Hasn't anybody noticed?

The Talmud says there was to be no more Prophets after Malachi.

I feel ashamed as a Christian of our history towards the Jewish people.

I am quite grieved that people keep saying stuff like this. It is all false. Christians did NOT persecute the Jews nor were they responsible for the Holocaust. True Christians are people who have the Holy Spirit and true Christians would never do such things. It is only the wolves among the sheep who do such things. Just because a person calls him/herself a Christian does not mean he/she is. If i walk into a donut shop and call myself a donut does that mean i am?

The Lord Jesus Christ was Jewish when He walked in bodily form on this earth. So were all His disciples. So what sense would it make to hate Jews?

Why not stop bashing the Bride of Christ for once and start telling about all the Christians who actually HELPED Jews during the Holocaust?

CyAn said

True Christians are people who have the Holy Spirit and true Christians would never do such things. It is only the wolves among the sheep who do such things.

Does my question make sense?

Matthew 21:45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

It's an eye opener isn't?

This is a blot of shame that stains church history in that the Jewish people suffered at the hands of carnal Christians.

What say, Neil?

Israel has the world's 6th largest nuclear weapons arsenal.

Jews with nukes, it's a new day.

so let the Jew haters bay and bark, scream and shriek. pose and posture, that's all they can do.

Anything more, and "everyone will be salted with fire".

Approved that is an awfully big statement claiming the Catholic church are not Christians. You have pronounced judgement on every Christian in the first 1000 years of Christianity and a large majority of them since that time. I would just like you to reflect on that in light of what Jesus has said about judging others.

Yes I would agree that those who harmed Jewish people were wolves.

..and also I am not yet Catholic but I have decided to seek communion in the Catholic church. At work my Catholic and Protestant colleagues all consider ourselves Christians. Is that not the case here?

Hi andie72,

You have pronounced judgement on every Christian in the first 1000 years of Christianity

Sadly, the Roman Catholic Church is not known for its monopoly on truth, but rather for resisting truth time and time again; and, apart from its historical use of a language foreign to many of its communicants until the 1960s, also, for actively removing the scriptures from its flock.

I hope you take time to do a great deal more research before finally embracing subjection to Papal governance.

Your Master is Jesus Christ, and by His Spirit He is well able to guide you safely through your life in this world, and keep you through the troubles (tribulations) His people necessarily experience. Your Father is in heaven, and the writer to the Hebrews exhorts

9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected [us], and we gave [them] reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? (ch 12)

Matthew 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven

There are many other pieces of RCC doctrine which are intransigent to scripture, which rather than obey, they change the scripture.

One of these is the notion that when a baby is christened (baptised), it is 'born again'. According to Paul Washer who preaches in Roman Catholic countries, this is one of the most difficult ideas for a Catholic to give up.

And there are many other legalistic strictures, quite apart from the lie that the death of Christ was not sufficient to atone for our sins, which is promulgated through the liturgy of Mass, and false ideas about works, and what happens when we die.

Please be very very careful.

At work my Catholic and Protestant colleagues all consider ourselves Christians. Is that not the case here?

Mormons and the greater majority of America also consider themselves Christian. Doesn't mean anything if their lives and beliefs do not align with what the Bible says a Christian is.

Also, Christianity as we know it did NOT come out of the Catholic church. God has always preserved a people for himself that have been apart from false worship. The Roman Catholics were not the only church for the first 1000 years, especially since they weren't the church at all. It's just paganism and ritual dressed up in Christian trappings.

If you're a lover of truth;

One: I'd do some research on Catholic doctrine and church history.

Two: I'd think VERY carefully before joining hands with Rome in anything.

Please love Catholic people. Love them so much that you're not scared to tell them the truth, no matter how many ripples it causes.

I have a missionary friend here in Japan who's a converted Catholic. When he told me his testimony, he was very grateful that someone told him the truth, that Jesus Christ atoned for his sins and that he doesn't have to atone in purgatory for his own.

An ecumenical movement is well established here in the UK, and many of this generation's Catholics have adjusted their vocabulary so it sounds biblical.

Some keen ones join 'Lent groups', where all the various denominational churches in a locality (who feel so inclined) meet to Bible study during the weeks before Easter. (I have never been in one of these groups.) The focus is on the points which the denominations have in common.

I should emphasise there are strong divisions across the country, where some Christians would NEVER do anything with a Catholic, and probably some Catholics feel the same way about non-Catholics. Some of this is because of the on-going violence associated with Northern Ireland, and certain football matches (and their (not necessarily church-going) supporters).

Because the Catholic liturgy is now in English, and the Bible (subtely altered) is promoted to Catholics again, it is easy for the Marian worship and prayers to 'saints' to appear insignificant to the outsider, but nvertheless, these are not biblical.

However, very conservative protestants have begun to join the Catholic church (for instance, married Anglican priests for whom a special Papal dispensation has been given), because of their resistance to women in ministry. One lady member of our Parliament joined a few years ago. She was from a staunchly evangelical Protestant background, with a reasonable grasp of theology.

For people coming the other way - that is, deciding to leave the Catholic Church because they now have a meaningful relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ, such that they 'see' what is spiritually unsafe about 'Catholicism' - it is astonishing how much pressure the Catholic system can rustle up against them privately, once their decision has come to general light. (I know this from the experience of a friend, who had been very far from God as a Catholic, who then found Christ and started attending a protestant church.)

Over the years, I've come to realise that as long as a person considers themselves 'Catholic' - regardless of their church's behaviour, their own behaviour, or the challenges to their faith from non-Catholics - they will be left in peace (by the Catholic establishment). They can practise any other religion at the same time, as long as their primary allegiance is to Catholicism. I'm not sure if this is to do with money (only), or more that the Catholic church understands the spiritual hold Catholicism lays on its children when they are very young, (including the need to be buried in 'holy ground'), so that while that hold is working there is a lot of freedom.

