I submitted the case of the great net of unclean animals ).
I have demanded to know how we can say with certainty that Marian apparitions are actually from Satan. ( Tim has countered in his circular fashion by stating that they violate scripture. To date, Tim has not sallied forth to show why scripture is binding in this area. Or any area, for that matter).
I will say more later but I just don’t want this thread to get too far off target as Tim and Kevin have pretty much been routed although they haven’t conceded the point.
Jim,
A couple comments in response. You wrote that “Tim sprinkles in an apparition in Rome, Indiana that even I had never heard of.” Well, you may recall a recent participant by the name of Debbie, who helpfully introduced our readers to this apparition in response to Part 1 by saying, “Much to your dismay, this apparition in Rome, Indiana is coming your way.” I know you don’t believe this blog is intended for your sole use and consumption, but the way you write your comments, it certainly comes across that way. Debbie raised that apparition in response to part 1. Must I seek your permission before responding to it in part 2?
You continued, “and just to clinch things, an unapproved apparition in Yugoslavia that has pretty much been discredited.” You will note that I said, deferentially, “if the visionaries and pilgrims can be believed.” There was a claim that the vision of Medjugorje had communicated a private message to John Paul II. You are certainly not the sole judge of all matters journalistic. What I said was true: there are reports that the Medjugorje apparition sent a message to John Paul II.
But what, honestly, does it matter to you whether I cite approved apparitions or not? When I differentiate between approved and unapproved apparitions in a radio interview, you criticize me for not distinguishing between them soon enough. When I cite approved apparitions, you criticize me for citing apparitions that were too obscure for your tastes, and suggest that I cite less obscure ones like Guadalupe, Lourdes, Fatima, etc… When I do so you, criticize me for bringing them to the bar of Scripture when I should be extolling their merits and citing the many conversions and miracles related to them. In your eyes, no one is arguing fairly unless they are arguing from the position of Rome.
But when I cite a Roman apologist, you say, I should go to a Pope instead. When I cite the Pope, you say I should have cited a Roman Apologist:
Those two citations are the words of a man who does not know what his axiom is, and therefore is unable to establish a coherent position. At the root of all of this is that you do have an Axiom, but you do not acknowledge it. Your Axiom is Sola Ecclesia, which in the simplest terms is this: “Rome is the True Church Established on Peter, and the Popes are His Successors.” When you “go to the Bible as just an accurate historical document. Not as inspired,” you carry that Axiom with you, and read the “accurate, non-inspired historical document” through the lens of Sola Ecclesia. The irony—or I should say, contradiction—in all this is that you claim to “go to the Bible” first, and then ultimately conclude from your studies that “yokels like [your]self” do not have the authority to “go to the Bible” in the first place.
That is Sola Ecclesia, Jim. You take that as your Axiom, your first, unprovable assertion, and use it to interpret the Fathers, the Bible, the Popes, the apparitions, and every event in the history of the world, and then argue that nobody else can argue against you unless they first adopt that Axiom with you.
But I will not stipulate the Apparitions are really Mary in order to argue against them; I will not stipulate the Wafer is to be reverenced as a condition for arguing that it should not be reverenced; I will not stipulate that the Bible is Rome’s book as a condition of arguing that it is not; I will not stipulate that the Pope is infallible in order to prove that he is not; and I will not stipulate Sola Ecclesia in order to disprove it. That would be illogical. But I will stipulate that the Bible Alone is the Word of God. That is my Axiom. We both have one. You just don’t realize what yours is.
You also wrote, “Kevin has taken up Tim’s cause and has repeatedly tried to run interference for Tim by his ‘death wafer’ comments.” I don’t need Kevin to “run interference” for me, as I called it a deadly wafer on this blog before Kevin did. My position is unchanged. It is a death wafer, a bread god of no power, no divinity and no place in Christ’s Church. Those who worship it are idolaters, and yes, my mother is among them, as I have told her myself. That there have been Eucharistic miracles, I do not deny. Bleeding wafers, talking wafers, and so on. It is an idol, nonetheless. That there are miracles associated with the apparitions—dancing sun, etc…—I do not deny. They are demonic, nonetheless, and those who follow them are adopting doctrines of demons and have believed a lie, including the popes.
Thanks, Jim, for your comments. I do rather enjoy our interactions, and I appreciate your participation.
Warm regards,
Tim
Jim, As Tim has pointed out we have never met. If by what you mean that we have taken up each others cause means we are brothers in Christ against the errors of Rome, well you would be correct. But so is Eric W and Robert, and the all to few who are willing to fight this giant error. My contention has always been as i read scripture, Rome is the antithesis.
Tim,
“You continued, ‘and just to clinch things, an unapproved apparition in Yugoslavia that has pretty much been discredited.’ You will note that I said, deferentially, “if the visionaries and pilgrims can be believed.”
Oh, sorry Tim. I had no idea that you felt that some apparitions could be believed ( sarcasm ).
Since even those that can be believed are Satanic,..???
Then,”Your Axiom is Sola Ecclesia, which in the simplest terms is this: “Rome is the True Church Established on Peter, and the Popes are His Successors.”
Almost Tim, but not quite. Could you rephrase it and have me say, “Rome is the Church Established on Peter …successors”.
Delete the word, ” True”. Lets take my position in the sequence I present it.
You say, ” When you “go to the Bible as just an accurate historical document. Not as inspired,” you carry that Axiom with you, and read the “accurate, non-inspired historical document” through the lens of Sola Ecclesia.
I deny that. Read the article on the Papacy in the Encyclopedia Britannica. It lists that popes as a matter of fact, not faith.
No one has ever accused the E.B. of being a Catholic publication.
Somewhere, maybe not in sequence here, you say,
” you, criticize me for bringing them to the bar of Scripture when I should be extolling their merits and citing the many conversions and miracles related to them.”
Hmmmm? I must have missed that. I don’t recall you mentioning conversions and miracles. Would you, Tim, call turning from sin and becoming a zealous Catholic a “conversion” or a duping? As for miracles, aren’t they tricks of the Devil?
You really get whipped into a frenzy when you say,
” I called it a deadly wafer on this blog before Kevin did. My position is unchanged. It is a death wafer, a bread god of no power, no divinity and no place in Christ’s Church. Those who worship it are idolaters,”
I promise you Tim, I am not an idolater. As I have said before, I don’t genuflect before my bread box. As a matter of fact, I would not accuse the folks over at the Missouri Synod Lutheran church who kneel to receive what I believe to be just plain bread “idolaters”. They worship CHRIST in their Lord’s Supper. Alas, as their Eucharist is not valid, they don’t receive the Real Presence as we Catholics do. But it is grossly inaccurate and uncharitable to accuse those sincere people of worshiping bread. God reads the heart. It is possible their service is an occasion for grace for them. I would not be so rash as to accuse them of what you accuse me of.
I will wrap it up with a comment on your,
” I will not stipulate that the Bible is Rome’s book…”
by asking you Tim to tell us where you got the Bible, Tim?
As I told Kevin, you can’t pull the rug out from under the Catholic Church and expect the Bible to remain standing.
