252 thoughts on “Their Praise was their Sacrifice (part 8)”

1. Excellent Tim, I shivered when I read this today and remembring reading Mathew Henry saying commenting on 2 Thess. 2, that it was gradual, subtle, as we see here. Yet when one sees all these at once, Mass, Marian changes, sacraments distorted, Papal rise, etc. scripture was fulfilled and Antichrist raised his head from inside the church. We can only pain of the people in history who were led to the slaughter of the Roman Mass right into hell, and those who go even today to be saved, and yet dont understand they are sliding into the pit of hell. Being led like sheep to a slaughter. The subtle change being justified by faith to adding one’s merit. Let us hold fast onto Christ in falth alone, and reject all other atrempts to be saved. And let us each day rail against the Catholic Mass which has intombed the souls of the lost. Thanks Tim for another well done series. You continue to shine the light on darkness, and their dark deeds are exposed. K

   Reply

   1. Thank you, Kevin. Yes—the latter part of the 4th century is quite intriguing, isn’t it?

      Tim

      Reply

      1. TIM–
         You said: “After this ye hear the chanter inviting you with a sacred melody to the communion of the Holy Mysteries, and saying, ‘O taste and see that the Lord is good.’ [Palms 34:8] Trust not the judgment to your bodily palate no, but to faith unfaltering; for they who taste are bidden to taste, not bread and wine, but the anti-typical [symbolical] Body and Blood of Christ.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 23, paragraph 20).
         Symbols. Figures. Signs. Antitypes. His body bore the figure of bread, and bread bore the figure of His body.”

         Nothing could be further from the truth! Tim, have you forgotten what a sacrament is?
         Full Definition of SACRAMENT:
         1a : a Christian rite (as baptism or the Eucharist) that is believed to have been ordained by Christ and that is held to be a means of divine grace or to be a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality.
         And Lecture 23 is a perfect picture, step by step, of the current Catholic Liturgy of the Eucharist.

         You also say: “Perhaps the most compelling evidence regarding Cyril is how he explains Malachi 1:10-11. It is about blessing God in the congregation, singing to God in the congregation, praising God in the congregation, and glorifying God in the congregation, but nary a word about offering bread, wine, Christ’s body and blood, or the Lord’s Supper in the congregation:
         …Agreeably to which the prophet also said to the Jews, ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord Almighty’ [Malachi 1:10]; and immediately afterwards, ‘For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same, My name is glorified among the Gentiles.’ [Malachi 1:11] Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, [1 Timothy 3:15].” (Cyril of Jerusalem, ‘That you may know how you ought to behave yourself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth’Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 18, chapter 25)
         Here Cyril of Jerusalem manages to invoke Malachi 1:10-11 without so much as a hint that he had the Sacrifice of the Mass in mind.

         Au contraire, mon frère. That is exactly what he meant when he said ‘That you may know how you ought to behave yourself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth’.
         And Lecture 23 is without a doubt the Liturgy of the Eucharist, step by step, and in that order, sacrament and all.

         Reply

         1. TIM–
            You said: “For three centuries the Church had insisted that the bread and wine were figuratively, symbolically, antitypically, and metaphorically the Body and Blood of Christ and that what is offered is praise and gratitude for “the remembrance” which is “effected by their solid and liquid food,” by which “the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 117).

            Yes. That is what a sacrament is– a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality that is held to be a means of divine grace.

            You also said: “For three centuries, the Church had insisted that Malachi’s prophecy was fulfilled in the praise, prayer, gratitude, hymns, worship and obedience of His people, for their sacrifices were incorporeal, invisible, immaterial, offered to an incorporeal, invisible and immaterial Being.”

            Yes.
            Substance = incorporeal, immaterial, spiritual = prayers, thanksgivings, praises, the Body and Blood of Christ.

            Accidents = corporeal, material, carnal = alms, tithes, bread and wine. These are offered for blessing.

            Reply

   2. You shivered? Maybe you just need a hug.

      Get off my CCC blog you dumb son of a *&$#(!!!!!!

      Reply

2. Now let’s see if someone at Catholic Answers will respond to the challenge, and write a rebuttal.

   We don’t see any rebuttals here on the blog comments with any serious scholarship, but just a lot of comments.

   What is becoming very very clear on this blog is that the current Romish religion (e.g., Roman Catholic church) has no existence until 4th Century. Anyone who cannot at least grasp this fact from this blog is really blinding themselves by their own presupposition against the truth.

   As a former Roman Catholic, it was always in my mind whether the church actually started with “Pope” Peter, and had a perfect line back to my home town in America. Now, it is abundantly clear I was lied to over and over about Peter being the first Pope. There is no connection WHATSOEVER between Peter and the first Roman Catholic Pope in the 4th century. They did not even know anything about each other, nor did they teach the same doctrine, discipline, worship or government.

   The Roman Catholic religion, and its followers, are in danger of severe judgement by a righteous God. He warns them to “come out of her my people” as do I.

   Reply

   1. Walt, it will certainly be interesting to see Roman Catholic responses. The pagans thought the early Christians were atheists because they did not have sacrifices. The early apologists protested, saying to the pagans, we just don’t have sacrifices that you can see, or even show “But certainly the God whom we worship we neither show nor see.”(Minucius Felix, Octavius, chapter 32). If the mass was the sacrifice, and the Lord was the bread, why didn’t Minucius Felix just “show” pagans how they could “see” the Chrisitan God. He was “right there on the altar,” right?

      In Novel Antiquity, I noted that Mark Shea complained that Protestants “flee from the incarnation” because we cannot handle visible, corporeal, embodied worship—so nervous does the incarnation make us. The term he used with me was “incarnational heebie jeebies.” And yet the early church insisted, against the charges of atheism, that we offer invisible, incorporeal, unembodied, immaterial sacrifices to an invisible, incorporeal, unembodied, immaterial Being, and He that is invisible must be worshiped with that which cannot be seen. The early church was offering these invisible, incorporeal, unembodied, immaterial sacrifices because this Great invisible, immaterial God had humbled Himself to become a Man to save His people. You can’t get more incarnational than the early church, which had no interest in all in Rome’s so-called “incarnationalism,” and that early church rejected her “visible” god and her visible sacrifices.

      Now if Rome charges us with denying the incarnation because we refuse her so-called “incarnational” worship, is she not also charging the early church with denying the incarnation, as well? And if refusing to stumble into visible, corporeal, embodied, material sacrifices and worship was how the early Church acknowledged and affirmed the incarnation, then what is Rome denying when she insists that we worship “incarnationally” as she does?

      Indeed, her religion is in fact a wholesale, corporate rejection of the incarnation itself. (I think you posted a youtube link on a sermon to this same effect some time ago—I did get around the listening to it eventually, and I think he is spot on.)

      Thanks,

      Tim

      Reply

      1. Tim, this post of yours is really the issue. The Roman church sees fallen human nature as the conduit for grace. When they condemn us for denying incarnation, they are really saying we are denying the Roman church as the natural body of Christ. Why? Because they see the church as replacing an unfinished incarnation in the acts of the church. They usurp His finished work. This is the merit tradmill in which they are climbing to tgeir salvation. I have said this before. It is a faulty view of ths Trinity by inserting itself between the Word and the Spirit. All this grace running thru fallen creation, making the sign the thing signified, in their hot iron burns magical sacraments. What they fail to realize is we are connected to his humanity and his body thru the Sprit. When Adam sinned, creation was in a fallen state, they were kicked out of the garden. Fall ed n human nature (creation) has no capacity to receive grace apart from the supernatural work of the Spirit thu the Word. When Christ came into the world, creation didnt receive him. And apart rrom being born again. Fallen creation will be destroyed some day. Thats why Catholics have a to high a view of the role of the law to prepare for grace. Paul says the law is not faith. We know the law is good and relects God’s nature. But it brought forth wrath and condemnation because of sin. Aquinas tried to make the gospel more amiable to natural man by connecting a Christian faith ethic to a pagan philosophy, and look what happened. Incidentally I offered up spiritual sacrifices this morning thru the Spirit and the Word at the Lord’s supper. We reject their charges of anti incarnationalism. Their incarnatinalism is idolatry and unbelief. Look at their view of John 6. And incidentally Christ loses none of His, He gives us eternal life. It lasts forever. Leave it to Rome to deny this. They deny penal substitution, the sufficiecy of his one sacrifice, because the sacrifice for their sins is the bread of the Supper. When they say incarnational, wecshould interpret they worship the creature rather than the creator. We must worship God in an aceptable way, in Spirit and truth, through faith alone. K

         Reply

      2. Tim,

         In one of your next series, or even an article, do you think you could dig deeper into the dates where you see the falling away of Rome from the faithful visible church?

         It would be interesting to dedicate an article on what steps took place leading up to Jerome’s translation, Rome’s approval of that translation and how that was used to support the “sacred tradition” Rome was soon to develop as its fundamental foundation to transforming into antichrist during the dark and middle ages.

         While I’ve been trying to find more information on when this falling away took place, and where the Greek manuscripts and true doctrines went after this split, I recognize that history into the reformation goes outside your expertise on the church fathers.

         So without going into that detail, it would really be helpful to get a much more full understanding of what led up to this period of falling away with as many dates as you can muster on this period. I know you have posted several in the comments section of various articles, but if you do get a chance to put it on your list I have several people watching your blog that would like to see this early church history in as much detail as possible.

         Do you know of any scholar or historian who has detailed out this period that I could read?

         Reply

         1. Thanks, Walt,

            I’ll keep that in mind. So much of the scholarship on this era incorporates the myth of “The Roman Years,” i.e., that the Church was Roman Catholic for the first 1500 years. In reality, it was only Roman Catholic for 1200 years, since the first three hundred were Catholic, but not Roman. Thus, very much of what has been written has been done with the assumption that the post-nicene church just got a little strange for a while, but not apostate. On closer analysis, it is quite clear when the apostasy began.

            I know we are not of the same mind on some of the chronology, even though eschatologically, we end up in almost the same place, but my plan in the near term is to continue documenting the transition point. As sources come to mind, I will certainly provide them.

            Sometime soon I’ll start diving into Daniel, as I believe his prophecies help pinpoint the falling away.

            Thanks so much,

            Tim

            Reply

            1. That early period will be extremely helpful. While we disagree on some of the details of dates pointing to the book of Revelations revealed in history, we definitely reach the same conclusions on who is antichrist. It seems that in our generation that number who believe Rome is antichrist could fit into a phone booth! Thus, it just shows how backslidden our generation is at present in understanding anything about reformed teachings of Scripture.

               It has been helpful to see some of the early Church Fathers also consider the infant Rome back in the first 4 centuries to look like Antichrist. I suspect that is why some of the Reformers quoted those early fathers as believing what they were teaching from Scriptures and early history.

               I appreciate all your hard work and study in this field. I do hope we reach unity on the dates of the falling away period as I’m not aware of much unity in the historical post-mill camp on this position. You could base entire new scholarly work on this subject alone that could take the protestant world by storm, and even make some Roman apologists and Jesuits on EWTN go crazy with envy if well documented.

               Scott Hahn and his following would really be shocked to see his ideas shattered by the evidence.

            2. Hi, Walt, thanks.

               Certainly Hahn’s claim can and must be challenged—that is, his claim that the Early Church Fathers all recognized that Thursday night was when the True Passover Sacrifice was offered. The evidence simply does not support his claim. The same goes with the Roman Catholic claim that everyone has always known (until the Reformation) that Malachi 1:11 was a prophecy of the Mass. Rome’s claim regarding Malachi is simply untrue.

               I should say here that my position would more closely align with historicist pre-mill rather than historicist post-mill. I don’t believe that I have ever self-identified as historicist post-mill here. In fact, I’m quite sure I haven’t. The reasons for that are several, and will become more relevant as the discussion proceeds into Daniel. More on that in the coming weeks.

               You are right that those who claim that Rome is Antichrist have largely been shamed into silence as time has marched on. It is considered a ridiculous, medieval, bigoted, superstitious judgmental throwback to the day when there was a slight blip in the continuity of the Church’s heartbeat (i.e., the Reformation). That is why I am willing to stipulate that I am but a fool, a lone voice, and a ridiculous shell of an apologist operating a self-discrediting blog——because my reputation simply does not matter. What matters is data.

               Very well, then. Let the world say that I am fool… probably just some under-educated ne’er-do-well typing his psychotic manifesto in his pajamas from a spare room in his mother’s basement.

               (The funny thing is, the detractors will cut and paste that back to me as if it was an insult…. go figure…).

               But now that everyone is in agreement that I am but a fool … there’s still this small matter of what Malachi meant to the early church…

               Thanks for your note.

               Shamelessly,

               Tim

      3. Tim, you said Walt provided a sermon some time ago on the icarnationalsm of Rome, and that it was spot on. Do you remember where that sermon is. I have re read Novel Antiquity and am fascinated with this subject. I just never realized just how much the Early Fathers abject rejection of Rome’ incarnationalism. Amazing thanks K

         Reply

3. Another excellent and most helpful series Tim, thank you.

   I thought it was particularly helpful how you traced the changing of the thought patterns through the middle to end of the 4th century. The following section from Cyril of Jerusalem really caught my eye.

   “Why do we turn from the facing the west to the east during worship? It is symbolic. Why are we anointed with oil at our baptism? It is “a symbol of the participation of the fatness of Christ”. Why are we immersed three times during our baptism? It is symbolic of “the three days burial of Christ”. Why are we anointed on our forehead, ears, nostrils and breast? It is symbolic. Why do we kiss one another after the liturgy? It is symbolic. Why do the presbyters wash their hands? It is symbolic.”

   The reason it did so is this. What do most of these things have in common? It is that most of them are introductions into worship that, while not inherently wrong in and of themselves, were not ordained by God.

   Chapter 21 section states, “… But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.”

   For its proof texts it cites the following:
   DEU 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
   MAT 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
   ACT 17:25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things.
   MAT 4:9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. 10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. (see also DEU 4:15-20)
   EXO 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

   I think that it is safe to say that a healthy church does not usually wake up one day and say, ‘you know, I think we are going to apostatize today.’ It is often a long, slippery slide that take place. A little something here, a minor thing over there. Bit by bit, little by little, we forget God’s commands and slowly introduce human innovation into His worship. The next thing we know we have gone the way of Rome and become almost completely unrecognizable to Scripture. God has established hedges around His worship for a reason, and Rome provides a painfully clear example what happens when we disregard those boundaries.

   May we all let this lesson from history to heart and diligently examine our doctrine and life in the light of God’s Word that we might be “perfect, thoroughly furnished to all good works.” (2 Tim 3:17)

   Reply

   1. Just as a clarification, I forgot to add that the “Chapter 21 section 1” that I quoted was from the Westminster Confession of Faith.

      May you all have a blessed Lord’s Day.

      Reply

   2. Amen Dan!

      Reply

   3. Thanks, Dan. Because Rome so desperately needs to trace her origins earlier than the end of the 4th Century, there is a constant effort by her apologists to claim Nicæa as a Roman Catholic council, complete with clerical celibacy, papal primacy, and the sacrifice of the mass. At the very least this investigation into the history of the Lord’s Supper in the early church contextualizes Nicæa’s use of the word “offer” in the weekly worship service. As we noted in Part 6, once the stringent categorical distinctions are observed, Nicæa’s language is clear: thanks is offered to God, bread is offered to men. As Basil noted for us this week, “offering thanksgiving” is what 4th century prebysters had received from the ancient church and from the Scripture, not the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass:

      “we, too, since we have received from the presbyters who were before us a form and a rule, offering thanksgiving in the same terms with them” (De Spiritu Sancto, chapter 29, paragraph 72)

      He was completely unaware of receiving a “Mass Sacrifice” from the apostles.

      Thanks,

      Tim

      Reply

4. I have learned from scripture may will come in that day and say ” Lord, Lord, we prophesied in your name, did wonders in your name etc., and He will say begone from me, I have never knew you. So much for baptismal regeneration. There ars goats and sheep, no category for those goats progressing to becoming sheep. As Spurgeon said, God put his own in a saved state, not a savable state. The Mass and salvation on the installment plan is a lie. I just our Catholic interlocutors wil like get off their knees at that idol, and worship Christ in Spirit and truth thru simple faith. And I echo Tim’s words, may God preserve his people who must and will come out of her. Salvation is from the Lord. To whom God gives grace, it is irresistible, and perseveres. Grace is not a tool to merit salvation. Thats a lie. K

   Reply

5. Tim,

   Here is a very good short video on the history of the Bible, and clearly it is obvious in the video how much hatred the Roman Catholic Church has had for the Holy Word of God to be published in history. She has tried to kill everyone in history who has tried to publish the Bible and many have died for this cause.

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuO2vTWdWL4

   While I’m sure the first three to four centuries were not as anti-Bible since the Romish religion was not yet born entirely yet, but only it its infancy. However, documenting that period up to the Latin Vulgate and its approval as the Romish churches approved text gives us the foundation that would later drive thousands and subsequently millions of Christians to be tortured and killed by the Roman church.

   The video starts only in the 1380’s with the English bible, but what happened before that is the question of the century! 🙂

   Reply

   1. Terrific, thanks! I’ll take a look.

      Tim

      Reply

6. Tim,
   How could the Church not be the (Romish ) Catholic Church for the first 300 years if it had a Pope?

   Reply

   1. Jim, I have answered this question for you before. On January 6, 2015, you opined, in response to Their Praise was Their Sacrifice (part 3),

      “Central to the Catholic Church is the Pope.”

      To which I responded:

      That is not accurate. Since the term “pope” has not always referred to the Roman Bishop, you must do more than prove that the term “pope” predated the latter part of the 4th century. You will note in my article that I did not say that there were no bishops in Rome prior to 350 A.D.. Nor did I say the term “pope” was not used prior to 350 A.D.. The earliest known use of the title to refer to a patriarch was in reference to the patriarch of Alexandria, not to the bishop of Rome:

      “The earliest record of the use of this title was in regard to the by then deceased Patriarch of Alexandria, Pope Heraclas of Alexandria (232–248).”(Wikipedia, The Pope: Title and Etymology)

      The article also notes that the term was not officially reserved for the Bishop of Rome until the 11th century. If it is true that “central to the Catholic Church is the Pope,” why was the first pope from Alexandria? Why was the term not officially reserved for the Bishop of Rome until the 11th century? What I think you meant is that “Central to the Roman Catholic Church is a Roman Pope who has Primacy over all others.” As I noted in my article, the first Roman Bishop to claim this successfully was Pope Damasus I (reigned from 366 – 384 A.D.), although some had tried, unsuccessfully, before that. It was in 370 that the first claim was made that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. It was in 380 that the term Pontifex was transferred from the emperor to the bishop of Rome, although Tertullian used the term mockingly of him much earlier. If you have countervailing evidence, you are welcome to provide it here. As you know, all comers are welcome. But merely showing that Rome had a bishop before 350, or that there was a church prior to 350, or that the term “pope” predated 350 is not sufficient to “debunk” my “entire theory.”

      Take your question and ask it again, knowing that the first “pope” was actually from Alexandria:

      How could the Church not be the (Alexandrian) Catholic Church if it was the first one to have a pope?

      Thanks,

      Tim

      Reply

7. Kelvin,
   You should have come over on Buggars All when you had a chance. James Swine dumped me overboard last week end so there is no point in you trolling over there now that they are banning the famous Guy Fawkes from commenting.

   Don’t troll on CCC. Stay here where you rule supreme ( with Tim’s fiat of course ). This is your home, where you belong. You look stupid and pathetic crashing a blog where you are not wanted.

   Swan had to ban me. I was holding his feet to the fire on his asinine statements every day. He tried ignoring me, deleting me, and insulting me. Finally, he had no choice but to shoot the sly Fawkes down as he was running amok and creating havoc in the Swanhouse.
   I never understood why you never came over there. I think he banned you too, right? Even your own kind loathe you, eh?

   Reply

8. Tim, I was reading thru Daniel 7 tonight, and in verse 25 it says he shall wear out the saints of the most high, and shall think to change the times and the Law; Does this have to do with the RC Eucharist moving the one time sacrifice in time to continuous? And does changing the Law mean Popes adding to God’s word and law. I know I’m jumping ahead, but can this mean something like this? Thanks K

   Reply

9. Tim,

   Your post yesterday is all about the title of pope and not about the office. Indeed, other patriarchs of particulars sees are called pope.
   Pope just means “father” as see in the case of Is 22 where the prime minster is given the key and told he will be a father to the people. Abbots are fathers. We call priests “father”. Paul was a spiritual father.

   You argument about the title “Pope” is as puny as “call no man father”.
   From the earliest documents, right after the Acts of the Apostles, we see Rome and her bishop standing out among all others.

   The first mention of Peter being Pope was not in 370. Ignatius said in his letter to the Romans a mere 10 years after the death of the last Apostle that, ” I do not rule over you as did Peter and Paul”.
   The mention of Paul does not take away from Peter as never do we see the Pope called the successor of Paul.

   Reply

   1. Jim, you wrote,

      “Ignatius said in his letter to the Romans a mere 10 years after the death of the last Apostle that, ‘I do not rule over you as did Peter and Paul’.”

      That argument might hold water if Ignatius had said,

      ‘I do not rule over you as did Peter and Paul. They were bishops.’

      But that is not what he said. Ignatius wrote,

      “I write to the Churches… I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles;” (Ignatius of Antioch, to the Romans, Chapter 4)

      Ignatius is simply saying that his epistles do not have the apostolic authority that Peter’s and Paul’s epistles do. That he is speaking of their written epistles, not their bishoprics, is evidenced from his similar comments to other cities:

      “Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles…” (To the Magnesians, Chapter 13)

      “…continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ our God, and the bishop, and the enactments of the apostles” (To the Trallians, Chapter 7)

      Thanks,

      Tim

      Reply

10. Tim,
    I just clicked on your previous stuff and saw you assertions about Linus being first Bishop of Rome.
    You keep giving me the feeling you were never all that active as Catholic when you supposedly were such a devotee.

    Linus was indeed one of the Bishops of Rome, along with Clement, Peter and Paul and probably others. Here is Lisbon there are several bishops too. But only one Cardinal Patriarch.

    As for Polycarp, he did indeed travel to Rome from Smyrna to argue for the eastern Churches celebrating Easter on the 14 and got his way. So what? Because the Pope didn’t put his foot down and have his way doesn’t mean he couldn’t have.
    Just remember, Polycarp went to Rome. And the two men remained friends.

