Just found your site… I have a couple of your books that I love! Thank You for what you do…
Your book, Graven Bread, came highly recommended by ex-Catholic priest Richard Bennett of bereanbeacon.org. I couldn’t put it down!
The Lord was already opening my eyes to the deception and danger behind the Roman Eucharist, and when I read Graven Bread it confirmed my suspicions. Thankfully my family is not Catholic, but I see a growing trend of lukewarm Bible Christians falling for the deception. They don’t see it as rank idolatry, and therefore have no problem accepting those who observe the Eucharist as brothers and sisters in Christ.
We must continue to love and warn not only Catholics, but Protestants and Evangelicals, etc., as well. We must hate the system but not those trapped in that notorious system called Romanism.
Thank you for your insightful book,
Diane Guerrero
Spiritsday.org
Good morning-
I am in search for the truth. I was raised RC and left upon trouble with one belief of Transubstantiation.
In the Presbyterian faith I had trouble with their discussion on a few topics.
I visited several Christian churches. Then after some more problems with doctrine I returned to the Roman Catholic church about 12 years ago.
After reading some of your blog this week mixed with some observation of practices of RC today I am in a faith crisis of sorts.
Where can we find the truth in today’s churches? Is there one that seems to be full of the truth?
Where shall I go today to worship God and know my Jesus deeper?
Diane,
If you contact Tim privately and ask him for my email, I would be happy to share some good resources with you that will help you understand some distinctions that I pray the Lord will open your eyes to see more fully than what you have in the past.
DIANA–
Unfortunately, the Catholic Church is not very good at Sunday school like the Protestant churches are. Many Catholics just have blind faith, not knowing why they do the things they do in Mass, or why they are taught to believe certain things. You have decided to do a little searching. That is good. There are many very good sources of Catholic apologetics out there to help you understand what the Catholic Church teaches and why they teach it. All you have to do is Google it.
Unfortunately, this sight is not one of them. It is specifically very anti-Catholic, thus its views are skewed in that direction. Tim is very, very, good at expressing his views which can deceive the unlearned. With lots of study and plain ol’ common sense, one can recognize the holes in his case. I ask that before you make a decision to leave the Church which you were raised in and have spent so much of your life, that you find out why you are leaving it. Let the Holy Spirit be your guide and study both sides of the issue.
May God bless you.
Why are you even here? You are obviously not here to learn. Therefore you are a troll. How would you like me to go onto Scott Hahn’s site and call Roman Catholics followers of the whore of Babylon? Etiquette and common decency demand, that when you are a guest in a person’s house you do not call him a liar to his face. You are in Tim’s house, and since he is too much a gentleman to call you out I will. I am a former student of the Capuchins, taught by Capuchin nuns, and speak the unofficial language of the Roman Church–Italian. I can personally testify, by personal experience and my own studies, that Tim is not the deceiver–you are. Christ does not need to be sacrificed, over and over during the Oblation, for me. Once was enough. And the sacraments do not operate “ex opera operato” and the Virgin Mary cannot pray for me or operate as co-redemptrix. She was a good Christian woman, who like the Holy Spirit who inspired her, would not dare to take any of the attention off her Son, who is the King of heaven who DOES NOT NEED A QUEEN!
Gus,
reformed Presbyterian and former Romanist
Gus, I agree with you. Thank you for speaking the truth!
Maria
Gus is Kevin in drag. The “ex opere operato” was a give away.
GUSTAVO–
Thanks for your comment.
TROLL:
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,
[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response
[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,
[3] often for their own amusement.
Yes, the shoe fits. Of course this whole blog has the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response sowing discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory things like calling Catholic worship of Jesus idolatry.
And I would suppose, like Tim, you were baptised and confirmed by the very Church you consider apostate and evil. And if I am not mistaken, the Presbyterians consider that baptism valid. Dal lavoro svolto! How’s that for Italian?
Bob,
born and raised and still Methodist.
This comment reminds me that some people consider that drawing a picture of Mohammed is inflammatory. I guess “inflammatory” is in the eye of the beholder. As far as “trolling” in particular goes, i take a dim view of those who take a dim view of Scripture. YHWH worship is a serious thing. So serious that an entire nation spent 70 years in babylon for failing to maintain the purity of it.
No one needs to tell me of the idolatry of the Roman Catholic church state. I remember my mother telling me that in Vicenza, the town she came from in Italy, they found an underground tunnel between a cloister and a seminary, with the bodies of dead babies in it. Priests or seminarians and nuns would hook up, she would get pregnant, and would not have an abortion because she was “prolife” but have the baby and then expose it in the tunnel. Or how about the time she was told by her parish priest during the 30’s that she either became a member of the Fascist youth or her family could starve? Or how about the time my friend Franco Maggioto a former priest told me that agents of the Vatican had his brakes on his car cut, and they were about to give out as he was going down the Italian alps, but a still-small voice told him to pull over?
Nope, anybody who was raised by Romanism knows that “the church” is more like the Sopranos than most naive Catholics care to admit. Or as my family used to joke, “The further from Rome the more devout.”