Of course, this includes the freedom to sin, because there is no message of 'victory over sin' within Catholicism.

Is this part of the appeal of the Catholic chuch - that 'no-one is perfect'? Perhaps. By this, one's view is constantly being brought back to one's failures, which rings also with Calvinism, rather than Christ's overwhelming success on the cross and its full meaning. This is why we worship HIM (not Mary, who was never divine, and cannot become divine when a Pope declares it).

Recently, a matter of great concern was brought to my attention: that the 'age of consent' is only twelve years of age, in Vatican city, (the independent state with a seat in the UN) - the youngest in Europe. This ought to raise a lot of questions, not the least of which is why the Vatican needs an age of consent at all? For instance, is it about twelve year old employees marrying each other?

Many good things can be said about individual, good-hearted Catholics, who genuinely do their best to apply the teachings of Jesus Christ as well as their church, but sadly, they are living with an understandably high level of fear of man, which is not God's desire.

[Edited later to correct grammar.]

Alive-to-God; Thank you for your testimonial...It interests me. One thing stood out about your assessment though, that I wanted to address.

Marvel NOT!...that I say unto you that you must be born again!"..Jesus

Throughout the ages, Babylon, the great Harlot system, has been intimidating it adversaries..[unto death at times], and exercising dogmatic allegiance to her wicked tenants..[consider Luther, and a plethora of slaughtered martyrs no less..]

This Babylon...[1300 satanic temples in Rome at the time of Paul the apostle] simply sent her Priests into a small stream outside Rome, and declared them baptized Christians.

All of the demons that had temples in Rome, got a holy day..and the venerable Queen of Heaven, Astarte/Jezebel....got the biggest throne..EASTER.and..the title...THE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD[satan] and MAN...as she is worshipped and prayed to millions and millions of times each hour, today.

The worship and prayer to Mary is the worship and prayer to Satanic beings. There must never be any compromise with her. Jesus exhorted, what I would say to these good catholics..."Come out of her MY PEOPLE!"

Every church ever born is made up of souls born again and filled with the holy spirit...or you are not the church. This is not doctrinal, or a belief system...it is born of a Spirit.....from Heaven.

"Many good things can be said about individual, good-hearted Catholics, who genuinely do their best to apply the teachings of Jesus Christ as well as their church, but sadly, they are living with an understandably high level of fear of man, which is not God's desire... "Alive-to-God

Applying the teachings of Jesus will not save anybody, nor ever do any true good in the world. Only the Holy Spirit ministering LIFE brings any real good, and they must be born again by Him....or they will die in their sins.

If they are born from above...all the intimidation in Hell will not turn them away from their Savior.

These are the same as Muslims...with many good people in their ranks...I believe that. They must hear the truth, Repent and Believe. I did, you did, and every Christian did...if they are real.

Can they verbally confess that the Honor of the Pope as the VICAR of Christ is no less than honoring Satan himself?...for it is...

and can they verbally renounce the Worship and veneration of Mary as equally wicked and satanic?..It is..

This is a beginning, and an attitude...and to love them as any lost soul that needs Jesus's blood to be cleansed and go to Heaven, A NEW CREATURE!

Brothertom, I am somewhat comforted by your post, as while I was writing mine, I was very aware there are many protestant churches which fall well short of the New Testament, and non-Catholic 'Christians' who do not have what they believe God's interests to be in mind, as much as many an average Catholic thinks they do.

We've had news items here on SI, and testimony from European Christians posting here, about the introduction of statues of Mary to some protestant churches, and, the possibility of confession being introduced to others. These possibilities both go along with systems which prevent the individual saints from functioning as the New Testament describes. In other words, the silencing of the body of Christ, and interferences with the freedom of individual Christians to live our their faith, brings the true Church into serious bondage.

The worship and prayer to Mary is the worship and prayer to Satanic beings. There must never be any compromise with her. Jesus exhorted, what I would say to these good catholics..."Come out of her MY PEOPLE!"

Luke 4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

I initially wasn't going to respond to this thread because I recognize that it is a Protestant forum, and although I am more than happy to defend my faith, I have no desire to force it on anyone. It is not for me to refute all things written against the Catholic faith on this site. That is between the person writing and God.

I think though it is valid to address in some way the questions/assumptions people have addressed directly to me in this thread, because I don't want anyone to mistakenly assume my lack of an answer in any way means I am ashamed of becoming a member of the Catholic church ( I will be starting catechism classes soon).

I am just going to give a very brief overview of the process that lead me to where I am now, in the hope that it answers in some way answers the above posters.

First of all I have only come to faith over the last year or two and only started attending church fairly recently. I felt no great affiliation with any particular denomination. I was just "a Christian" and went to a church locally briefly before coming to Catholicism.

I read quite widely, including some Catholic authors, but tended mainly towards Protestant books. I did not feel any particular dislike of the Catholic church, more that it seemed quite formal and I had absorbed the teaching that the historic church was corrupted when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire. I greatly respected the writing of modern Catholics which I read, but did not feel convicted that there was a true historical church as such.

The thing the initially set me on the path of investigating the historical church was reflecting on the 'oneness' of the trinity and Jesus prayer to the father in John 17 while on holiday (vacation) recently.

'As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one. I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. (John 17:21-23)

I started looking into the history of the church, the split between the east and west and the reformation.

What was significant to me was that both the Roman Catholic, the Eastern Catholic and the Orthodox Church all recognize Apostolistic succession and the 7 sacraments. It was not until the reformation that they started changing church doctrine.

While I recognize there was corruption in the church in Luther's time, particularly in Rome, but it did not invalidate the entire church, or the validity of the sacraments at any time. I accept there was a need for reformation, I do not accept Luther's authority to change church doctrine.

I have investigated the teachings on the real presence of Jesus in the Euchrist, the primacy of Peter, Mary and the saints among other things, and accept them. Both Scott Hahn and David Currie have written in detail on these things if anyone is interested, a lot of it based on the early church fathers.