    Polycarp went to Rome on an issue of something that would become of important to Church unity. At Nicea, the matter was settled and it was settled according to Rome’s wishes.

    You are so silly to think that because someone, whether Hippolytus, Cyprian, St. Paul, Catherine of Siena, Hans Kung, whoever, opposes a Pope, there is no Papacy.

    Reply

    1. Jim, you wrote:

       “I just clicked on your previous stuff and saw you assertions about Linus being first Bishop of Rome.”

       Ok, let’s revisit our conversation.

       Tim (December 9, 2014 at 7:40 am)

       Jim,

       Since you believe Irenaeus affirmed the Papacy, would you kindly identify for us who Ireneaus believed to be the first bishop of Rome?

       Jim (December 9, 2014 at 10:28 am)

       Linus. And your point is…?

       You can revisit our conversation in the comment section of Novel Antiquity if you’d like. You asserted that Irenæus provided the unbroken line of bishops of Rome. So I asked you who Irenæus identified as the first bishop of Rome. You responded that Irenæus identified Linus as the first bishop of Rome.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

       1. Tim,
          Nice try but no cigar.
          Irenaeus also said Peter had been in Rome, yes?

          All I need to do to prove my case is demonstrate that Christ established the Papacy on St. Peter with an eye to the future.
          Linus was the first Bishop of Rome? Who ordained him by the way? Peter, right?

          Let’s say, for the sake of argument, I concede your point. Let’s say I even concede Linus was in Rome BEFORE Peter and Paul’s arrival and was “a” or even “the” Bishop there. So what? James was the first Bishop of Jerusalem, right? Who was Pope at the Council? Peter came down from Antioch and refereed between James and Paul.
          Maybe Polycarp was the first in Smyrna. Were any of these men Bishop of the Universal Church? Or was Peter?

          Remember Fulton Sheen? He was a Bishop. But he was a travelling one. Maybe Peter, as were Paul and Barnabas, unattached to any particular local. Who can say? Other than James and his brother Simeon, who were Levites and kinsmen to Jesus so therefore the obvious first choices for Bishop of Jerusalem, attached to any diocese at first? Was Thomas assigned India or is that where he ended up? Jude founded Churches in both Babylon and Armenia and both claim him as founder.

          As we see Aquila and Priscilla, Christians, being expelled from Rome along with the other Jews under Claudius, I can only assume there was at least one presbyter/bishop in Rome saying Mass for them before Peter and Paul got there or Paul wrote his epistle anyway. Even if there wasn’t, if there were only some baptized laymen awaiting Peter to come and lay hands on some presbyters/bishops, so what?

          We see in Acts how the Samaritans, even after being Baptized, had to wait for Bishops to come and Confirm them. Perhaps only deacons were running the Roman Church until a Bishop came. I am in no position to say and neither are you.

          Speaking of Polycarp, it just so happens that when Bento XVI came to Portugal a few years back, the Cardinal Bishop ws the late Jose Policarpo. And the Cardinal of Lisbon is the only prelate in the Western Church called Patriarch so he was no small potato. Yet when the Pope came, the Pope was the Pope even in Lisbon. Still, Policarpo did not resign his office nor was it rendered redundant. No more than James resigned his bishopric just because Peter was in Jerusalem for the Council.

          Tim, all I have to do is prove Peter was Pope and that Christ intended his office to have successors. That is duck soup because I just have to show Christ intended his infallible Church to continue after the first century.

          Then I just show that no place other than Rome ever even claimed the office.

          You can keep making insinuations and innuendos about the fathers to instill doubt till kingdom come but it will all be to no avail.

          Because the Papacy of the first century and the Papacy of the twenty-first don’t look exactly the same in every detail, so what? Does it have to? If Peter and subsequent early popes hand picked their successors and now it is don’t in conclave, so what again? If one Pope wore red shoes and another black, so?
          Your arguments against the Papacy are like your cornball objection to there being no Eucharistic processions through the streets of Rome in the first century during the time of the persecutions.

          I thought of you during Mass an hour or so ago when the priest referred to the Host as ” living bread”. I mused to myself how you and the wacky Kevin would say, ” See, that proves that in the 21st century some priests still offer bread”. Or when the priest speaks of a “sacrifice of praise”, you two guys would therefore assume he was denying the Eucharistic sacrifice and claiming a sacrifice of praise only.

          You could not have been very involved as a Catholic or you would laugh at your own arguments against the Papacy and the Mass not existing in the early Church.
          In some ways a lot has changed and in other ways nothing has. I can’t believe you can’t see it. But then, that’s why I question just how awake you were when you were the zealous Catholic you say you were.

          Reply

          1. Thanks, Jim,

             You wrote,

             “Your arguments against the Papacy are like your cornball objection to there being no Eucharistic processions through the streets of Rome in the first century during the time of the persecutions.”

             Ok, here is the conversation as it originally unfolded:

             From the post When Mary Got Busy, citing John Hardon:”With this profession of faith [in the 11th Century], the churches of Europe began what can only be described as a Eucharistic Rennaissance. Processions of the Blessed Sacrament were instituted.” (Fr. John Hardon, The History of Eucharistic Adoration)

             Annie, a participant on the blog, responded that Eucharistic processions had always existed:

             “Tim, I do take your point that during the course of history the practice of Eucharistic Processions and public veneration has not always been publically prominent but It has always existed.”

             My “cornball” objection, as you call it, was for Annie to prove that Eucharistic Processions had always existed when John Hardon himself acknowledged that they were not even instituted until the 11th century.

             The Roman persecutions did not last 1100 years, Jim. Why no Eucharistic Processions until the 11th century?

             Thanks,

             Tim

             Reply

             1. Tim,
                Probably because it took that long for Berengarius and ilk to deny the Real Presence causing the Church to go the other direction and affirm that Christ should be worshiped in the sacred species.

                Earlier today, after posting about Linus, I remembered an incident over on Buggars All that took place a few weeks ago.
                I argued for days with the Protestants , maybe forweeks about the Papacy. The Rock being the profession of faith and not Peter the man, Matthew 18 nullifying Matthew 16, the “Get behind me Satan” quote, denial of monarchical episcopacy, James running the Council of Jerusalem,Cyprian’s tiff with Stephan, Ignatius not addressing his letter to a pope, yadda, yadda, yadda, all the usual stuff, was brought up.
                One of the weirdest assertions made was from a nasty guy who wrote in to say that the Assyrian Church claims Peter died in Babylon. He was very aggressive in insisting Peter had not been in Rome. As I was unaware of this claim being made by anyone bit the most low brow of Protestants, I googled around and found that the Assyrian Church does say Peter visited Babylon and wrote his epistle from there. None of the sites, including the ones operated by members of that Church claimed he died there however. After some days, the guy revealed that he was not Protestant but Orthodox. He also admitted that he did not really believe Peter died in Babylon at all but in Rome. So why did he argue so vociferously for a view he didn’t even hold to?
                I think he was just muddying the waters and planting seeds of doubt. I think you are a bit like John in that respect, Tim.

                Another nutty thing was when the blog’s star apologist denied that such passages in the NT as, “Go tell Peter and the others…” singled Simon Peter out from the other Apostles. The mention of “the others” cancelled out my assertion that Peter was special. Even the other Protestants conceded Peter was singled out for something, not the leadership position, but for something.
                The star did not want to admit the obvious because he knew where he was being led. He didn’t want to go there so he told a big fat fib and pretended he didn’t see Peter as any more important than Nathaniel, Andrew or Philip.
                That is you too Tim.

                You are a mixture of these two dudes. You make wild assertions that you probably don’t believe yourself. And you pretend not to see the obvious.

11. By the way, Clement was Pope in the 3rd place after the Apostles, Peter and Paul. That makes Linus in the first place AFTER…

    Tim,
    Nobody but a Protestant like Kevin would be swayed by you. No Catholic would.
    It’s like the silly argument about Peter calling himself a fellow elder in his epistle proves he saw himself as just one among many, that he denied his office as chief shepherd.

    Ever notice how modern popes like Paul VI, JPII, Benedict and Francis humble themselves?

    Reply

12. Jim said ” nobody but a Protestant like Kevin would be swayed by you” Jim, many times the Catholic modus operandi is to make one feel like they are the only one in the world refuting the Papacy and Roman Catholic Doctrine. When the complete opposite is true. The truth is Jim, the true church has ALWAYS stood against your system, even back through the dark ages, and have payed the price for it, usually death. . As men searched deep into the scriptures through history one thing has been CERTAIN, Rome is the Antichrist. This did not start with me or any other Protestant. It has been true through history. Paul, Huss, Wycliffe, Huguenots, Waldensians, Spurgeon, Knox, Luther, Vermigli, Calvin, and the list goes on and on. Christians have been persecuted as Christ said would happen, and Rome has been the Persecutor. This fact is undeniable. God Bless K

    Reply

    1. Hi Terry ( you buffoon!)

       Reply

13. JIM–
    You need to understand something. Protestantism’s claim is that the Reformation was to bring the Church back to the original teachings of the apostles. They can only do that from Scripture and from the writings of the Early Church Fathers to piece it together. There is no line of Protestant Tradition from the early church to draw from. There is no claim of apostolic succession. All we can rely on is the Scriptures and the confirmation of same by the Early Church Fathers and some other historical writings such as Josephus and Eusebius and the like. But all of the historical writings must be measured against what is written in the infallible Bible.
    Ergo, the line of Bishops of Rome, that the Roman Church claims, is not relevant because it can’t be positively proven except by the very Roman Church that claims it.
    On the other hand, because there is no historical line of non-Catholic Christians throughout the middle ages, there is no historical proof that there was an “alternative Christian Church” besides the Roman Catholic Church.
    Therefore, it is reasonable for Protestants to argue that the Roman Church had a free reign, if you will, for centuries while Holy Tradition became cluttered with traditions of men.

    There is, however, one glaring blank spot in the history of the Church that really needs a good explanation. As you know, I am a believer in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. And not in the way that Tim believes, but truly present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. The Bible supports it and so do the Fathers. The one glaring blank spot in history is the lack of evidence of any real dissension of this concept. You said it, and CK said it. Where is the outcry amongst the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church throughout this time period? If it is so blatant against such a long standing apostolic tradition as Tim claims, where is the condemnation of heresy? Would not God have seen fit to at least preserve some writings in the Fathers, The same Fathers who were so quick to speak against all types of heresy?

    The Roman Church’s explanation of the Real Presence as transubstantiation was generally accepted for centuries before the Reformation. And it wasn’t until people had split from the Roman Church before condemnation of it finally took hold. And Luther didn’t even have a problem with it. His gripe was the abuse of the Sacrament of Confession and the sale of indulgences, and harsh penance, and the general corruption of the episcopate. He kindled a fire that soon grew out of control, and in my opinion, still is.

    That is why we are having prolonged discussions that seem to have no end.

    Reply

14. Bob,

    Yeah. Earlier today I was thinking about Lutheran Consubstantiation vs Transubstantiation. I don’t think it is an argument from the Bible but one of who has the authority to interpret what the words mean in the Last Supper passages.

    Most Protestants don’t really argue against the Real Presence from the Bible. Instead the argue from rationalism.

    One thing you said that I must question is;
    “the line of Bishops of Rome, that the Roman Church claims, is not relevant because it can’t be positively proven except by the very Roman Church that claims it.”

    I do think an atheist could approach early Church history and see the Papacy, no virtue of Faith needed. read the Fathers as just secular history, nothing more.

    I actually think the Papacy to be about the easiest thing of all to prove from the Bible.
    The trouble is in getting Protestants to concede that Jesus intended to establish a Church that would be both visible and indefectible/infallible. The problem is Protestants believe only the Bible to be infallible. The obvious difficulty with that is, without the Church, there is no Bible.

    If the Church is infallible, the highest court of appeal in the Church must have that charism in the highest degree.
    Upon demonstrating Peter to be that highest authority, papal infallibility follows by necessity.

    Trouble is, even Protestants who say nice things about the Church as Calvin did, redefine the Church to be “wherever the Gospel is preached and the Sacraments rightly administered”.
    That kind of begs the question, huh?

    The Biblical and Traditional way of determining just where the Church is that was founded by Christ is in identifying the succession of Bishops ( including the Pope ) by the laying on of hands.

    Anyway, back to what I was saying to Tim about demonstrating that Christ intended Peter’s office to continue after his death leads to Rome as nobody but Rome even claimed to be Peter’s see.

    Common sense says that every jury, team, marriage, platoon, country, whatever has to have a *Visible* head in order to have unity. Just saying the Holy Spirit guides the Church or that Christ is the head, the Rock, the Shepherd, has lead to anarchy.
    And the Bible cannot be the head of the Church no matter how infallible it is because books don’t talk.

    To sum up, a person needs to ask himself what provisions Christ made to assure that his teachings would be carried on down through the ages. Did he write a book and then tell folks to wait until 1450 and Gutenberg’s press to come along and get the message out, or did he found a Church and imbue it with “All authority in heaven and earth”.

    Reply

    1. JIM–
       I am well aware of the Catholic belief of apostolic succession and the protection of the Papacy and magisterium from error. That doesn’t mean anything to a Protestant since we don’t have a Papacy or magisterium. We only have people like Tim and Kevin and Walt and a thousand others to tell us what we should believe.

       Reply

    2. Jim, You said,

       That kind of begs the question, huh?

       But doesn’t Rome’s claim on infallibility beg the question? The pope is alleged to be infallible when he is speaking ex cathedra, so if he is ever in error, he must not have been speaking infallibly. Luther is alleged to be damnably wrong for rejecting James, but Pope Gregory the Great rejects Maccabees and he was just speaking from his private opinion. Protestants are alleged to be obstinate in their rejection of transubstantiation, but Pope Gelasius says the “substance of bread and wine remain” and he is said to be speaking before Transubstantiation had been adequately defined. The pope only speaks ex cathedra when he speaks the truth, and when he’s not speaking the truth, he’s not speaking ex cathedra. But the important thing is that he’s infallible. You continued,

       “Common sense says that every jury, team, marriage, platoon, country, whatever has to have a *Visible* head in order to have unity. Just saying the Holy Spirit guides the Church or that Christ is the head, the Rock, the Shepherd, has lead to anarchy.”

       But a visible head who himself is unable to tell you when he is speaking infallibly leads to anarchy as well. Perhaps you can resolve this for us by providing the list of ex cathedra papal statements? You continued,

       “And the Bible cannot be the head of the Church no matter how infallible it is because books don’t talk.”

       But the pope can talk, and still can’t tell you when he should be believed. As you wrote, “The problem is Protestants believe only the Bible to be infallible. The obvious difficulty with that is, without the Church, there is no Bible.” But you have ignored the obvious difficulty for which Rome has no answer: The obvious difficulty is that if you cannot know when the pope has spoken infallibly, then his alleged infallibility serves no obvious purpose. You concluded,

       To sum up, a person needs to ask himself what provisions Christ made to assure that his teachings would be carried on down through the ages. Did he write a book and then tell folks to wait until 1450 and Gutenberg’s press to come along and get the message out, or did he found a Church and imbue it with “All authority in heaven and earth”.

       A Catholic might need to ask, as well, whether He gave an infallible church, and then waited 1450 years for that church to declare which books were canonical, or whether He gave an infallible pope, and then waited 1800 years for the church to declare him infallible.

       You wrote,

       I do think an atheist could approach early Church history and see the Papacy, no virtue of Faith needed. read the Fathers as just secular history, nothing more.

       That is a true statement. To the unregenerate, Rome looks like the true church. See the Roman Catholic Church, enter it to be born again. But of Christ’s Church, He said “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3).

       You also alleged:

       I actually think the Papacy to be about the easiest thing of all to prove from the Bible.

       That Roman Catholicism is the Antichrist, may in fact, be the easiest.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

       1. Jim says: “I actually think the Papacy to be about the easiest thing of all to prove from the Bible.”

          And then Tim says: “That Roman Catholicism is the Antichrist, may in fact, be the easiest.”

          And yet neither one of you has done it yet. Doesn’t look so easy to me.

          Reply

       2. But a visible head who himself is unable to tell you when he is speaking infallibly leads to anarchy as well. Perhaps you can resolve this for us by providing the list of ex cathedra papal statements?

          Do you have a Denziger’s?

          Reply

          1. Yes, I do. But Denzinger is not a pope, and he does not provide an infallible list of ex cathedra proclamations.

             Thanks,

             Tim

             Reply

15. Bob said ” there is one glaring explanation in the History of the church that really needs a good explanation. The real presence in the Eucharist. The bible and the Early Fathers supports it.” I have been studying this for a couple years now hard. And I would say not only is all the proof in the Early Fathers support understanding spiritually the supper, but its not debatable. It really isn’t close from my all the proof that has been presented to me. It is clear that Transubstantiation is a late arrival and did not exist in the Early church, and what has been overwhelming for me is how exactly the Fathers maintained their categories. I expected there to could be some Fathers who offered the bread to God. But to see all these Fathers never offer bread to God, only to men, and to see only the praise and thanksgiving being offered cemented everything I have been taught. That the supper was a memorial meal, and opportunity to make sacrifices from the altar of our heart, but not to propitiate sin. That was done once on the cross. When I read Novel Antiquity Bob, it really cemented to me just how dead set against Rome’s incarnationalism the Early Fathers were. I never realized just how much we are not to involve created things in the worship of God. It also cemented for me that grace comes directly from God through Christ by the Agency of the Spirit, and not through fallen creation or human nature. Creation rejected Christ when He came, and someday will be destroyed. There is no interconnection between fallen nature and grace. Grace can only come from heaven super.naturally Our bodies will be changed. It has never been clearer to me that Rome’s incarnationalism is really idolatry and an unacceptable way to worship God. As we straddle the already/ not yet between heaven and earth, and look for the return of our savior, we look in our hearts to find Christ, and it is the Spirit who bears witness with our spirits that we are children of God. God bless K

    Reply

    1. No Church Father ever said we offer the bread to God. Not one.

       Reply

16. KEVIN–
    You said: “As we straddle the already/ not yet between heaven and earth, and look for the return of our savior, we look in our hearts to find Christ, and it is the Spirit who bears witness with our spirits that we are children of God.”

    Exactly. And yet no one else can tell us any different. Catholics believe the Spirit tells them they are the children of God. So do Methodists. So do Pentecostals. So do Seventh Day Adventists. So do the Quakers, the Shakers, and the Mary Eddie Bakers. And even the Jews. Like you said, no church owns God–including yours. We all look forward to the Second Coming.

    1Co 13:9 ff “Now our knowledge is partial and incomplete, and even the gift of prophecy reveals only part of the whole picture! But when the time of perfection comes, these partial things will become useless. When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish things. Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely.”

    Reply

17. Bob, but remember this the Spirit doesn’t work apart from His word. God has given us the Spirit with and by the word to make these determinations. And we don’t look to a fallible authority to confirm an infallible Word. It is intrinsically infallible by being the Word of God.

    Reply

    1. KEVIN–
       So who’s fallible interpretation of the infallible Word is the correct one?

       Reply

       1. Bob, thats not a question I need to answer in my life. The only question I need to answer is the one the Philippians jailer asked Paul ” What must I do to be saved” And here is what Paul told him, believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved. Where do I find the words to eternal life, in the Word, not the church. The church can lead me to faith, but the Spirit working through the Word brings me to faith which alone embraces my righteousness. I search the scriptures as it tells me, for in them is eternal life. As I read scripture I see that I am saved thru faith alone in Christ alone, never looking to my love or obedience ever to be justified. God doesn’t need my works, I don’t need them, they are simply for my neighbor, my reasonable service of worship. I am not earning my salvation, I could never get there. I mean think about it, thats why you have Purgatory right, it gives you a second chance to sort things out if you have been a good Catholic, you hope. K

          Reply

18. Kelvin.
    Or Terry, or Mitch or whoever you are masquerading as at the moment,

    I am curious as to your spin on,
    “whoever eats the bread *or* drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body *and* blood of the Lord.”

    If you eat the bread unworthily you sin against both the Body and the Blood.
    If you drink the cup unworthily you sin against both the Body and the Blood.

    Why not, “if you eat the bread unworthily you sin against the Body and if you drink the cup unworthily you sin against the Blood”?

    Reply

    1. Hi Jim, I would say Paul calls it bread so we know it isnt the real flesh of Christ. When he says taking it unworthily would be guilty of the Body and Blood, he means treating the table wrongly, not coming in faith, not rightfully remembring not only his one time sacrifice but also that He continues to intervine for us as we confess our sins. But this is not to scare believers off from the table. Ultimately it is a commemration of what He did for us and continues to do for us as we live by faith. It is a visible sign of grace we receive by faith. What it is not Jim is merit for the strong, or a a continual propitiatory sacrifice for sins. It is not a work to earn increase piecemeal. And it is not the real presence. Augustine said the church has been deprived of His body until He comes again. Blessed are those who dont see, yet believe. Christ is inthe believer through the Spirit, not in the bread. There is no altar in Jerusalem anymore. God doesnt dwell in buildings, but in the heart of his people. Hope I answered your Q. K

       Reply

       1. You didn’t even address my question, Mitch.

          Reply

19. The Spirit needs someone to preach the Bible in order to act?

    He is not free? And you say the Sacraments bind the Holy Spirit eh?

    Reply

    1. Jim, ya, I would say the church cant insert itself between the Word and the Spirit. When someone says your sins are forgiven, this is a statement about something thats already true, the declaration doesnt make it true. The church isnt the same as Jesus in the world. God distributes salvation where and how He desires.. The church can pass on the message, but cant usurp His finished work, or become the agent of atonement. That belongs to Him. K

       Reply

20. Bob,

    You want a laugh?

    Kevin is flying under the radar and posting on CCC as we speak under the assumed name of ” Mitch”.
    The whacko forgot he was undercover and actually signed his last post with a “K”.

    The guy is hilarious!

    Reply

21. JIM–
    Where’s Anti-Kevin when you need him, right?

    Reply

22. JIM–

    And here’s something even more to “chew on” from Paul:

    1Co 11:29 For if you eat the bread or drink the cup without honoring the body of Christ, you are eating and drinking God’s judgment upon yourself.
    1Co 11:30 That is why many of you are weak and sick and some have even died.
    Weak and sick? Died? From not discerning the Body and Blood?
    Them’s pretty bold words for the Lord’s Supper to be just a memorial, doncha think?