Grazie e buon giorno
Gustavo
Bob,
I don’t believe I have ever accused Roman Catholics of worshiping Jesus, and thus, I have never characterized their worship of Jesus as idolatry. If they would worship Jesus it would not be idolatry, but they do not worship Him. I have characterized their worship of the Eucharist as idolatry, but the Eucharist is not Jesus.
In any case, I don’t know how my own posts to my own blog on topics of my own choosing can possibly be construed as “extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community.” By their very nature, my posts are on-topic. It is, after all, my blog.
Presumably in your eschatological framework, some antagonist will arise in the future, and assuming you believe that antagonist will have persuasive powers of the most diabolical kind, and will deceive the world “after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness” (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10), suppose for a moment that you yourself are not caught up in that deception. How would you attempt to persuade the deceived that they had fallen for a lie? Would you agree that their worship of the image of the beast is acceptable in theory, and obviously well-intentioned, and therefore largely inconsequential, and after all who is Bob to judge anyway? Is that how you would warn people of the most diabolical movement in the history of the world?
I’m curious to know how you would approach the issue, since apparently merely disagreeing with Antichrist is “extraneous” and “off-topic” trolling.
So, how would you do it Bob?
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “and after all who is Bob to judge anyway?”
That says it all, doesn’t it? It makes everything else inconsequential words on a page.
Bravo, Tim!
Bob,
And then, when you have acknowledged that it is not your place to judge, what do you tell the people who have been deceived by antichrist? Do you remain silent in order not to appear judgmental? Do you rationalize their error, in order to be comfortable saying nothing? What does Bob do when antichrist comes and the world is deceived? What does Bob say? Does Bob let sleeping dogs lie, lest he cause offense by objecting to antichrist? Is that your plan?
Tim
GUSTAVO–
Thanks for your response.
You said: “No one needs to tell me of the idolatry of the Roman Catholic church state. I remember my mother telling me that in Vicenza, the town she came from in Italy, they found an underground tunnel between a cloister and a seminary, with the bodies of dead babies in it. Priests or seminarians and nuns would hook up, she would get pregnant, and would not have an abortion because she was “prolife” but have the baby and then expose it in the tunnel. Or how about the time she was told by her parish priest during the 30’s that she either became a member of the Fascist youth or her family could starve? Or how about the time my friend Franco Maggioto a former priest told me that agents of the Vatican had his brakes on his car cut, and they were about to give out as he was going down the Italian alps, but a still-small voice told him to pull over?”
Your stories of people sinning are as old as the bible story itself. Are you insinuating that Presbyterians do not commit adultery? And maybe you insinuate that Presbyterians do not commit abortion? Murder? Lying? Coveting? And yet both the Catholic Church and the Presbyterian Church officially teach otherwise, don’t they?
“Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”–Jesus Christ, 1st century AD
But as Tim would say (and apparently you, too) “and after all who is Bob to judge anyway?”
Grazie e ciao,
Bob
TIM–
You said: “And then, when you have acknowledged that it is not your place to judge, what do you tell the people who have been deceived by antichrist? Do you remain silent in order not to appear judgmental? Do you rationalize their error, in order to be comfortable saying nothing?”
What do you tell people when the anti-Christ has deceived you into thinking the Roman Church is led by the anti-Christ? Do you remain silent in order to save face? Do you rationalize your error, in order to be comfortable saying nothing? But then by whose authority does Tim have to judge?
You also said: “What does Bob do when antichrist comes and the world is deceived? What does Bob say? Does Bob let sleeping dogs lie, lest he cause offense by objecting to antichrist? Is that your plan?”
What will you do, Tim, when anti-Christ comes and all the conclusions you have come to about the Roman Church turn out to be false? What will you say? Will you conveniently change the subject or just quietly disappear? Is that your plan, Tim?
Y’know, not one person apologized for getting their predictions about Y2K wrong–not one. They rationalized it by saying something like “Well, I must have missed something.” Or they just faded into the background to regroup and come out with another “likely story” like “Well, history was kinda sketchy around that time, so it sorta fits.” Or something like “Well, Sir Isaac Newton’s algorithm is really for advanced mathematicians which makes it hard to understand how he determined the true date of Christ’s birth and how it is key to understanding Ezekiel and the glorious appearing of the second coming of Christ.”
But none of that gives you pause at all, does it Tim?
So you will keep judging away with visions of anti-Christ popery in your head no matter what Catholics teach to the contrary.
Bob, which “predictions” of mine have turned out to be false? I don’t recall making any predictions, and so far, you have never pointed out an inaccurate prediction. You have simply disagreed with my interpretation about the past. Yet you compare my blog—which is about the past—to people who have attempted to predict future events, as if I am just one more false prophet attempting to predict what will happen tomorrow. I’m not sure I follow you. Can you help me understand the comparison? My writing about historical fulfillment of prophecy is wrong because some other people have incorrectly attempted to predict the future?
You wrote,
“So you will keep judging away with visions of anti-Christ popery in your head no matter what Catholics teach to the contrary.”
I have had no visions. To which visions do you refer? Are you equating the expression of my opinions with “visions”? Is it your position that to express an opinion about a past event is not only equivalent to, but is in fact identical to having extrabiblical revelation and predicting the future based on visions?