It is my belief that God has authorized human authority through the apostles and their successors and I choose to submit to it. It in no way elevates those given this authority above their creaturely status.

Anyway I hope that has clarified for some of you that I do have valid reasons for my conversion. Please understand I KNOW most if not all of you will disagree with the conclusions I have reached. I am not asking you to agree just explaining why I have decided to convert.

Grace and peace to you all.

Amen CyAn, AtG, BroTom and Whitestone.

If you want a great contemporary education on the RCC and some of it's apologists, read below.

Scott is slick, but if you know the Word and are listening to the Holy Ghost, you can spot his errors. Excellent research and "rightly dividing of the Word".

There are many, many schisms in the Catholic Church. They don't have the "unity" that they would like everyone to believe. Besides, unity at the cost of truth, is not a unity that the Lord Jesus supports.

Furthermore, UNIFORMITY is not UNITY.

On bereanbeacon dot org you will find these articles.

Lefthand side under Apologists.

Scott Hahn: The Man and the Myth
The Lost Soul of Scott Hahn
The Desire of Scott Hahn
The Deception of Scott Hahn
The Damnation of Scott Hahn
Scott Hahn's Route into Apostasy
The Aberrant World of Karl Keating
Marcus Grodi, Religionist or Rascal
Francis Beckwith is Analyzed

Main page of bereanbeacon dot org
Richard Bennet's Testimony
From Tradition to Truth

A777

A777,

Can you please explain what you mean by there being "many schisms among the Catholic church"?

If there is a schism, they are not in the Catholic church. For example the schism between what is now Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.

There is not uniformity among the Catholic church but there is unity. The Eastern Catholic and some Coptic Christians follow their own lithugy, but are in full communion with the Holy See in Rome.

I will rephrase.

There are many divisions WITHIN the RCC.

Having grown up in an RCC family and just reading everyday Catholic newsletters, I know this all too well. It is very public knowledge. Not a secret.

You're joining them, so you will find out. Jesus calls us to join HIM, not a religious organization. Jesus does not endorse the RCC teachings. The catholic Jesus is a different story.

A777

Andie, google "Divisions in the Catholic Church" and you will get plenty of links to keep you busy for a long time.

A lot of the information is written by Roman Catholics, themselves.

What you posted about the True Catholic (Universal) church was right on, Whitestone.

A777

Also, goto BereanBeacon.org and click on Church History on the left hand side. Great compilation of RCC Church History and the Persecutions.

Ian Paisley speaks:

http://www.sermonaudio.com/playpopup.asp?SID=6846

Along with Richard Bennett at bereanbeacon.org, Ian Paisley is another very courageous brother. They are both very encouraging to me.

ianpaisley.org/answers.asp

Yes, those are two very good websites.

When I first moved here to this community, I saw on our bulletin board a Bible Study in the next building in the complex, so I attended.
Only the teacher wasn't Catholic and me, though I came from a Catholic family - but when I got saved, the Word of GOD came alive and I saw that their praying to saints & Mary, confession to priests, the mass, the wafer & wine being transformed into His Actual Body & blood and everything else that goes beyond what is written is wrong ... so I was surprised to find these ladies all meeting together at first - until they began to complain about the things that they were seeing that are wrong as well.
Just reading His Word alone is opening eyes without either of the two of us having to come against their beliefs outright and it proved even the more to me that His Word doesn't go out void and despite that these ladies have been RCC all of their lives - His Word is alive and well, for those who desire Him and Him alone - He makes it real and breaks the mystique of any religious spirit that has like a drugging affect on folks. Have felt it - been there - done that. Thank GOD He sets the prisoners free, opens eyes and gives us a sound & sober mind so that we can see through the counterfeit experiences and those things that contradict The Word of GOD. He is The Word of GOD - Alleluia!

Dear andie,

Thank you for coming back to share your heart. I value the opportunity to comment again.

I'm not sure which version of the Bible you are using, but I know you read. I have a 1994 New Jerusalem Study Bible where I would like to look for the references to the seven sacraments you mention, if you could show me where they are as you come to them in your catechism classes? I hope you will be open to further discussion. Please would you help me to follow in this?

I know you've done a lot of reading already, and a777 has asked you to more. Really, I just want to encourage you to keep trying to understand what the Reformation was about in regard to giving the scriptures more authority than men who have departed to human tradition.

I hear what you say about apostolic succession, but that falls down when you realise the disciples did not become EFFECTIVE 'apostles' until their day of Pentecost. Everyone needs their own 'day of pentecost', and to receive their own 'sending' by the Lord Himself. Thus, there have been many apostles outside the Catholic church. (Rom 16:7. I see in my NJSB that the reference to other apostles has been removed in favour of a footnote which hides Paul's meaning.)

Anglicans also believe in 'apostolic succession', but really this has become a form of 'church governance' ('apostolate = liturgical function', according to footnote in NJSB). The Bible doesn't mention 'apostolate', or 'liturgical function', but does go into detail as to the qualities of those who THE CONGREGATION may recognise as fit to take on the roles elders and deacons to serve them. First of all, these men must be submitted to God.

The Lord does not invite you to submit to anyone but Himself, because this is where true liberty is found. While there is a biblical requirement for accountability within 'the Church', today, this regularly crosses denominational boundaries, because it is quite difficult to find 'a man of God' in certain churches.

Going back to personal pentecost, the work of the Holy Spirit which Jesus promises in John 14 - 17, is crucial to understanding the importance of the Reformation in respect of biblical doctrine. (John 16:13 - 15)

The term 'pentecost' was originally attached to a harvest thanksgiving, and we can see from Acts 2 how God had foreshadowed His intention to pour out the Holy Spirit on that day, (a Pentecost in a Jubilee year), in the establishment of the seasons for crops, and His command always to bring Him the firstfruits.