    Reply

    1. Bob and Jim, if Paul says if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart Jesus Christ as Lord you will be saved, why do you fixate on that Eucharist? There are only 4 verses in all of the Epistles on the Lord’s supper, and John never mentions it. Believing saves a person, not earning your salvation at the Roman Mass. If God so chooses you will find true freedom. K

       Reply

       1. KEVIN–
          You said: “Bob and Jim, if Paul says if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart Jesus Christ as Lord you will be saved, why do you fixate on that Eucharist?”

          What do you think Paul meant by “believe in your heart”?
          Just that Jesus is Lord? Or does it mean that you believe in what Jesus the Lord taught also? Tell me your interpretation of what Paul meant by the word “believe” and I’ll see if it lines up with my interpretation.

          Reply

    2. No, I dont think, because according to your faulty interpretation we would have Protestant Christians falling sick and dying in Protestant churches every sunday. That aint happening. Paul called it bread, can it be any clearer. You just need it to be the real presence, thats your ticket(s) to heaven, if you know what Im saying. K

       Reply

23. KEVIN–
    You said: “Bob, thats not a question I need to answer in my life.”

    And yet here you are telling others what to believe and what not to believe time and time again.
    DO believe in faith alone.
    DO believe in scripture alone.
    DO believe in assurance of salvation.
    DONT believe that John 6 has anything to do with the Lord’s Supper.
    DONT interpret James 2 as meaning justification by works and not by faith alone.
    DONT believe anything the Roman Church says because it’s opposite of what the Bible teaches.
    All this coming from somebody who doesn’t need to answer that question in his own life.

    And here I thought Elliot Ness was the only untouchable.

    Reply

    1. Bob said ” all that coming from a person who doesnt need to answer that question in his own life” Yes, thats right, I believe the Word is infalible. I dont believe it needs authorization from an external fallible source, be it the church or any man. I can go to the scripture and draw my own conclusions. Doesnt mean that I dont listen to the church teach the word of God. But in the end its the Word, the Spirit and me. I will stand before God someday, my church cant stand for me. The Spirit brought the word to my heart, I heard it and I believed. Im trusting the chief cornerstone to get me in, not me. I pretty much screw things up. Just look at the names I get called, oaf, buffoon, troll, idiot, stupid, etc. I definately am the most flawed person I know. The only chance I got is Jesus. K

       Reply

       1. You forgot “nincompoop”.

          Reply

24. Bob said ” what do you think Paul meant believe in your heart” I think he meant go to the Roman Eucharist everyday and work, earn a merit, increase grace and pray you have enough in the end. Or, maybe he meant believe in your heart. Do make it rocket science, a child could understand it. K

    Reply

25. Tim,
    WOW! You have really got me on the horns of a dilemma.
    I was taught that Christ established a Church to continue his mission of sanctifying and teaching men after he was to ascend back to the Father.
    He said that all power in heaven and on earth had been given to him so therefore the Church was to go to the farthest ends of the earth and fulfill Christs’s mission. He promised to be with the Church and that it could not fail.
    He also said the Apostles would be his ambassadors.

    But then those Apostles all died before they got to North and South America, the tip of Africa and the far East.

    Christ either lied outright or was mistaken. Only some ( if any ) power had been given him to delegate to the Apostles.

    I used to believe that among the 12, Christ picked out one to be chief and said that the Church would never fall to Satan.
    But one of the successors condemned the Book of Maccabees proving that he taught error. Other popes instituted the worship of bread, buns and biscuits. Another set up a graven image to a goddess and the whole Church bowed down before it. Nobody refused adoration to biscuit and idol.

    Again, Christ failed proving he was either a lunatic or a liar.

    The devil took over the Church and his monks monkeyed with the manuscripts, erasing key doctrines like OSAS and JBFA. I can no longer trust a word of the Bible that had been in the hands of satan’s minions for centuries.

    I don’t know where to turn, Tim. Christ obviously failed. Only you and Baloney Falloni seem to have the words of eternal life. But Baloney can’t spell his own name and you delegate all power in heaven and earth to him and his blogging abilities proving you are either a lunatic or a liar too. I feel so confused. Where can I turn?
    Please advise, Lost on the Internet

    Reply

    1. Jim,

       Jesus’ servant, Daniel, prophesied that the Antichrist would arise from the ruins of the Roman empire. Jesus’ servant, John, prophesied that the Antichrist would have an accomplice—a False Prophet—that would compel men to worship an Image. All these things have come to pass. That Antichrist is the Papacy. The False Prophet is the Apparition of Mary, and the Image is the Eucharist, which—as Catholics love to tell us—is alive and can speak to us (Revelation 13:15).

       Not one Word of Jesus has failed or ever will. You wrote,

       “He promised to be with the Church and that it could not fail.”

       Indeed, that is true. That is why Roman Catholicism can never rid the world of Jesus’ followers, try though she might to wear them out.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

       1. Tim,

          Can you name one other person with half a brain who subscribes to your theory? (No, I don’t mean Kevin. His half brain is a sponge that soaks up anything you put before him ).

          I suppose you borrowed from Trails of Blood, Jack Chick, Dave Hunt, Timothy Leary, maybe a little Alexander Hislop. But you tied it all together and, because your mom is Catholic, added the your own special touch.

          Have you concurred with anyone else? Have you presented your crackpot ideas in front of a panel of professionals? medical or psychiatric professionals, that is?

          How many copies of Graven Bread have you sold? I know Baloney bought one. But have you sold a copy to a sober and sane person?
          I have not seen your idea promoted anywhere but here. Even Nick has not bothered to refute it. Nobody takes you seriously.

          Reply

          1. Jim, you asked,

             “Can you name one other person with half a brain who subscribes to your theory?”

             No I cannot. Nor could Copernicus, and yet here we are orbiting the Sun. Truth is not a popularity contest. What matters is data.

             You continued,

             “Nobody takes you seriously.”

             And yet here we are, orbiting the Sun.

             Thanks,

             Tim

             Reply

             1. TIM’S FUNNY!

    2. Jim, Jesus said all power in heaven and earth has been given ME, not the church. You are correct that the church can carry on his mission, obey Him, imitate Him, but what it cant do is usurpt his finished work as an continuing incarnation. The bible never calls churches continuing incarnations. Paul uses church as a metaphor for the body of Christ. Rome cant collapse the head into thebody. K

       Reply

       1. “Rome cant collapse the head into thebody”

          Is that what happened to you?

          Reply

          1. JIM’S FUNNY!

             Reply

    3. JIM–
       You said: “I feel so confused. Where can I turn?
       Please advise, Lost on the Internet”

       Come on over to the Methodist Church. We’ll take you in and protect you from the Timist-Kevinism. You might like it. We fly under the radar mostly. Nobody seems to throw rocks at our church.
       We don’t have crucifixes or statues of Mary, but we do have candles and our stained glass windows are really awesome.
       And we do have open communion, so you may partake of the Body and Blood. Like I said, we don’t define it by transubstantiation or consubstantiation, so you can believe His Presence is by whatever mystery you prefer.
       Sunday service is at 11 am and Wednesday night bible study is at 5:30 pm and choir practice starts at 8:00 pm.
       You are most welcome.

       Reply

       1. Bob,
          While I admire the arguments contra Calvinism put forth by Arminians, I must decline. ( Although the promise of being Kevin-free is an inticement indeed ).

          Bob, what is it that keeps bringing guys like you and me back here? We both know Kevin is weird. What is it about him that won’t let us move on?
          Tim’s ideas come from a man with an axe to grind. Okay. But Kevin? He is like a circus side show. Or a squished rat in the street, sickening but somehow,…I don’t know how to say it.

          I think there used to be a lot of guys like him but they all died out. Maybe they were hunted down, shot, stuffed and had their heads mounted over fireplaces. Maybe the are underground like Morlocks.

          Reply

26. Morlocks are a fictional species created by H. G. Wells for his 1895 novel, The Time Machine. They dwell underground in the English countryside of AD 802,701 in a troglodyte civilization, maintaining ancient machines that they may or may not remember how to build.

    I love it when you use those fancy words.

    Reply

27. JIM–
    You said: “Bob, what is it that keeps bringing guys like you and me back here?”

    That’s easy. I like a good comedy.

    Reply

28. Bob,
    I am curious about how Methodists explain the Real Presence. You guys are spins offs from Anglicanism, right? You said a person is free to accept or reject Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation. Does the minister ever give a sermon on the Real Presence and say what his personal view is? Do Methodists tend to fellowship at churches where minster and fellow worshipers share the same view? Do some people hold to a symbolic presence only?

    Do you guys believe only an ordained minister can bring about the Real Presence or can anyone be authorized by the community to do so? Does the power or authority come from the community or from God? If only an ordained minster, do you guys believe in Apostolic Succession?

    I know a woman Methodist minister. Would you say she is validly ordained and can do whatever you call it when a minster brings about the Real Presence?

    By the term “Real Presence” we mean Christ is present whether we believe it or not, yes? His Presence is not contingent upon our faith or holiness. Even if a heathen ate the “Bread”, would he actually receive the Body of Christ?

    How do Methodists explain what happens after the Communion service? Does Christ leave the “Bread”?

    What are your views on Baptism? You baptize babies right? Do you hold to Baptismal regeneration?

    What is your relationship with Anglicanism? You would be considered low church right? Some Anglicans are Calvinists. Would you have any interaction with them?

    Reply

29. JIM–
    So many questions! Let’s see what I can do for answers:

    “I am curious about how Methodists explain the Real Presence. You guys are spins offs from Anglicanism, right?”

    The Wesley brothers and George Whitefield were Anglicans.

    “You said a person is free to accept or reject Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation. ”

    That’s because we refuse to define the Divine Mystery because we really can’t. So we leave it a mystery.

    “Does the minister ever give a sermon on the Real Presence and say what his personal view is?”

    I have yet to hear one. But we do discuss it in Bible study.

    “Do Methodists tend to fellowship at churches where minster and fellow worshipers share the same view?”

    Of course. However, like the Catholics, the Bishop moves the ministers around a lot, so one minister doesn’t stay at our church for very long, maybe four or five years.

    “Do some people hold to a symbolic presence only?”

    Yes. You have to admit, it is a hard concept to wrap your head around. Some people just haven’t come to grips with it yet.

    “Do you guys believe only an ordained minister can bring about the Real Presence or can anyone be authorized by the community to do so? Does the power or authority come from the community or from God? If only an ordained minster, do you guys believe in Apostolic Succession?”

    Only the ordained can administer the Sacrament. When I say ordained, I mean someone who has been trained at the seminary as a pastor. The Book of Discipline says this:
    “The authority of the ordained minister, is rooted in Jesus Christ who has received it from the Father (Matt.28:18), and who confers it by the Holy Spirit through the act of ordination. This act takes place within a community which accords public recognition to a particular person. Elders administer the sacraments as authorized representatives of the church. Under the terms of the Book of Discipline, several groups of people are authorized to preside at Eucharist in the charges to which they are appointed. These include associate member deacons, deacons ordained under the provisions of the 1992 Book of Discipline, licensed local pastors, and commissioned ministers licensed for pastoral ministry (BOD; ¶¶ 330, 331, 340, 341).
    “Some of these provisions have been in effect since 1976 in order to enable the sacraments to be served regularly in many small congregations that do not have elders as their pastors. The church continues to seek the best ways to meet this need and still uphold the historic linkage of ordination and administration of the sacraments.”

    You also asked: “I know a woman Methodist minister. Would you say she is validly ordained and can do whatever you call it when a minster brings about the Real Presence?”

    Yes.

    And you asked: “By the term “Real Presence” we mean Christ is present whether we believe it or not, yes? His Presence is not contingent upon our faith or holiness. Even if a heathen ate the “Bread”, would he actually receive the Body of Christ?”

    Yes. Can the participant hinder the effect of the Sacrament by not being in a state of grace? Certainly.

    And you asked this great question: “How do Methodists explain what happens after the Communion service? Does Christ leave the “Bread”?”

    We do not worship the consecrated elements nor reserve them for adoration. We respect the elements because God is using them for holy purposes—reconstituting the assembly as the body of Christ, conveying grace, forgiving sin, foreshadowing heaven, and strengthening the faithful for the journey of salvation. Although they have undergone no substantive (physical)change, the elements have been consecrated—set apart for sacred use.
    The consecrated elements of bread and wine are used for distribution to the sick and others who wish to commune but are unable to attend congregational worship. If any bread and wine remain, they should always be disposed of by (1) the pastor and/or others at the pastor’s direction consuming them in a reverent manner following the service; (2) returning them to the earth by pouring (2 Samuel 23:16), burying, scattering, or burning.”

    What are your views on Baptism? You baptize babies right? Do you hold to Baptismal regeneration?

    Baptism is the conduit for regenerative grace from God. Infant baptism is accepted. Baptism is your acceptance into the Church.

    You also asked; “What is your relationship with Anglicanism? You would be considered low church right? Some Anglicans are Calvinists. Would you have any interaction with them?

    George Whitefield was a Calvinist and their are some Methodist congregations that lean that way. Ours does not.
    I am not sure how we interact with Anglicans. I don’t know of any around here. Some Methodist congregations are high church in their traditions and some are not. Ours is low church. I would consider our congregation as more progressive than conservative. We do not use the Common Lectionary.

    Howzat?

    Reply

    1. It’s good.

       I remember an Anglican priest who I used to know in Portland speaking of low church Episcopalians as no better than Methodists. That’s why I asked.

       Yeah, I see some real differences in our views. Catholics would say that the sinfulness of the recipient can hinder grace entering the soul but it would not affect the actual Presence. The person would eat and drink the Real Presence unto condemnation.

       Tim keeps bringing up why Adoration exploded after Aquinas. Although we know the Church always believed in the Real Presence, it was only after reflecting on all of its ramification did she start to act on the logical conclusions. An example would be that, if the elements really do change, when do they change back to mere bread? If a real change does take place, it will be Present until the species are gone. Or you have two miracles take place.
       Transubstantiation is, in my opinion, the only satisfying explanation of such a central doctrine. And it should not be a private opinion.
       I remember that same Episcopalian minster telling me that at his church people would be sitting next to people with totally different beliefs in the Eucharist. I didn’t then nor do I now see that at a plus, Bob,

       It either is what we say it is or it is indeed, just bread.

       Reply

30. JIM–
    You said: ” If a real change does take place, it will be Present until the species are gone. Or you have two miracles take place. Transubstantiation is, in my opinion, the only satisfying explanation of such a central doctrine. And it should not be a private opinion.”

    I agree with you on this. Unfortunately, it is only my private opinion. Wesley held that the substance of the elements did not change but that Christ truly was present–an undefined mystery. The reason he did not embrace transubstantiation was that it lead to superstition and what he felt was idolatrous behaviour–that people would believe that the bread and wine held divine power. I personally believe that he did not quite grasp the full meaning of transubstantiation–the difference between substance and accidents. It does seem strange that we would treat the unused elements the way we do if there had not been some change. If it’s just bread, why not feed it to the birds, right?
    But then what do I know. I’m just a troll.

    You also said: “I remember that same Episcopalian minster telling me that at his church people would be sitting next to people with totally different beliefs in the Eucharist. I didn’t then nor do I now see that at a plus, Bob.”

    I understand you completely. But it’s not just Episcopalians. It’s in every denomination–even yours. Polls are showing two thirds or even more Catholics believe that the elements are just symbolic. It could be that Tim is right. There is a great apostasy. A whole lot more don’t believe in the Real Presence than do.

    Here’s and example from the Southern Baptists, a huge percent of the population in West Texas:

    Significance of Communion

    In contrast with other Christian traditions that view Communion as a sacrament, or outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual grace, Baptists have traditionally considered Communion to be an ordinance — an act instituted by Christ — to remember his suffering and death through the symbols of bread and wine or grape juice. Baptists observe Communion because Jesus ordered it and, rather than being a mystical rite to transport grace to humans, it is an expression of the grace that humans have already received from God. During Communion, Baptists remember the work of Christ and reflect on its significance for them; they also look to a future time when they will share a meal with Jesus upon his return.

    Frequency Not Specified

    The frequency of Communion is not specified in Baptist polity and there is no unanimity as to its frequency based on relevant Scriptures. The Hiscox guide for Baptist churches, entitled “The Standard Manual for the Baptist Churches,” states only that churches have an option as to when and how often they will serve Communion and that the practice has become to serve on the first Sunday of the month. Some rely on Bible passages in Acts and 1 Corinthians stating that Christians in the early churches met each Lord’s Day to break bread to support their position that Communion should be observed every Sunday.

    Quarterly Observance Most Popular

    A mail survey conducted in 2012 by Lifeway Research indicates that 57 percent of Southern Baptist churches serve communion on a quarterly basis. The survey was sent to Southern Baptist church pastors; a total of 1,066 surveys were completed. The same survey indicated that 15 percent of those churches serve communion five to 10 times per year and eight percent serve it less than four times annually. A mere one percent of Southern Baptist churches serve communion each week, according to the survey.

    Reply

31. Bob,

    “If it’s just bread, why not feed it to the birds, right?’

    I knew the now deceased but at one time leader of the Traditionalist Latin Mass movement in America, Fr. Fred Nelson of Powers lake , N.D. ( He gave me my copy of Denziger’s, Tim ). He had been raised Lutheran and he told me that after their Communion service, they threw the left overs to the chickens.

    The Doctrine of the Real Presence predates its explanation using Aristotelian terms.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeWjoMsLJjk

    Somewhere on utube is a video I have tried unsuccessfully to find that I accidentally stumbled upon once in which some Lutherans have a Host in a monstrance and are adoring it. I could hardly believe my eyes. Yet, adoration logically follows upon belief in the Real Presence, even if it took this community of Lutherans 500 years to figure it out.

    You do know Bob, that the reservation of the Eucharist was foreshadowed in the OT Shewbread.
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/04/03/eucharistic-reflections-5/

    I don’t see how this OT type has it’s fulfillment in any protestant church.

    Reply

32. Bob,

    Here is a video by the same guy addressing the women ministers business.

    Reply

33. Bob,

    There are a couple of English women who work with my wife. They are very zealous Bible Christians who insist they believe in the Real Presence. One of them is officially an Anglican and the other one a Baptist although they hop around to various Protestant non-denominational churches and the Anglican one depending on what appears to me to be whim.
    The Anglican church here has a priestess as associate pastor. Both of the English ladies personally oppose women’s ordination in the Anglican church due to what the other Protestant minsters tell them, yet neither of them scruple over whether or not the priestess confects a valid Eucharist.
    As a Catholic, I believe none of these various minsters, whether male or female, minster or priest, confect a real Sacrament as a validly ordained priest is needed to do so. All of their ministers are lay people, whether called priest or priestess.

    What is so maddening is their refusal to consider the obvious. One of the non denom minister adamantly denies the Real Presence. He does not even allow the saying of the Lord’s Prayer while the Anglicans have a liturgy. Yet these nice ladies maintain he has the Real Presence as well as the other clergymen and woman do.
    They get testy when I try to get them to examine their church hopping to various churches with disparate views in light of St. Paul’s admonition to “in all things agree”.

    I find their attitude troubling. While they pay lip service to the Eucharist, I feel they don’t really give a ding dong to bother to “get it right”, Their religion is niceness. They believe everything and nothing.

    It sounds like these ladies encapsulate the Methodist view.

    I won’t say the Eucharist is either what the blasphemers Kevin and Tim say or it is Christ. No, the blasphemers don’t recognize that people could be worshiping Christ though mistaken about the Eucharist. The blasphemers see everything as devil worship or not. They allow for no gray area.

    Bob, I cannot consider taking up your invitation to receive Communion in your church. I believe it is too important. I feel if someone really loves Christ in the Eucharist, they will make it a priority to get it right and will settle for nothing less. If all the denominations have the Real Presence, even the ones who say the don’t, none of them have it.

    I would invite you to examine the Catholic view.

    Reply

    1. Jim wrote to BOB,
       I won’t say the Eucharist is either what the blasphemers Kevin and Tim say or it is Christ. No, the blasphemers don’t recognize that people could be worshiping Christ though mistaken about the Eucharist. The blasphemers see everything as devil worship or not. They allow for no gray area.

       Response:
       The gray area is the Devil’s playground. A “blasphemer” rejects the Eucharist because it is presented as “another Christ.”

       If the Christ-worshiper can be mistaken about the Eucharist, then they can be mistaken about the “Christ.” Their pride over “worship” may swell too. Look at Jim’s happy bifurcation. The bifurcation implicitly supports the blasphemer’s charge of “another Christ.” It should be noted that many Catholics refer to the “Eucharistic Christ”.

       Jim honors us with the blasphemer charge. We are counted worthy to suffer for the Name. (Acts 5:41) The Eucharistic Christ is Belial because it’s not the true Christ that Paul contrasted with Belial.

       Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? – 2Cor. 6:15

       I washed that gray right out of our Christ-worship hair !

       Reply

34. Bob,
    Transubstantiation, contrary to Tim’s assertion, has plenty of Patristic support. Justin Martyr* spoke of the change in the elements and he used a word similar to our ” metabolized” to do so. No impanation as Luther was to teach later and no merely spiritual sense as Zwingli was to assert.

    I don’t care to address Zwingli’s errors nor Calvin’s attempt at a compromise ( forget Truth ) between Lutherans and Zwinglians in order to keep a united Protestant front against Rome at this point.
    Let’s just stay with views that actually hold to an objective Presence in the Eucharist for now.

    If you hold to impanation or consubstantiation, you are left having to explain just how Christ becomes present. Does he leave heaven and come down to the elements as only Kevin thinks Catholics believe due to poetic language of John O’Brian and such.
    Do the substances of Christ’s Body and the bread exist in the same local simultaneously?

    You say that you don’t see any point in defining just how the Presence comes about and prefer to leave it a Mystery. That’s fine as far as it goes and I certainly don’t mean to say one must study up on all this stuff to worthily receive Christ in the Eucharist. It’s just that a lot of questions arise upon pondering the Real Presence such as what happens after the Communion service and whether or not sinners or even animals who might happen to eat the bread actually receive Christ’s Body.
    Like all other doctrines, that of the Eucharist does not exist in a vacuum but is intertwined with all the others. One’s Eucharistic theology is not divorced from one’s Christology ( as we see in the case of Nestorius for instance ).

    I assure you, the Mystery remains no matter how much you know about Transubstantiation.