Until you (and Kevin) can establish the Bible to be the rule of faith from your only rule of faith ( that same Bible ), you have no business bringing it into this discussion. Your views are just opinion. You have no business judging popes, apparitions, whether or not people are idolaters, Christ’s Presence in the wafer,etc. until you prove the basis your authority.
The thing is Tim, you can’t do that while dissing the Church from whence the 27 books of New Testament sprang.
Thank you, Jim. I appreciate hearing from you.
You wrote, “Oh, sorry Tim. I had no idea that you felt that some apparitions could be believed ( sarcasm ).”
I did not say “if the Apparitions can be believed.” I said “if the visionaries could be believed.” I have constantly maintained here that I believe the visionaries are telling the truth—that they are receiving visions. I deny, however, that the visions themselves are telling the truth.
You wrote: “You really get whipped into a frenzy….”. You are free to impute to me whatever state of mind you wish. Perhaps I have lost control of my faculties. Indeed, I may be a rabid monster at the keyboard without a coherent thought in my head. That is entirely possible. You may infer what you will, and you may draw what conclusions you like.
Then this: “I promise you Tim, I am not an idolater.”
Believing you are worshiping the true God under the species of bread does not prove that you are worshiping the true God. It merely shows that you believe you are worshiping the true God. However, if transubstantiation is a falsehood, then you are worshiping as God that which is only bread. And so it is.
Finally: “I don’t genuflect before my bread box.” Indeed, that is exactly what you do, even though in your sincerity you believe you are bowing to Jesus. If the priest’s words of consecration cannot turn the bread into Jesus’ body, blood, soul and divinity, your sincerity certainly cannot make it so either.
Idolatry is not defined as “believing you are worshiping what is made with human hands.” It is defined as “worshiping what is made with human hands.” That is what Roman Catholics do. It is the centerpiece of the whole religion.
There is no transubstantiation, so what is worshiped is but a piece of bread. The sincere belief that it is Jesus does not change worship from idolatry to latria.
I knelt to it, bowed to it, genuflected to it, and attended enough expositions as a boy and as a young man. Never again. Though a bleeding eucharist pulse a river of blood before me, and a voice speak to me directly from the host, call me by name, and tell me how much it loves me and suffers for me, I will never, ever, ever bow to it again. Nor should you.
Kind regards and have a great weekend,
Tim
Tim, Unless you are a mind reader, you have no way of knowing what I am worshiping. Since you insist you do know, you must be into the black arts.
I could give you a blast of your own medicine by accusing you of dabbling in the occult. It doesn’t matter to me if you deny or swear on a stack of KJVs. You are a clairvoyant. A witch doctor. Like Saul, you shall be punished for playing with “bruxaria”.
They v’e got all kinds of evil magic in Portugal brought up from Brazil and Angola. I can smell a voodoo guy a mile a way. I know you are a magician!
Ridiculous Tim? Downright stupid, Huh? Now you know how I feel about you telling me I worship bread when I damn well know that I don’t.
Jim,
Thanks for getting back to me. I understand what you are saying. I cannot read your mind, or the mind of any Roman Catholic. What I can do is read the doctrine you profess to believe and defend.
You are already familiar with it, so I do not cite the Catechism or Mysterium Fidei for your benefit, but for the instruction of those who are not aware of this practice. The Catechism says the bread and the wine of the Lord’s supper are to be adored with the worship of latria. As Pope Paul VI taught in Mysterium Fidei this latria “which may be given to God alone” (55) also “ought to be paid to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, both during Mass and outside of it” (56).
The Catechism (1333) says the bread and wine offered in the Mass start off as the “work of human hands.” Once it is transubstantiated by the priest at the moment he utters the words of consecration, that “work of human hands” becomes the God of the universe and is to be worshiped with the worship we call “latria” that is owed to God alone.
As I have said elsewhere, I repeat now: the transubstantiation does not occur, but the worship does. Therefore what is worshiped is the work of human hands, a mere piece of bread.
That you do not believe it is bread does not change the fact that you are worshiping it. Idolatry is not defined as “knowingly worshiping what is not God.” It is “worshiping what is not God.” The bread is not God, but you are worshiping it. That is idolatry.
Thanks for your participation here,
Tim
Tim, We must have been posting at the same time. You say,” That you do not believe it is bread does not change the fact that you are worshiping it”.
That doesn’t even make good sense Tim. One cannot accidentally worship something.
Remember the three conditions necessary for a sin to be mortal?
Condition#1, Grievous matter, alone doesn’t make it a mortal sin.
Tell me again why you aren’t on a crusade to stamp out this idolatry among the Lutherans. HA!
Jim said “would you call turning from sin and becoming a zealous Catholic a conversion or duping. I would say based on Scripture it is clearly a duping. Works are not allowed in justification, in fact nothing as coming from us. Only complete trust in Christ alone. So any system that makes sanctification necessary in justification is a duping.
Jim, just listen to someone like Debbie. Women sit in Catholic churches for hours and stare at the bread and worship it. Debbie never says I disagree with you, she always says oh if you only understood and oh you don’t realize what you are saying. Get it Jim. They worship the bread as Christ. We are clearly taught to worship Him thru the Spirit by faith, and your swallowing Him physically whole. THE FLESH PROFITS NOTHING. Christ communicates himself thru the Spirit, his body and all his blessings. Not thru the flesh. It violated jewish law to drink blood. This is idolatry. It is a participation in his body and blood spiritually. He has a human body that is seated at the right hand of God where his altar is. Pulling him down and re breaking his body at the behest of a Priest is an abomination. “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” So the un bloody sacrifice cannot be efficacious for sin. He did this once.
Kevin,
“Jim, just listen to someone like Debbie.”
Not interested in your grudge against Debbie. You are a cad to pick on a woman.
” Women sit in Catholic churches for hours and stare at the bread and worship it.”
I sat in a Church today with the Blessed Sacrament exposed. I didn’t worship the accidental species. In order for you to say I did, you would need to be a mind reader. The Bible condemns that sort of thing in case you didn’t know.
” THE FLESH PROFITS NOTHING.”
Really Kevin? Jesus says His Flesh does,
” It violated jewish law to drink blood.”
Oh Kevin, do you want us back under the Law?
” This is idolatry.”
No Kevin. Drinking blood is cannibalism,
“It is a participation in his body and blood spiritually”
Ever read John 6?
” He has a human body that is seated at the right hand of God where his altar is”
The Book of Hebrews says so. I agree.
” Pulling him down and re breaking his body at the behest of a Priest is an abomination.”
Christ does not leave heaven. O’Brien uses hyperbole. The Body of the Eternal Victim Jesus Christ is in glory and cannot be broken.
“Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” So the un bloody sacrifice cannot be efficacious for sin. He did this once.”
Christ shed His blood once FOR ALL MEN. ( You deny it. I don’t ).
Okay Kevin.
My turn. When are you going to prove the Bible to be true and binding?
So far, you have only given opinion. You and Tim cannot prove the Bible is true so don’t quote from it until you can. Now go away.
Jim, read the bible, its active like a two edged sword. John 6: 63 ” It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing, the words I spoke to you are Spirit and life.” The word of God condemns your position.
Jim, you don’t know your own doctrine. Trent says it is a real sacrifice” sacrificium” and anathematizes anyone who says its not. Abomination. No hyperbole, wrong again Jimboy!