The reference within 'pente' to five (fifty days after the Resurrection) is also interesting. The Holy Spirit is called 'the Spirit of grace', and the number five has become associated with 'grace', (or unmerited blessing). You can trace this all through the Bible, and its hinting at spiritual gifts which would come by the Holy Spirit, to grace believers during and after their personal pentecost.

[EDIT: I came across this quote, which supports the forgoing statement.

'Christ was at once Priest, Altar, and Sacrifice. Three aspects of His work were conveyed by these three types. In the early chapters of Leviticus five offerings are prescribed. They were all typical of the one offering on the Cross. They presented five different aspects of the work of Christ. The thing figured was one and the same. This principle meets us at every turn in reading the Old Testament types. Need we be surprised, then, to see three aspects of the Second Advent set before us in the New Testament?'

From: angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/secretrapture.html end EDIT]

Victory over 'the sin' (see literal translations) is expected, and best explained in Paul's thesis in Romans 5 - 8. No-one can have victory over sin without the gift of the Holy Spirit indwelling their inner life, after first having been cleansed by the spiritual application of Christ's blood. Jesus Christ died to bring freedom from 'the sin', that He might restore in man the image of God.

He was in full control of His mission, although because He came in the 'likeness' of 'sinful flesh', He lacked physical strength near the end. Establishing the ETERNAL nature of Christ's victory for mankind, Paul said, 'this thing was not done in a corner' (Acts 26:26); 'He triumphed over principalities and powers openly' (Col 2:15) - giving us to believe that we too can practise victory over sin.

It is true this is a battle, but it is fought from the ground of victory. Paul expresses this in Ephesians 6:10 - 20.

Atg,

I have read all the articles A777 posted. I don't really like that kind of writing. He mingles criticizing men personally with sarcasm and does not offer a clear argument against catholic doctrine. I haven't yet read the other things posted. As I said I am not going to force my beliefs onto people, they can choose for themselves whether to explore further. I have just suggested those two men because they understand the issues Protestants have with Catholic doctrine being both converts. And they are well respected within the Catholic community for teaching correct doctrine.

Andie,

I do see the sarcasm, too. But it is being used just like Paul used it in Galatians. Having come out of the RCC and Jesuit training, I think those articles are very effective and DO indeed show Catholic doctrine quite well in contrast with Bible doctrine. The titles are a bit strong, but the content does back them up.

Of course my opinion is going to differ with yours just because of what I believe and where I am. I came out of the RCC and you are going into it. Karl Keating, Scott Hahn, Patrick Madrid and others are very well respected WITHIN the Catholic Community. You are absolutely right, about that. And, I will even admit that the Catholic apologists have been and are very effective. They are doing a great service for the Vatican. Many are coming "home to ROME" because of their work. That is not disputed in the least. What I would dispute, is on what basis they are coming Home to Rome.

From here on, I am sure we will just pray for each other's eyes to be opened. As far as "forcing" beliefs on one another, the only way I know how that is done, is by the edge of a real sword. So, I don't think we should confuse conversation and debate with FORCE. You have to violate someone's will to force something on them and I have no desire to violate anyone's will.

A777

Ian Paisley is another very courageous brother.

amen! i love Ian, it was some of his early revival sermons that i listened to at first, when this Jew, first apprehended Jesus Messiah, i did not know the diffrences between catholicism and Protestantism, i just thought it was two seperate Gentile "churches". i knew the history of rome and what this institution did to the tribe of my flesh, the Jews, with their inquisitions and forced conversions and their murders.

but then in 2002, i began to read of rome's "theology", mary idolatry, popery and other such non canonical superstitions, the mass, transubstation, and was horrified

anyway, here's a great Paisley sermon on revival

http://www.sermonaudio.com/playpopup.asp?SID=6723

"Five Steps to Genuine Revival"

in Jesus' love, neil

To to clarify I am not going to comment directly on all the articles etc you have posted, or the sacraments question atg. It would simply take too long, and the men I recommended do it more justice. I will of course read and listen to what you have all posted. And it is your choice if you are interested in reading what I have suggested.

David Currie - Born fundamentalist born again catholic

Scott + Kimberly Hahn - Home sweet Rome

What I meant by not forcing my beliefs on anyone, is I'm not going to start posting specific Catholic doctrine, or comment on anti catholic comments others make on here.

God bless you all

as i testified, i'm a Jew who follows Jesus, until 2002, i never really knew the theological differences between roman catholicism and what is termed "protestantism", i just assumed they were two loosely similar forms of "Gentile Church's", and when i had my bell rung by God the Holy Ghost and Jesus was revealed to me and in me, i wasnt "raised up" in an anti catholic Church.

i just started reading and listening, and what i heard, absolutely horrified me. i won't go over the whole list, but top of the list is this;

how can the pope even deign to allow anybody to term him as "Our Holy Father"?....or the "Vicar of Christ"? (little christ)

"Our Holy Father"? i mean, doesnt this man FEAR GOD?

i mean personally, if that was me, i'd be shaking in my boots, quaking with witless FEAR, expecting a bolt from Heaven that cleves me in two for such blasphemy.....

and what really gives me intense spiritual indigestion, is the "cruciix", to make a physical representation, AN IDOL, of Jesus, and glue Him atop a Cross?

thats madness!! AN IDOL? of Jesus?

or making statues of Mary and praying to her?

throughout both Old and New Testaments, isnt God very clear about the sin of idolatry?...

and i know some of these backslidden mainline denominations are ordaining homosexual ministers, they're lukewarm, dying and will pay for this foolishness, but the catholic church has institutionalized a protected haven for predatory homosexual child molesting "priests" to go roost and practice their foul wickedness, even to the point the catholic church as had to pay out BILLIONS, to silence these innocent victims of rome?....even to the point of cover up, shuffling these hellbound monsters from parish to parish?