    * Tim also denies the Fathers saw the Eucharist in the prophecy of Malachi although Justin Martyr clearly does.. I don’t want to go off pursue Tim’s assertions on everything as I think by demonstrating the Papacy’s existence since day 1 wins the whole bag of marbles.

    Reply

    1. Jim, if there is so much support for transubstantiation in the early fathers, why dont you provide some. Ive seen none, absolutely none. And you and Bob have put the bank on it. Interesting. K

       Reply

       1. Mitch,
          Ever hear of Cyril of Jerusalem? He is my favorite on this topic. Google him.

          Reply

35. Eric W, the Sphinx,

    I know I am going to be sorry for engaging your riddles but, as Bob is away from his computer, I am going to throw caution to the winds and venture into the Twilight Zone.

    For starters, the Eucharist is not “another Christ”. It is the same Christ who is at the right hand of the Father. Christ is not multiplied nor undergoes change in anyway in Transubstantiation. He does not turn into bread. He does not leave heaven and travel through space to our altars. It is the same Christ.

    My comment about the two ( let’s make you number three ) blasphemers was more of an aside than anything else. Lutherans worship Christ in the bread although he is not there ( according to the catholic view ). They fall into that gray area as do many Anglicans. They do not have anything but bread before them yet the worship Christ, not bread. They sincerely, but erroneously, believe Christ to be truly present. Tim and the other blasphemer would consider them idolaters but I don’t. They intend to worship God and so they do.

    Indeed one can be mistaken about Christ and the Eucharist. I gave the example of the Nestorians who believed in a change of substance taking place in the elements, which lends support to the antiquity of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, but being Nestorians they denied the divinity to be Present with the humanity.

    Reply

    1. Jim, you wrote:
       For starters, the Eucharist is not “another Christ”. It is the same Christ who is at the right hand of the Father. …. It is the same Christ.

       Response:
       I didn’t say the Eucharist is another Christ. My error is not in misrepresenting the catholic position. I said it is “presented” as another Christ. One must accept your position as true to say it’s not another Christ. My lack of acceptance is justified in describing it as a presentation of another Christ. Your bifurcation supports this.
       ——————
       You wrote:
       They sincerely, but erroneously, believe Christ to be truly present.

       Response:
       The gray area is your problem too. Only on a supposition of valid consecration, can any catholic think they are proximate to the Real Presence. Unfortunately, faith is no use to you for any certain consecration. It rests squarely on a big, fat IF. IF the Eucharist is validly consecrated, then you have the RP.

       If the Real Presence is not true, then the catholic (and other RP adherents) are presenting another Christ for worship. Another Christ is a false Christ. This is not merely a mistaken view of the Eucharist. It’s a false Christ worshiped in place of the true Christ, and the true Christ (of the Bible) is called on to witness for this false Christ.

       Reply

       1. Eric W,

          Again, we are not presenting another Christ but the same one who sits at the right hand of the Father. We are very clear on what we are presenting. We present what we say we intend to present. Even if mistaken, that is what we present.

          Are we mistaken? Only if Christ was wrong about establishing a Church that he would guard from teaching error. Remember, I said earlier that rather than chase down every single assertion Tim makes, just prove the papacy and win all the marbles in one swoop.

          Reply

          1. Jim, you wrote:
             Even if mistaken, that is what we present.

             Response:
             Then what’s “presented” by you (or any RP adherent) when a particular consecration is not valid ? I mean not valid in real life, but the RP adherent thinks it is. Tell me what’s presented, and not merely what’s intended.

             If I presented the right of God the Father to you, then Christ is always there. That’s a RP. The same cannot be said of this or that Eucharist. “Presentation” is compromised dramatically because it’s the difference between an actual RP and no RP. But to present a RP, when it’s not a RP, is to present more than a mistake. You
             exchange the Christ of the RP for a false Christ of the RP.
             At some point, you need to realize that the RP boast is a Sacramental RP boast. Take away the Sacramental and you have a doctrinal dream without one-to-one correspondence with the Sacramental life of the Church.
             ———————–
             The Papacy can help you answer the truth question. It can’t help you with identifying this or that RP. Of course, if you want to introduce the Papacy, then the force of the consecration words are weakened. Are the words of Jesus enough to prove the doctrine of transub. ?

             Reply

             1. What is presented is what is intended to be presented. If I present myself to you as the King of France, I may be mistaken or lying. But I am presenting myself as the King of France.

                If a Lutheran ( not a Catholic ) mistakenly believes Christ to be Present along with the bread, and he intends to worship Christ and not the bread, contrary to what Tim, Kevin and probably you assert, he is NOT worshiping bread.

                At one end of the spectrum is the Catholic who has the Real Presence and intends to worship it.

                At the other end are heathen idolaters who intend to worship an idol of stone, wood, metal or even bread.

                In the gray area between the two poles ( but certainly toward the Catholic side ), is the sincere Lutheran who stands before a piece of bread but intends to worship Christ and clearly states he is not worshiping the bread.

                Intent matters as we see in the Bible where Paul tells Christians not to scruple over eating certain meats as they don’t intend to have communion with the demons the meat was sacrificed to.

             2. Jim, you wrote:
                What is presented is what is intended to be presented. If I present myself to you as the King of France, I may be mistaken or lying. But I am presenting myself as the King of France.

                Response:
                Then you should have no problem with me saying that what’s presented is what is PERCEIVED. I will not press the idolatry/intention/ mistaken issue until subjective perception/ objective truth relation is addressed.
                ———————
                You wrote:
                If a Lutheran ( not a Catholic ) mistakenly believes Christ to be Present along with the bread, and he intends to worship Christ and not the bread, contrary to what Tim, Kevin and probably you assert, he is NOT worshiping bread.

                Response:
                Stop profiting off our labor and capital ! Your self-serving bifurcations appeal to views found among Real Presence deniers.

                A RP denier affirms two things: (a) Christ is worshiped wherever and whenever He is or is not present (b) Christ is never really present in any Eucharist.

                (a) is helpful to you when validity is presumed absent. (b) is helpful in part when validity is doubted in this or that Eucharist.
                ——————
                One must wonder what’s the grand difference between the RP adherents and RP deniers. The narrow, and doubtful, sacramental RP reality seems over stated. Perhaps a boast with little glory.

36. Bob,

    Both Justin and Irenaeus say the change in the elements comes about by the words of Consecration or the prayer said over the gifts of bread and wine. This is important as some Lutherans and Anglicans believe the Presence is contingent upon the faith or worthiness of the recipient. This explains how the unused bread could be thrown to the chickens after the service.
    I said “some” Lutherans and Anglicans, not all. Some do believe something happens at the words of the minister. But how are they to act when the see the unused Eucharist being fed to animals?
    No Bob, a church that hold contradictory views of the Eucharist does not attract me.

    Reply

37. Bob,

    So far the topic has been the Real Presence. We haven’t even touched on the issue of sacrifice.

    Covenants are initiated with sacrifice. At the first Mass/Last Supper, Jesus said his was the Blood of the new Covenant that would be poured out the next day for the forgiveness of sins.

    Reply

38. Bob said” if its just bread why dont they feed it to the b irds” People do feedcbread to the birds Bob. Bread has many other uses. The bread of the Supper represents to us the body of Christ because of faith, the Spirit and the Word. Otherwise its just bread. Again Christ is in our heart through His Spirit, His body is in heaven. Making the decision to worship the Eucharist is a grave matter. Gow will not be worshiped in images or created things, but from the altar of our heart in Spirit and truth. K

    Reply

    1. isn’t your heart a created thing?

       “The bread of the Supper represents to us the …”.
       Sorry, but that is a mere assertion. The word, “represent” is not in the text. I don’t have a problem with you going outside of the Bible as I do it all the time but I deny Sola Scriptura . I back up my assertions with something other than my own bombast.

       You are not dealing with what is being stated but change the subject. Besides, the Eucharist is worshiped in spirit and truth by Catholics.

       Reply

       1. Jim said ” isnt your heart a created thing” grace doesnt come thru my heart but to my heart, dig? I worship from my heart tgrough the Spirit, I dont worship my heart, orvany created thing, especially not bread. We are incorprated into His body thu the Spirit, NOT the flesh. K

          Reply

          1. Thank you but I thought you knew I don’t worship bread either. You can keep asserting that I do til the cows come home but that is because you are as dumb as a cud chewing cow.

             Reply

       2. Jim said ” besides we worship the Eucharist in Spirit and truth.” Thanks for finally admitting what we have been saying for la long time, you worship bread. K

          Reply

          1. Mitch,
             The Eucharist is bread only in your Protestant churches.

             Reply

39. KEVIN–
    You said: “Making the decision to worship the Eucharist is a grave matter. Gow will not be worshiped in images or created things, but from the altar of our heart in Spirit and truth. K”

    See, you make the gravest mistake by not acknowledging that the Creator became the created at the Incarnation. God the divine Creator walked the earth with men as the man Jesus. That is what Emmanuel means–God with us. And when He was raised from the dead and went to heaven, He did not lose His humanity. Jesus, through whom all things were made, is still created human. If you worship the same Jesus who walked the earth 2000 years ago, then yes, you are worshipping God, the Word made flesh, who dwelt, and still dwells, among us.
    This is straight from the bible. The burden is on you to prove otherwise.

    Reply

    1. Bob said ” you make the gravest mistake when you dont acknowledgethat the creator became thd created thing at the incarnation” we all acknowledge that Word became flesh. But you refuse to look at the rest of the story. That Christ was resurected in His body into glory and is at the right hand of God. And that He left us ONLY the Spirit. He incorporates us into His body though the Spirit and NOT the flesh. Pretty important part of the story you left out, huh Bob. Augustine says the church has been deprived of the body until he returns. We are to worship in Spirit and truth. Jesus came into creation and creation rejected Him. Grace doesnt come through fallen nature, creation, but from heaven all by work of the Spirit. Now that you know this, you can stop worshiping the Eucharist, and worship God in the only acceptable way, by faith in Spirit and truth. God bless.

       Reply

    2. Bob,

       Stand by for a blast from Kevin about how the Incarnation is ended,

       Why did Jesus make a mud spittle to heal the deaf man? He could have just snapped his fingers.
       Why did the hemorrhoraging woman need to touch the hem or Christ’s garment? Why not just have faith?
       Why did they touch handkerchiefs to Paul’s body?

       Kevin is like Lucifer. The devil hated it when it was revealed to him that the Second Person of the Trinity was going to assume a lowly material nature rather than a purely spiritual angelic one. That is why he rebelled.

       Reply

40. JIM–

    Can you demonstrate from the Bible that only ordained priests from an unbroken apostolic succession are authorized to confect the Eucharist?

    Reply

41. Bob,

    The Apostles are given power to forgive or bind sins. They are told to “Do this” as a commemoration of Christ’s death.
    In the Acts we see the Apostles laying hands on in order to impart the Holy Spirit. This is a power only certain men have. Simon the Magician asks to buy it from Peter.
    Paul lays hands on Timothy and tells him to continue the practice.

    Only the Elders perform priestly acts such as anointing ( for the forgiveness of sin ).

    This priestly office is not to be usurped by just anyone. Jude says there are men guilty of the sin of Kore. Kore’s sin was burning incense which was considered to be a sacrifice.

    The Apostles were incense burning Elders as we see in Revelation.
    Now, unless one thinks this office was to die with the last Apostle, it is only logical it would continue down through time.

    Reply

42. Bob,

    Notice how Kevin asks about Transubstantiation right after I just gave proof of it by the Fathers’ use of “Metabolozein” due to the words spoken over the bread.

    Why would Greek speaking men use Latin terms that had not been formulated yet? Like Trinity for instance.

    The troll posts without even thinking.

    Reply

43. Bob,
    Right after the closing of the NT we see Ignatius writing about the importance of obeying the bishops. People were to gather around the bishop for the breaking of bread.
    Elsewhere we see the Bishop breaking off a piece of the Eucharist during his Mass and sending it too other bishops or priests under his jurisdiction to bind the churches together in one loaf and one Presence.

    I suppose you are going to want to know about the distinction between presbyter and episcopoi, yes?
    Bishops have the fullness of the priesthood. But not all Bishops have the same jurisdiction. Fulton Sheen was a bishop but not assigned to a particular place. With the exception of James, that seems to be the case with the Apostles. Even today we see more than one bishop in a city but only one Archbishop or what you would probably call a monarchical one.
    Priests have only as much priestly power and jurisdiction as assigned to them While all priests can offer the sacrifice of the Mass not all priests can hear Confessions. On top of that, even those who can may not exercise this office without jurisdiction being given by a bishop. Priests can be delegated power too as we see in the case of Confirmation, a Sacrament usually reserved to bishops as we see in the Book of Acts where Peter and John come and Confirm the already Baptized Samaritans.

    I mention all this only to say that there was no clear cut distinction between priests and bishops in every instance we see the words used in the early Church. But there was in some cases.

    None of the Reformers were bishops. Luther and some were priests but that’s all. In order to establish their own authority, they had to trash the historic authority of the episcopacy. That is why Tim’s ilk always try to make hay over the words Bishop and presbyter.

    Read Igantius and the earliest Fathers on how to recognize the Church. It was in the Bishops.
    Calvin said the Church is where the Gospel is preached and the Sacraments rightly administered. IOW, where JBFA is preached is the Church despite 1,500 years of Church history.

    As for the Sacraments being rightly administered, what he meant was, without a validly ordained priest presiding as established by Christ.

    Remember, the sin of Kore that Jude wrote about was the usurping of a priestly office. Saul and Uzziah both angered the Lord by committing this sin too. Priests are priests. Protestant ministers are not.

    Reply

44. Bob,

    Clement said to the Corinthaians,

    “Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, having perfect foreknowledge,…added further provision that after they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry…
    Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly offered its sacrifices…”.

    Reply

45. Bob,

    We know from Tertullian and Cyprian that it was customary for people to take the Eucharist home and communicate it during the week or until the next Mass. Tertullian warned against mixed marriages between Christians and pagans as the unbelieving spouse might not approve of this. Cyprian writes of a man who, while carrying the Eucharist on his person, made a stop at a tavern or brothel on his way home and blasphemed the Real Presence by so doing.
    Ambrose’s brother, Satyrus, wore a little box around his neck as do Eucharistic minister do today when carrying the Sacred Bread ( no Kevin, it is not just bread ).

    Bob, after the words are said over the bread and wine, they are changed. Unused particles are to be reserved in a special place and not treated as ordinary bread and wine.
    How many Protestant churches reserve the Eucharist for distribution to the sick or for adoration?

    Reply
46. Pingback: The Great Write-in Write-out Campaign | Out of His Mouth

47. Bob,

    Where do we see a non Apostle/Bishop/Elder ever try to administer Communion in the Bible or Church history?

    Reply

48. Jim wrote:

    “Again, we are not presenting another Christ but the same one who sits at the right hand of the Father. We are very clear on what we are presenting. We present what we say we intend to present. Even if mistaken, that is what we present.”

    Jim, Romans Catholics are an absolute mirror image of what the Pharisees were in worshiping their traditions. Tim is proving this over and over, week after week, and you are so steeped in your ignorance I can only share what Christ said:

    “Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” (Jn.4:22-24)

    and as Paul preached EXACTLY to the Roman Catholic of our day who mocks Christ’s resurrection by their foolishness in arguing Eucharist adoration and the “real presence”. This is directly DIRECTLY to you and other Catholics. Listen & hear!

    “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.” (Acts.17:29-32)

    Reply

    1. You must not have seen where I said we worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament in spirit and truth.
       The rest is just Falloni style hysterical rant.

       Reply

49. Jim said:

    “besides we worship the Eucharist in Spirit and truth.”

    Yes, you are worshiping a piece of bread made by man’s hands. This has nothing to do with worshiping GOD in Spirit and in Truth. You obviously do not see your addiction to idols.

    This is just like Bob who is desperate to get your support for showing where the line from “Pope Peter” worshiped bread made with hands, and passed it along to the early church who with an unbroken line passed it along to you, but it does not exist in Scripture. You guys all want support from man’s practice in the first to the fourth century, but it does not exist.

    Tim is showing over and over again it does not exist, but you both are like infant children crying over and over in front of a parent demanding something you will never be given. I’m reading these posts today and it is so incredibly sad how steeped you both are in tradition making the word of God of non effect.

    “Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.” (Mk. 7:13)

    You have no biblical distinction that within the visible Christian church the Roman Catholics are desperately lost in a sea of false doctrine, worship, government and discipline. They are so lost that while visible very few are of the house hold of faith and bought by Christ on the cross. Here is proof.

    “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” (Rom.9:6-7)

    This passage is clear that not all in visible Israel that are coming from the seed of Abraham are the ***true children of Isaac***…but only those who were called and chosen to be the elect of God. The visible Catholic church (and even the Roman Catholic church) contain many who claim to be chosen by Jesus Christ, and do worship his name, but Christ does not even know them….in fact, NEVER KNEW them.

    “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matt.7:22-23)

    I’m really shocked week after week reading your posts how the facts and evidence Tim presence is totally ignored, and how deeply your heart is seared from understanding the true contextual meaning of Scripture.

    Reply

    1. Walt,
       Just curious, in the Scottish kirk do they use Drambuie and shortbread?

       If you refuse to interact with me as an adult and keep up your silly rants, I will be just as goofy right back.

       Reply

       1. Jim wrote:

          “Walt,
          Just curious, in the Scottish kirk do they use Drambuie and shortbread?

          If you refuse to interact with me as an adult and keep up your silly rants, I will be just as goofy right back.”

          No, the reformed Scottish church has nothing to do with drambuie and shortbead in their worship. I have no idea about the current backslidden, covenant breaking Scottish church, a modern daughter of Rome.

          Once you wise up, and until you learn what the FAITHFUL Scottish church thought about Rome’s practices, I suggest you read their public testimony against Rome here:

          https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/National_Covenant_of_the_Church_of_Scotland

          Repent Jim, and be saved. Until then, you are facing severe eternal damnation that you seem to be fearless about.

          Reply

50. Jim said:

    “You must not have seen where I said we worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament in spirit and truth.”

    I saw it. The point that escapes you as this is simply not true either in Scripture or the first 4 centuries as a permitted practice.

    Why do you cling and practice and teach something that is so contrary to the basic instruction of Scripture and the first 4 centuries?

    Do you not fear the Lord’s wrath on your head in judgment day for leading so many into false worship and idolatry? I could see where you and Bob (and other Catholics) are doing something out of ignorance of not knowing the other side of the argument, but you both do totally understand the other side and flatly reject it in favor of a PROVEN heretical tradition that started in the 4th century.

    Why do you kneel in mass? It has been forbidden in the early church, and is nowhere in Scripture we are commanded to kneel in the worship of God. It is a tradition developed by Rome that was FORBIDDEN in the early church to eliminate all sorts of idolatry that was beginning to arise. Yet, you practice this tradition because Rome tells you to do it.

    Do you not fear the Lord of the Scripture more than you fear what some false Priest dressed in scarlet purple will say to you if it you choose to ignore that false tradition testified against by the early Church? Clearly, you hate Scripture and love tradition, but what about the first 4 centuries of tradition?

    Why do you ignore this early period that clearly shows a growing transition away from Scripture and into full blown idolatry that would totally infiltrate and consume the Roman Catholic church?

    Reply

    1. Walt,
       Kneeling is indeed a biblical posture for prayer.

       Scarlet purple vestments?

       Would you prefer plaid kilts?

       Reply

    2. Walt said ” Why do you kneel at Mass? This is a great question for many reasons. I can actually say I believe the whole fixation on the Roman Mass for Catholics can be traced to the phase Tim introduced from Cyril today, that it is the way they propitiate their sins. The Mass being called ” the workf of the people” is trully the summit of violation of Christian soteriology, Christology, Eclessiology. It is a workearn merit and forgiveness, it denies the one time sacrifice of Christ that perfected us, it underminds trust in Christ alone, it puts a piece of bread up in the place of our savior, it becomes a place to do reparation for the soul of others, it cannot provide the necessary grace for heaven, it makes a Priest the regent of Christ as he makes the dough god on the altar. And most of all it is the tool of the Devil to draw souls into hell. They simply bow because they are taught this is how they obtain salvation. Baptismal regeneration, penance, and the Mass, all on top of one another to seal the fate of Catholics. May God call his elect out of her bosoom. K

       Reply

51. Bob,
    Notice how neither Kevin nor Bob can deal with what I actually say and can only hit ” automatic response” rant button.

    Reply

52. Walt,
    What is this nonsense? I thought we were discussing the Real Presence, not my personal likes/dislikes.

    ” Clearly, you hate Scripture and love tradition, ”

    Grow up.

    “Why do you ignore this early period that clearly shows a growing transition away from Scripture and into full blown idolatry that would totally infiltrate and consume the Roman Catholic church?”

    Because, unlike you, I don’t hang on Tim’s crackpot theories.

    Reply

53. Jim wrote:

    “Walt,
    Kneeling is indeed a biblical posture for prayer.

    Scarlet purple vestments?

    Would you prefer plaid kilts?”

    There is no place in Scripture God commands anyone to kneel in the public worship of Himself. It does not exist. The early church forbid the practice for this very reason. You want to kneel at home next to your bed, that is fine. You want to demand all in the mass to kneel to worship God, that is where that God forbids it by the regulative principle.

    You have no idea what scarlet purple signifies in Scripture, and this is very sad indeed. Your priests are adorned in what Scripture teaches is wicked.

    Your priest adorn themselves with purple and scarlet colors as they did in the old testament worship service claiming that is their authority. However, those ceremonial ordinances are now totally abrogated and done away with, and the elect are warned that when we see these men clothed in such things to be warned and aware they are figures of wickedness.

    “So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth.” (Rev.17:3-5)

    It is a warning to you Jim and other Roman Catholics to be aware of what was once a holy, biblical ceremonial duty for the old testament priests to follow, now since it has been fully abrogated in Christ’s death, burial and resurrection (which pointed to him) is evil and wicked.

    Look throughout the whole Christian world, and Roman Priests adorn themselves with such apparel. I sat watching the Cardinals all sitting waiting for the call of the latest Pope all dressed in purple and scarlet colors, and thought…wow, these men are all condemned by their own testimony.