I apologize if I am being obtuse. I just don’t understand what you are saying. I was responding to your judgment of this blog, in which you equated my writing to “trolling” because it (allegedly) “has the deliberate intent of provoking readers, … sowing discord … starting arguments … upsetting people … posting inflammatory things …” about who I believe the antichrist to be.
Ok.
Assuming you believe that one day there will be some antagonist who will have persuasive powers of the most diabolical kind, and will deceive the world “after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness” (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10) and will in fact deny emphatically that he is antichrist, suppose for a moment that you yourself are not caught up in that deception. How would you attempt to persuade the deceived that they had fallen for a lie without saying things contrary to what antichrist claims? How will you do it?
I know you think that I am a false prophet because I have endeavored to understand the past, and that in your mind the study of history is the same as falsely predicting the future. I get that part (I think) although I do not understand the equation. I know you think that by stating publicly opinions that are not shared by Roman Catholicism, I am in fact having “visions” about Rome. I get that part too (I think), although I don’t understand the equation of “visions” with opinions. But what I don’t get is what Bob will do when he has to object to some future antichrist who denies emphatically that he is antichrist?
How will you object to him and what he teaches without contradicting his explicit statements about himself?
Thanks,
Tim
GUSTAVO–
You said: “This comment reminds me that some people consider that drawing a picture of Mohammed is inflammatory. I guess “inflammatory” is in the eye of the beholder. As far as “trolling” in particular goes, i take a dim view of those who take a dim view of Scripture. YHWH worship is a serious thing. So serious that an entire nation spent 70 years in babylon for failing to maintain the purity of it.”
So do you consider speaking the unspeakable name of YHWH (pronounced yah-way) to be inflammatory? I suppose you guess “inflammatory” is in the eye of the beholder in this case as well?
Dear Diana, it is my firm conviction that you will not find your answers in today’s church system of men. Did not Jesus Himself declare, When the Son of Man returns will He find faith?
I withdrew from the system in the year 2000. Since then the Lord has taken me on a private and very deep study of His Word–something I could never receive while sitting in the pews.
Your state of crisis is God’s way of telling you something is wrong. You must love Jesus and the Word of God above your church with all its traditions. Simply follow Jesus ALONE, and the Word of God ALONE, and you will find the Truth that will set you free.
May the Lord Jesus Christ light your way.
Diana, the Bible tells us that we will find the truth about God if we search for Him “with all our heart.” Be cautious of those who would try to get you back to “religion” rather than lead you to a true and life-changing faith. Fear no one; fear no website; fear no books or writings that others will warn you about. For God is not the author of confusion, and he has given us intelligence and faith, that we may do our own digging. We are on a treasure hunt. And we must be able to intelligently sift through and separate the truth from the lies. But do not be afraid of the lies. Rather fall upon Jesus, and ask Him to give you discernment.
In His service, Diane Guerrero
TIM–
You said: “Bob, which “predictions” of mine have turned out to be false? I don’t recall making any predictions, and so far, you have never pointed out an inaccurate prediction.”
Where did I say you predicted anything? I said “What will you do, Tim, when anti-Christ comes and all the conclusions you have come to about the Roman Church turn out to be false?”
Maybe you are confusing “conclusions” with “predictions”. And “visions” is used as a figure of speech to indicate a mindset like “visions of grandeur”. And I was using the examples of predictions to show how people acted when they found out that what they “knew” as right turned out to be wrong. You don’t have to predict to be wrong, you can simply draw wrong conclusions that later on can be debunked by future revelation.
2Th 2:9
The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders,
and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but <strong<had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Tell me Tim, what devout Catholic takes pleasure in unrighteousness? Or are you like Gustavo and think unrighteousness is in the eye of the beholder?
Thanks, Bob,
Like I said, I don’t understand why you compared my blog to people who have made false predictions, and then asked me if their false predictions gave me pause, and then said that in spite of their false predictions I would probably “keep judging away with visions of anti-Christ popery” in spite of the fact that so many other people’s predictions have been wrong. I don’t understand the comparison.
In any case, do you believe it is wrong to criticize someone with whom you disagree? If so, why act here in a manner that is inconsistent with what you believe to be true?
Let’s say you believe that one day there will be some antagonist who will have persuasive powers of the most diabolical kind, and will deceive the world “after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness” (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10) and will in fact deny emphatically that he is antichrist, suppose for a moment that you yourself are not caught up in that deception. How would you attempt to persuade the deceived that they had fallen for a lie without saying things contrary to what antichrist claims? How will you do it?
Honestly I don’t understand your belief that it is wrong to criticize something with which you disagree, and I am not following your line of thinking.
Sorry,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “Let’s say you believe that one day there will be some antagonist who will have persuasive powers of the most diabolical kind, and will deceive the world “after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness” (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10) and will in fact deny emphatically that he is antichrist, suppose for a moment that you yourself are not caught up in that deception. How would you attempt to persuade the deceived that they had fallen for a lie without saying things contrary to what antichrist claims? How will you do it?”