Kevin Full o’Balony,
Jesus said that the Bread He would give would be His flesh, the same flesh He would give for the life of the world.
THE flesh profits nothing. ( Our flesh )
Jesus says, MY flesh… ( Jesus’ flesh was given for the life of the world on the cross. Maybe, Just maybe, it profits something, wouldn’t you say? )
Kevin, WoW! “Sacrificium” eh” Such a big word. Like the other Latin phrase you like to impress me with, “ex opere operato”.
Or “congruous”. I think you have stymied me with that one too.
Other than Altar Boy Latin, I used all the rest of my Latin on Tim in my Semper Fi post yesterday morning. He didn’t think it was cute.
Kevin, I wrote reams on this to you on the blog you are banned from. I explained all about sacrifice to you in detail. I also just might know a wee bit more than you on the Council of Trent. Please don’t think you are going to beat me with my own stick.
Tim and Kevin,
Lets bring this silly banter back to topic;Mary.
Looking at Tim’s picture of JPII and O.L. of Czestajowa ,
the patroness of Poland, I am reminded of another great Polish devotee of Mary, Maximilian Kolbe.
Maximilian was Franciscan friar who is probably going to be proclaimed a doctor of the Church for his profound Mariology. He wrote on and promoted devotion to Mary as the Immaculate Conception, even setting up printing centers as far away as Nagasaki, Japan to promulgate a deeper understanding of this great doctrine through a magazine called” Knights of the Immaculata” . This magazine is still to be seen online.
Some years ago my wife and I were at the Marian shrine of the Black Madonna of Czestachowa that is posted at the top of this article and decided to take a bus to Auschwitz to see the place where so many people, including Maximilian Kolbe were murdered.
Everyone knows what is there; barbed wire, ovens, gas chambers, rooms piled high with eyeglasses, shoes, human hair and teeth. It is grey and chilling.
Not on any tour brochure as the camp officials don’t want Auschwitz recognized as a place for atrocities inflicted on non Jews, is the room where Maximilian Kolbe died. In the midst of this symbol of the pointlessness of life, man’s bestiality and the absence of God, is a beacon of hope, beauty and love. It is the cell used by the Nazis to starve prisoners to death.
One night a prisoner escaped the death camp and so to discourage further incidents, a dozen prisoners were selected at random to die by starvation. As the doomed men were stripped naked, one of them cried so pathetically about his wife and children who would be left without a provider.
Maximilian stepped out of rank and asked for permission to address the German officer in charge of the execution. Maximilian explained that since he was a Catholic priest, he had no obligations to a family and asked if he could take the man’s place. The commandant shrugged his shoulders and said it made no difference to him.
The brutal guards mocked the condemned men as they were crowded into the little room. Starving dehydrated men were known to go mad until death silenced their ravings.
With only their own urine to drink, the men began their hellish ordeal.
Their was no raving over the weeks though. Only singing and praying. Maximilian heard their last Confessions and prepared them for Christian death. We can be sure, every man in that cell went to heaven. Maximilian saw to that.
At the end of the nightmare, when the door to the stinking death chamber was open, only Maximilian Kolbe was still alive. He was dispatched to heaven by a shot of carbolic acid. The next day, on the feast of the Assumption of Mary into heaven, ‘ the saint’s body was burned and his soul went up with the ashes and smoke to the vision of the Trinity, the Immaculate and all the other saints and angels.
There are signs posted in front of the bars of this chamber prohibiting flowers and candles. But they can’t stop the Polish people from sneaking them in and placing them as far as they can reach into the cell. The authorities come and take them away but no sooner are they gone than people replace them.
PS When the bomb came down on Nagasaki, God spared Maximilian’s printing center from harm.
Tim,
A KINGDOM AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND says the Bible.
If the Papally approved Marian apparitions and devotion and doctrines are what you say they are, the Devil should be no match for you and me. He is a silly fool fro undermining himself by toppling atheistic Communism, ending human sacrifice and cannibalism in Mexico, inspiring heroic acts of charity like Maximilian Kolbe’s, healing cripples at Lourdes, etc. etc.
When the bad guys accused Jesus of doing his miracles by the power of Beelzebub, they were told that they were sinning against the Holy Spirit. To call good evil is a sin that cannot be forgiven in this life or the one to come. Why? Because it is the sin not repented of.
GRAVEN BREAD is inspired by the Devil. Please keep it away from children.
Jim, you wrote to Tim:
A KINGDOM AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND says the Bible….
Response:
You lack knowledge of the Devil’s schemes. (Eph.6:11) His supreme deception through Antichrist is in front of your face !
…who opposes and 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…
————————-
You wrote:
undermining himself by toppling atheistic Communism
Response:
Anyone displaying himself as God openly opposes atheism.
Jim, you wrote:
“If the Papally approved Marian apparitions and devotion and doctrines are what you say they are, the Devil should be no match for you and me. ”
Here are a couple excellent videos where the minister goes through in detail to compare some Roman Catholic teachings along side Evangelical Christians.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOTrMSOrYew
Thanks Walt, I gave a quick click onto the videos and will go back after works and watch them in more detail
Just one comment of Justin Peters’ theory of judging things according to ‘Biblical Parameters” though;
Nobody who goes by ‘Bible Alone”, whether a KJV only guy, a Westminster Seminary professor, an Arkansas snake handler, a Oneness Pentecostal, a Presbyterian, a Witness, a Savior Only Dispensationalist, etc. etc. should be holding any other Bible Only person to Biblical Parameters.
Why Walt? Because all any of them have is private opinion of a book they can’t even define.
I will have more later.
Take care.
” masquerading as an angel of light”
A Catholic once told me ” we beget what we receive” IOW earn your keep. a Gift?
Kevin, get over on the other thread and read what I sent you. Until you quit telling me that Scripture is a two edged sword, tell me what comprises scripture and how you came to that conclusion.
The book of Judith is a two edged sword. She cut off the head of Holofernes with two strokes of a sword. She is a type of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary who crushed the head of the serpent with her double Fiat. The first stroke against the serpent’s head was when she consented to the salvation of the world at the Annunciation. The second blow was on Calvary when she did not call him down off the cross, but offered Him, to the degree that she could , to the Father.
The first Eve plucked the matter of our downfall off the tree. The Second Eve left the Cause of our salvation hanging on the tree of the cross.
I do hope Tim reads this. He will love it. Be sure to call it to his attention to it because I don’t think he reads much of the various postings on his blog.
He will not want to miss this one for sure
Gotta run, Busy day.
Jim,
This is very interesting: “The second blow was on Calvary when she did not call him down off the cross, but offered Him, to the degree that she could , to the Father. … The Second Eve left the Cause of our salvation hanging on the tree of the cross.”
Interesting, since women cannot be priests, and Rome bristles at the idea of women playing a prominent role at the altar. Is Mary acting as a priest here? If Rome ever accepts women as priests, this will be the argument that is made.
Mary did not “leave Him on the cross” as if she had the power to take him down: “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.” (John 10:17-18).
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
We Bible folk ( Catholics) note that the scriptures differentiates between a ministerial priesthood and “a nation of priests”. Women are indeed part of the second in virtue of their Baptism.