    What you see Jim is a joke here on this site comparing purple and scarlet colors to things totally unrelated to Scripture is disturbing…as this is all a big joke to you. You see nothing in Rome that is wrong, evil or even Satanic. The millions and millions the Roman Catholic Church persecuted, tortured and murdered is meaningless to you. It is just another sordid history that is ignored by you and others as insignificant. However, Scripture points to this blood bath in history against the faithful elect is a very significant. It points to you directly and your Roman progeny.

    Come out of her my people is the command. Heed the advice Jim, Bob and others. Flee the judgment that is coming on your heads soon, and fear the Lord more that you fear any priest or man.

    Reply

54. Jim wrote:

    ”Clearly, you hate Scripture and love tradition,”

    Grow up.”

    Do you mean I should grow up with more biblical knowledge to educate myself on your false teachings, your leading others astray on this site and the terrible things you promote?

    I would agree with you in that sense. Everyone on this site needs to grow up in the study of Scriptures so they are keenly aware of your terrible doctrines. You have learned to use humor and lightheartedness to deceive your readers. Bob is totally infatuated with your comments so often that you have literally dragged him into your belief system day after day. I’m sure there are others out there reading this blog who are listening to your rants day after day against Kevin and seeing you win the argument with Kevin.

    That is a tragedy as your doctrines are seriously dangerous to people’s mind and soul, and you play with words to convince people. My first testimony against you when we first met on this blog was to prove to myself and others that you twist people’s words, and are a master at it. You are a master at ignoring Tim’s clearly defined evidence and twisting it to convince others that what Tim means it not what he means.

    Your an old man Jim who is so steeped in the Satanic doctrines of old that some people who are ignorant see you as some sort of light confusing what is being taught in Scripture. Bob reads your posts, and has bought you hook, line and sinker. Others I’m sure have as well. You are beating Kevin on the blog here, but certainly after reading many of your posts today I will not sit back and let you deceive so many without a protest.

    Reply

55. Walt, you and I have our differences, but I dont think what you said to Jim can be stated better than you just did. K

    Reply

    1. Kevin wrote:

       “Walt, you and I have our differences, but I dont think what you said to Jim can be stated better than you just did. K”

       Kevin if you think about it closely it is ironic in one sense. We both called ourselves reformed. Yet, we different extensively in what the reformed taught. We disagree on infant baptism. We disagree on form of worship. We disagree on form of church government. We disagree on the binding nature of both tables of the law. We disagree on the duties of the magistrate to uphold both tables of the law. We disagree on so many doctrines I cannot list them all.

       We agree on only two points it seems. We agree that the Roman Papacy and system is that of Antichrist. We agree on the five points of Calvinism in terms of how a Christian is saved. That is about it.

       Yet, we both claim we are reformed by our own testimony, and obviously believe that we practice and teach is what the great reformers of the first and second reformation did likewise.

       My prayer is that some here that browse this site calling themselves Roman Catholics will begin to practice the reformed bible distinctives and realize at some point that they are no longer Catholics because they call themselves Catholic, and those who practice degrees of Roman Catholicism in doctrine, worship and government no longer call themselves reformed.

       Reply

       1. Walt, without getting into a discussion here, I agree we differ on things. Of course I would say you havent totally broken from the dreggs of Rome. I have entered in the true rest of Christ. But no need to get into these things here. K

          Reply

          1. Kevin wrote:

             “Walt, without getting into a discussion here, I agree we differ on things. Of course I would say you havent totally broken from the dreggs of Rome. I have entered in the true rest of Christ. But no need to get into these things here. K”

             Interesting observation.

             Good thing there are no other reformed posters here on this site to weigh the evidence between your claim to be reformed and my claim to be reformed by our practices rather than merely our testimony.

             It is also a good thing you know little to nothing about what the reformed teach. If you did, your would repent and get yourself saved according to Scripture and the biblical distinctions as defined in the reformed ministerial decisions and preaching of the Word.

             Reply

             1. Walt, its this kind of statement from you that makes me thing you are being justified by law. When you tell me to get straight with reformed teaching and get saved. Im not saved by getting straight with any confessional, im saved by faith in Christ alone. Im not under the law of Walts mishna. I obey God’s law, not yours or any other man’s. I was correct by saying you believe anyone outside your church isnt saved, and you just said it. Tim has triedcto say thats not what your saying, but we know it is now. Thanks. I have entered Jesus rest, not yours. Take your judaizing regulations and go judge some other believer. Im done with you. K

          2. Kevin,
             What “dregs of Rome” would you say that he has not divested himself of? Rome mixes just barely enough truth with their lies to make it exceedingly dangerous. Formerly a Baptist, I got in a series of debates with a Catholic (whom I still count a friend), who was ironically also a former Baptist. In those debates the weight of Scriptures that he was able to bring forth would have crushed the Baptist position had I still held to it. In our refutation of the heresies of Rome, we must not throw out the little truth that they still hold to. After all, are we still holding to the Romish dregs by affirming the Trinity?

             Reply

             1. Dan, I think you may be confused because you read my post to Walt and maybe misunderstood. Without getting into it, as Walt said to me we differ on some things and he considers me not reformed enough because I’ m not a conenanter, which Walt is. We disagree on churc government, the Sabbath, etc. I have entered Jesus rest, I dont live by Walt’s mishna. Thats all I willing to say here. He acuses Reformed Baptist as being somewhat RC, and I acuse him of not fullt reforming. I consider him my brother, I’ m not sure if Walt considers people outside his denomination elect, you will have to ask him. We have had disagreements, but I wont do that here anymore. Where do you go to church? God bless you Dan K

56. We may like to say to others, “you worship God your way, I’ll worship him mine”, but God actually requires us to worship him neither your way nor my way, but his way. The “church calendar” was never appointed by God. … This scriptural teaching that whatever Scripture does not warrant is to be excluded from worship is known as the “regulative principle”. The exclusion of the church calendar, uninspired hymns, musical instruments, vestments and unscriptural ceremonies as well as more modern encroachments such as drama and dance, all stand on this same principle. Acceptance of this principle is a mark of a Reformed Church. – – David Silversides, Why No Christmas Or Easter?

    Reply

    1. WALT–
       That’s interesting. The Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t celebrate Christmas or Easter either. And those heretics in the Church of Christ don’t use musical instruments in their worship either.
       What a small world, huh?

       Reply

57. And apart from the aspect of duty, how could the Presbyterian churches, for about a hundred and fifty or two hundred years after the Westminster Assembly, have been so insensible to the power of hymns as an attractive addition to their public services? We cannot by any means understand how it was that, if it was dutiful to use hymns in worship, the reformers did not discover the Scriptural warrant for the duty, especially as hymns had been used for centuries by the Church of Rome. Nor can we understand how they rejected the hymns and used the Psalms alone, unless on the supposition that they believed the use of hymns to be part of the will-worship of Rome. If they were wrong on this point, then Rome and our modern Presbyterian churches are right. In that case, the Puritans and Covenanters were fanatics, and Romanists were truly enlightened! And most of our Presbyterian churches of the present day were fanatical too, and did not become truly enlightened and liberal till they got back to the Romish practice! – James Dick, Hymns and Hymn Books(1883)

    Reply

58. WALT–
    You said: “There is no place in Scripture God commands anyone to kneel in the public worship of Himself. It does not exist. The early church forbid the practice for this very reason.

    Really? Did you tear these pages out of your bible? They are in mine:
    Rom 14:11For the Scriptures say, “‘As surely as I live,’ says the LORD,‘ every knee will bend to me, and every tongue will confess and give praise to God.’”

    Phl 2:10
    that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

    Isa 45:23 I have sworn by my own name; I have spoken the truth, and I will never go back on my word: Every knee will bend to me, and every tongue will confess allegiance to me.

    1Co 14:24 But if all of you are prophesying, and unbelievers or people who don’t understand these things come into your meeting, they will be convicted of sin and judged by what you say. As they listen, their secret thoughts will be exposed, and they will fall to their knees and worship God, declaring, “God is truly here among you.”

    Eph 3:13 So please don’t lose heart because of my trials here. I am suffering for you, so you should feel honored. When I think of all this, I fall to my knees and pray to the Father, the Creator of everything in heaven and on earth. I pray that from his glorious, unlimited resources he will empower you with inner strength through his Spirit.

    Psa 95:6 Come, let us worship and bow down. Let us kneel before the LORD our maker.

    What reason did you say the early Church forbid it? Oh that’s right. It’s not in Scripture.

    Reply

59. Bob, you said:

    “Really? Did you tear these pages out of your bible? They are in mine:

    Rom 14:11For the Scriptures say, “‘As surely as I live,’ says the LORD,‘ every knee will bend to me, and every tongue will confess and give praise to God.’”

    Bob, thanks for the scripture search on the word “knee” but those passages are all prophetical and not one of them is a command to kneel in the worship of God. As I said, there is nothing wrong with kneeling down to pray to God, and most certainly in prophetical passages every knee shall bow to the Lord and worship Him.

    My point was that there is NO COMMAND that requires everyone to kneel as is practiced by the Romish antichrist in the mass. This is the distinction between the normative principle and the regulative principle of worship. Their is also no COMMAND to sing man inspired hymns and songs in worship, but it is required by the Romish antichrist all must sing their hymns. Scripture requires only the signing of psalms, hymns and spiritual songs that are contained in His Psalter…the book of the Psalms. This distinction is made in the regulative principle vs. the normative principle.

    You require men to kneel in mass to worship God, but it is not required of God. Unfortunately, you don’t see this distinction because you refuse to consider such biblical interpretation. You cut and paste a list of verses that are prophetical, and simply say, “see, we are required to kneel in the mass”, but that is not how to interpret Scripture.

    You must interpret both literally and figuratively using the literal sense or intended meaning method. You must compare Scripture with Scripture to determine if something is figurative or literal, whether it is a specific command, authorized example or you can draw a necessary inference from the text in context using other texts. Where there is only one obscure passage that you seek to make your interpretation, it is best to look to see if there are others that speak more plainly and clearly.

    Reply

60. Dan,

    Please explain the the guys here what the info below means. It seems the Catholic guys don’t believe in the regulative principle or the unaccompaniment of instruments, and the those who are suppose to be reformed don’t know what Catholic worship means.

    http://www.bible.ca/H-music.htm

    “Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists therefore, have foolishly borrowed, this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostles is far more pleasing to him. Paul allows us to bless God in the public assembly of the saints, only in a known tongue (I Cor. 14:16) What shall we then say of chanting, which fills the ears with nothing but an empty sound?” (John Calvin, Commentary on Psalm 33).

    CATHOLIC “Although Josephus tells of the wonderful effects produced in the Temple by the use of instruments, the first Christians were of too spiritual a fibre to substitute lifeless instruments for or to use them to accompany the human voice. Clement of Alexandria severely condemns the use of instruments even at Christian banquets. St. Chrysostum sharply contrasts the customs of the Christians when they had full freedom with those of the Jews of the Old Testament.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, pg. 648-652.)

    CATHOLIC “For almost a thousand years Gregorian chant, without any instrumental or harmonic addition was the only music used in connection with the liturgy. The organ, in its primitive and rude form, was the first, and for a long time the sole, instrument used to accompany the chant…. The church has never encouraged and at most only tolerated the use of instruments. She enjoins in the ‘Caeremonials Episcoporum’, – that permission for their use should first be obtained from the ordinary. She holds up as her ideal the unaccompanied chant, and polyphonic, a-capella style. The Sistene Chapel has not even an organ.”” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, pg. 657-688.)

    CATHOLIC “We need not shrink from admitting that candles, like incense and lustral water, were commonly employed in pagan worship and the rites paid to the dead. But the Church, from a very early period, took them into her service, just as she adopted many other things indifferent in themselves, which seemed proper to enhance the splendor of religious ceremony. We must not forget that most of these adjuncts to worship, like music, lights, perfumes, ablutions, floral decorations, canopies, fans, screens, bells, vestments, etc. were not identified with any idolatrous cult in particular but they were common to almost all cults.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. III, pg. 246.)

    Reply

61. WALT–
    You said: “My point was that there is NO COMMAND that requires everyone to kneel as is practiced by the Romish antichrist in the mass. This is the distinction between the normative principle and the regulative principle of worship. Their is also no COMMAND to sing man inspired hymns and songs in worship, but it is required by the Romish antichrist all must sing their hymns.”

    Really? What happens if you don’t? Those people in wheelchairs and who are bedridden are sure in trouble aren’t they? And how about those deaf and mute people? Boy I sure would hate to be them when the Roman wrath comes down!

    You also said: “Scripture requires only the signing of psalms, hymns and spiritual songs that are contained in His Psalter…the book of the Psalms.”

    Only the book of Psalms? Where is this requirement? Book, chapter and verse please.

    Psalms 149:1 Praise ye the LORD. Sing unto the LORD a new song, and his praise in the congregation of saints.

    So, we are not supposed to sing new songs, but just the ones that are centuries old. Got it. Thanks for the heads up.

    Reply

62. Bob,

    I’m boarding the plane shortly.

    Your statement above is indicative of your biblical ignorance. What is said to you seems so far removed from reality, but even the Catholic encyclopedia admits there were never any instruments used in the early church. How could that be? Instruments are used throughout the Levitical Priesthood to worship God. Clearly you do not see the instruments as part of the ceremonial law in worship? You don’t see anything at all from the old testament as ended or fulfilled in Christ.

    Certainly, if you reject that God commands how we are to worship Him than it will be difficult to explain it.

    If there is anyone else on this blog who can help you, I appeal to them to teach you the reformed position on worship.

    Reply

63. Bob,

    Watch this video. It is short.

    Reply

64. WALT–
    You are probably right that I don’t know all of scripture.

    You said: “Scripture requires only the signing of psalms, hymns and spiritual songs that are contained in His Psalter…the book of the Psalms.”

    Where in scripture is this requirement? Book, chapter and verse please.

    Even the guy in the video says he is glad that some of the things in the Council of Calcedon “do not stand anymore”.
    Hmmmmm……..

    Reply

65. Bob, I actually thought that was interesting too in the video, that he was glad he didnt have to memorize the whole thing like they did then, but then said only the Psalms were to be sung as determined in early councils. Are we to believe that an orchestra playing Handel’s Messiah in a church doesnt bring glory to God. I believe it does. The issue for me is whether the music and lyrics bring glory to God. My whole life has been earning a living playing music in churches. Although in my own church it has always been a ministry. As a musician though I do partially agree with Walt here, that music and lyrics contain music that glorifies and praises God. K

    Reply

66. KEVIN–
    Both my Grandmothers were Church of Christ and both played the piano. One was a piano teacher. But no musical instruments in the Church of Christ, nosiree! Both of my Dad’s sisters were piano players and one of them a piano teacher and both played piano and sang in the choir in the Methodist Church. My brother is a retired band director and both he and his wife sing in the choir at the Methodist Church. Alas, me and my wife failed to master any kind of instrument but I do sing in the choir. And my younger sister knows how to play the radio and that’s about it. Music is very prevalent in my family. How in the world anybody could think that Mozart, Bach, and Handel were not given their talents by God and not have used them accordingly in His praise is beyond me.
    According to Walt, they are all in hell.

    Reply

67. Bob, Acts 15: 7″ Peter stood up and said to them, ” Brethren, you know that in early days God made a choice among you, that by mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart , testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit , just as He did with us, and made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith, Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved thru the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.” Walt is a judaizer who would put this yoke on gentiles. All the ten comandments are repeated in the NT, not the sabbath, never commanded by the apostles. Jesus treated the Sabbath any way he wanted. It was a sign given to the children of Israel in Exodus to be kept, reminding them of the paradisethey forfieted. When Christ came eveythi b g changed. He destroyed the Temple and all the sacrifices and the Sabbath. It was not a moral law. Jesus healed on it, and said what one of you if his ox fell down a well wouldnt save it. They, like Walt had not rested from their works righteousness nor had experienced true repentance. But our true rest is in Christ. And now we remember the Sabbath in terms of Genesis and God’s great creation, but not in the Mosaic sense. Here is what Paul said ” Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or new moon or a SABBATH day.” We know this is the weekly sabbath because all others are under festivals and new moon. Walt has judged me believer in the gospel of free grace, and in doing so scripture says brought it on himself. God bless. K

    Reply

68. Well Boys, it’s time to turn out the lights ( or blow out the Romish candles ) and go home. Tim, Walt and Bozo have proven the Church fell into error in 350 A.D. Humpty Dumpty is broken and none of the king’s horses or men can put him together again.

    Cyril of Jerusalem has been shown by eminent scholar, Professor Tim, to have been a deceiver too.

    Ellen G. White was wrong about the Apostasy being Sunday worship. The Witnesses are wrong about it being the Trinity. Old Joe Smith got it wrong about Baptism for the Dead. The Anabaptists were wrong about it being baby Baptism. Darby was wrong on the dispensations. etc. etc.

    But I think we got us a winner in Tim, boys. He has piddled off about a quarter of a century concocting a theory that beats ’em all.

    That Ol’ Whore o’ Babble-On with its Poporome is now undone. Kelvin, McWalt ( now waist deep in snow wearing only his kilt ) and Riddler Rick W. are, Like Oliver Cowdry and ilk, the chosen few commissioned to get the word out.
    Tim is going to need help funding his blockbuster new book exposing how the Whore pulled the wool over the eyes of everybody ( but Tim ) for so long. Please send monopoly money and bongo bucks to treasurer Kelvin so Tim can continue doing the lord’s work. ( Small L lord, that is ).

    Reply

    1. Thanks, Jim, you wrote,

       “But I think we got us a winner in Tim, boys. He has piddled off about a quarter of a century concocting a theory that beats ‘em all.”

       I am but a fool. You’ll get no argument from me on that.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

69. Cyril of Jerusalem gives witness to the Catholic Church’s doctrine of Transubstantiation when he says people should be careful not to let a crumb of the Eucharist fall to the floor as it is “more precious than gold or jewels”.

    The church of Kauffmanism says otherwise. Kauffmanism teaches ( as did Ellen G. White ) that the Book of Daniel predicts there would be an Apostasy of the entire Church. The high priest, pope and grand wizard of Kauffmanism, Timothy Kauffman, sees this Apostasy manifest itself in the adoration of the Eucharist. Kauffmanism holds that before 350 A.D., Christians did not believe in the Real Presence despite what the fathers before that arbitrary date( heretics all according to T.K. ) said on the bread and wine undergoing a substantial change when a word or prayer was said over the elements.

    At the time of this writing, Kauffmanism is practiced only in the United sates, chiefly in the desert of Arizona by an unemployable ex druggie who cannot spell his own name and who promotes himself as an expert on Catholic/Protestant issues but only 4 days ago discovered that Guy Fawkes was a real live, Reformation era person. This unemployed derelict and internet troll only recently discovered this well known fact of history despite blogging against internationally acclaimed blogger, Jim, for about two years. ( Jim goes under that same Guy Fawkes pseudonym on various anti-catholic blogs where he and the troll clash daily ).

    Kauffmanism is also practiced by a lover of all thing Scottish, Walter, who is currently in Siberia.

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Jim,

       To which Roman Catholic doctrine did Cyril testify when he said, after not letting a single crumb of bread fall to the ground, that you should apply Jesus’ blood to your nostrils, eyes and ears and forehead? (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 23, Paragraph 22). That’s what you do with Jesus’ body, blood, soul and divinity, isn’t it? You rub it all over your face a sign of adoration and reverence? The fact that this is currently practiced today throughout the “Church Jesus founded” is a sign that Rome consistently teaches, and has always taught, that the supreme God of heaven, who created the Universe with the Word of His mouth, should be rubbed all over your face. Right?

       So it would also appear with Cyril’s doctrine of transubstantiation of the oil into the very divinity of the Holy Spirit, when he gave exactly the same advice regarding the holy oil:

       “But beware of supposing this to be plain ointment. For as the Bread of the Eucharist, after the invocation of the Holy Ghost, is mere bread no longer, but the Body of Christ, so also this holy ointment is no more simple ointment, nor (so to say) common, after invocation, but it is Christ’s gift of grace, and, by the advent of the Holy Ghost, is made fit to impart His Divine Nature. Which ointment is symbolically applied to your forehead and your other senses ; and while your body is anointed with the visible ointment, your soul is sanctified by the Holy and life-giving Spirit.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 21, Paragraph 3)

       That’s what Roman Catholics practice, right? By the words of the priest, they call “the Holy Spirit” down into the oil and transubstantiate the oil into “the Divinity of the Holy Spirit,” and then rub “the Divinity of the Holy Spirit” all over their faces? Indeed, Cyril recommends that very thing:

       “And you were first anointed on the forehead, that you might be delivered from the shame, which the first man who transgressed bore about with him everywhere; and that with unveiled face ye might reflect as a mirror the glory of the Lord. [2 Corinthians 3:18] Then on your ears; that you might receive the ears which are quick to hear the Divine Mysteries, of which Esaias said, The Lord gave me also an ear to hear [Isaiah 50:4]; and the Lord Jesus in the Gospel, He that has ears to hear let him hear. [Matthew 11:15] Then on the nostrils; that receiving the sacred ointment ye may say, We are to God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved. [2 Corinthians 2:15] Afterwards on your breast; that having put on the breast-plate of righteousness, you may stand against the wiles of the devil. For as Christ after His Baptism, and the visitation of the Holy Ghost, went forth and vanquished the adversary, so likewise ye, after Holy Baptism and the Mystical Chrism, having put on the whole armour of the Holy Ghost, are to stand against the power of the adversary, and vanquish it, saying, I can do all things through Christ which strengthens me [Philippians 4:13].”(Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 21, Paragraph 4)

       If we are to adore the bread because after the invocation it is no more bread, but Jesus’ body and blood and soul and divinity literally, then ought we not adore the oil, because after the invocation it is no more oil, but “the Divinity of the Holy Spirit” Himself? After all, Jim, “after the invocation of the Holy Ghost … this holy ointment is no more simple ointment.” There is no possible other way to interpret that but transubstantiation of the oil. If it isn’t “simple oil,” the only other possible thing it could be is “God”! There it is, right there in the Early Church, just where you thought you’d find it. It’s a lock tight argument for “oil-substantiation.” Just listen to Ignatius of Antioch who testified of oil-substantiation in his Letter to the Ephesians, when he said that transubstantiated oil is the way that God breathes immortality in the Church:

       “For this end did the Lord allow the ointment to be poured upon His head, [John 12:7] that He might breathe immortality into His Church.” (Ignatius of Antioch, To the Ephesians, Paragraph 7)

       You don’t really believe that God would breathe immortality into the Church by a symbol, do you? How can those obstinate Protestants not see this like we do, Jim!? James Akin was right! The Fathers do Know Best!