Maybe we have a differing view on what unrighteousness is. unrighteous
[uhn-rahy-chuh s]
adjective
1. not righteous; not upright or virtuous; wicked; sinful; evil
2. not in accordance with right or justice; unfair or unjust
Show me where you think the Roman Catholic Church takes pleasure in wickedness, sinfulness, and evil. Show me where the Roman Catholic Church promotes unfairness and injustice as something to take pleasure in. Show me in the Catechism where you think the RCC teaches unrighteousness. Show me evidence where the current pope takes pleasure in wickedness, sinfulness, evil, unfairness, and injustice. Show me where the current pope (or pope Benedict XVI or pope John Paul II for that matter) has/had the workings of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.
When that substantiated evidence shows up, only then will I believe the anti-Christ is manifest in the Catholic Church. For now, I believe that you are the one who is being unfair and unjust in your accusations of Catholics. So, you ask me what would I do?
I am already doing it by warning others to discern your words carefully and look into your sources that you cite and read in context for themselves. They may very well come to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church is not the evil organization you claim it to be.
You also said: “Honestly I don’t understand your belief that it is wrong to criticize something with which you disagree, and I am not following your line of thinking.”
I do not believe it is wrong. How can you come to the wrong conclusion again when that is exactly what I am doing by criticizing you? Maybe you are not thinking?
I do not believe it is wrong.
So in your mind, I am within my rights to maintain a blog in which I express my opinions as if I believed them to be true, substantiate them to the best of my ability, even though you disagree with those opinions, and even if Rome disagrees with my opinions, and that for me to express my opinions here is not the same as incorrectly predicting the future? And it is ok with you if I warn others to discern Rome’s words carefully and look into the sources that Roman Catholicism cites and read them in context for themselves? That’s good to know.
Where does the Roman Catholic Church takes pleasure in wickedness, sinfulness, evil and unrighteousness? By Worshiping Mary, Worshiping a piece of bread, and teaching doctrines of the devil. You may read of my opinions on this here, here, here, here and here.
“Maybe you are not thinking?”
As I have many times conceded, Bob, I am but a fool.
Tim
TIM–
You responded: “Where does the Roman Catholic Church takes pleasure in wickedness, sinfulness, evil and unrighteousness? By Worshiping Mary, Worshiping a piece of bread, and teaching doctrines of the devil. You may read of my opinions on this here, here, here, here and here.”
Worshiping Mary–the RCC teaches hyper-dulia and not latria. That is not wicked, sinful, evil, unrighteous, or teaching doctrines of the devil.
Worshiping a piece of bread–the RCC teaches that by the power of the Holy Spirit the bread becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ at the consecration. Jesus is God and worthy of worship. That is not wicked, sinful, evil, unrighteous, or teaching doctrines of the devil. It is in fact the Word of God.
But then, Tim, you knew this already. It’s your word against theirs. Now it comes down to whose word is more authoritative. I am sure you have expressed them before, but what are your credentials again?
Bob, you asked,
“I am sure you have expressed them before, but what are your credentials again?”
I have none at all. I am but a fool.
Have a good day.
Tim
TIM–
You said: “I have none at all. I am but a fool.”
Oh, that’s right, Mr. Copernicus. You’re the Fool on the Hill–
“But the fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning round”–The Beatles
But then, I think that was Heraclides, not Copernicus.
Have a good day to you, too.
–BOB
Tim,
People who live in the glass house of Calvinism should not be throwing stones and anybody else’s religion. That includes Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Muslims, Catholics, Jews, etc. etc.
You believe God creates men for hell. That god tells humans to pray for the salvation of of all but has no intention of heeding those prayers.
Your god makes men who have no free will or ability to avoid mortal sin. Then that god gives commandments that he knows those men will not keep. He then punishes them as if they had free will.
Vernon McGee said it best; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9EqEcApnJo
A full blown worshiper of bread, buns, scones,biscuits croissants and/or dinner rolls is vastly superior to someone who says the all loving God does not love all men but rather, creates most men for an eternity of misery. And he does it ” for his own good pleasure”. That same god also authors the means ( sin ) for those poor damned souls to earn their place in hell.
Your blog denies the historicity of Catholicism but offers no proof that the early Church ever believed in any of your own ghoulish doctrines.
You claim to be a Bible believer although the Bible says God stands at the door of men’s hearts and knocks. As a worshiper of John Calvin, you deny the plain words of the Bible. Your god, John Calvin, says men cannot open that door.
Please Tim, to have a Calvinist mock my religion is like being lectured to on the evils of racism by a Klansman.
JIM–
You said to Tim: “Please Tim, to have a Calvinist mock my religion is like being lectured to on the evils of racism by a Klansman.”
That may not be entirely accurate. Tim is baptised and confirmed Catholic. And the RCC teaches that the sacraments are non-reversible. So, once a Catholic always a Catholic, right? 🙂
Bob,
Yes. The seals given in Baptism and Confirmation ( and Ordination ) are for eternity, in heaven or hell.
The god of Calvinism makes laws that he knows in advance men cannot obey due to the fact that he withholds the necessary graces they need to do so. Then he “justly” punishes men for doing what they had no ability to do otherwise.
Like Paul Winchell pulling Jerry Mahoney strings to be naught and then giving him a spanking for beind bad.
Now here is the real Calvin. EVERYONE watch and learn! WOW!