Hey, Tim, I like the quote from John 10 about Jesus sacrifice.
Check out Wisdom 2:12-20. Ever wonder where Matthew got his imagery?
OOPS! I forgot. You don’t have a complete Bible.
Walt,
I watched the first, shorter video. Other than his little remark about the Catholic Church being a cult, I guess I would agree with his dislike for Benny Hinn, Joel Olsteen, and others of that ilk.
I don’t know why Justine Peters is qualified to denounce anyone though. He has no more authority to interpret the Bible than the folks he considers charlatans.
Peters says that Jesus Christ is true God and true man*. Where does he find that stated in the Bible?
In the longer video, peters takes issue with the pronunciation of
Yahweh as Jehovah. How does he know? Nobody really knows do they?
He pillories a book by some guy named Malarkey ( tsk tsk ). Peters says the book is contrary to the Bible. How can he say dogmatically.
Justin Peters is opposed to “an open canon of scripture”.
How does he know the canon is closed? Where does the Bible say it is closed? How can he say the Book of Mormon should not be added to the canon? Catholic Tradition says revelation ended with the death of John the Apostle. But the Bible can’t say this as John was alive when he was writing the, last book of the Bible, the Apocalypse,wasn’t he?
As for the Word of Faith woman he ridicules as not being a Christian, how can he say. He says her Jesus is a figment of her imagination. Is he a mind reader? How can we know he has the right Jesus?
My Jesus was an only child. His mother was a Virgin her whole life. What about Peters’ Jesus?
Walt, I can’t watch this stuff anymore. Peters is as blind as the people he laughs at.
You see Walt, outside of Catholicism, one finds only subjective faith, relativism, and personal opinion.
The Bible Alone is not a valid system to judge other people who claim to be Bible Christians too.
Thanks and take care, Jim
* I believe Jesus is True God and True man. It is Catholic teaching. But I would like to see it proved from Bible alone with no appeal to Tradition.
Jim,
Please forgive me for I don’t think I understand much of what you are saying. You keep asking questions like “How does he know? Nobody really knows do they?”
When I was a Catholic I seem to have been taught much of what you believe now that I no longer believe. You seem to suggest that every Minister is somehow an independent and only the Roman Catholic church has authority to interpret the Bible. Nobody except Rome has authority to interpret the Scriptures I guess is what you are trying to make clear to me.
Of course, if you believe that no other source has the ability or the right to read or interpret the Scriptures except for Rome, I find this really very sad. What you are saying then is that Roman Catholics are the only true Christians, and the Vatican headed by the Pope is the only true visible Church?
I assume you believe this because you were taught this by someone as there is not even one word in the Bible that mentions Rome or the Vatican as a Church, nor that mentions a Pope. If you deny the right to anyone to interpret Scripture except for the Vatican and the Pope, I guess you are really out on the fringe as I was never taught that as a Catholic.
Please explain in common language english who you believe is the only authority on earth to interpret the Scripture. This will help me understand your presupposition better.
Walt, I would be interested to hear how you got out of the catholic church, your thought process. Many of my friends grew up indoctrinated. Obviously it was the Lord, but i’d love to know some of the major thinking, causes? Thx
Kevin,
It was only by grace that I was saved out of sin and Rome’s false teaching. I know you know this to be the case.
With both my parents Roman Catholic, and my dad being a major supporter of everything Notre Dame and Catholic, it was not easy. I was chosen as one of two in our Catholic school to read 3 days a week in morning mass, and as an alter boy became really indoctrinated into the system. My dad wanted me to be a priest as I was really serious about my commitment. I did cherish my labors in morning mass, as well was working the weekends as an alter boy.
However, there were triggers which confused me. For example, every time the priest would hold up the wafer amd chalice I had to ring the bell. I did not know what the bells meant until the priest said it was to wake up those sleeping in church to the transformation of these elements into the real living body and blood of Christ. I could not understand how this was real as there was never any change. I am the one who put together the wine and he wafers before each mass. I am the one who poured the wine and arranged the wafer. I knew what it was and could not imagine it being converted into the real living body and blood of Jesus. However, I did know that ringing the bells were critical to this event…not just waking people but actually converting. If I did not ring the bells, it would not take place. I was indoctrinated to this fact.
There were so many other things. I had to handle all the robes, the mitre. the head dress, the incense, clean the alter, take care of the statutes, and of course pray hundreds of hail mary’s and our father’s. I was trained as a robot in many ways, and saw all the people when would read in mass sitting throughout the pews either sleeping or just glancing around. They too were confused and dazed into this daily ritual.
Like Jim argues, we were largely encouraged not to read the bible as it was for only the priest to read and explain. I was given a great privilege and responsibility to read it before the church in morning mass 3 days a week. I would read things in that book, in morning mass, that really conflicted with what I was taught in the catechism. I was confused about where this transubstantiation was located. The priest could not show me, and the catechism was confusing compared to the story I read about the death and resurrection of Christ.
These triggers to ignore Scripture and leave it only to the priest was confusing, but like Jim argues here who am I to interpret the bible. I’m nobody but an ignorant boy/man who has no authority to interpret. Without sacred tradition that far exceeds the Scripture texts, and is the sole arbiter as the church speaking, we are forbidden to think for ourselves.
I knew most of the people in mass were not thinking, they were sleeping or dozing off at key points. Our priest was a heavy alcoholic and the other one was so old that he struggled to stay awake himself. Our church was very rich as in our area it was one of the wealthiest during summers. It had an actual boarding school for Indian children who lived there, and only later did I learn of all the abuse by the priests, brothers and nuns published in the local paper on these children. I did not ever see it as I was not a boarder, but a local. I left after school, but the boarders lived there and faced this torture that was buried and buried deep.
Rome is far far far from a Christian church, but as the reformers taught is the real antichrist and harlot of Revelations. The modern protestant evangelical movement is the perfect daughter of Rome. She too has fully subscribed to these doctrines that the reformers exposed, but the Lord’s people perish for lack of knowledge. Unless one is a former Roman Catholic and lived it intensely, it is very VERY hard to see these common themes between Rome and the protestant and episcopalian churches.
The reformers were mostly all priests that came out of her, and it was because of the Scriptures alone, by grace alone, through Christ alone. I know this statement is really hated by Rome and many protestants, but it is true for me. No matter how much Jim and other Roman Catholics deny the power of Scripture to bring a sinner to a saving knowledge of Christ, I know just the opposite. Those who rely on the sole authority of Rome and sacred tradition as the final voice on earth of God, and reject the Scriptures are lost. They are like those I witnessed everyday in morning mass. They are asleep and must be awoke … only not by my ringing the bells in mass. It must be by reading the Scriptures alone.
Epistemology…the study of knowing. How do you know what you know and why is the question!? I’ve read the bible over 60 times since 1997 when I first decided to pick it up, and read it. I tried to get my mom and dad to read it before they both passed and it was not possible. They were fully indoctrinated to growing up as a Roman Catholic, and they loved the church and my ringing the bells in mass. I see it first hand so many both in Rome and in the protestant churches, especially the video’s I shared with Jim, are lost. My dad used to say how could 1 billion Catholics be wrong and a handful of you crazy Christians be right. He would smile and laugh, but I would cry at night that question to myself. I don’t know how, but when I read Scripture almost 100% of the time the established church is never right with God…to the contrary, it is always a remnant and a small flock. Never the majority, and only the minority walk the narrow path. It is sad…I once was like Jim totally indoctrinated in sacred tradition, but no longer. I can only thank the Lord for giving me the Scriptures, and the mind to be able to read them myself.