       I expect that the Holy Chrism ought rather now be placed before the people for adoration of the faithful throughout the world, since Cyril was testifying to the Real Presence of “the Holy Spirit” in the oil. I know it looks like, feels like and smells like oil, Jim, but don’t let your senses fool you—it’s actually “the Holy Spirit” under the appearance of oil, right? That simply must be the case, since Cyril told us that it changed into something else. I can’t imagine any other possible meaning than transubstantiation of the oil.

       Ah, but enough facetiousness.

       Rome cites Cyril’s Lecture 23 to support Eucharistic Adoration, and then totally ignores Lecture 21 which uses exactly the same argument about the oil as it does about the bread and wine, including the fact that you should rub the oil all over your face, just like you should rub the wine all over your face. Notably, in both cases, Cyril had said the oil, even though it is no more oil, and the bread, even though it is no more bread, nevertheless they are symbolical of the Holy Spirit and antitypical of Jesus’ Body and Blood, and because they are symbolic, therefore they are to be applied to the eyes, ears and nostrils symbolically.

       Don’t just say you’re “sticking with Cyril,” Jim. Actually “stick” with him. Embrace the Divinity of the Oil and worship it.

       Of course, there is another option—you could take Cyril in context, especially the part about how he says the oil, the bread and the wine are all symbolic and anti-typical. After all, just because you don’t want to spill a crumb, doesn’t mean the crumb is God. It may must mean that you don’t want to spill a crumb, because of what the crumb symbolizes. Here in the US, we don’t let the flag touch the ground either. Could it be that we do not worship the flag, but rather hold it in such a way that it does not touch the ground because of what it symbolizes?

       You continued,

       “The church of Kauffmanism … “

       As I have always been willing to stipulate here, and stipulate again, I am but a fool.

       That said… etc…, etc….

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

    2. Jim said ” chiefly in Arizona by an unemployable ex druggie who cannot spell his own name.” lol Jim, i love this. You forgot ex pro musician ex druggie. And Jim, I don’t need to be employable. I made more in 10 years than you could make in a lifetime. And it is you who misspell my last name, its Failoni pronounced Filoni. Jim, I’ve been praying allot for you. Your buddy Kev.

       Reply

70. Tim,
    Whether communicants sanctify their eyes by touching the sacred species to their faces is a matter of discipline. Just as whether they should genuflect or bow as they approach to receive.
    People used to take the Eucharist home too, but the Church changed her discipline on that also.
    You are so false. You feign being shocked over the way the Eucharist is received when you blaspheme it with your “Graven Bread” screed.

    No Tim, the chrism and oil are not changed in substance. neither is the water of Baptism. Transubstantiation applies only to the Eucharist ( by the way Tim, I seldom read your quotes as they hardly show up on my computer screen and it requires a lot of eye strain trying to make out what you write ). Anyway, the oil, after the invocation of the Spirit is no longer “ordinary” oil. But it is still oil.

    I have already addressed, more than once, that the Fathers used symbol, sign and figure in a way the later schoolmen would explain using the terms of Aristotle rather than Plato. T Zwingli went wrong in misapplying those terms and you are still suffering from it.

    It wasn’t just Cyril who spoke about being careful not to let a crumb of the Eucharist be lost or fall to the ground. Tertullian did too, as did Origen who supposedly saw everything in an allegorical or “spiritual” sense only.
    Ambrose asked about how the earth can be *.adored* and said the phrase referred to the adoration we give the the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. Augustine said a similar thing thing when he said not to consume the Eucharist until *adoring* it.
    ADORATION of the Eucharist, Tim. Making sure not so much as a crumb is lost. These may be marks of an apostate Church, but they are the marks of the ONLY Church that existed until the deformation.
    I was at the funeral of a former U.S. military attache to Portugal yesterday. After Mass, the Marines ceremoniously removed the flag from the coffin and folded it into a triangle before presenting it to the dead man’s son. During the Mass, the Eucharist was adored. The flag was not. Nobody was confused. You probably would feign being confused, but that’s you, Tim.

    Reply

    1. Jim, you said,

       “Whether communicants sanctify their eyes by touching the sacred species to their faces is a matter of discipline.”

       Sure it is. At least, that is your opinion. There are many other Roman Catholics who say that the popes and fathers agree with them that the sacred species must not be touched, and what you call a “discipline” is actually sacrilege to them. Yet they make these conclusions based on the same “authority” you do. Why should I believe you, and not them? If only there was an infallible pope who could resolve this for us! That way we would not be stumbling in the dark trying to figure out which is true.

       Sayeth Jim: “touching the sacred species to their faces is a matter of discipline.”

       Sayeth other equally devout Roman Catholics: “touching the sacred species to their faces is entirely alien, rather odd, bizarre, superstitious, irreverent, unheard of, illicit, sacrilegious product of a contaminated imagination”

       Why should I trust your private interpretation of tradition over their private interpretation of tradition?

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

       1. Tim,

          Tim, I think kneeling and on the tongue is the best way to receive Communion. That is my OPINION. My opinion is like the opinions of those other Catholics you hold out as sources of authority. Opinions are just that, opinions.

          What popes are you talking about? The only one that matters is the one sitting in Rome right now when it comes to matters of discipline ( HOW we receive Communion is discipline Tim. Not doctrine. Doctrine does not change. The Fathers’ doctrine is just like mine ).

          Reply

    2. Yes, Jim, Origen agreed that we should be careful not to drop the sacred species. He said this in his 13th Homily on Exodus. He said this to criticize the undue emphasis on the Lord’s Supper, because he went to say that they were concerned about dropping “the Lord’s Body,” but not nearly concerned about the preaching of the Word:

       “I wish to admonish you with examples from your religious practices. You who are accustomed to take part in divine mysteries know, when you receive the body of the Lord, how you protect it with all caution and veneration lest any part fall from it, lest anything of the consecrated gift be lost. For you believe, and correctly, that you are answerable if anything falls from there by neglect. But if you are so careful to preserve his body, and rightly so, how do you think that there is less guilt to have neglected God’s word than to have neglected his body?” (Origen, 13th Homily on Exodus)

       Yet Origen believed that the preaching of the Word ought to have the highest honor, and the Lord’s Supper, a distant second, since he said the preached Word deserved twice the respect that they were paying to the sacred species:

       “It is asked, therefore, why he spoke simply about the other materials by which the other elements are indicated, but with scarlet alone, by which fire is designated, he placed “doubled.” … Let us see, therefore, why he said “scarlet doubled.” That color, as we said, indicates the element of fire. Fire, however, has a double power: one by which it enlightens, another by which it burns. … Let us see, therefore, how we can offer that doubled fire for the building of the tabernacle. … God, therefore, says to you also what he said to Jeremiah: “Behold I have made my words in your mouth as fire.””

       That is not what Rome teaches about the liturgy. In Rome, the Eucharist is the apex of the Liturgy. In Origen, the preaching of the Word was the apex of the Liturgy.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

       1. Tim,
          You are developing Kelvin’s bad habit of commenting without bothering to read what has been posted. I addressed this Origen business about the word two-ish days ago.

          Speaking of not reading comments, I didn’t really follow all of your stuff contra Bob on the prophecy of Malachi. You claim the Fathers did not see the clean oblation offered by the nations to be the Eucharist, right?

          As a good little Calvinist, surely you don’t see it as referring to a sacrifice of praise, do you? Aren’t all of our efforts at praise shot through with self love and sin? So much filthy rags? Anything but a “clean oblation”.

          While we are on the topic of OT prophecy, tell me again how the Shew bread is fulfilled in the NT. Your last answer was so memorable I forgot it.

          Or better, when and where does Jesus act as a priest according to the order of Mechisedek if not at the Last Supper.

          As for Daniel, more than once I asked Kelvin to explain Jn 6 and the eating of Christ’s flesh in light of the Chaldeans eating the flesh of the Jews when they calumniated them. Was Jesus saying unless we backbite him and revile him, we have no life in us? Was he speaking figuratively or literally?
          Kelvin forgot to address my question in long winded diatribe answer.

          Reply

71. Tim,

    As a Calvinist, do you honestly think Calvin was sincere in formulating his doctrine of the Eucharist? Was he concerned about the truth?

    Or was he interested only in finding a middle ground, a way not to alienate either Lutherans and Zwinglians from the common Protestant front against Rome?

    Tell me more about your Great apostasy theory. Why would some simpleton choose your theory over Ellen G. White’s?
    You both appeal to the same prophecy of Daniel, right?

    Reply

72. Tim,
    In Catholic Mass the preaching of the word does too play an important role. Read early accounts of the Liturgy. It is just like today.

    Reply

    1. Jim, did I at some point say that the preaching of the Word does not play an important role in the Mass? If so, please let me know where I said such a thing.

       What I said was,

       “In Rome, the Eucharist is the apex of the Liturgy. In Origen, the preaching of the Word was the apex of the Liturgy.”

       Is that statement false? If so, how?

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

       1. It is as true now as in the early Church. We first meet Christ in the readings then meet Christ in the Sacrament. By the way, what is the hi-point of a Passover meal? Reading the account of the Red Sea crossing? The meal? The unleavened bread? The cups of wine? Or is it all part of one.

          Reply

73. Oh, by the way Tim, as for why things may not be spelled out as black and white as we might like, that might be because of the Disciplina Arcani in the early Church.

    Reply

74. Tim,

    Let’s put some questions to you. Tell me which fathers spoke about the non elect never receiving the grace of the Sacrament. Better, which father said the non elect don’t even receive the Body and Blood.

    Which father said the “change” happens when the communicant receives the bread ( if he is worthy )? Which father said to throw the bread to the chickens after the service?

    Reply

75. Tim,

    In the early Church, did Christians take Bibles to the sick and imprisoned and read to them? Or did they sneak them the Eucharist?

    Reply

76. In the early Church, were the unbaptized required to leave during the readings? Or during the Eucharistic Sacrifice and Holy Communion?

    Did Cyprian want the lapsed denied the right to hear the Bible read?* Or did he want them not to defile the Body of Christ by receiving before they had done penance?

    *Pssssst! Notice they had the Bible read to them. Nobody owned their owned Bible. Not until about 200 years ago did common people own Bibles.

    Reply

77. Tim,

    8:00 pm here and time for TV. Ciao until tomorrow maybe.

    Reply

78. An interesting note on Origen’s:
    HOMILIES ON EXODUS
    “In his thirteenth homily on Exodus Origen discusses the reverence with which the word of God should be heard, and he compares this with the reverence with which the body of Christ should be received. He notes how careful the faithful are lest even a fragment of the Eucharistic bread should fall to the ground, and he says that they would consider themselves criminal-and rightly so-if that should happen on account of their own negligence. But, he asks, why is the care exercised toward the Eucharist so disproportionate to the care exercised toward the Word? Why do the faithful consider it less sinful to hear the word in slipshod fashion than to let a particle of the Eucharist fall to the ground for the same reason? Here Origen is expressing the attitude of the early Church, which is echoed later by Jerome and Caesarius in almost the same words: Scripture proclaimed and preached was held in as great honor as the sacrament of Christ’s body, and both were equally necessary to the life of the Christian. It was right that the bishop should take this ministry with the utmost seriousness.”

    I notice that in the Catholic Church Liturgy of the Word, the Lectionary is held high above the head in the opening procession. The lectors end the first two readings with “The Word of the Lord” and congregation responds with “Thanks be to God”. The congregation stands and sings the Alleluiah. While remaining standing, the Gospel reading is then only read by an ordained lector who begins with “A reading from the Holy Gospel according to ________” and the congregation responds with “Glory to you Lord” and crosses themselves with their fingers on their forehead (signifying the Word ever on their mind),their lips (signifying the Word of God spoken from their lips), and over their chest(signifying the Word hidden in their heart). After the Gospel reading, the lector says “The Gospel of the Lord.” And the congregation responds with “Praise to you Lord Jesus Christ.” They remain standing while the lector places the Lectionary on the pedestal and bows deeply.

    By those actions the proclaimed Word of God is quite esteemed in the Catholic Church, wouldn’t you say? You might even say it is ….uh……venerated?

    It is also very interesting in Origen’s writing how he acknowledges the reverence paid to the Eucharistic elements even in the 2nd-3rd century.

    Reply

    1. Bob,

       Great stuff.
       of course the written/preached word is essential. How else would the faithful know about the Real Presence unless they are told about it? From a special revelation from God?

       Sometimes I wonder if Tim ever attended a Mass when he was a Catholic. He seems so ignorant of everything like the Eucharist being referred to in either a spiritual sense or it being called just plain bread. What, does he think the priest uses the word Transubstantiation in the Mass?

       He always tries instilling doubt, planting little seeds of suspicion. Like with his statement about how carefully the flag is treated so as not to let it touch the ground.

       Coincidentally, just two days ago I attended the funeral of a retired U.S. diplomat. The Marine detachment from the embassy, in their dress blues, doing that silent thing they do, moving almost mechanically, with perfect precision and folding the flag into a tight triangle before, robot like marching it over to the family of the dead man,
       No matter how much pomp and circumstance used with the flag nobody was on their knees during the flag ceremony. Only during the Consecration, when the priest spoke the words that changed the bread and wine, were the people adoring Christ in the Blessed sacrament. Nobody said, “Amen” when the Marines saluted the flag.
       Yet Tim tried pulling a little fast one. He tried muddying the truth and confusing.
       You have to watch Tim at every moment.

       Reply

    2. Bob, you wrote

       “It is also very interesting in Origen’s writing how he acknowledges the reverence paid to the Eucharistic elements even in the 2nd-3rd century.”

       Yes, as I acknowledged to Jim on this topic some time ago:

       “The original Latin is “cum omni cautela et veneratione servatis” or literally, “with caution and with due reverence.” I, too, believe that the Lord’s supper should be celebrated reverently and with caution lest we too hastily pass the bread and wine from person to person and pew to pew.”

       I, too, believe we should take the elements cautiously (lest we spill them) and reverently (because of Who instituted the sacrament, and because of Whom the sacrament represents). The problem with your citation, above, is that it is a comment that minimizes Origen’s message, instead of actually listening to what Origen said. The source you cited, said,

       “Scripture proclaimed and preached was held in as great honor as the sacrament of Christ’s body, and both were equally necessary to the life of the Christian.”

       That’s not exactly true. Origen was expounding Exodus 35:5-10,

       “Take ye from among you an offering unto the LORD: whosoever is of a willing heart, let him bring it, an offering of the LORD; gold, and silver, and brass, And blue, and purple, and scarlet [literally scarlet scarlet], and fine linen, and goats’ hair, And rams’ skins dyed red, and badgers’ skins, and shittim wood, And oil for the light, and spices for anointing oil, and for the sweet incense, And onyx stones, and stones to be set for the ephod, and for the breastplate. And every wise hearted among you shall come, and make all that the LORD hath commanded;” (Exodus 35:5-10)

       Noting that scarlet receives the double emphasis in this verse, Origen goes on, saying,

       ““Have you lived so irreligiously, so unfaithfully that you have desired to have no memorial of your own in God’s tabernacle? …

       I wish to admonish you with examples from your religious practices. You who are accustomed to take part in divine mysteries know, when you receive the body of the Lord, how you protect it with all caution and veneration lest any part fall from it, lest anything of the consecrated gift be lost. For you believe, and correctly, that you are answerable if anything falls from there by neglect. But if you are so careful to preserve his body, and rightly so, how do you think that there is less guilt to have neglected God’s word than to have neglected his body? …”

       Yes, it is good that you take care of the elements, he says, but you have neglected God’s Word. Does Origen go an and say, “Scripture should be held in as great honor as the sacrament of Christ’s body”? No he does not. He says,

       “It is asked, therefore, why he spoke simply about the other materials by which the other elements are indicated, but with scarlet alone, by which fire is designated, he placed “doubled.” … Let us see, therefore, why he said “scarlet doubled.” That color, as we said, indicates the element of fire. Fire, however, has a double power: one by which it enlightens, another by which it burns. … Let us see, therefore, how we can offer that doubled fire for the building of the tabernacle. … God, therefore, says to you also what he said to Jeremiah: “Behold I have made my words in your mouth as fire.””

       In other words, you show reverence and caution when you distribute the element, but what deserves double that veneration and care is the preaching of the Word of God. So no, Origen does not say, as your source has made him to say, “the Scripture was held in as great honor as the sacrament of Christ’s body.” In fact it received double the honor.

       You may note that I did not at any place say that the Mass does not include the preaching of the Word. All I said was that in Rome, the Eucharist is the apex of the service (that is a true statement). In Origen, apparently, the preaching of the Word is the apex (that, also, is true).

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

       1. Tim,
          Just the other day the priest spoke of the 3 ways we meet Christ at Mass. ( Two of them are not the Eucharist ).
          Of course it is vital to know what the Bible has to say on the Eucharist. Origen ( as Augustine would do later and Paul had done previously ) stress the pointlessness of receiving Holy Communion without the the proper disposition.

          By the way, this morning I read that Bill Webster says the falling away started with Cyprian’s Eucharistic literalism. That moves things back about a hundred years from your date. Maybe 150 years.

          Was the Church ever not in apostasy according to you guys’ reckoning?

          Reply

       2. TIM–

          I believe you misunderstand what Origen meant.
          … Let us see, therefore, why he said “scarlet doubled.” That color, as we said, indicates the element of fire. Fire, however, has a double power: one by which it enlightens, another by which it burns. … Let us see, therefore, how we can offer that doubled fire for the building of the tabernacle. … God, therefore, says to you also what he said to Jeremiah: “Behold I have made my words in your mouth as fire.”

          One that enlightens and one that burns. Or as could be said, one that empowers and one that condemns–the double edged sword that is spoken of in Revelation pertaining to the Word of God. Double as in two affects, not as in twice the importance.

          Reply

          1. Bob, Colossians 3:1 ” Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on things above , not on things that are on earth. Bob, do you notice where Christ is? How about were a Christian is seated? Where are we to seek things? Where are we to set our mind? all the answers are found in that verse. Christ is in heaven, Christians are seated there with Him. We are to seek Christ in heaven. We are to set our mind on heaven. Notice Christ isn’t in the Eucharist. We don’t set our mind on bread. We don’t seek earthly things. We aren’t seated with Him on earth. verse 12 ” So those who have been chosen of God” notice this can’t be Catholics, because they don’t believe they are chosen of God. They have to continually get that Eucharist to hope to be chosen someday. verse 13″ Forgiving each other, just as the Lord forgave you.” Notice the Lord has forgiven Christians. There is no need for ongoing propitiation at a Catholic Mass. So lets review, Christ is in heaven. We are seated with Him there. We are to set our minds there. We are to seek Him there. And we are not to set our minds on things of the Earth. May I suggest to you that to worship the Eucharist is a violation of this scripture in the highest order. Verse 12 and 13 tells us a true believer that he is chosen, and forgiven past tense. I was reading the NT testament last night, and what jumped out at me is that Christians are complete IN HIM, perfected IN HIM, He became to us righteousness, wisdom, sanctification, redemption, IN HIM. To as many as receive HIM He has given the right to be called children of God. All power has been given to HIM on heaven and earth. Notice Bob, salvation is found in Christ. Never does scripture tell us that our salvation is in the church, but in Christ. The church is the bride of Christ, its us. Certainly we can’t be saved by faith in ourselves, the church. Salvation is found only in the Word, the gospel. The Roman idol bread god can’t bring you salvation, only faith in the true head, Jesus Christ, who is seated in heaven. God bless you. K

             Reply

             1. KEVIN–

                You give such wonderful tips. My, my, my. And such a wonderful scripture you chose. Let’s look a little further on down the page in the book of Colossians, shall we?

                Colossians 3:5ff Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience, you yourselves once walked when you lived in them.
                But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth. Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.
                Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering; bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do.
                But above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him.
                Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them. Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleasing to the Lord. Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged. Bondservants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in sincerity of heart, fearing God. you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance; for you serve the Lord Christ. But he who does wrong will be repaid for what he has done, and there is no partiality.

             2. Bob.
                Notice how Bozo hit the auto response button. Not a word on the topic though.

          2. Bob,

             I think you are right here. When I re-read the homily with your observation in mind, I realized that his point was a matter of “not neglecting the word” which is double in its effect, rather than placing twice the emphasis on the preaching of word. I think there is a case to be made from Origen that the preaching of the Word held the place of primacy in Origen’s liturgy, but that is for a different day. As you have noted, I misinterpreted his use of “scarlet doubled.” It did not mean “double the importance,” but rather, double the effect. Thanks for pointing that out.

             Tim

             Reply

             1. Tim,
                Worse than that little faux pas is the way you pooh-poohed my quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church as representing official Church teaching but tried to advance Bayside ( condemned ) and schismatic (?) Michael Davies as legitimate Catholic sources.

                If you are confused on a very peripheral issue like whether or not Communion in the hand is approved or not, why would anyone take you seriously on the fathers and OT prophecy?

             2. Jim,

                You observed,

                “Worse than that little faux pas is the way you pooh-poohed my quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church as representing official Church teaching”

                At no point did I “pooh-pooh” your quote from the Catechism as “official Church teaching.” Of course it is official Church teaching. What I “pooh-poohed” was your attempt to use the catechism to answer a question I had not asked. To refresh your memory, I said,

                “I cited Origen’s actual homily stating that the preaching of Word has the highest position in the Service, … and you have cited the catechism saying the Word is important.”

                I had not argued that the Word is not important in the Mass, so your citation of the Catechism saying that it is, was a documented, substantiated answer from official Church teaching to a question nobody was asking. You continued,

                “…but tried to advance Bayside ( condemned ) and schismatic (?) Michael Davies as legitimate Catholic sources.”

                I hardly advanced them as “legitimate Catholic sources.” I said,

                “Others see the reception on the hand as a sign of irreverence and disrespect for the Body and Blood of Christ. These Last Days Ministry, an apologetics ministry devoted to the messages of the Apparitions of Mary, cites the preferences of the last three popes (Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI)”

                In fact those “others” cited the legitimate Catholic sources of Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI to advance their opinion. This is illustrative of the problem of Roman Catholicism’s epistemology. None of them have a way of knowing for sure which Roman Catholic teachings are infallible, and which ones are opinions, so they are groping the dark, trying to sort these things out for themselves. And they all think they are “faithful Roman Catholics.” Perhaps they should all apply to you for a certificate of orthodoxy? At least that would finally settle the matter … infallibly. I am sorry if I cannot keep all of Rome’s “internal” denominations straight. There are hundreds of thousands of them, and more created every day, each of them thinking they have cornered the market on what is “true Roman Catholicism,” just as you do.