Comments are closed.
Casting the Light of the Word on "works of darkness" (Ephesians 5:11)
Follow
Just found your site… I have a couple of your books that I love! Thank You for what you do…
Your book, Graven Bread, came highly recommended by ex-Catholic priest Richard Bennett of bereanbeacon.org. I couldn’t put it down!
The Lord was already opening my eyes to the deception and danger behind the Roman Eucharist, and when I read Graven Bread it confirmed my suspicions. Thankfully my family is not Catholic, but I see a growing trend of lukewarm Bible Christians falling for the deception. They don’t see it as rank idolatry, and therefore have no problem accepting those who observe the Eucharist as brothers and sisters in Christ.
We must continue to love and warn not only Catholics, but Protestants and Evangelicals, etc., as well. We must hate the system but not those trapped in that notorious system called Romanism.
Thank you for your insightful book,
Diane Guerrero
Spiritsday.org
Good morning-
I am in search for the truth. I was raised RC and left upon trouble with one belief of Transubstantiation.
In the Presbyterian faith I had trouble with their discussion on a few topics.
I visited several Christian churches. Then after some more problems with doctrine I returned to the Roman Catholic church about 12 years ago.
After reading some of your blog this week mixed with some observation of practices of RC today I am in a faith crisis of sorts.
Where can we find the truth in today’s churches? Is there one that seems to be full of the truth?
Where shall I go today to worship God and know my Jesus deeper?
Diane,
If you contact Tim privately and ask him for my email, I would be happy to share some good resources with you that will help you understand some distinctions that I pray the Lord will open your eyes to see more fully than what you have in the past.
DIANA–
Unfortunately, the Catholic Church is not very good at Sunday school like the Protestant churches are. Many Catholics just have blind faith, not knowing why they do the things they do in Mass, or why they are taught to believe certain things. You have decided to do a little searching. That is good. There are many very good sources of Catholic apologetics out there to help you understand what the Catholic Church teaches and why they teach it. All you have to do is Google it.
Unfortunately, this sight is not one of them. It is specifically very anti-Catholic, thus its views are skewed in that direction. Tim is very, very, good at expressing his views which can deceive the unlearned. With lots of study and plain ol’ common sense, one can recognize the holes in his case. I ask that before you make a decision to leave the Church which you were raised in and have spent so much of your life, that you find out why you are leaving it. Let the Holy Spirit be your guide and study both sides of the issue.
May God bless you.
Why are you even here? You are obviously not here to learn. Therefore you are a troll. How would you like me to go onto Scott Hahn’s site and call Roman Catholics followers of the whore of Babylon? Etiquette and common decency demand, that when you are a guest in a person’s house you do not call him a liar to his face. You are in Tim’s house, and since he is too much a gentleman to call you out I will. I am a former student of the Capuchins, taught by Capuchin nuns, and speak the unofficial language of the Roman Church–Italian. I can personally testify, by personal experience and my own studies, that Tim is not the deceiver–you are. Christ does not need to be sacrificed, over and over during the Oblation, for me. Once was enough. And the sacraments do not operate “ex opera operato” and the Virgin Mary cannot pray for me or operate as co-redemptrix. She was a good Christian woman, who like the Holy Spirit who inspired her, would not dare to take any of the attention off her Son, who is the King of heaven who DOES NOT NEED A QUEEN!
Gus,
reformed Presbyterian and former Romanist
Gus, I agree with you. Thank you for speaking the truth!
Maria
Gus is Kevin in drag. The “ex opere operato” was a give away.
GUSTAVO–
Thanks for your comment.
TROLL:
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,
[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response
[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,
[3] often for their own amusement.
Yes, the shoe fits. Of course this whole blog has the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response sowing discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory things like calling Catholic worship of Jesus idolatry.
And I would suppose, like Tim, you were baptised and confirmed by the very Church you consider apostate and evil. And if I am not mistaken, the Presbyterians consider that baptism valid. Dal lavoro svolto! How’s that for Italian?
Bob,
born and raised and still Methodist.
This comment reminds me that some people consider that drawing a picture of Mohammed is inflammatory. I guess “inflammatory” is in the eye of the beholder. As far as “trolling” in particular goes, i take a dim view of those who take a dim view of Scripture. YHWH worship is a serious thing. So serious that an entire nation spent 70 years in babylon for failing to maintain the purity of it.
No one needs to tell me of the idolatry of the Roman Catholic church state. I remember my mother telling me that in Vicenza, the town she came from in Italy, they found an underground tunnel between a cloister and a seminary, with the bodies of dead babies in it. Priests or seminarians and nuns would hook up, she would get pregnant, and would not have an abortion because she was “prolife” but have the baby and then expose it in the tunnel. Or how about the time she was told by her parish priest during the 30’s that she either became a member of the Fascist youth or her family could starve? Or how about the time my friend Franco Maggioto a former priest told me that agents of the Vatican had his brakes on his car cut, and they were about to give out as he was going down the Italian alps, but a still-small voice told him to pull over?
Nope, anybody who was raised by Romanism knows that “the church” is more like the Sopranos than most naive Catholics care to admit. Or as my family used to joke, “The further from Rome the more devout.”