Thanks, Walt,
I enjoyed your testimony very much. I came from a similar background, and ended up in a similar place.
Indeed! Thanks again, and warm regards,
Tim
Walt,
I think you pretty much have my position down pat.
Right now, on another blog, “Jason Stellman, creed code, cult”
we just started a new topic on Sola Scriptura and Bible authority. ( You are wasting your time here as Kevin and Tim won’t discuss it. They would rather keep muddying the waters with “bread worship” slurs. They are scared silly of this topic. Over there, we Catholics are holding our Protestant friends to the issue at hand. No diversion to Medici Popes, pedophilia, circular reasoning or subject changing. Join the discussion and put in your two cents ).
http://www.creedcodecult.com/likelihood-plausibility-and-sola-scriptura/
Click on and come over. We would love to have you. All of the issues you bring up are on the table there right now.
Over there we are more charitable too. Although it can get heated, we don’t allow( extreme) disrespect. ( Jason will eighty six bigots ).
See you there, Jim
Jim,
I can’t speak for Kevin, but you are free to impute to me whatever mental condition you wish.
May I ask how your list of infallible papal statements is coming along? I have asked repeatedly for this from you. May I inquire as to the cause of the delay?
I see from Walt’s post that Jason is addressing the issue of authority. I see that he begins with his Axiom and reasons accordingly. Note, for example, that the only two choices he offers are whether the church should be led by Protestant men, or by Catholic men:
The Head of the Church is Christ, and its unity is guarded by the Spirit. Rome says we must join her in order that Jesus’ prayer “that they may be one” may be answered fully. I respond that the Church is already one, and her unity is spiritual, not organizational, and Rome is not that Church.
Jason’s words reflect what he wishes he knew were true: that Rome is led by “by leaders who, in some way and under certain conditions, were protected from error when exercising their authority.” In some way… in certain conditions.
Very well. In what way? In what conditions? Please provide an infallible list of infallible papal statements, for starters. This is your standard, Jim, not mine. You want to know where the list of canon exists within the Scriptures. I ask, where then is the list of infallible papal statements within the Deposit of Faith? It does not exist, and you are left to your own devices to determine when the pope is speaking infallibly. Yes, Lumen Gentium (25) says, “loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra,” “and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated.”
That last highlighted part leaves it to your own evaluation to determine what precisely your church is teaching you by the “character,” “frequency,” and “manner” of the teachings. But what counts as “character,” “frequency,” and “manner”? You do not and cannot know. Thus, as we demonstrated in Infallibility’s Fatal Flaw, and in Why Infallibility Doesn’t Work, Roman Catholics are left trying to determine what Rome teaches, and Rome is unable to teach them. William Most attempted to use “the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed,” method to prove that Rome has taught infallibly that Mary’s virginity was preserved inviolate, and then the the diligent Roman Catholics at The Last Days News used the same method to conclude that it is Mary’s foot that crushes the head of the serpent—only to be rebuffed that they should not make such a big deal about things that the church has not infallibly taught on. Is it not obvious that William Most already believed what he was trying to find in the teachings of the Magisterium? Is it not clear that the folks at the Last Days News already believed what they were trying to find in the Church’s teachings?
These are the symptoms of a people who have not been taught, and of a church that cannot teach them. And this is what Jason Stellmen recommends as superior to the Prostestant position that starts, Axiomatically, with the written word of God.
All Jason Stellman is left with, and indeed, all you have offered us, is “Join the roman Catholic Church—IT JUST MAKES SENSE!” But it only makes sense if you start with your Axiom: “The Roman Catholic Church is the Church Jesus Christ Established on Peter and His Successors.” With that as your Axiom, you then conclude, mirabile dictu!, “The Roman Catholic Church is the Church Jesus Christ Established on Peter and His Successors.” That is the Axiom Scott Hahn used to prove that Hippolytus taught that Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant—when Hippolytus taught clearly that Jesus was the Ark of the New Covenant. That is the Axiom Joan Carroll Cruz used to prove that pictures of loaves and fish, and hot cross buns, are clear evidence of early veneration of the Eucharist. That is the Axiom Frs. Livius and Juniper Carol used to conclude that Origen, Basil and Cyril, must not have been aware of the Church’s teachings that Mary was sinless. It is the Axiom you use to determine that Origen, Basil and Cyril were just being misogynist when they had Mary doubting at the foot of the cross. It is the Axiom John Paul II used when he concludes, against the plain testimony of Scripture, that Jesus appeared to His mother first after His resurrection, rather than Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9).
Rome claims that she has an infallible pope, but cannot tell me how many times he spoke infallibly. Rome claims to be the sole guardian of the teachings of Scripture, but cannot tell me with certainty which verses of scripture she has interpreted. Rome claims to guard the deposit of faith, but struggles with the “boundary problem” of apparitions of Mary because they clearly have participated in doctrinal development in such a manner as to introduce to the church that which is not included in the deposit of faith.
In short, Rome is all talk, but it cannot teach. Thus, you and all Roman Catholics are left with your Axiom, which is at once your starting point, your gospel, and your conclusion: Sola Ecclesia!
I do not accept your Axiom, and I will not believe your gospel.
Now, Jim, where is your list of infallible papal statements?
Warm regards,
Tim
Jim,
I cannot jump into another blog right now as I’m up to my ears in work, but I did read the opening argument by Jason. He said:
“I would ask myself, “which is more likely: that Jesus had intended to establish his church in such a way that it was to be governed by Scripture alone (with leaders whose role was to interpret Scripture to the best of their abilities), or that he intended his church to be governed by leaders who, in some way and under certain conditions, were protected from error when exercising their authority?”
Great question. I have the answer. Read the reformers, and especially the Scottish Presbyterian church. We believe that the documents are “without error” and considered to be inerrant. They are not infallible as declared by Rome’s teaching, but they are inerrant.
These are called subordinate standards, or the Westminster Standards. Here are just a few of those reformed standards:
The Universal Formularies
– The Apostle’s Creed (200?-500?)
– The Nicene Creed (381)
– The Athanasian Creed (415?-550?)
The Scottish Formularies
– The Book of Common Order (1562)
– The Scottish Confession of Faith (1560)
– The First and Second Books of Discipline (1560)
– The Form of Examination Before the Communion (~1567)
– The Psalms of David in Metre (1650)
– The Book of the Universal Kirk (1560-1616)
– The Acts of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (1638-1649 incl.)