Did not the Lord Jesus Christ speak of a millstone around the necks of these who stumble the little ones, as they get dropped into the deepest part of the ocean?

thats what i just CANT understand, why anyone would want fellowship with such an evil institution?

me? i would run away from such as fast as i could, right into the Arms of Jesus.

i pray for you beloved, and i dont mean that in any condenscending way at all. i mean that in Jesus' love, neil

Yes, I know none of his past. Only that Democrats in America and especially the Kennedy family were influential in revoking his Visa and banned him from the U.S. (He could not be that bad, eh). Not too long ago, he was allowed back in.

But, as far as his past in Ireland, I don't know.

Neil and I are only pointing to the truth that he preaches.

Concentrating on the message and not the messenger.

A777

yeh, i've heard that before, that Ian should have stayed out of politics.

i forgot who said it, but they said and i'm paraphrasing, that Ian's preaching and teaching was so annointed, that he could have been on par with Wesley, but his daliance in politic's negatively impacted his witness.

and i agree with that. His early sermons?...wow!!!! His later stuff?...not so much

dear brothers of mine, from the UK, Ireland, who came out of rome, dont have a favorable opinion of him, which i believe dovetails with what Jesus said, you cant serve mammon AND God.

...and politics has become a very nasty greedy business, not fit for a dolous of Christ.

ps that sermon below, "Five Steps to Genuine Revival" is really quite edifying,,, quite good, neil

His early sermons?...wow!!!!

Have any recommendations? I'd like to hear one (of his earlier ones I mean).

Hi Andie,

I have read Home Sweet Rome by Scott Hahn and listened to many of his audio talks. I have not read anything by David Currie, though. I prefer "Far from Rome, Near to God" by Richard Bennett. It contains the testimonies of 50 priests that left the RCC. It's a good book if you want to read it.

I get a kick out of all these authors and how they title their books with a play on words using "ROME". There are more such titles. Regardless of who is right or wrong, you just have to chuckle. I thought, "That is a great name for a book", when I first was given Scott Hahn's book. I believe he has had quite a lot of success with his book and his audio and videos. He is a very accomplished Catholic apologist.

Please don't think if you share some things about your faith and beliefs that you are forcing them on us. I think you should share everything and anything that is on your heart. I won't enter into debate with you at all.

Some people on this forum may not want to hear it but that should not stop you from sharing.

I have noticed myself, when someone just does not want to hear something, they portray you as "forcing" something on them. Pretty ludicrous statement in an online forum, don't you think?

In that book by Richard Bennett, here are the names of those 50 priests. I have several of these books and would be happy to send you one. No forcing whatsoever. :-)

This book contains the moving testimonies of fifty priests who found their way by the grace of God out of the labyrinth of Roman Catholic theology and practice into the light of the gospel of Christ.

From the back cover:

This is not a narrowly polemical work, nor is its relevance limited to the ongoing controversy between Rome and the churches of the Reformation. The love and concern felt by the former priests for those they left behind, and their fervent desire that they too should experience the joy and peace of salvation in Christ are seen throughout. The wider relevance of the experiences described will also be felt in many contexts remote from Roman Catholicism where human pride and presumption have erected rival sources of authority between people and the Word of God, so obscuring the way of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone.

Richard Bennett is the Director of Berean Beacon, based in Portland, Oregon, USA. Martin Buckingham is the Director of The Converted Catholic Mission in Leicester, UK.

Henry Gregory Adams: Christ Alone Is the Way
Joseph Tremblay: A Priest, but a Stranger to God
Bartholomew F. Brewer: Pilgrimage from Rome
Hugh Farrell: From Friar to Freedom in Christ
Robert V. Julien: Saved by the Free Grace of God
Alexander Carson: Free Indeed
Charles Berry: A Priest Asks God for Grace
Bob Bush: Once a Jesuit, Now a Child of God
Cipriano Valdes Jaimes: An Irresistible Call
Dario A. Santamaria: Yesterday, a Priest—Today, a Missionary
Miguel Carvajal: Why I Left the Monastery
Anibal Pereira Dos Reis: If I Had Stayed in Roman Catholicism, I Would Not Have Found Jesus
Arnaldo Uchoa Cavalcante: Grace and Truth Came to Me by Jesus Christ
Thoufic Khouri: The Gospel of Grace in Jesus Christ
Victor J. Affonso: Following Jesus Without Compromise
Simon Kottoor: There is Power in Christ's Atoning Blood
Jose Borras: From the Monastery to the Ministry
Enrique Fernandez: I Discovered the Word of God
Francisco Lacueva: My 'Damascus Road'
Juan T. Sanz: 'Thou Knowest That I Love Thee'
Celso Muniz: The Professor's Methods Did Not Work
Manuel Garrido Aldama: From Roman Priest to Radio Evangelist
Jose Manuel de LeÛn: Jesus Saved Even Me
Jose A. Fernandez: I Was Blind, Now I See
Jose Rico: Life Begins for a Jesuit Priest
Mark Pena: The Lord Became My Righteousness
Luis Padrosa: Twenty-Three Years in the Jesuit Order
Joseph Zacchello: I Could Not Serve Two Masters
Joseph Lulich: The Word of God Came to My Rescue
Mariano Rughi: Living Water—Peace with God
John Zanon: I Found Christ the Only Mediator
John Preston: From Works to the Light of the Gospel
Guido Scalzi: My Encounter with God
Benigno Zuniga: Transformed by Christ
Bruno Bottesin: I Was Not Antagonistic to the Truth
Renato di Lorenzo: A Monk for Twenty Years, Then Born Again
Franco Maggiotto: Saved while Officiating at Mass
Eduardo Labanchi: I Received Mercy
Anthony Pezzotta: I Found Everything When I Found Christ
Salvatore Gargiulo: I Was a Blind Leader of the Blind
Carlo Fumagalli: From Death to Life
Gregor Dalliard: Not Ashamed of Christ
Toon Vanhuysse: The Truth Set Me Free
Herman Hegger: Light and Life in Christ
J. M. A. Hendriksen: From Priest to Preacher
Jacob Van der Velden: God's Grace in New Guinea
Charles A. Bolton: My Path into Christ's Joy
Leo Lehmann: The Soul of a Priest
Vincent O' Shaughnessy: From Dead Religion to New Life in Christ
Richard Peter Bennett: From Tradition to Truth

God bless you as you continue your journey to Him.