Grazie e buon giorno
Gustavo
Bob,
I don’t believe I have ever accused Roman Catholics of worshiping Jesus, and thus, I have never characterized their worship of Jesus as idolatry. If they would worship Jesus it would not be idolatry, but they do not worship Him. I have characterized their worship of the Eucharist as idolatry, but the Eucharist is not Jesus.
In any case, I don’t know how my own posts to my own blog on topics of my own choosing can possibly be construed as “extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community.” By their very nature, my posts are on-topic. It is, after all, my blog.
Presumably in your eschatological framework, some antagonist will arise in the future, and assuming you believe that antagonist will have persuasive powers of the most diabolical kind, and will deceive the world “after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness” (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10), suppose for a moment that you yourself are not caught up in that deception. How would you attempt to persuade the deceived that they had fallen for a lie? Would you agree that their worship of the image of the beast is acceptable in theory, and obviously well-intentioned, and therefore largely inconsequential, and after all who is Bob to judge anyway? Is that how you would warn people of the most diabolical movement in the history of the world?
I’m curious to know how you would approach the issue, since apparently merely disagreeing with Antichrist is “extraneous” and “off-topic” trolling.
So, how would you do it Bob?
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “and after all who is Bob to judge anyway?”
That says it all, doesn’t it? It makes everything else inconsequential words on a page.
Bravo, Tim!
Bob,
And then, when you have acknowledged that it is not your place to judge, what do you tell the people who have been deceived by antichrist? Do you remain silent in order not to appear judgmental? Do you rationalize their error, in order to be comfortable saying nothing? What does Bob do when antichrist comes and the world is deceived? What does Bob say? Does Bob let sleeping dogs lie, lest he cause offense by objecting to antichrist? Is that your plan?
Tim
GUSTAVO–
Thanks for your response.
You said: “No one needs to tell me of the idolatry of the Roman Catholic church state. I remember my mother telling me that in Vicenza, the town she came from in Italy, they found an underground tunnel between a cloister and a seminary, with the bodies of dead babies in it. Priests or seminarians and nuns would hook up, she would get pregnant, and would not have an abortion because she was “prolife” but have the baby and then expose it in the tunnel. Or how about the time she was told by her parish priest during the 30’s that she either became a member of the Fascist youth or her family could starve? Or how about the time my friend Franco Maggioto a former priest told me that agents of the Vatican had his brakes on his car cut, and they were about to give out as he was going down the Italian alps, but a still-small voice told him to pull over?”
Your stories of people sinning are as old as the bible story itself. Are you insinuating that Presbyterians do not commit adultery? And maybe you insinuate that Presbyterians do not commit abortion? Murder? Lying? Coveting? And yet both the Catholic Church and the Presbyterian Church officially teach otherwise, don’t they?
“Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”–Jesus Christ, 1st century AD
But as Tim would say (and apparently you, too) “and after all who is Bob to judge anyway?”
Grazie e ciao,
Bob
TIM–
You said: “And then, when you have acknowledged that it is not your place to judge, what do you tell the people who have been deceived by antichrist? Do you remain silent in order not to appear judgmental? Do you rationalize their error, in order to be comfortable saying nothing?”
What do you tell people when the anti-Christ has deceived you into thinking the Roman Church is led by the anti-Christ? Do you remain silent in order to save face? Do you rationalize your error, in order to be comfortable saying nothing? But then by whose authority does Tim have to judge?
You also said: “What does Bob do when antichrist comes and the world is deceived? What does Bob say? Does Bob let sleeping dogs lie, lest he cause offense by objecting to antichrist? Is that your plan?”
What will you do, Tim, when anti-Christ comes and all the conclusions you have come to about the Roman Church turn out to be false? What will you say? Will you conveniently change the subject or just quietly disappear? Is that your plan, Tim?
Y’know, not one person apologized for getting their predictions about Y2K wrong–not one. They rationalized it by saying something like “Well, I must have missed something.” Or they just faded into the background to regroup and come out with another “likely story” like “Well, history was kinda sketchy around that time, so it sorta fits.” Or something like “Well, Sir Isaac Newton’s algorithm is really for advanced mathematicians which makes it hard to understand how he determined the true date of Christ’s birth and how it is key to understanding Ezekiel and the glorious appearing of the second coming of Christ.”
But none of that gives you pause at all, does it Tim?
So you will keep judging away with visions of anti-Christ popery in your head no matter what Catholics teach to the contrary.
Bob, which “predictions” of mine have turned out to be false? I don’t recall making any predictions, and so far, you have never pointed out an inaccurate prediction. You have simply disagreed with my interpretation about the past. Yet you compare my blog—which is about the past—to people who have attempted to predict future events, as if I am just one more false prophet attempting to predict what will happen tomorrow. I’m not sure I follow you. Can you help me understand the comparison? My writing about historical fulfillment of prophecy is wrong because some other people have incorrectly attempted to predict the future?
You wrote,
I have had no visions. To which visions do you refer? Are you equating the expression of my opinions with “visions”? Is it your position that to express an opinion about a past event is not only equivalent to, but is in fact identical to having extrabiblical revelation and predicting the future based on visions?