– The True History of the Church of Scotland (1678)
The Westminster Formularies
– The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)
– The Larger Catechism (1648)
– The Shorter Catechism (1648)
– The Form of Presbyterial Church Government (1645)
– The Directory for the Public Worship of God (1645)
– The Directory for Family Worship (1647)
The Covenants
– The National Covenant (1581)
– The Solemn League and Covenant (1643, approved by the Westminster Assembly)
These subordinate standards are the one’s true Protestants use to battle the “sacred tradition” of Rome, and her canon law and catechisms. True reformers did not leave the hands of bible interpretation to every ignorant person who could not read, but left it in the hands of the true Presbyterian church courts. The Session, the Presbytery, the Synod and the General Assembly declared the BEST inerrant testimony for the visible church of Christ in history…outside Scripture.
We do not hold any subordinate standard to be equal or to be above the authority of Scripture, but subordinate to the primary standard of Scripture. However, we do believe that these standards are inerrant in that they are founded upon the Scriptures, and dependent upon Scripture and in agreement with the Scripture. Westminster forced all the proof texts to be added to these subordinate standards so that one would see how the church interpreted them, and they were then tested and finalized at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland…the highest court in the Land.
The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland during the second reformation (1638-1649) was the greatest assembly since the times of the Apostles, and makes the Romish Bishops and Cardinals and Pope himself look like school children. No, in fact, they make them look like antichrist and even make it clear that is who they are battling.
Church testimony against church testimony in history.
I was a Baptist for a couple years, and recognized that the Baptist minister was like a little Pope to me. I was not interested to replace the Romish Pope with a Baptist Pope and then read the Grand Debate between the Presbyterians and Independents at Westminster. I then read the “killing times” to see why the Erastians and Independents slaughtered the Scottish ministers and Presbyterians.
Jim, you are right in the sense of one thing. If you put your trust in one man reading Scripture, and declare his testimony to be what you should follow…don’t walk from that man, but run from him. Flee to the true Church of Christ as testified by the Church of Scotland during the first and second reformation, and learn what are subordinate standards.
Modern day protestants laugh and scoff at true reformed Presbyterians calling us followers of Rome, and how “free and independent” they are in their churches. They are ignorant in the sense they have adopted much of Rome’s teaching and are by no means free and independent. They are enslaved and indoctrinated with Romish doctrine, and blinded by their errors. Learn church doctrine, discipline, form of worship and form of government as revealed in the Westminster standards and compare them to Romish testimony. You will see the amazing differences between a true and faithful remnant in history where the entire NATION stood against Rome and today where ALL NATIONS have conformed to Rome to large and growing degrees.
Walt, thank you so much. I’m sure Tim would agree, to have a testimony on this site like that is awesome. Praise God he set you free, and you no longer have a righteousness of your own, but one that comes from god thru faith. Thank you brother.
Tim, whatever you do, if you go to Jason’s blog and speak of these things as I have, you will be booted. I have been banned from the site. He really isn’t open to his position’s being challenged. I don’t think he liked when I told him that many leave for the RC because of emotional lack in their life. You always here from these people how the move to Rome added so much more. Well we know what that translates to. It added so much more. Sola Grazia, Sola fide, Sola Christus, Sola Gloria, Sola Scriptura.
Kevin, That is not why you were booted. You would be there yucking it up with your home boys now if you hadn’t insulted every Catholic man, woman and child by saying the offensive slurs against the center of Catholic life and devotion that you think are so clever.
Tim agrees with your views on the Eucharist. But he isn’t so foolhardy as to say the things you say. I even baited him to repeat on Jason’s blog what he is on record as saying here. He ducked out.
So, he is there having fun and you are here holding hands with Eric W
So quit acting like a victim or a martyr. You thought we Catholics were doormats that you could wipe your feet on.
I am so glad to have got you silenced. ( I am in email contact with some of the other guys. If you only knew how disliked you are for your words . I have been told not to argue with you as it only feeds your sickness. But I do as I please. ) Stay here on this blog where your bros can give you their atta boys for blasphemy. But Jason’s is a Catholic blog now. Your buddies know that and are careful not to cross the lines you thought you could. You are here on this blog like Cinderfella for being reckless with your tongue, not for speaking the Gospel. Please don’t flatter yourself for being a John the Baptist or a boanerges. You are a wild man.
Tim, I wish you would transfer that post to Stellman’s website. Those Catholics deserve to here that refutal. Why don’t you post over there more? That is an incredible argument against Stellman’s post and Rome.
Tim, in the end, J.C.Ryle had it right, its one big system of Church worship, sacrament worship, Mary worship, saint worship, relic worship, bread worship. Its like the Emperor in his new clothes. Majestic on the outside and a desperately wicked inside.
Jim, ok lets talk about Authority. In Timothy as you know we are taught that Scripture is God Breathed. Men moved by the Holy Spirit wrote the words of God. Can we start and agree that something that is God breathed is Authoritative and infallible? We have no example in Scripture of the office of a Apostle being passed on? They died and so the office ends. We see the church being set up with many derivatives leaders etc. And we must believe that there sole responsibility was to continue to teach the once and for all delivered deposit of faith which alone held infallibility. Ratzinger has acknowledged and it is now accepted that there was a democracy amongst the Bishops. So the assertion that Peter’s Popery as passed down as succession to one King just does not exist in Scripture nor history.
Kevin, The office of Apostle is not passed on. Matthias met the conditions necessary to take Judas bishopric as he had seen Christ.
Later the Bishopric ( not the Apostleship ) is passed on by Paul to Timothy and Titus. The were no more men living who had seen Christ after awhile. Paul instructs Timothy to pass that on by the laying on of hands.
A democracy among Bishops? Yes, as there is now. Read Peter’s epistles. He was as humble as Popes are now. They don’t lord their authority over their brother Bishops.
Christ told the Apostles they would be his witnesses to the ends of the world. Yet He knew they would all be dead before they personally would get that far. He also wanted His teachings and Sacraments to go on to all generations. That would require successors.
Walt, I totally agree with your post. Can you site for me the resemblances of the evangelical church and Rome. And how Reform confession differs from Rome and modern day evangelicalism. I have formulated my own opinion having become Reformed in the last few years. Would lvd to hear you expound. For me it is the preservation of the five solos vs the continual move by modern evangelicals toward Rome in synergistic sense. I mean imputed righteousness is not justification by love and keeping it in tact or a transfusion of dna. Your thoughts?
five solas.
Kevin,
I could go on in detail how the Protestant church, especially the modern Presbyterians, have bought the doctrines of Rome outside the teachings of Scripture and the true reformers in history. I would rather not going down this road on here.
However, I would recommend you watch this video by MacArthur, and watch it through to the end. I am not a fan of MacArthur in the sense that he uses a very broad stream as being “faithful” in church history with solid doctrine. You will see him explain this stream in the video. I believe there are some doctrines that were clearly explained by true reformers that MacArthur and the “reformed” community have ignored, and adopted those errors taught by Rome.
However, the video is an excellent review of what is happening to the Christian (mostly run by non-Christians as similar to that of Rome) visible church…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNThGs8YXPw
My Presbyterian brothers and ministers are as much, if not more liable, to be behind this movement. There are a couple books that you can read that will show what happened, in key detail, but for now the best “general” issue about those who are following Rome in a very general sense are shown in the video by MacArthur. It is worth your time if you have the time.