A777

http://www.sermonaudio.com/playpopup.asp?SID=6723

entitled "Five Steps to Genuine Revival"

much love, neil

A777,

To be fair I will read the 50 priests book. I am glad you have read one of the books I suggested, at least you are making an informed decision.

When I read the one by David Currie I realized I DO believe in scripture and tradition. If the church fathers through the ages believed in the real presence of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine, I believe it too. If the church fathers throughout the ages believed that we are born again during baptism and in baptizing infants, I believe it too.

I trust the tradition of the church over the opinion of Luther. I certainly don't share many of his other personal opinions. His view of the Jewish for one.

Addit: I do recognize that Luther did not personally change all the traditions, but his ideas lead to personal interpretation of scriptures, starting with his own personal opinions, and it has continued since then leading to many different denominations.

Hi Andie,

I have to smile (not laugh) when I read your comment about "informed decision". I was an altar boy in the RCC having to learn and use Latin (60's) when the Mass was said in Latin before Vatican II. I went to Catholic schools, I was taught the Catechism and both parents went to Jesuit schools all the way through University. So, this was not something I "dabbled" in. And please don't think I was offended, not at all. We have to remember that we are writing text back and forth to each other and it takes time to learn about one another. It is also easy to "misunderstand" or "read into", but if we choose to believe "the best" about the person at the other end of our messages, then the conversation should always go well. :-) In other words, we should be able to stay in "peace" while we converse with each other.

Regarding "church fathers", this is my stance from knowing the Lord, His Word and witnessing how men love to use "holy men" as their authorities and not the Word of God. As far as I am concerned the Church Fathers are the 12 Apostles and anyone else in the New Testament such as Timothy, Luke, etc., that the Holy Spirit inspired to write the NT. Beyond, that, I am not impressed with what anyone has to say if it contradicts God's Word. I hope you believe the same.

What has happened, in my opinion is that men have nullified or overridden what the Holy Spirit said through the 12 Apostles. These men are now called the "Church Fathers" as if that gives them any extra credibility or authority over what the 12 Apostles originally said and did. And clearly, "Church Fathers" are cited all the time over the Apostles concerning church doctrine, over and over again, on many issues. This is not just done by the Catholic Church.

So, who has the biggest "Church Father", is the game that is played. We have Augustine, we have Luther, we have Aquinas, we have Calvin we have Liguori and on and on it goes, trumping each other like a poker game.

But since you brought it up regarding the "real presence" of Christ in the wafer (Eucharist). Allow me to comment. Scriptures states:

Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

These verses along with "church tradition" are used to establish the Doctrine of Transubstantiation where the elements of bread and wine turn into the Real Body and Real Blood of Jesus.

Andie, any major established doctrine in the Bible is usually built on a solid foundation of many verses, many "witnesses" of scripture and not just one verse. The doctrine of Holy Communion of the Catholic Church is one of their most major doctrines and it is taken from John 6, but not all of John 6, just the scriptures that are needed.

Jesus Himself said, in the context of His body and blood, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." But these scriptures are not mentioned or dealt with even though they are part of the context.

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Andie, it is the spirit that quickeneth, His words are spirit and life.

There is no record in the Bible that the last supper bread and wine turned into human flesh and blood. After blessing the elements Jesus referred to the wine, not as His blood, but as "the fruit of the vine." (Matt 26:29, Mark 14:25, Luke 22:18) At Cana, however, the water Jesus changed into wine actually became wine. In First Corinthians 11:26, the bread is always called "bread" and wine is always called the "cup." Therefore, there is no Scriptural basis that the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper can be said to become the physical body and blood of Christ. Only Tradition spoken of by "church fathers" supports this MAJOR DOCTRINE.

Most importantly, how can one receive in Communion, HE, who supposedly already indwells one's soul?

1Co 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

1Co 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

So, I trust the Scriptures over the opinion of Luther, Calvin, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and any other man titled a "Church Father", whether from the Catholic or Protestant camp. I don't negate history, but neither do I go with "history" when it contradicts God's Word.

The doctrine of "transubstantiation" came into being at the same time as "auricular confession". That was 1215 A.D., by the Fourth Lateran Council.

1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

The New Testament came into effect not at the Last Supper, but at the actual shedding of His blood on the Cross. For clearly at the Last Supper, His body was not broken and He was not bleeding. What they did at the Last Supper is what we do today, in REMEMBRANCE of His wonderful sacrifice for us.

We don't have to go to Mass everyday to receive Jesus. He indwells the Believer 24x7.

John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Kind regards,
A777

Hi A777,

Sorry I don't agree with the conclusions you have reached there, but thank you for sharing, we are all entitled to our own opinion. I am just going to post an article which references what I mean about the church fathers and the real presence of Christ in the blessed sacrament.

THE REAL PRESENCE

The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists frequently attack this doctrine as "unbiblical," but the Bible is forthright in declaring it (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71).

The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: "Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: "Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity" (ibid., 197–98).

"Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally" (ibid., 211–12).

Ignatius of Antioch

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr

"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus

"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).

Clement of Alexandria

"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Tertullian

"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).

Hippolytus

"‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e.,
the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).

Origen

"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).

Council of Nicaea I

"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

Aphraahat the Persian Sage

"After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9).

Ambrose of Milan

"Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ" (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).

Theodore of Mopsuestia

"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).

Augustine

"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

...

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).

Council of Ephesus

"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

Andie, to use these ECFs to prove "the act of" transubstaniation is pushing things far beyond what they were ever trying to convey.