I apologize if I am being obtuse. I just don’t understand what you are saying. I was responding to your judgment of this blog, in which you equated my writing to “trolling” because it (allegedly) “has the deliberate intent of provoking readers, … sowing discord … starting arguments … upsetting people … posting inflammatory things …” about who I believe the antichrist to be.
Ok.
Assuming you believe that one day there will be some antagonist who will have persuasive powers of the most diabolical kind, and will deceive the world “after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness” (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10) and will in fact deny emphatically that he is antichrist, suppose for a moment that you yourself are not caught up in that deception. How would you attempt to persuade the deceived that they had fallen for a lie without saying things contrary to what antichrist claims? How will you do it?
I know you think that I am a false prophet because I have endeavored to understand the past, and that in your mind the study of history is the same as falsely predicting the future. I get that part (I think) although I do not understand the equation. I know you think that by stating publicly opinions that are not shared by Roman Catholicism, I am in fact having “visions” about Rome. I get that part too (I think), although I don’t understand the equation of “visions” with opinions. But what I don’t get is what Bob will do when he has to object to some future antichrist who denies emphatically that he is antichrist?
How will you object to him and what he teaches without contradicting his explicit statements about himself?
Thanks,
Tim
GUSTAVO–
You said: “This comment reminds me that some people consider that drawing a picture of Mohammed is inflammatory. I guess “inflammatory” is in the eye of the beholder. As far as “trolling” in particular goes, i take a dim view of those who take a dim view of Scripture. YHWH worship is a serious thing. So serious that an entire nation spent 70 years in babylon for failing to maintain the purity of it.”
So do you consider speaking the unspeakable name of YHWH (pronounced yah-way) to be inflammatory? I suppose you guess “inflammatory” is in the eye of the beholder in this case as well?
Dear Diana, it is my firm conviction that you will not find your answers in today’s church system of men. Did not Jesus Himself declare, When the Son of Man returns will He find faith?
I withdrew from the system in the year 2000. Since then the Lord has taken me on a private and very deep study of His Word–something I could never receive while sitting in the pews.
Your state of crisis is God’s way of telling you something is wrong. You must love Jesus and the Word of God above your church with all its traditions. Simply follow Jesus ALONE, and the Word of God ALONE, and you will find the Truth that will set you free.
May the Lord Jesus Christ light your way.
Diana, the Bible tells us that we will find the truth about God if we search for Him “with all our heart.” Be cautious of those who would try to get you back to “religion” rather than lead you to a true and life-changing faith. Fear no one; fear no website; fear no books or writings that others will warn you about. For God is not the author of confusion, and he has given us intelligence and faith, that we may do our own digging. We are on a treasure hunt. And we must be able to intelligently sift through and separate the truth from the lies. But do not be afraid of the lies. Rather fall upon Jesus, and ask Him to give you discernment.
In His service, Diane Guerrero
TIM–
You said: “Bob, which “predictions” of mine have turned out to be false? I don’t recall making any predictions, and so far, you have never pointed out an inaccurate prediction.”
Where did I say you predicted anything? I said “What will you do, Tim, when anti-Christ comes and all the conclusions you have come to about the Roman Church turn out to be false?”
Maybe you are confusing “conclusions” with “predictions”. And “visions” is used as a figure of speech to indicate a mindset like “visions of grandeur”. And I was using the examples of predictions to show how people acted when they found out that what they “knew” as right turned out to be wrong. You don’t have to predict to be wrong, you can simply draw wrong conclusions that later on can be debunked by future revelation.
2Th 2:9
The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders,
and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but <strong<had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Tell me Tim, what devout Catholic takes pleasure in unrighteousness? Or are you like Gustavo and think unrighteousness is in the eye of the beholder?
Thanks, Bob,
Like I said, I don’t understand why you compared my blog to people who have made false predictions, and then asked me if their false predictions gave me pause, and then said that in spite of their false predictions I would probably “keep judging away with visions of anti-Christ popery” in spite of the fact that so many other people’s predictions have been wrong. I don’t understand the comparison.
In any case, do you believe it is wrong to criticize someone with whom you disagree? If so, why act here in a manner that is inconsistent with what you believe to be true?
Let’s say you believe that one day there will be some antagonist who will have persuasive powers of the most diabolical kind, and will deceive the world “after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness” (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10) and will in fact deny emphatically that he is antichrist, suppose for a moment that you yourself are not caught up in that deception. How would you attempt to persuade the deceived that they had fallen for a lie without saying things contrary to what antichrist claims? How will you do it?
Honestly I don’t understand your belief that it is wrong to criticize something with which you disagree, and I am not following your line of thinking.
Sorry,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “Let’s say you believe that one day there will be some antagonist who will have persuasive powers of the most diabolical kind, and will deceive the world “after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness” (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10) and will in fact deny emphatically that he is antichrist, suppose for a moment that you yourself are not caught up in that deception. How would you attempt to persuade the deceived that they had fallen for a lie without saying things contrary to what antichrist claims? How will you do it?”