Walt, I was saved in MacArthur’s church when I was a musician in LA in 1981. I was in an awful lifestyle and was taken to a service one morning when he gave a powerful sermon on Mathew 7. The Lord convicted me that day and I believed on Christ for the forgiveness of my sins that day. I spent 5 years under his teaching and learned much. I have since become more Reformed. I have heard all his stuff at the strange fire seminar but will listen to this again.
Walt, I thought i had heard that sermon. One of the best i’ve heard. One thing MacArthur can’t be accused of is not standing up to error. There is a real parallel in the evangelical church and Rome. And it real comes down to added revelation, the source of all error. Need we ask the question why its important guarding the once delivered infallible deposit of faith is paramount.
“Jesus Christ, after having given us all he could give, that is to say, the merit of his toils, his sufferings, and bitter death; after having given us his adorable body and blood to be the food of our souls, willed also to give us the most precious thing he had let, which was his holy Mother,”
Saint John Marie Vianney
He is our Alpha and Omega ” Come unto me all you with heavy burden and I will give you rest. My yoke is light. Jesus earthly mother can never take the place of a Savior who gives us EVERYTHING pertaining to life and godliness. And to ascribe any glory to her is blasphemous. Mary was his slave and servant who thanked Him in her prayer for being her savior and Alpha and Omega. Catholics must get Christ out of the pews as one of the patrons looking up to his mother, they must let Him off the cross and the altar, and put Him in heaven where He is glorified, where the father declared Him the Son of God with power.
Jim, the only example you can give me of apostolic succession to an infallible institution is Mathias taking Judas place. Jude says the faith has been “once and for all” delivered. You have no evidence of any infallible institution like the Roman catholic church handing out grace thru an OT sacrificial system. The Roman sacraments are like the OT sacrifices, they are ongoing and they don’t redeem anyone. Their Priests die and they cannot save anyone. Jesus sacrifice is perfect, one time, past tense, at the consummation of the ages, and it did exactly what it was intended to do. It fulfilled the righteous requirements of the Law in us, and it perfected all those who believe. Hebrews is very clear, Christ’s sacrifice once once and for all ( epaphax). It cannot be perpetuated or continued in time. Rome is old testament judaism repackaged. The Sacramental system is a replay of the OT Sacrifices which were imperfect and saved none. Christ said that he accomplished all that the Father gave him to do. We believe in a sacrifice that actually accomplishes redemption and reconciled ( past tense) men to God. We believe God saves us and you believe God helps you save yourself thru your works. False gospel. And according to my bible will send men to hell. Jim you are under the anathema of Galatians 1, because Paul could be speaking of no other church than Rome.
Kevin,
“Jim, the only example you can give me of apostolic succession to an infallible institution is Mathias taking Judas place.”
Okay. So what? I did not say the Bishopric was infallible. Only the Papacy.
“Jude says the faith has been “once and for all” delivered.”
Agreed.
“You have no evidence of any infallible institution like the Roman catholic church handing out grace thru an OT sacrificial system”.
No. I do not. I don’t say I do.
“The Roman sacraments are like the OT sacrifices,”
Only one of our Sacraments is a Sacrifice.
“they are ongoing and they don’t redeem anyone”
Redeem? No. Apply Redemption? Yes, indeed.
.” Their Priests die”
That is why Christ made provision for their deaths by establishing succession.
” and they cannot save anyone”
James says we are to save others.
. “Jesus sacrifice is perfect, one time, past tense, at the consummation of the ages, and it did exactly what it was intended to do. It fulfilled the righteous requirements of the Law in us, and it perfected all those who believe. Hebrews is very clear, Christ’s sacrifice once once and for all”
You win a cigar.
” ( epaphax). It cannot be perpetuated or continued in time.”
Jesus established the Mass to do just that, Kevin.
“Rome is old testament judaism repackaged. The Sacramental system is a replay of the OT Sacrifices which were imperfect and saved none.”
Gratuitous ranting.
” Christ said that he accomplished all that the Father gave him to do.”
Catholics say the same.
” We believe in a sacrifice that actually accomplishes redemption and reconciled ( past tense) men to God”
NO YOU DON’T! You believe in Penal Substitution. Speaking of which, today is Holy Saturday. According to PS, Jesus spent this day being tortured by the devil.
” We believe God saves us and you believe God helps you save yourself thru your works”
Yes and no.
.” False gospel.”
True Gospel.
“And according to my bible will send men to hell”
Kevin, Salvation is IN Christ. In His Body, the Church. It is an organic, physical and communal relationship. It is familial.
. “Jim you are under the anathema of Galatians 1, because Paul could be speaking of no other church than Rome.”
He was not speaking of any church.
Jim ” Redeem? Apply redemption, yes indeed! ” Where would this salvation on the installment plan be in scripture. Justification is always complete and past tense with Paul? ” having been justified by faith” having been justified by his blood” Do you understand the aorist past participle Jim?
Jim ” He was not speaking of a church” Yes he was, any that would add works to faith to be justified. The whole book of Galatians is written to people who were trying to undermine justification by faith alone in Christ alone. Get a clue my friend. Hey Jim would you meet me in Sicily sometime for a cappuccino with the family? They’ll treat you real well if you know what I mean.
Tim,
I enjoyed reading Quite Contrary. May God bless your work.
Thanks, Eric,
I appreciate your kind words,
Tim
Tim, I want you to know that i have told everybody about this site. And many of my believing friends are on here reading. There is a swelling an acute awareness among committed Protestant believers that Roman Catholicism is exactly what you describe and I have always known, a false Christianity. Those who want to hold hands with Catholics in the culture arena against the 2 chosen sins Homosexuality and Abortion ( which is a noble cause) should think about throwing their arms around the Roman Gospel. I have put all my relationships on the line with all my Roman friends and would do it in a heart beat again. Eric W is also a warrior for the faith. I think the biggest error is sacramental salvation of earning increase in place of a life of believing. ” For the righteous shall live by faith” Doing sacramental salvation perverts what the sacraments really are gifts, seals and confirmations of God’s free grace, a visible sign of the invisible reality. The oddity that anyone would eat their God physically. augustine opposed this. Putting sacramental efficacy up in the place of the atonement negates the perfect and sufficient sacrifice of our savior, and we must stand against this false religion of works righteousness. Pelagian believed in grace too. Paul eliminates anything coming from us as being meritorious in salvation. And Ephesians 2:8 and Romans 10:9-10 constrain them mightily. K
Thank you, Kevin,
I believe that there are a lot of Christians who suspect something is wrong with Roman Catholicism, but do not know how to respond to the many claims that Rome makes. Rome’s arguments are rigorous, intellectual and very difficult for the uninitiated to overcome. It is my intent here to equip the saints to resist Rome’s arguments with Scripture, and with a helpful knowledge of history, too. I am glad to be of assistance to you and your friends.
This coming week we will address one of the most common, but least known, abilities of the Apparitions of Mary, something that often takes Christians by surprise, but of which we were warned 2,000 years ago.
Stay tuned,
Tim
OOH! I can hardly wait!
Tim, if the following is true,
“Rome’s arguments are rigorous, intellectual and very difficult for the uninitiated to overcome. ”
Do you honestly think Kevin is the right guy for a rigorously difficult intellectual argument? He is still trying to figure out why punishment cannot be “temporal” and “eternal” at the same time.