During "the mass" the priest says words over the wafer and the wine that aren't even Scriptural and in sort of an incantation type way "turns" the elements "into" The Body and Blood of Christ.

That is not what Jesus was saying at the Last Supper. That anyone else would have 'the power to change these elements INTO His Body & Blood'.

The "bread" is symbolic of HIS WORD - The Bread of Life and the wine, is symbolic of the new covenant bought by His Blood.
They ate together on The Passover. Jesus had already told them earlier in His ministry that they must "eat of His body and drink His blood" and many turned away from Him because they couldn't understand His Words. Canabalism? - some thought.
On Passover, they were to eat the 'whole' lamb.
We're to eat His Whole Word because He 'is' The Word of GOD.

Hippolytus said it very well in your quotes - "as a Memorial".

Also, the rebuke to the Corinthian was broader than just eating the bread "unworthily" but not "considering the Body". His Church is His Body and they were not considering one another, as some were eating too much and drinking too much as others went hungry, Paul wrote.

To eat "The Word of GOD" and remember that it was His blood that gained our right to FULL Salvation - as symbolised as the lamb's blood over the door in the Passover is how we should see Communion. The same way the Jews celebrate The Passover - we need to see that that is what "supper" they were eating and the symbolism is the same - except that now they were about to see Jesus as The LAMB of GOD.

There was never any mystical words spoken 'over the elements' to change them into what they already represent.

This practice did not even begin until the 13th Century.

This is from Keith Green's work on this topic.
The decrees followed by the dates - All after Constantine permitted Christianity that blended with the pagan practices and religions of Constantine's time in Rome ....

1. Presbyter (or elders) were first called priests by Lucian... 2nd century.

2. Prayers for the dead... AD 300.

3. The VENERATION of angels and dead saints and the use of images... 375.

4. The Mass as a daily celebration was adopted... 394.

5. The beginning of the exaltation of Mary, and the first use of the term "Mother of God" by the Council of Ephesus... 431.

6. Priests began to dress different from the laity and to wear special clothes... 500.

7. Extreme Unction... 526.

8. The doctrine of purgatory was first established by Gregory the Great... 593.

9. Prayers began to be offered to Mary, dead saints, and angels... 600.

10. The first man was proclaimed "Pope" (Boniface III)... 610.

11. Veneration of the cross, images, and relics authorized... 788.

12. Holy water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by a priest was authorized in... 850.

13. Veneration of Saint Joseph... 890.

14. College of cardinals begun... 927.

15. Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV... 995.

16. The Mass developed gradually as a sacrifice, attendance was made obligatory in ... 11th century.

17. The celibacy of the priesthood was decreed by Pope Hildebrand, Boniface VII ... 1079.

18. The rosary, or prayer beads copied from Hindus and Mohammedans) was introduced by Peter the Hermit ... 1090.

19. The Inquisition2 of "Heretics" was instituted by the Council of Verona ... 1184, and was legalized and promoted by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215.

20. The sale of Indulgences ... 1190.

21. The seven sacraments defined by Peter Lombard ... 12th century.

22. The dogma of transubstantiation was decreed by Pope Innocent III ... 1215.

23. Confession of sins to the priest at least once a year was instituted by Pope Innocent III in the Lateran Council... 1215.

24. The adoration of the wafer (host) decreed by Pope Honorius III... 1220.

25. The scapular invented by Simon Stock of England... 1251.

26. The doctrine of purgatory proclaimed a dogma by the Council of Florence... 1439.

27. Tradition is declared of equal authority with the Bible by the Council Trent... 1546.

28. The Apocryphal Books were added to the Bible by the Council of Trent... 1545.

29. The Immaculate Conception of Mary was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in 1854.

30. Pope Pius IX condemns all scientific discoveries not approved by the Roman Church... 1864.

31. Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals proclaimed by the First Vatican Council... 1870.

32. Pius XI condemned the public schools... 1930.

33. Pius XI reaffirmed the doctrine that Mary is "The Mother of God"... 1931.

34. The dogma of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary was proclaimed by Pope Pius XII... 1950.

35. Mary proclaimed the Mother of the Church by Pope Paul VI... 1965

Excerpt from Keith Green's "The Catholic Chronicles" - http://www.sohmer.net/media/KG-TCC.pdf

Andie, thanks for the posts.

I can only say that what you provided are just the words of men. You did not provide anything from the Word of God. The verses you provided, I dealt with.

In concluding the context surrounding His body and blood in John 6, Jesus, not wanting us to be confused, says, "It is the Spirit that giveth life, the flesh profiteth nothing".

I will go with what Jesus said because in this instance, Jesus is being conradicted by men and I told you that when men or their traditions contradict the Word, I am bound to go by the Word.

You can surround yourself with many "counselors" and "learned" and "respected" men, as many have done, providing for themselves temporal comfort and security.

On the other hand, even if you are opposed by thousands, you are in good stead if Christ is on your side and He will be if you are with Him.

Many are caught in Catholicism's "Tradition Trap".

More later...

Respectfully,
A777

A777,

I don't understand your no scripture statement. Please look at the first paragraph:

1 Cor 10:16-17
1 Cor 11:23-29
John 6:32-71

Yes I understand your statement about the church fathers being mere men. That is my point. I now believe in scripture and apostolic tradition. The rest of the church did too until the reformation.

My input on this thread is now over. I hope I have helped someone out there open their eyes, and at least look into things a little more carefully.

God bless you all.

A777,

I don't understand your no scripture statement. Please look at the first paragraph:

1 Cor 10:16-17
1 Cor 11:23-29
John 6:32-71

Andie, I will respond, just tied up right now.

A777

Not everything that calls itself "Christian" is a Christian. If i walk into a donut shop and call myself a donut, does that make me a donut? If i buy a badge and gun and call myself a cop does that make me a cop? At NO time did Christians persecute Jews. Some Catholics did, and the Vatican assisted the Nazis in hiding their loot and in hiding Nazi murderers in Brazil, etc but don't go calling them "Christians". When you do that you slander the Bride of Christ, which is an offense to the Lord.