Maybe we have a differing view on what unrighteousness is.
unrighteous
[uhn-rahy-chuh s]
adjective
1. not righteous; not upright or virtuous; wicked; sinful; evil
2. not in accordance with right or justice; unfair or unjust
Show me where you think the Roman Catholic Church takes pleasure in wickedness, sinfulness, and evil. Show me where the Roman Catholic Church promotes unfairness and injustice as something to take pleasure in. Show me in the Catechism where you think the RCC teaches unrighteousness. Show me evidence where the current pope takes pleasure in wickedness, sinfulness, evil, unfairness, and injustice. Show me where the current pope (or pope Benedict XVI or pope John Paul II for that matter) has/had the workings of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.
When that substantiated evidence shows up, only then will I believe the anti-Christ is manifest in the Catholic Church. For now, I believe that you are the one who is being unfair and unjust in your accusations of Catholics. So, you ask me what would I do?
I am already doing it by warning others to discern your words carefully and look into your sources that you cite and read in context for themselves. They may very well come to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church is not the evil organization you claim it to be.
You also said: “Honestly I don’t understand your belief that it is wrong to criticize something with which you disagree, and I am not following your line of thinking.”
I do not believe it is wrong. How can you come to the wrong conclusion again when that is exactly what I am doing by criticizing you? Maybe you are not thinking?
So in your mind, I am within my rights to maintain a blog in which I express my opinions as if I believed them to be true, substantiate them to the best of my ability, even though you disagree with those opinions, and even if Rome disagrees with my opinions, and that for me to express my opinions here is not the same as incorrectly predicting the future? And it is ok with you if I warn others to discern Rome’s words carefully and look into the sources that Roman Catholicism cites and read them in context for themselves? That’s good to know.
Where does the Roman Catholic Church takes pleasure in wickedness, sinfulness, evil and unrighteousness? By Worshiping Mary, Worshiping a piece of bread, and teaching doctrines of the devil. You may read of my opinions on this here, here, here, here and here.
As I have many times conceded, Bob, I am but a fool.
Tim
TIM–
You responded: “Where does the Roman Catholic Church takes pleasure in wickedness, sinfulness, evil and unrighteousness? By Worshiping Mary, Worshiping a piece of bread, and teaching doctrines of the devil. You may read of my opinions on this here, here, here, here and here.”
Worshiping Mary–the RCC teaches hyper-dulia and not latria. That is not wicked, sinful, evil, unrighteous, or teaching doctrines of the devil.
Worshiping a piece of bread–the RCC teaches that by the power of the Holy Spirit the bread becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ at the consecration. Jesus is God and worthy of worship. That is not wicked, sinful, evil, unrighteous, or teaching doctrines of the devil. It is in fact the Word of God.
But then, Tim, you knew this already. It’s your word against theirs. Now it comes down to whose word is more authoritative. I am sure you have expressed them before, but what are your credentials again?
Bob, you asked,
I have none at all. I am but a fool.
Have a good day.
Tim
TIM–
You said: “I have none at all. I am but a fool.”
Oh, that’s right, Mr. Copernicus. You’re the Fool on the Hill–
“But the fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning round”–The Beatles
But then, I think that was Heraclides, not Copernicus.
Have a good day to you, too.
–BOB
Tim,
People who live in the glass house of Calvinism should not be throwing stones and anybody else’s religion. That includes Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Muslims, Catholics, Jews, etc. etc.
You believe God creates men for hell. That god tells humans to pray for the salvation of of all but has no intention of heeding those prayers.
Your god makes men who have no free will or ability to avoid mortal sin. Then that god gives commandments that he knows those men will not keep. He then punishes them as if they had free will.
Vernon McGee said it best;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9EqEcApnJo
A full blown worshiper of bread, buns, scones,biscuits croissants and/or dinner rolls is vastly superior to someone who says the all loving God does not love all men but rather, creates most men for an eternity of misery. And he does it ” for his own good pleasure”. That same god also authors the means ( sin ) for those poor damned souls to earn their place in hell.
Your blog denies the historicity of Catholicism but offers no proof that the early Church ever believed in any of your own ghoulish doctrines.
You claim to be a Bible believer although the Bible says God stands at the door of men’s hearts and knocks. As a worshiper of John Calvin, you deny the plain words of the Bible. Your god, John Calvin, says men cannot open that door.
Please Tim, to have a Calvinist mock my religion is like being lectured to on the evils of racism by a Klansman.
JIM–
You said to Tim: “Please Tim, to have a Calvinist mock my religion is like being lectured to on the evils of racism by a Klansman.”
That may not be entirely accurate. Tim is baptised and confirmed Catholic. And the RCC teaches that the sacraments are non-reversible. So, once a Catholic always a Catholic, right? 🙂
Bob,
Yes. The seals given in Baptism and Confirmation ( and Ordination ) are for eternity, in heaven or hell.
Here is Tim’s concept of reality;
Forget Howdy Doody. This video is better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH_xfQaQ2gw
The god of Calvinism makes laws that he knows in advance men cannot obey due to the fact that he withholds the necessary graces they need to do so. Then he “justly” punishes men for doing what they had no ability to do otherwise.
Like Paul Winchell pulling Jerry Mahoney strings to be naught and then giving him a spanking for beind bad.
Now here is the real Calvin. EVERYONE watch and learn! WOW!