                Perhaps if there was an infallible list of infallible Catholic teachings this would not be such a problem for you.

                Thanks,

                Tim

79. Tim,

    Let me know when you want to move on from the Real Presence to the Sacrificial nature of the Mass.

    As a believer in Penal Substitution, of course you are going to deny the Mass as sacrifice as well as the Sacrament of the Eucharist. That is because you Calvinists misunderstand sacrifice. You have a unbiblical understanding of sacrifice=vicarious punishment. You think the Father poured out his wrath on Jesus rather than us once so there is no more punishment=sacrifice left to be done. That is why the idiot keeps screeching how Catholics re-kill Christ in every Mass.

    How are you going to overwhelm me with Penal Substitution in the Bible or the Fathers? It wasn’t until St. Anselm gave us the Satisfaction theory of the Atonement and then centuries after that that the deformers corrupted and twisted it to Penal Substitution.
    Didn’t some of the fathers have some rather strange ideas about ransom being paid to Satan?
    I gotta see you present Penal Substitution from the Fathers. (Those same Fathers also had some lofty views of Mary’s role in the redemption too if memory serves me right ).

    Back to your Malachi stuff for a moment. The Fathers said the sacrifice/clean oblation of Malachi replaced the Jewish sacrifices, didn’t they?

    Wasn’t Augustine asked to remember his mother “at the altar”?
    Altars are for sacrifice only, aren’t they? ( I think Paul used the word when he said we have an altar where those who serve the Jewish temple may not approach , too, didn’t he? )

    And of course, if we are going to get into Penal Substitution, we really must address is twin error of Limited Atonement.

    So, whenever you get tired of trying to trick us into thinking the Eucharist was honored with the same honor given the Stars and Stripes, let me know.

    Reply

80. Tim,

    Were you serious above when you said popes were at loggerheads with other popes over Communion in the hand?

    Are you getting as dumb as kevin?

    Reply

    1. Jim, you asked,

       Were you serious above when you said popes were at loggerheads with other popes over Communion in the hand?

       Where did I say that popes were at loggerheads with other popes over communion in the hand?

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

81. Tim,

    “There are many other Roman Catholics who say that the popes and fathers agree with them that the sacred species must not be touched,…”.

    Surely you are not speaking of the recent popes who can be seen on TV putting the Host into peoples’ hands. You must mean that previous popes are against the current popes on this.

    You may try to side step what you said by pointing the finger at, “there are many other Roman Catholics who say…”.

    But that is your whole style of little hints and innuendos, isn’t it Tim? Some Catholics claim the current popes. Others claim previous popes. Just delete out the “Some Catholics” and your intent shines through.

    Reply

    1. Jim, when I said “there are many other Roman Catholics who say,” I provided the links to the Roman Catholics who are saying such things in my most recent post. You may click on the links as you see fit. You said,

       “Surely you are not speaking of the recent popes who can be seen on TV putting the Host into peoples’ hands. You must mean that previous popes are against the current popes on this.”

       Why don’t you just click on the links I provided and see to which popes these many Roman Catholic people are referring? It’s not as if I didn’t cite my sources.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

82. Tim,

    “…the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord’s Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God’s Word and Christ’s Body. (Catechism of the Catholic Church §103; Vatican II Dei Verbum §21”

    http://www.frtommylane.com/homilies/year_a/easter3-2.htm

    Reply

    1. Jim, you wrote,

       “…the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord’s Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God’s Word and Christ’s Body. (Catechism of the Catholic Church §103; Vatican II Dei Verbum §21″

       So sayeth Rome. But Rome also says the Eucharist is the highest point in the Mass, and it is the summit of Rome’s worship and its evangelism. You can’t get higher than the summit, and the Eucharist is that summit. I have stated that Origen thought the Word deserved the highest position, and the Eucharist deserved a distant second. You may read his 13th Homily on Exodus for yourself if you’d like to see that. What I did not say is “the Word has no place in the Mass.” Yet you keep responding as if that is what I had said. In other words, you keep on objecting to something that I did not say.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

       1. If Origen were here among us today, would he disagree with the Church ?

          Reply

          1. Jim,

             What does it matter to you if Origen would agree with the Church or not? Bob’s source said, citing Origen’s 13th Homily on Exodus, that “Origen is expressing the attitude of the early Church [that] Scripture proclaimed and preached was held in as great honor as the sacrament of Christ’s body.” That statement is false.

             Origen was saying that whatever reverence and caution you afford the elements of the Lord’s Supper, the preaching of the Scripture deserves twice that much. You are encouraged to read Origen’s 13th Homily on Exodus for yourself to discover what Origen said.

             We are not arguing whether Origen agrees with anybody. We are only affirming or denying what Origen said in his Homily. I cited Origen’s actual homily stating that the preaching of Word has the highest position in the Service, and I have cited Rome saying that the Eucharist gets that honor. In response, Bob has cited a commentary on Origen’s homily saying that the Word is just as important as the Eucharist, and you have cited the catechism saying the Word is important.

             Bob’s source is wrong. Your source is irrelevant.

             Origen said in his 13th Homily on Exodus that whatever reverence and caution you afford the elements of the Lord’s Supper, the preaching of the Scripture deserves twice that much. If that statement is incorrect, prove it from his homily.

             Thanks,

             Tim

             Reply

             1. Tim,
                How do you know he wasn’t using hyperbole of sorts to stress that it isn’t just receiving the Body and Blood of Christ but the importance of knowing what you are doing?
                Kinda’ like when Fathers stress the importance of receiving “spiritually” or in a state of grace.

                Twice as much of all the reverence you can muster sounds a bit like twice as much of infinity.

                Think of what he said against Celsus, “…and this bread becomes by prayer a sacred body which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it”.

                Sincerity does not determine if the bread really changes or not. ( It does ). It only determines whether you benefit from it.

                Or elsewhere, “…so that which is sanctified by the word of God and through prayer ( the Consecration, Tim ) does not sanctify of its own nature, for if this were so, it would sanctify even him who eats unworthily… ACCORDING TO THE PROPORTION OF FAITH BECOMES A BENEFIT…
                But may things might be said of the Word Himself who became flesh and true meat of which he who should eat it shall live forever.

                As for his moving in and out between literalism and allegory, this was typical of the Alexandrian school.

                He is saying if one partakes of it insincerely, it is of no avail spiritually.

             2. TIM–
                You said “Bob’s source is wrong. Your source is irrelevant.
                Origen said in his 13th Homily on Exodus that whatever reverence and caution you afford the elements of the Lord’s Supper, the preaching of the Scripture deserves twice that much. If that statement is incorrect, prove it from his homily.”

                I just did in your misinterpretation above.

83. Tim,
    Why do you think St. John had the scene of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes right before the Bread of Life discourse?

    Reply

84. Tim,
    I scrolled up and don’t see the links. Not important as I don’t question you when you say there are all kinds of people “more Catholic than the Pope” when it comes to Communion in the hand, Latin, Ecumenism, etc. etc.

    They hardly constitute a major division in the seamless garment of the Church.

    Reply

    1. Jim, you don’t see the links because they are contained in The Great Write-in Write-Out Campaign, the subsequent post. You are welcome to read it, which is the post regarding Communion in the Hand.

       Tim

       Reply

       1. The one by Bishop Schnieder is fine. He is expressing one of those opinions I told you about.
          But the other one is Bayside material.
          I am actually a bit surprised you don’t know that Bayside is condemned.

          Bayside hardly counts as a controversy in the Church.

          Reply

85. Tim,
    The reason I asked about the loaves and fishes is because, although we refer to that scene as the “multiplication of the loaves and fishes”, Jesus did not actually make the five loaves and fishes 5,000 loaves and fishes.
    The crowd was fed with he same few fish and loaves with 12 baskets left over of the same original fish and loaves.

    No, I am not saying this is a case of Transubstantiation. But is an example of the multiplication, not of the fish, but of the accident of location of the fish.
    It certainly prepares us for the Real Presence being in every Host of the world.

    Reply

86. OOPS!
    I went back and see I forgot to read further. You also include a piece by the late Michael Davies who I actually enjoy reading. His book, “Cranmer’s Godly Order” explains how the deformers demolished the Mass in England.

    I am not sure if he was an official member of the Pius X Society, but he might as well of been. He was very critical of Paul VI and might have gone off the deep end. I used to know a lot more about those folks but drifted away from them more than 20 years ago.

    Again, not close enough to even be in the running for the proverbial cigar.

    Reply

87. Tim,

    Jesus said we must eat his Body and drink his Blood in order to be save.
    Your system says only the saved will eat his Body and drink his Blood, right?

    Reply

88. Tim,
    I thought I referred you to Denziger’s.

    Why is that infallible list important to you? You wouldn’t buy it anyway? Why does it matter how Catholics receive Communion, on the tongue or in the hand? You revile it either way.
    You are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill with this Communion in the hand business, implying Catholics are as confused on this as Protestants are on really important issues.

    Reply

    1. Jim, you wrote,

       “I thought I referred you to Denziger’s.”

       You did, and I responded, “But Denzinger is not a pope, and he does not provide an infallible list of ex cathedra proclamations.”

       That is why there are “Denzinger Catholics” and “non-Denzinger Catholics.”

       Denzinger Catholics see Denzinger as a final authority, as if Denziger was the successor to Peter himself. But Denzinger was not an infallible pope. You continued,

       “Why is that infallible list important to you?”

       Because infallible guidance from the pope is what is offered as “the solution” to Protestants trying to “figure it out on their own.” Yet when I ask for Roman Catholics to provide a list of infallible teachings, they suddenly think that each Roman Catholic just needs to sort through the data, and figure it out on their own.

       There are some Catholics, Jim, who think Denzinger Catholics are moralistic, ideological and wrong. Whom shall I believe? the Denzinger Catholics, or the non-Denzinger Catholics?

       As far as I’m concerned, every Roman Catholic is a “denomination of one,” and yours is the “Jim” version of Roman Catholicism.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

       1. Could you find me a quote from one of those those anti-Denziger folks?

          Reply

          1. Jim, you can read about Denzinger vs. non Denzinger Catholics here:

             http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/search/label/Denziger%20Catholics

             The problem with just pointing to Denzinger is that someone needs to interpret Denzinger. Who should that be? Consider this statement from a catholic at Amazon, talking about Denzinger:

             “The involvement of Rahner on The Denzinger seems to have raised some question about whether he (Rahner) chose to include some documents that are not wholly representative of Church Teaching. The question is somewhat plausible – specifically because one or two entries left me scratching my head, and generally because it is acknowledged that not every document ever written by a Pope or Council is considered by the Church to be de fide, “of the faith”;” (Amazon Customer Review)

             But that’s just it, Jim. Which documents written by popes or councils are “de fide”? Is there a list somewhere? You pointed me to Denzinger, and Denzinger doesn’t know (or isn’t telling).

             Thanks,

             Tim

             Reply

             1. Karl Rahner? Who is the author of this article?

                Tim, have you ever even seen a Denziger’s? It’s just a
                collection of documents.

                I have one. I don’t need an interpreter.
                Denziegr Catholics? That is a new one.

                I cannot take your concerns seriously, Tim. What if I told you there are exactly, 9 infallible decrees, no more, no less. Would it matter to you?
                If I asked your kids how many rules their father has given them and to list their importance on a scale of 1 to 10, could they do it?
                No playing with matches, No biting siblings. No talking to strangers like Kevin. No playing with the light switch. No praying with grandma to Mary. How would they rate them?

89. Bob, and your point is? You used a scripture that said the elect of God. Those things being commanded are descriptive of the Elect and what they are to do. They aren’t prescriptive on how we obtain salvation. Have you figured out yet that Rome reads them backwards, having you do those things before you can be called elect. Sanctification that leads to justification isn’t biblical salvation, but it is the judaism that God will judge by his standard of the Law. ” be perfect as I am perfect” How you doing with that Bob. Better get to a few more Masses. God bless

    Reply

    1. Kevin,

       When did God elect you?
       Were you ever really lost? Not if you have always been elect.

       Were you justified at the Cross? Or does your faith save you?
       The Cross was 2,000 years ago. You, your sins and your faith are all after the Cross. When were you not saved?

       Whether or not you ever partake of the Eucharist, whether in a Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist or Catholic church is irrelevant. You have always been saved.

       Reply

       1. Jim asked Kevin ” when did God elect you?” Ephesians 1:4 ‘ just as He chose us before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless. He predestined us to adoption as sons thru Jesus Christ , according to the kind intention of His well, to the praise of glory of his will. In him we have redemption thru His blood, the forgiveness of our sins.” Romans 8 ” Who can bring a charge against God’s elect? Can you Jim, can Walt, can Bob. Who can put the yoke of works righteousness on the elect. Christians have entered his rest, and have rested from our works. We don’t seek to be justified by our works or a work at a Mass. We are simply brought to the obedience of faith as the Spirit makes us holy through obeying his moral law. Jim, everything you stand for is the opposite of this truth. Rome puts the yoke of works on her people, and many Protestants seek to put the gentiles under their mishna, and rob them of the assurance that Scripture gives through only faith in Christ. And to answer your question, yes I was lost in my sins, without hope, and here is what the apostle Paul says, you have been bought with a price, ransomed ( which means bought back out of slavery), ” and in Him you have been made complete” Jim let me ask you a question if Hebrews tells me thru one offering I have been perfected, and Colossians tells me I have been made complete, and Scripture tells me I have been bought with a price, and chosen, and adopted, an heir, exactly why would you propitiate your sins at a Mass? Thanks.

          Reply

90. Jim, Tim said to you ” perhaps they should all apply to you for a certificate of orthodoxy.” Ya, call it a B. S. in orthodoxy. God bless.

    Reply

    1. Drop the “God Bless” stuff you phony. Say “God Damn” as that ‘s what you mean to say.

       Reply

91. Tim,

    Here is my own rule of thumb on receiving Communion;
    If a priest is dispensing Holy Communion, I receive on my tongue as I hate to have to find little particles on the palm of my hand.
    However, if a lay person is giving out Communion, I receive in my hand as his hands are as my hands anyway.
    In the parish where Nick and I attend in Portland, they still have people kneel at a Communion rail and only priests or deacons dispense the Sacrament. Pretty much everyone ( but not all ) receive on the tongue.

    At my church over here, there is a prie-diu where the priest gives Communion for people to kneel if they so wish. People can stand or kneel, receive in the hand or on the tongue.

    You are trying to make much ado out of nothing, Tim. Corny.

    Reply

92. Kelvin,

    Over on the other line, you hit auto response button and ranted at Bob from Hebrews about Christians being seating with Christ in the heavenly sanctuary.

    Tell us your spin on this;
    ” Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. ”

    Sacrifices? Christ is still offering sacrifices? Notice, not “sacrifice” singular, but sacrifices plural. His sacrifice on Calvary was “once for all”, right? Explain these heavenly sacrifices, please.
    I thought you said Christ sat down and is now at rest.

    Please keep your response on this and this only. No Mary rant, no works rant, no Ephesians 2, no bread worship hysteria. Just this.
    Try to actually address this and only this.

    Reply

    1. Jim, did I ever say that Christ is not applying His sacrifice that perfected me on my behalf. But, what He isn’t doing is coming back on the cross each time I take the Lord’s supper and dying again for my sin ( immolation ). He did it ONCE. And what He is not doing is delving out grace based on my disposition and the mere fact that I DO the Supper. The church isn’t the mediator of grace, the Spirit is the mediator of grace. And my bible tells me it’s demerited favor in which I stand, from his fulness we have received grace upon grace. ” For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also we eagerly await a Savior.’ Did you get that Jim, we await a savior from heaven where we are seated. Why does you church pull Him down? He is raised fro my justification. I have often said a Jesus who isn’t raised, who must stay on an altar, can’t save anybody. He is risen. And the whole church sings the Amen! Can you see James how much the Roman Mass violates the gospel. K

       Reply

       1. KEVIN–
          You said to Jim: “did I ever say that Christ is not applying His sacrifice that perfected me on my behalf.”

          What do you think the word “applying” means? It is present tense, not past tense.

          Reply

93. JIM–
    ” Bob. Notice how Bozo hit the auto response button.”

    I’m thinking about getting me one of those, too. It’s a lot easier than having to think about your response. Something like:
    DOO-DAH-DEE“We’re sorry, but your response has made you anathema. You have the right to remain ignorant. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of blog. You have a right to correct teaching. If you do not have correct teaching, some will be provided for you. If you understand these rights that have been explained to you, please press “1”. Otherwise, please stay on the line and someone will be with you shortly.”

    Reply

    1. I love it!

       Reply

94. Tim,
    I honestly don’t know of any Catholic who lies awake at night worrying about Denziger’s. I certainly don’t. ( I don’t even know where my copy is ).

    What is your dog in this fight?

    This is so typical of your blog, Innuendo. Hint. Imply. Plant seed. Tell a little half lie. Infer. And then let the devil do his work.

    Reply

    1. Jim, you asked,

       “What is your dog in this fight?”

       Well, here’s the dog in the fight. The powers of hell will prevail unless there is an infallible pope to guide me:

       “Therefore, the logic of the situation demands that the Petrine power of confirming the brethren must be an infallible power. When the Pope intends by virtue of his supreme authority to teach on a matter of faith and morals to the entire Church, he MUST be protected by the Holy Spirit from error — else the powers of hell would prevail.” (EWTN, Papal Infallibility)

       I cannot know what to believe, apparently, unless I have an infallible guide. So, one such guide says 1 Maccabees is not in the canon, to which I receive a chorus of objections from Roman Catholics saying that that was just his personal opinion, and he might not have even been pope when he wrote that. “Ok,” I ask, “so which teachings are the infallible ones?”:

       Tim, on February 11: “But a visible head who himself is unable to tell you when he is speaking infallibly leads to anarchy as well. Perhaps you can resolve this for us by providing the list of ex cathedra papal statements?”

       To which you responded:

       Jim, on February 12: “Do you have a Denziger’s?”

       So I responded, providing you with the summary of the problem which is that Denzinger is not infallible, and even those who find it helpful are unable to determine from Denzinger which documents are “de fide” and which are not, but Denzinger itself is not an infallible collection, and therefore one cannot just go to Denzinger to find out what to believe.

       To which you responded, quite tellingly, that you don’t need an interpreter. Well, good for you, Jim. This guy clearly does, because he cannot tell which things in Denzinger he is to believe to be true:

       “The involvement of Rahner on The Denzinger seems to have raised some question about whether he (Rahner) chose to include some documents that are not wholly representative of Church Teaching. The question is somewhat plausible – specifically because one or two entries left me scratching my head, and generally because it is acknowledged that not every document ever written by a Pope or Council is considered by the Church to be de fide, “of the faith”;” (Amazon Customer Review)

       Perhaps he can call you, since you do not need an interpreter. So you responded,

       “This is so typical of your blog, Innuendo. Hint. Imply. Plant seed. Tell a little half lie. Infer. And then let the devil do his work.”

       Where is the “half-lie”? Where is the innuendo? I just asked which papal statements are the true ones, since it is clear that there are some that will be harmful to me if I believe them to be true. If logic demands that I have an infallible guide, logic also demands that I be able to tell when he is teaching me infallibly, or when he is teaching me in error.

       If you do not know, you simply need to acknowledge that. If you do know, there are not a few Roman Catholics who want to know your secret. You asked,

       “I cannot take your concerns seriously, Tim. What if I told you there are exactly, 9 infallible decrees, no more, no less. Would it matter to you?”

       Yes, it would, because there are not a few Roman Catholics who think there are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 30, 35, or 40 such infallible papal statements. With one word from you, all that could be cleared up.

       There is not a one-word answer, is there? But there is a two-word answer: Sola Ecclesia.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

       1. Tim,
          Tell those Catholics to google it. There is no excuse for stupidity. The Church is visible. Her teachings are not impossible to discern.

          Reply

95. KEVIN–
    You said: “Bob, and your point is? You used a scripture that said the elect of God. Those things being commanded are descriptive of the Elect and what they are to do.”

    Yes. That is correct. And what does he tell the elect?
    ” And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus giving thanks to God the Father through Him.
    … do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance; for you serve the Lord Christ. But he who does wrong will be repaid for what he has done, and there is no partiality.

    Reply

    1. Bob, but again your error is to think that that reward is salvation, its not. God will reward our works ( His works) but not with eternal life. Nowhere does scripture teach our works are MERITORIOUS ever in salvation. Never! In fact Paul, who received his gospel from Christ, teaches the exact opposite. Romans 6:23 ” for the wages of sin is death, but the FREE GIFT of God is eternal life thru Christ our Lord” ” If its by grace its no longer by works, or grace is NO longer grace.” Petty definitive, huh Bob. And then if thats not definitive enough for you he says for by grace we have been saved by faith, its not that of ourselves, not of works. So before you go running off and throwing James 2 in, realize that you defend a church ( Rome) that teaches you are justified BEFORE GOD ( not before men) by your works, and that grace is tool to merit salvation. Paul teaches the EXACT opposite. In fact he says in 9:32 the Gentiles who were not looking for it , found it by faith, and the Jews who were attaining it , didn’t, because they came by works. No works, grace enabled or otherwise can be sought in justification before God. And Rome teaches the opposite. And saddly Scripture teaches Catholics will not find it, because they smuggled their character into the work of God ‘s grace. K

       Reply

96. KEVIN–
    You said: “Christians have entered his rest, and have rested from our works. We don’t seek to be justified by our works or a work at a Mass. We are simply brought to the obedience of faith as the Spirit makes us holy through obeying his moral law.”

    If Christians have rested from our works, why do we have to obey anything? Why do we have to persevere? Why do we have to forgive others? Why do we have to love one another?
    Why must we do unto others as we would have them do unto us?
    DOO-DAH-DEE“We’re sorry, but your response has made you anathema. You have the right to remain in ignorance. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of blog. You have a right to correct teaching. If you do not have correct teaching, some will be provided for you. If you understand these rights that have been explained to you, please press “1″. Otherwise, please stay on the line and someone will be with you shortly.”