Hi andie,

I had the same thought as Matthew, about reading the Pilgrim Church. It is very readable - not at all starchy - and holds the integrity of one who searched out the real story, and just told it. He wasn't looking to pull anyone down, but rather to exalt the word of God, as capable (without additional teachers), of leading us each into truth, in tha same way as we can know the voice of the Shepherd when we hear it. (John 10). That is, until our freedom to follow God has been undermined so consistently, that we no longer know who is speaking to us and find ourselves assuming it must be God because someone else says so. I've been there, and am deeply, deeply saddened to know you are choosing to believe men rather than your Father in heaven, to whom you have access by the Holy Spirit - 17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: 18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling'(Ephesians 1)

Regarding the on-going discussion about Transubstantiation in this thread, I want to bring to your attention these words from Paul in the KJV.

'For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: and [that] he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

Wherefore henceforth know we NO MAN after the flesh: yea, THOUGH WE HAVE KNOWN CHRIST AFTER THE FLESH yet NOW henceforth know we [him] NO MORE.

Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

2 Corinthians 5:14 - 17

This declaration by the apostle Paul puts the body of Christ into its present, spiritual perspective, long before the Church of Rome began to resurrect it as a dead body, rather than a live body - which it is - seated in heaven since the Ascension. (Ephesians 1:19 - 23, Ephesians 2:5, 6). You are seated in heaven IN HIM, spiritually. In Him are you alive.

Paul is writing against the context of many forms of idolatry in the Roman empire, all of which have evil spiritual associations. Within these, mankind oft-times recognises the need for a sacrifice, or sacrifices to these gods, frequently involving the death of a creature. Where the creature is human, this is an abomination in God's sight; it is murder; it destroys a life of one made in His image, though fallen, which could never redeem from sin. Priests of baal do actually eat the sacrifice too.

Now we can see why Paul is keen while writing to a congregation of mainly Gentile origin, to make a clear distinction between local abominable practices, and the pureness and rightness of Christ's death as the Lamb of God who REALLY IS ABLE TO TAKE AWAY SIN - sin being a spiritual power which had corrupted the image of God.

Hebrews 10:4 For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:'

In the two verses above, we see that even under the Old Covenant sin was only covered by blood, it was not removed.

Now, we are invited to be cleansed from sin WITHIN by the SPIRITUAL application of Christ's blood to our souls. This is how we maintain a right standing IN FACT with God our Father.

1 John 1:7
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

The sharing of broken bread and poured out wine is a way which Christians down through the centuries since Christ anticipated His death, can remember Christ's death for them, anticipating His resurrection, (now by implication our own), and by the Spirit of God - for it is He who makes any of this meaningful in our real time experience - be convicted of sin, given grace to repent, and with joy receive forgiveness that we may rejoice meaningfully in our salvation giving real glory to God.

All these are spiritual transactions completed in heavenly places in Christ.

It is not necessary that the bread and wine 'become' the 'flesh' and 'blood' of Christ. Not only is this against what Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 5 quoted above, it is not true.

If you have read this whole post, andie, thank you, and please, again, I urge you to search the scriptures which are able to make you wise regarding salvation. You know that Erasmus was a Catholic, I'm sure. Well, the best collection of original texts was gathered by him to translate into Latin. The same original texts were translated into English, but this is NOT the version you have in a modern Jerusalem Bible. Be aware.

If you really do find yourself attracted by the ritual side of Christianity, you would do better to find a Messianic synagogue - of which there are many in your neck of the woods - and learn from Jewish Christians. They understand from two thousand years BEFORE CHRIST, how Jesus Christ fulfilled all that their prophets - and angels - had longed to see fulfilled, that God Himself might rejoice in His work of redemption through Christ in the saving of men from His wrath.

andie, I also wanted to comment on this which you said on the previous page:

I now believe in scripture and apostolic tradition. The rest of the church did too until the reformation.

Unless you research from long before the Reformation, and from non-Catholic sources, you will not find the whole story.

The Reformation was about revelation and understanding of scripture which caused men and women to pull away from Rome, but there had always been a vibrant part of the Church outside Rome's influence all the time, instigated by those who had left Jerusalem after Pentecost, taking the gospel with them.

Not least of these were those who returned to their home countries all over the world, (Acts 2) but many others followed, through trade, or persecution (Jesus had warned them to flee persecution.) A pure form of Christianity was in Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales. (These are the places I know about, but I'm sure Christians settled elsewhere in the world, too.)

In John's third epistle v 9, there's an important comment on a man who refused to let the apostle John visit his church. His name was Diotrephes. John says of him, 'who loveth to have the preeminence among them'.

Why does this matter? It goes along with what Jesus said about Pharisees loving the best seats and dressing up to seem important, and is diametrically - or diabolically - opposed to Paul's exhortation in Ephesians 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

Much more could be said about the potential for hierarchy in the church, which in John 13 Jesus redefines for His real disciples.

I am well aware of how comforting it is to join an organisation which seems to have everything worked out, but again, this is not what Christians are exhorted by Peter himself, who said:

10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence
to make your calling and election sure:
for IF ye do these things, ye shall NEVER fall:

[For 'these things', please read the earlier verses.]

11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly
into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
2 Peter 1

Even in the 800s in Britain, when the king with the most territory became formally 'Roman Catholic', not all the Christians in England were in agreement with him. You can read about this in Bede's account.

Please remember this verse from Romans 6, and regularly ask yourself if you are still free to submit yourself to the Lord - 22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?

Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

And the servant abideth not in the house for ever:
[but] the Son abideth ever.

If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

I know that ye are Abraham's seed;
but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

I speak that which I have seen with my Father:
and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father.

Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
John 8