Jim,
Of course I do.
Yes, and before we met, you thought the La Laus and La Salette apparitions were “obscure” and that the Sub Tuum Praesidium was inscribed on the walls of the catacombs.
Jim, I didn’t start this blog because I thought people were already equipped for battle. I started it because they are not. If there is any way I can be of assistance to Kevin, it is my privilege to be so. And if there is anything else on Roman Catholic history that I can help you with, please don’t hesitate to ask.
You are always welcome here,
Tim
Brother Kevin, you wrote:
I think the biggest error is sacramental salvation of earning increase in place of a life of believing. ” For the righteous shall live by faith” Doing sacramental salvation perverts what the sacraments really are gifts, seals and confirmations of God’s free grace, a visible sign of the invisible reality
Response:
Bingo ! This is why I labor to see RCs identify themselves as true believers by using the Scripture. (2Cor.13:5) Their system teaches that the Sacrament of Faith gives the interior virtue of faith. By a clever sleight of hand, submission is exchanged for interior faith and baptism justifies.
Keep on warrior !
Eric W, ya I finally got what your doing by carefully watching your discussions on the other sight. And I think its brilliant and right approach. ” their system teaches the that Sacrament of faith gives the interior virtue of faith, by a clever slight of hand, submission is exchanged for interior faith and baptism justifies.” This is so well said! Press on bro, for there is laid up for us……!
Eric W, take that argument to Wosbald the Pantheist!
Tim, exactly, the Roman schoolboys and all their hair splitting philosophy. Paul said none could come to the truth of the gospel thru human wisdom 1 Cor. 1, they have much human wisdom and not the gospel. Their philosophers got the globe upside down and got the gospel upside down. The simplicity of “the righteous shall live by faith.” He calls us righteous, why? Because we are internally so, no, Christ is our righteousness thru faith alone!
Jim, the bible isn’t a metaphysical essay. God made the gospel clear and understandable to man thru his Spirit and his word.. Paul said in 1 Corinthians that thru all their human wisdom they were no able to come to the truth of the gospel. Paul said” where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? where is the debater of this age? Has not God not made foolish the wisdom of the world.” Aquinas made a tragic mistake and attached christian faith ethic to a pagan philosophy and came up with a semi pelagian gospel that has and is and will send men to hell. ” for indeed Jews ask for signs and greeks search for wisdom, but we preach the gospel, to Jews a STUMBLING BLOCK, and to Gentiles FOOLISHNESS, but to those who are called , both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” Jim you trust your infallible church and I will try to show myself a workman approved.
Kevin,
Not only does the myriad of disparate groups all claiming to have a Bible and be Spirit filled, prove you wrong, but scripture itself says so. 2nd Peter 3 says people like like you shouldn’t be reading Paul.
As for Aquinas, you shouldn’t be reading him either. Stick to Jack Chick, Alexander Hislop and Trail of Blood. That is more your speed. Caricatures, hysteria and lies.
Kevin,
Your mother sells drugs to children.
Don’t deny it.
She sells heroin to kids. She drives up in front of Franklin High School in southeast Portland, Oregon and deals out of her car.
Do I have to prove it? Or just assert it? And rant on and on for months despite your objections?
From this post forward, I am going to unmask you as the son of a dope dealer. You cannot be Spirit filled as your own mother is so perverse.
LURKERS! KEVIN’S MOTHER SELLS DOPE TO CHILDREN!
Lurkers,
Kevin is on record of saying I worship bread. He says I am going to hell for it. He mocks the Eucharist as being a “death wafer:”
He says I adore Mary as a goddess. My denials fall on deaf ears.He makes assertion about my mother, the Church, based on spurious sources.
Don’t believe him! His mother has been peddling drugs in Portland, Oregon for going on 20 years now. He will deny it. He may even say she is deceased. He is either lying or has been duped by the pusher mom. He might rant about family or mother’s being off limits. But I have here on my desk prison and arrest records from the Portland police. I have checked on it.
Kevin’s mother sells drugs and dirty needles in Portland, O.
Her street name is “Gypsy”. On the knuckles of her left hand is tattooed “Love” and on the right, “hate”…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..Hey! This is great! I can just let my imagination run amok.
Gypsy has done time in California for…………………………………… ( later, after a few drinks, I will figure out Kevin’s involvement in Gypsy’s escapades )……………………………This is so great. I can assert. allege, charge, imply, and accuse with reckless abandon and Kevin can’t deny a thing as he is the unregenerate son of a pusher mom.
Oh don’t worry lurkers, I will pepper the narrative with some actual places, times and characters to make my yarn swallowable, ( as Tim does ). So stand by for my expose of “Gypsy and Son”. It’s gonna get even juicier.
Readers, Have I made my point? Kevin shoots from his lip. Bible quotes a flying! Ugly innuendos galore. He glories in giving offense. He give all Protestants a bad name.
Kevin, On your last post, you mentioned Aquinas and his attaching a “Christian faith ethic to a pagan philosphy…”.
Have you ever read Aquinas? Do you have any idea of what you are talking about? Or are you just asserting again?
Kevin, correct me if I am wrong, but weren’t you reprimanded on another blog ( not Jason’s ) for prefacing you posts with the phrase, “with all due respect”? You were told to stop using the phrase as it was irritating and you really didn’t show respect.
You say stuff like ,”With all due respect, your mother is a whore and your father a child molester”. You say the most outrageously stupid things without even trying to back them up.
Either you are so dull witted as you honestly don’t realize how gross you are, or you do know it and think you are cute.
Kauffman has his reasons for keeping yo around. Probably, you and I are all he’s got. Who knows?
You know Kevin, I had to explain to Jason just how offensive you are to get you silenced. As an adult who read, prayed and studied his way into the Church, he probably had no feel for how viscerally offensive you are to someone raised Catholic.
I believe Tim knows, but that is why he feeds you.
Jim, Are you sure you want to say what you said. My Father was an American war hero, a son of Italian immigrants. And my mother is a wonderful woman. She is 91, and isn’t selling drugs to anyone. That does not change the fact that Aquinas had a thing for fulfilling Aristotle’s dreams. Had the church followed Augustine instead of Aquinas I think we would of end up with Reformed teaching. Seems like I touched a nerve with you with Aquinas. Take a pill Jim. Relax. Come with me and you’ll see, a world of pure imagination. Please don’t insult me and ask me if I have read Thomas Aquinas. Jim, just a hint, when you start insulting people’s intelligence you are losing the argument.
Jim, you degrade people with immunity on Jason’s site. The Catholics can say whatever they want. i know you got me thrown off that site. Jason sent a letter around asking if I were the problem. That won’t work here. Tim sees that I.ve been respectful. I only go at doctrine not people. It isn’t personal Jim. Its about the souls of lives. Its about the Gospel. Thats it.
Kevin, My mother taught me my faith. Plus, she worked way into the night, single, to earn the money to put me in Catholic school. In her final days with cancer, I brought her the Blessed Sacrament daily. Not a death wafer. She didn’t worship bread.
Now, tell me who degrades the other guys mother with impunity.
Jim, so your mother is a saint and mine is a drug pusher. Got it. Luther said he got save from a church of saints.