    Reply

    1. Bob, No works inJUSTIFICATION before God. Of course we are called to obey God from faith in our sanctification. James says we are justified in the eyes of man by DEMONSTRATING our faith by our works. But thats not what rome teaches. Rome teaches you must be sanctified BEFORE you are justified. Thats being justified by Law. Paul says in Galatians 3 ” Law is not faith” Bob, if you never understand the difference between Law and Gospel in scripture, you will never understand the gospel. Rome could only see the gospel as that which enables believers to become righteous by obedience and that which is compensation for their lack, not realizing the law requires perfection. To confuse Law and Gospel Bob is to corrupt faith at its core. Maybe God will lift the veil that you will see this someday. K

       Reply

97. KEVIN–
    You said: “Bob, but again your error is to think that that reward is salvation, its not. God will reward our works ( His works) but not with eternal life. Nowhere does scripture teach our works are MERITORIOUS ever in salvation. Never!”
    That’s right. Paul never says:
    Rom 2:6 ff
    He will judge everyone according to what they have done.
    He will give eternal life to those who keep on doing good, seeking after the glory and honor and immortality that God offers. But he will pour out his anger and wrath on those who live for themselves, who refuse to obey the truth and instead live lives of wickedness. There will be trouble and calamity for everyone who keeps on doing what is evil—for the Jew first and also for the Gentile. But there will be glory and honor and peace from God for all who do good—for the Jew first and also for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism.

    Reply

    1. Bob, hopefully you will read Tim’s article on Romans 2. Those who do good to whom God gives eternal life are those who are jbfa. How do we know this? Bexause we dont make the eisegesis mistake you and your mamma Rome make, which is to ubderstand this isolated from its context, thd fist 5 chapters of Romans, where we are told noone will be justified by what they do. But that would involve reading Romans 3, 4, and 5, which isnt something you will do. Romans 2 cant mean what you say it means because the rest of Romans says works play NO meritoruious role in our salvation. So try again. K

       Reply

98. KEVIN–
    You said: “Rome teaches you must be sanctified BEFORE you are justified. Thats being justified by Law.”

    You show me where Rome teaches that and I’ll show you where they don’t.

    Reply

    1. Bob said ” you show me where they teah this and I will show you where they dont” Ah yes, we’ ve been thru this rodeo before. But I’ll let God show you because there was Reformation over this. Bob, this is basic 101 stuff.Every Roman apologist will tell your final justification is based on your works in some way meriting and accumulating the righteouness necessary through doing sacraments. The bible says the opposite, we are justified by His righteouness alone and it comes ever and only by faith alone. In Reformed theology our works play no role in our justification, they are simply the result of our faith as the Spirit wroughts them in us. But we arent justified by anything the Spirit does in us, but by the imputed righteouness of Christ by faith. You are s ii mply in denial about Romes doctrine, probaly because you buy into Protestants who embrace Rome, ignorant of scripture. K

       Reply

       1. Bob,
          Kevin is learning.
          “Bob, this is basic 101 stuff.Every Roman apologist will tell your final justification is based on your works in some way meriting and accumulating the righteouness necessary through doing sacraments”
          ( Kevin forgot “works of Charity like feeding the hungry and clothing the naked”. )

          At least he is starting to recognize not one place in the Bible do we see anybody judged on their “Faith Alone” on Judgement day.

          Reply

          1. Jim, said, Kevin is beggining to see no where in the bible anyone on judgment day being judged by faith alone.” Well since John 5: 24 says believers have passed out of judgment it looks like Jim handing out more B.S. certificates in orthodoxy. Lol God bless James, you and Bob are likeable semi pelagians, lost, but likeable. Lol K

             Reply

99. Tim,
    I thought we we talking about the Eucharist.

    Let me ask you something. OT types are fulfilled in the NT in a more complete way than the shadow right?
    Jesus said the OT manna was a shadow of the bread he was going to give.
    OT manna was miraculous, nourishing, and satisfied every taste. It was from heaven. I was carried in a golden urn in the Ark of the Covenant.
    How is it fulfilled by Protestant bread or crackers? How is your symbolic Communion bread as good as manna?

    Explain how Paul could say that Jesus, our Passover lamb has been sacrificed and therefore to keep the feast…of unleavened bread…?

    What do you think of Cyprian ( before 350 ) saying Jesus was the priest according to Melchisedek at the last Supper. ( Webster says he was the source of all the Eucharistic error ).

    Speaking of what you asked about the oil and water of the other sacraments being Transubstantiated, Ambrose said that when the baptismal water is blessed it remains water but when the priest blesses the bread it becomes the Body of Christ.

    You keep saying the early Church was concerned about a sacrifice of praise only. Think of Daniel in exile when he complained that in pagan captivity the Jews had no holocaust, incense, oblation or sacrifice to offer in order to find mercy with God. Why didn’t he just offer spiritual sacrifices of praise? Why did he want to offer a sensible sacrifice if it wasn’t important?

    Chrysostom said Elias left us his cloak to his disciple before ascending but Jesus left us his body. He said Elias ascended without his cloak but Jesus went up not only with his body but left it with us.

    Augustine said that when Jesus said, “This is my Body”, he carried himself in his own hands.

    Justin, Irenaeus, Cyprian,..

    Jesus said, “This is the Blood of the New and Everlasting Covenant. It will be shed for the forgiveness of sins”.

    Covenants are established with sacrifice, yes?

    Come on Tim, let’s get back to your blasphemous denial of the Blessed Sacrament. Tell us how the early Calvinist Church taught a spiritual symbolic sacrifice/ drab memorial meal for the elect only. Tell us how the Blood of the Covenant was shed for the elect only. Tell us that the Catholics, who don’t even believe in your Penal Substitution theory, thought they were killing Christ anew in every Mass.
    Show us how, in the OT, the lambs were abused and beaten before being sacrificed. Try to get us to believe the High Priest “poured out his wrath” on the victim.

    Get Kevin to explain the Book of Hebrews and Revelation’s “lamb standing as slain”.

    Explain the figurative sense of eating Jesus’ flesh in light of the Chaldeans eating the flesh of the Jews in the Book of Daniel.

    Come on Tim, let’s talk about your denial of Eucharistic Sacrifice and Real Presence. Forget your Denziger’s red herring. Get your Igor henchman to stop hitting his auto response button and talk about the Eucharist ( if the moron is capable of saying anything more profound than ” Bread Worship” that is ).

    Reply

100. Jim said to Tim ” covenants are established by sacrifice” Jim God established the new covenant according to Hebrews with tow immutable things, his promise and his oath. One sacrifice did what no 1000 OT sacrifices could do, put sin away, offer those who believe complete forgiveness of their sins. God remembers all of our sin, past, present, future no more, and offers reat for the consciences of true believers. We have truly entered his rest, and Rome and its summit Mass stands in opposition to the one final sacrifice that brings Christians eternal reconciliation and peace. Notice its called eternal life. True Christians dont lose it. K

     Reply

101. Jim, that should read tha 1000 OT sacrifices couldnt do. K

     Reply

     1. Hebrews 9:26 says,
        “Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.”

        Suffer. Christ suffered ONCE. That is de fide Catholic doctrine.
        You ignorantly accuse catholics of believing Christ suffers in every Mass.

        Christ was IMMOLATED once. He can’t be immolated again as his body is incapable of suffering.

        but that once time immolation/death can be offered a billion times.

        THE MASS IS A SYMBOLIC DEATH. A REAL PRESENCE. A TRUE SACRIFICE.

        Let’s take that apart. There is a reason Christ did not say, “This is my Body and Blood”. Instead, he consecrated each separately. Separated body and blood shows death.

        The Presence is real. He said so. Do you doubt him?

        For eternity, a person keeps the same disposition he had at the moment of death. People in hell left the would hating God and never repent for eternity.
        Christ left this world as a victim. He was a victim then and is a victim now. He retains the wounds in his hands and feet today.
        Ask Thomas if you don’t believe me.

        We offer the victim in every Mass. We don’t kill him. His flesh is that of a victim in glory ( the Lamb standing as slain ).
        Prove it otherwise.

        By one Bloody sacrifice ( Hebrews 9:26 ). The Mass is not bloody.

        Reply

        1. Jim, we have talked about before. I agree Christ’s body cant be sacrificed again. But thats not what Trent says, znd you simply are ignorant to this. Trent anathamatizes anyone who doesnt say its a true and proper sacrifice for sins. Ask your Priest the meaning of the word sacrificium and he will hide from you. In Catholic doctrine it is truly a re breaking of the Lord’s body efficacious for sins. You go to the he trough and eat increases of your justice and grace and you do a work to propittiate your sins. Rome for centuries calls the Mass ” the work of the people” Unfortunately for you Paul says God justifies the one who does not work. K

           Reply

           1. Stupid bastard. Trough?

              I am so touched you like me. It’s just my mother you hate. I understand.

              Reply

              1. Jim, , the church, Christians are the bride of Christ, it isnt your mother. The church is the spouse of Christ.

        2. Jim, you bought the lie of Rome. Why does Christ sacrifice need to be offered 10000 more time, the only one saves to the uttermost, perfected us, and obtained eternal redemption. Thats the whole point of Hebrews, one sacrifice in the NT accomplished what 100000 OT sacrifices could never do. The power of that sacrifice dynamo. You guys cant be saved by the power of his resurection, because you got Him strapped to the altar. He isnt there Jim, He is in heaven applying His perfect sacrifice on our behalf. All our sins are wiped away in one sacrifice 2000 years ago. Now thats power. K

           Reply

           1. Why do people need to be Baptized. Think of the millions of baptism that have been performed in the past 2,000 years.

              Answer: One crucifixion, millions of baptisms into that one death.
              Now, think Mass.

              Reply

102. Let’s talk about Calvinism’s stupid and blasphemous understanding of the Supper and the Cross.

     Calvin taught that Christ had to suffer as the damned in order to be the Penal Substitute of the damned. He said that he had to suffer hell. He said that on the cross, Christ felt what sinners in hell do, alienation from God.
     All of your kingpins like Piper, Washer, White, MacArthur. Sproul, etc. echo this absurd lie.

     Calvin says that in the Garden of Olives, Jesus asked if he could forego the crucifixion. He says that was the cup he asked the Father to let him forego.
     Worse, he says Christ feared hell, feared for his own salvation.

     Think about what really happened instead of Calvinism’s lie.
     At the Supper, Christ had already instituted the New Covenant in his blood. He had already placed himself into a victim state. He had “longed to eat that Supper” with the Apostles. He had come into the world for this very purpose. He never wavered. He never wanted to opt out. No man took his life from him but he laid it down of his own accord.

     Calvinism celebrates a pathetic memorial good bye meal with a morsel of bread and a sip of wine.
     They say the day after Christ had a good bye dinner ( although he knew he would be seeing the Apostles again in 72 hours ) he went to Calvary where the Father poured out his wrath on Jesus in lieu of a handful of the elect. Calvinism denies the plain teaching of the Bible that Christ shed his blood as a holy sacrifice ( not as a Penal Substitute ) for all men.

     Calvinism says that since was punished in a Damon and Pythias scenario for the elect, God cannot punish those same elect again. They say that would be double jeopardy to punish twice for the same crime.
     They latch onto certain passages like Is 53 and 1 Peter 2 abuse them. They say Christ became a sinner in the eyes of the Father. That he was cursed hanging on a tree by God. They rip the Trinity and Incarnation apart in so doing.
     They concoct their imputation of sin to Christ/righteousness to us theories, none of which has a thing to do with sacrifice.

     And of course, for the Deformed, the Eucharist, like Baptism and the other Sacraments is superfluous as only the predestined are going to benefit from them anyway so who need ’em?

     Because of your erroneous understanding of the cross and Supper, you turn on Catholics and apply your system to ours and come up with your asinine comments about death Wafers, Bread Worship and Graven Bread. If you had a brain the size of a peanut you would understand our two systems differ at every point, not just the merit business you are blabbing at Bob.

     Ours is biblical. Yours is Calvin’s.

     Reply

     1. Jim said ” Christ came into the world to institute the supper” And you wonder why Reformed thing Catholics are lost in sin. Paul said it isa trustworthy statement that Christ came into the world to save sinners. He came into the world Jim to fulfill what Adam didnt by fulfilling the Law and to die in our place to provide forgiveness of sins to those who believe. You believe the sacrifice for sins was the bread of the Supper, that wont save you buddy. K

        Reply

        1. Bread is a sacrifice for sin? Not in my religion.

           Reply

           1. Jim, said ” not in my religion” What is the Peiest offering up whren he says hocus pocus on the altar and makes your dough God. Is that bread not an offering to burn off your temporal punishment that Jesus was able to cover the first time on the cross? I think you better check again Jim. Tim’s whole series is on how the bread was never, ever offered to God. So the Priestcraft involved in the making of the dough god to be offered is an unacceptable offering to God. It is your idolatry that enrages you against Christians, just like when the inquisition made people cry uncle or die. Rome demands the worship of their Eucharist. And indeed it is a piece of bread you bow too. True believers worship the true God in Spirit and truth, and the bread of the Supper is an ever reminder of the one sacrifice that saved us. God bless Jim

              Reply

              1. The priest does not make the dough into God. You reveal ignorance of my belief system when you utter such absurd nonsense. No created thing can become God.

                 The Holy Spirit changes the “dough” into the Body of Christ at the priests words. Of course, as Christ’s Body and Blood are not separated in heaven, his Blood, soul and divinity is present by way of concomitance.

                 Save your auto response blubbering for some other fool. You attack a straw man that I don’t even recognize. I don’t intend to defend a position you foist on me that I don’t believe in. You tilt at windmills. I don’t have time for your silly fantasies of what Catholicism is.

     2. Jim, you said They rip the Trinity and the incarnation apart.” Jim, scripturecsays Christ emptied himself not considering equality with God a thing to be grasped. He gave up his rights to be God, He didnt give up being God, but condescended all the way down to man, He obeyed the law perfectly, suffered in our place, and bought us a place in heaven. Everything He took on He redeemed. And yes His soul and body suffered the torment of the punishment and hell to free us. He said Father why have you forsaken me. God turned his back on his son. He was numbered with sinners, pierced thru for our transgression. It pleased His father to crush Him. And He accounted many righteous. The Jewsat Passover were thankful God passed over them, not given them Aristotlian juju. K

        Reply

        1. He emptied himself at the Incarnation, not the cross.

           Gave up his rights to be God? Are you completely mad?

           Christ suffered hell? Hell is separation from God. Are you saying he was separated from himself? Are you saying his humanity and divinity were separated?

           If that is what you are saying, you are a Nestorian. ( Ask Tim, .Nestorius had some major problems with the Eucharist too that Cyril had to address ).

           God turned his back on God? Would you care to explain that?
           Ever read all of Psalm 22? Or just the opening line?

           Pierced thru for our transgression? Yes, indeed. Google the word “huper”. Jesus suffered on our “behalf”. Not “in our stead”.

           Aristotle was a Greek JuJu is African.

           Reply

           1. Jim, Christ, a divine person with two natures, not to be mixed or separated. K

              Reply

103. Tim,
     How could the early Church have a Calvinist understanding of the Eucharist when they didn’t have a Calvinist understanding of the Cross?

     Reply

104. I guess we are done talking about the fathers and the Eucharist.

     Once again, Kevin’s death wafer business shut down the discussion.

     Oh well, it just proves your guys have nothing more intelligent to say on the matter.

     Reply

105. “im, , the church, Christians are the bride of Christ, it isnt your mother. The church is the spouse of Christ.”

     Ever read what Calvin said about this? Check out Galatians 4:26.

     You are a buffoon. A total ass.
     My wife’s nephew sent a text message an hour or so ago saying he is flying in from Valencia to take an audition on Sunday in one of Lisbon’s orchestras. He asked if he could spend the night at our house. He is a nice guy and I like him a lot so I said he is welcome.
     His mother is a cabra. An Italian from Argentina. You know, the organ grinder type with that short stocky physique from the south.
     She hates me and has told me never to come to her house in Madrid. Yet her son is going to sleep under my roof. Maybe I should pay her back and refuse him a bed?

     When I pick him up at the airport, should I say to him, “Alexander, I like you. But I loathe your repulsive mother”?

     You are the only person so crude as to do that. Of course, I will go through the motions of pretending I don’t despise the horrible woman he loves. I will ask after her health. I respect him too much not to.

     Keep your false “God blesses”. Be real. You hate Catholics as you hate the Church. You remind me of those creeps who burn and behead Christian ( Mary venerating Copts and Chaldean Catholics ).
     You make me sick.

     Reply

106. I have had enuff of you for one day. I think I will have some wine and watch TV and forget you exist.

     Reply

     1. JIM–
        You said to Kevin: ” I think I will have some wine and watch TV and forget you exist.”

        If only it were that easy. He needs someone else besides “vulgar Catholics” to teach him. He’s already too prejudiced against Rome to hold any value in what Catholics say.

        Reply

        1. Bob, I am not predjuduced against Catholicism. I hate it with a righteous furry. Because it wounds Christ, and puts up sacramental efficacy in the place of the atonement, a piece of bread in the place of my savior, a few drops of water in the place of thd Holy Spirit. And it’s Mass is a human invention that is taking souls right into the abyss. I hate it, and every Christian should pray against it and its damnable doctrines. We should pray God thows in to the bottom of the sea, and that He would have mercy and call out his people. I loveCatholics enough to come on these sites and get blasted. I simply want to tell them, they worship God unacceptably. I look at all my best Catholic friends that I lost and say how can you ever speak of God’s love and mercy, yet deny men the free gift offered I the gospel, the assurance given to blievers I scripture, and most of all forgiveness of all their sins. Rome isnt love and mercy. Its judaism in the NT. There are Protestants to who put the yoke of the Mosaic law on believers too. Acts 13: 38. K

           Reply

107. KEVIN–
     You said: “Bob, hopefully you will read Tim’s article on Romans 2. Those who do good to whom God gives eternal life are those who are jbfa. How do we know this? Bexause we dont make the eisegesis mistake you and your mamma Rome make, which is to ubderstand this isolated from its context, thd fist 5 chapters of Romans, where we are told noone will be justified by what they do. But that would involve reading Romans 3, 4, and 5, which isnt something you will do. Romans 2 cant mean what you say it means because the rest of Romans says works play NO meritoruious role in our salvation. So try again. K”

     The error you make is that Paul is talking about works of the Mosaic Law and all works outside of what God has inspired us to do prompted by the Holy Spirit. Why you both are blind to that fact is beyond me. You spout error plain and simple. And because you believe that error, it makes you doubt the works of the Holy Spirit in yourself and others as having any salvific value at all which makes you presumptuous of your status before God.
     You are basing your understanding of Romans on a false premise and therefore you perceive error in others when it simply isn’t there.

     Reply

     1. Bob, we have been down this rodeo before. When Paul speaks of the Law he is speaking of the whole law. The book of Galatians is the antithesis between all wors and hearing by faith. ” if its by grace, it is no longer by works, or grace is no longer grace. No works Bob, Paul says nothing coming from ourselves or our works. And Clement of Rome’s statement, your very own Bishop said, we arent justified by wisdom, or deeds wrought in holiness, or anything coming from ourselves, but by faith. Justification is ever and always on the basis of faith, its based on the righteouness that comes by faith, His merits only. Our Spirit wrought works have nothing to do with one’ s justification in the bible. They are only the result of true faith. There isnt a virtue attached to faith that merits the acceptance of God. And Roman Catholicism will always be a false gospel, and those who believe in its salvation by graccious works will lined the walls of hell. They will find what the Jews found in Romans 9:32 – 10:4. Paul prayed for their salvation. God bless k

        Reply

        1. DOO-DAH-DEE

           Reply

     2. Bob said ” Why you are blinded to this is beyond me. You spout error blindly. And because you believe that error it makes you doubt the work of the Holy Spirit as having any salvific value before God and makes you presumptuous. Old canard. You dont understand the difference between law and gospel. Thats why we had a reformation. Paul says law is not faith. It wasnt me that says Holy Spirit works are not meritorious in salvation, Paul taught this. Its beyond me that you dont see it. If God justifies and ungodly man apartvfrom works 4:5 and Paul says if its by works it is no longer by grace, and not according to righteouss deeds Titus 3:5, and Eph 2 not of ourselves and not of works, the question gets put back on you, why do your works have salvific value. It is not I who is presumptous, but you who think that anything you do could stand the test of thevlaw ” be perfect as I am perfect” my works are for my neighbor, God doesnt need them, nor do I. Calvin said its allot easier to love your neighbor when you know you arent obligated. I am not justified in anyway by my love or my works, but by the righteouness of Christ given to me thru simply believing. K

        Reply

        1. DOO-DAH-DEE

           Reply

108. Jim, said ” The Priest doesnt make dough into God” then Jim said ” The Holt Spirit changes the dough into Christ at the Priest’s words” and I said the Priest says hocus pocus and makes the dough god. Hmmm, and these are different how? K

     Reply

     1. I can answer that and I’m not even Catholic.

        Reply

109. OOH! You are such a big mean stupid bastard Mr. Kevin!

     Reply

110. Tim,
     A few days ago, before Mr. Kevin came along and joined into the discussion and spiced things up as only he can, we were discussing the Eucharist in the early Church.
     Like the chat we had on the Papacy, we see that your hysterical theory about the pre 350 A.D. Church being Protestant has been totally debunked.
     But, just like today’s Holocaust deniers, you will no doubt carry on with your pathetic rewriting of history, innuendos, and interpreting of prophecy counter to 2nd Pt 1:20..

     My work is done here. ( And I have merited much for my good works of instructing the ignorant and admonishing the sinner ). I have, once again, shown you up to be a crack-pot. But before moving back to CCC until your next installment, I need to ask you something.
     How much did you pay out of pocket to get Graven Bread into print? Did you neglect feeding your children in order to pursue your mad obsession? Did your wife object to the waste of funds? How many more copies do you need to sell to imbeciles like Kevin and Walt before you begin to recovery you losses? How many crates of books do you have lying fallow in your garage because no bookstore wants your silly book on their shelves? Is it a coloring book with pictures for the Kevin?

     Reply

111. Thankyou so much Tim, for this series on “their praise was their sacrifice”. It has been very helpful in seeing what was taught and believed for the first 3 centuries and how the transition happened in the late 4th century to idolatry. Thx for dissecting the arguments presented by both sides and showing the clarity of the Scriptures and the early church in offering praise as the sacrifice acceptable to God.

     Reply